The language of lying — Noah Zandan

Translator: Nazarbek Nazarov Reviewer: Azizbek Nazarov

"Sorry, my phone died."

"Kechirasiz, telefonimni quvvati tugadi".

"It's nothing. I'm fine."

"Jiddiy narsa yo'q. Hammasi yaxshi".

"These allegations are completely unfounded."

"Qo'yilgan ayblovlar mutlaqo asossiz".

"The company was not aware of any wrongdoing."

"Kompaniya boshliqlari bu qonunbuzarliklardan bexabar edi".

"Men seni sevaman".

"I love you."

We hear anywhere from 10 to 200 lies a day,

Biz yolg'on bilan har kuni 10 dan 200 martagacha yuzlanamiz,

and we spent much of our history coming up with ways to detect them,

va yolg'onni aniqlash yo'llarini

from medieval torture devices to polygraphs,

topish uchun ancha vaqt ketkazamiz:

blood-pressure and breathing monitors, voice-stress analyzers,

O'rta asr tergov va qiynash qurollaridan tortib, poligraflar

eye trackers, infrared brain scanners,

ovoz va nafas olishni analiz qiladigan mashinalar,

and even the 400-pound electroencephalogram.

200 kg dan iborat miya biotoklarini yozuvchi uskunalargacha.

But although such tools have worked under certain circumstances,

Shunga qaramay, bunday uskunalar ma'lum bir sharoyitda ishlaydi

most can be fooled with enough preparation,

va ko'pchiliklarini hattoki aldash ham mumkin, va ularni sud

and none are considered reliable enough to even be admissible in court.

jarayoni uchun ishlatishni ishonchli deb bilishmaydi.

But, what if the problem is not with the techniques,

Agar muammo bu usullarda emas, aldoqchilarning

but the underlying assumption that lying spurs physiological changes?

fiziologik belgilarining o'zgarishi borasidagi g'oyada bo'lsa-chi?

What if we took a more direct approach,

Agar bunga to'g'ri qarasak, muloqotga

using communication science to analyze the lies themselves?

oid bilimlarni yolg'onni analiz qilish uchun qo'llasak-chi?

On a psychological level, we lie partly to paint a better picture of ourselves,

Biz ko'pincha o'zimizni yanada yaxshiroq ta'riflash uchun aldasak kerak.

connecting our fantasies to the person we wish we were

Aslida qanday bo'lishni xoxlasak shunday ta'riflaymiz.

rather than the person we are.

Asli holimizda qanaqa ekanligimizni emas.

But while our brain is busy dreaming, it's letting plenty of signals slip by.

Lekin miyamiz orzu qilish bilan band bo'lganda, u juda ko'p signallar beradi.

Our conscious mind only controls about 5% of our cognitive function,

Bizning ongimiz emotsional informatsiya- ning bor-yo'g'i 5%ini boshqaradi,

including communication,

muloqot ham shu jumladan.

while the other 95% occurs beyond our awareness,

Qolgan 95%i esa ongimiz doirasidan tashqarida.

and according to the literature on reality monitoring,

Reallikni his qilish haqidagi ayrim adabiyotlarga ko'ra,

stories based on imagined experiences

tasavvurga asoslangan voqealar

are qualitatively different from those based on real experiences.

haqiqatga asoslanganlariga qaraganda katta farq qiladi.

This suggests that creating a false story about a personal topic takes work

Bu shuni anglatadiki, ma'lum bir mavzuda yolg'onni o'ylab topish kuch talab etadi,

and results in a different pattern of language use.

va buning oqibatida boshqacha til modeli ishlatiladi.

A technology known as linguistic text analysis

"Lingvistik matn analizi" deb nom olgan texnologiya

has helped to identify four such common patterns

yolg'onning ong osti tilining to'rtta umumiy modelini

in the subconscious language of deception.

aniqlashga yordam berdi.

Birinchi model: aldayotganda yolg'onchilar o'zi haqida juda kam axborot beradi.

First, liars reference themselves less, when making deceptive statements.

They write or talk more about others, often using the third person

Ular o'z yolg'onidan uzoqroq bo'lish maqsadida o'zlari haqida

to distance and disassociate themselves from their lie,

uchinchi shaxsda gapirishadi yoki yozishadi.

which sounds more false:

Nima soxta eshitiladi:

"Absolutely no party took place at this house,"

"Uyda hech qanday bazm uyushtirilmadi"

or "I didn't host a party here."

yoki "Men bu uyda bazm uyushtirmadim"?

Second, liars tend to be more negative,

Ikkinchi tomondan, yolg'onchilarda odatda o'z yolg'oni

because on a subconscious level, they feel guilty about lying.

sabab aybdorlik hissi uyg'onib, oqibatda negativ kayfiyatda bo'lishadi.

For example, a liar might say something like,

Masalan yolg'onchi shunday deydi:

"Sorry, my stupid phone battery died. I hate that thing."

"Kechirasiz, telefonim o'chib qolgandi. O'lgudek yomon ko'raman shunday qilishini"

Third, liars typically explain events in simple terms

Uchinchidan, yolg'onchilar odatda hammasini juda oddiy izohlashadi.

since our brains struggle to build a complex lie.

Bunga sabab, miyaning murakkab yolg'on o'ylab topishdan bosh tortishi.

Judgment and evaluation

Hukm yoki baho?

are complex things for our brains to compute.

Bu narsalarni miyada hisob-kitob qilish qiyin.

As a U.S. President once famously insisted:

AQSH prezidentining gaplarini eslaymiz:

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman."

"Menda bu ayol bilan hech qanday jinsiy aloqa bo'lgani yo'q".

And finally, even though liars keep descriptions simple,

Va, nihoyat, oddiy izohlashlarga qaramasdan,

they tend to use longer and more convoluted sentence structure,

yolg'onchilar murakkab va oddiy bo'lmagan gap tuzilishlarini qo'llashadi.

inserting unnecessary words

Keraksiz so'zlarni ishlatib,

and irrelevant but factual sounding details in order to pad the lie.

ahamiyatsiz, lekin rost bo'lib ko'rinuvchi detallarni keltirishadi.

Another President confronted with a scandal proclaimed:

Boshqa prezident shov-shuvdan keyin shunday degan:

"I can say, categorically, that this investigation indicates

"Haqiqiy qidiruv-tergov ishlaridan keyin shuni ishontirib aytamanki,

that no one on the White House staff,

Oq uy ishchilaridan hech kim,

no one in this administration presently employed

hozirgi administratiyadan hech kimning

was involved in this very bizarre incident."

bu g'alati hodisada qo'li yo'q".

Let's apply linguistic analysis to some famous examples.

Keling lingvistik analizni mashhur misollar bilan ko'rib chiqamiz.

Take seven-time Tour de France winner Lance Armstrong.

7 karra "Tur de Frans" g'olibi Lens Armstrongni olaylik.

When comparing a 2005 interview,

2005-yilgi doping moddalarini

in which he had denied taking performance-enhancing drugs

iste'mol qilganini inkor qilgan intervyusi bilan

to a 2013 interview, in which he admitted it,

2013-yilgi buni tan olgan intervyusini solishtiramiz.

his use of personal pronouns increased by nearly 3/4.

Ikkinchi intervyuda u ishlatgan shaxsiy olmoshlar soni 3/4 ga ortgan.

Note the contrast between the following two quotes.

Quyidagi ikkita gaplarni bir solishtirib ko'ring.

First: "Okay, you know, a guy in a French, in a Parisian laboratory

Birinchisi: "Xa, bilasizmi, Parij laboratoriyasidagi yigit, kim edi,

opens up your sample, you know, Jean-Francis so-and-so, and he tests it.

qandaydir Jan-Fransis, sinov uchun namunalar oladi.

And then you get a phone call from a newspaper that says:

Keyin esa sizga gazetadan qo'ng'iroq qilib aytishadi:

'We found you to be positive six times for EPO."

"Biz EPO bo'yicha 6 marta ijobiy analiz oldik".

Second: "I lost myself in all of that.

Ikkinchisi: "Men adashib ketdim.

I'm sure there would be other people that couldn't handle it,

Men aminman, bu qo'lidan keladigan odamlar topiladi, lekin

but I certainly couldn't handle it,

bu aniq meni qo'limdan kelmaydi.

and I was used to controlling everything in my life.

Men hayotimda hamma narsani boshqarishga odatlanganman.

I controlled every outcome in my life."

Va men hayotimdagi har bir natijani boshqarganman."

In his denial, Armstrong described a hypothetical situation

Armstrong inkor qilayotib tahminiy bir holatni tasvirlaydi,

focused on someone else,

uyam bo'lsa boshqa bir shaxsga qaratilgan,

removing himself from the situation entirely.

o'zini to'liq chetda qoldirgan holda.

In his admission, he owns his statements,

Tan olayotib esa u o'zi haqda gapiradi

delving into his personal emotions and motivations.

va shaxsiy hissiyotlari va motivatsiyasiga berilib ketadi.

But the use of personal pronouns is just one indicator of deception.

Lekin shaxs olmoshlari ishlatilish tartibi ham yolg'on ko'rsatuvchi indikatordir.

Let's look at another example from former Senator

AQSH prezidentligiga da'vogar sobiq senator

and U.S. Presidential candidate John Edwards:

Jon Edvardsning ham nutqini ko'rib chiqamiz:

"Menga faqat bolaning otasi deyilayotgan inson go'dakning

"I only know that the apparent father has said publicly

that he is the father of the baby.

otasi u ekanini tan olgani ma'lum.

I also have not been engaged in any activity of any description

Men shuningdek, ayolga yoki go'dakning otasiga

qo'yilgan talab yoki to'lov bilan bog'liq bo'lgan,

that requested, agreed to, or supported payments of any kind

shu kabi hech qanday biror harakatlarda qatnashmadim".

to the woman or to the apparent father of the baby."

Bu yerda nafaqat "Bola meniki emas" gapi- ning chalkash bir ko'rinishini ko'ryapmiz,

Not only is that a pretty long-winded way to say, "The baby isn't mine,"

but Edwards never calls the other parties by name,

bunda Edvards boshqalarni biror marta ham ismlari bilan

instead saying "that baby," "the woman," and "the apparent father."

aytmasdan, "go'dak", "ayol", "taxminiy ota" so'zlarini ishlatdi.

Now let's see what he had to say when later admitting paternity:

Endi esa oxiri qanday holatda tan olganini ko'ramiz:

"I am Quinn's father.

"Men Quinning otasiman.

I will do everything in my power to provide her

Men unga u loyiq bo'lgan mehrni va yordamni

with the love and support she deserves."

berish uchun kelgan hamma ishni qilaman.

Gaplar qisqa va aniq.

The statement is short and direct,

calling the child by name and addressing his role in her life.

Go'dak ismi bilan aytilyapti, uning hayotidagi roli nazarda tutilgan.

So how can you apply these lie-spotting techniques to your life?

Xo'sh, bu metodlarni hayotda qanday qo'llasa bo'ladi?

First, remember that many of the lies we encounter on a daily basis

Birinchidan, hayotda biz eshitadigan yolg'onlar

are far less serious that these examples, and may even be harmless.

misollarda keltirilgan yolg'onlarga nisbatan ancha zararsiz va jiddiy emas.

But it's still worthwhile to be aware of telltale clues,

Qaysi belgilar yolg'onni fosh etib qo'yadi:

like minimal self-references, negative language,

o'zi haqida kam gapirish, nutqdagi negativ ton,

oddiy ta'riflar va murakkab iboralar.

simple explanations and convoluted phrasing.

It just might help you avoid an overvalued stock,

Bu sizni katta narxlarda arzon aksiyalarni sotib olmaslikdan,

an ineffective product, or even a terrible relationship.

sifatsiz mahsulot sotib olishdan, yomon munosabatlardan saqlaydi.