How to spot a liar | Pamela Meyer | TED

Translator: David J. Kreps Finnemann Reviewer: Mikkel Kruuse

Okay, now I don't want to alarm anybody in this room,

Okay, nu vil jeg ikke forskrække nogen i lokalet,

but it's just come to my attention that the person to your right is a liar.

men jeg er lige blevet klar over,

at personen til højre for dig er en løgner.

(Laughter)

(Latter)

Also, the person to your left is a liar.

Derudover, er personen til venstre for dig en løgner.

Also the person sitting in your very seats is a liar.

Og personen der sidder i dit sæde er en løgner.

We're all liars.

Vi er alle løgnere.

What I'm going to do today

Det jeg vil gøre i dag,

is I'm going to show you what the research says about why we're all liars,

er at jeg vil vise jeg hvad forskningen siger om, hvorfor vi er løgnere,

how you can become a liespotter

hvordan man kan blive en der spotter løgnere

and why you might want to go the extra mile

og hvorfor man måske vil give det sidste

and go from liespotting to truth seeking,

og gå fra at spotte løgnere til at søge sandheden,

and ultimately to trust building.

og til i sidste ende at opbygge tillid.

Now, speaking of trust,

Nu vi taler om tillid,

ever since I wrote this book, "Liespotting,"

lige siden jeg skrev denne bog, "Liespotting,"

no one wants to meet me in person anymore, no, no, no, no, no.

ingen vil møde mig personligt mere, nej, nej, nej, nej, nej.

They say, "It's okay, we'll email you."

De siger, "Det er okay, vi sender dig en email."

(Laughter)

(Latter)

I can't even get a coffee date at Starbucks.

Jeg kan ikke engang få en date til kaffe på Starbucks.

My husband's like, "Honey, deception?

Min mand siger, "Skat, bedrag?

Maybe you could have focused on cooking. How about French cooking?"

Måske du kunne have fokuseret på madlavning? Hvad med fransk madlavning?"

So before I get started, what I'm going to do

Så før jeg går i gang, det jeg vil gøre er,

is I'm going to clarify my goal for you,

at jeg vil afklare mit mål for jer,

which is not to teach a game of Gotcha.

som ikke er at lære et spil fik-dig.

Liespotters aren't those nitpicky kids,

Dem der spotter løgne er ikke de børn der kommer med smålig kritik,

those kids in the back of the room that are shouting, "Gotcha! Gotcha!

de børn der sidder bagerst i lokalet og råber, "Fik dig! Fik dig!

Your eyebrow twitched. You flared your nostril.

Dit øjenbryn spjættede. Du flagrede med næseboret.

I watch that TV show 'Lie To Me.' I know you're lying."

Jeg ser det TV show 'Lie To Me'. Jeg ved at du lyver."

No, liespotters are armed

Nej, dem der spotter løgne er bevæbnede

with scientific knowledge of how to spot deception.

med videnskabelig indsigt til hvordan man spotter bedrag.

They use it to get to the truth,

De bruger det til at finde frem til sandheden,

and they do what mature leaders do everyday;

og de gør det, som modne ledere gør hver dag;

they have difficult conversations with difficult people,

de har vanskelige samtaler med vanskelige mennesker,

sometimes during very difficult times.

nogle gange i vanskelige tider.

And they start up that path by accepting a core proposition,

Og de går hen ad den vej

ved at acceptere en kerne holdning,

and that proposition is the following:

og den holdning er det følgende:

Lying is a cooperative act.

At lyve er en samarbejdende handling.

Tænk over det, en løgn har ikke noget magt overhovedet, når den kun bliver ytret.

Think about it, a lie has no power whatsoever by its mere utterance.

Its power emerges

Dens magt opstår,

when someone else agrees to believe the lie.

når en anden indvilliger i at tro på den.

So I know it may sound like tough love,

Så jeg ved det måske lyder som hård kærlighed,

but look, if at some point you got lied to,

men se, hvis man på et tidspunkt er blev løjet for,

it's because you agreed to get lied to.

er det fordi man indvilligede i at blive løjet for.

Truth number one about lying: Lying's a cooperative act.

Sandhed nummer et om at lyve: At lyve er en samarbejdende handling.

Now not all lies are harmful.

Nu er det ikke alle løgne der er skadelige.

Sometimes we're willing participants in deception

Nogen gange er vi villige til at deltage i bedrag

for the sake of social dignity,

for den sociale værdigheds skyld,

maybe to keep a secret that should be kept secret, secret.

måske at holde en hemmelighed der skal holdes hemmelig, hemmelig.

We say, "Nice song."

Vi siger, "God sang."

"Honey, you don't look fat in that, no."

"Skat, du ser ikke tyk ud i det, nej."

Or we say, favorite of the digiratti,

Eller vi siger, digirattiens favorit,

"You know, I just fished that email out of my Spam folder.

"Du ved, jeg fiskede lige den email ud af mit spam filter.

So sorry."

Det må du undskylde."

But there are times when we are unwilling participants in deception.

Men der er tider, når vi er uvillige deltagere i bedrag.

And that can have dramatic costs for us.

Og det kan have dramatiske omkostninger for os.

Last year saw 997 billion dollars

Sidste år endte 997 milliarder dollars

in corporate fraud alone in the United States.

som selskabssvindel i USA.

That's an eyelash under a trillion dollars.

Det er meget lidt under en billion dollars.

That's seven percent of revenues.

Det er syv procent af indtægterne.

Deception can cost billions.

Bedrag kan koste milliarder.

Think Enron, Madoff, the mortgage crisis.

Tænk på Enron, Madoff, boligkrisen.

Or in the case of double agents and traitors,

Eller med hensyn til dobbeltagenter og forrædere,

like Robert Hanssen or Aldrich Ames,

som Robert Hanssen eller Aldrich Ames,

lies can betray our country,

løgne kan forråde vores land,

they can compromise our security, they can undermine democracy,

de kan kompromittere vores sikkerhed, de kan underminere demokratiet,

they can cause the deaths of those that defend us.

den kan forårsage døden over dem der forsvarer os.

Deception is actually serious business.

Bedrag er faktisk en alvorlig sag.

This con man, Henry Oberlander, he was such an effective con man,

Denne svindler, Henry Oberlander,

han var så effektiv en svindler,

British authorities say

at britiske myndigheder siger,

he could have undermined the entire banking system of the Western world.

at han kunne have undermineret hele banksystemet i den vestlige verden.

And you can't find this guy on Google; you can't find him anywhere.

Og man kan ikke finde denne fyr på Google; man kan ikke finde ham nogen steder.

Han blev interviewet én gang, og han sagde det følgende.

He was interviewed once, and he said the following.

Han sagde, "Hør engang, jeg har en regel."

He said, "Look, I've got one rule."

Og dette var Henrys regel, sagde han,

And this was Henry's rule, he said,

"Look, everyone is willing to give you something.

"Hør engang, alle er villige til at give en noget.

They're ready to give you something for whatever it is they're hungry for."

De er klar til at give en noget, for hvad end de nu er sultne efter."

Og det er kernen i det.

And that's the crux of it.

If you don't want to be deceived, you have to know,

Hvis man ikke vil bedrages, skal man vide,

hvad er det man er sulten efter?

what is it that you're hungry for?

And we all kind of hate to admit it.

Og vi hader allesammen at indrømme det.

We wish we were better husbands, better wives,

Vi ville ønske vi var bedre ægtemænd, koner,

smarter, more powerful, taller, richer --

klogere, mere magtfulde,

højere, rigere --

the list goes on.

listen fortsætter.

Lying is an attempt to bridge that gap,

Det at lyve prøver på at slå bro henover det mellemrum,

to connect our wishes and our fantasies

for at forbinde vores ønsker og vores fantasier

about who we wish we were, how we wish we could be,

om den vi ønsker vi var, hvordan vi ønsker vi kunne være,

with what we're really like.

med det vi virkelig er.

And boy are we willing to fill in those gaps in our lives with lies.

Og manner, hvor er vi villige til at fylde det mellemrum i vores liv med løgn.

On a given day, studies show that you may be lied to

På en given dag, viser undersøgelser at man bliver løjet for

anywhere from 10 to 200 times.

mellem 10 til 200 gange.

Now granted, many of those are white lies.

Nu er mange af disse givetvis hvide løgne.

But in another study,

Men i en anden undersøgelse,

it showed that strangers lied three times

viste det at fremmede fortalte en løgn tre gange oftere

within the first 10 minutes of meeting each other.

inden for de 10 første minutter af at de mødte hinanden.

(Laughter)

(Latter)

Now when we first hear this data, we recoil.

Når vi først hører denne data, føler vi noget modvilje.

We can't believe how prevalent lying is.

Vi kan ikke tro på, hvor udbredt det er at lyve.

We're essentially against lying.

Vi er grundlæggende imod at lyve.

But if you look more closely, the plot actually thickens.

Men hvis man ser nærmerede på det,

bliver situationen mere indviklet.

We lie more to strangers than we lie to coworkers.

Vi lyver mere overfor fremmede, end vi lyver overfor kollegaer.

Extroverts lie more than introverts.

Dem der er udadvendte lyver mere, end dem der er indadvendte.

Men lie eight times more about themselves than they do other people.

Mænd lyver otte gange mere om sig selv,

end de gør om andre mennesker.

Women lie more to protect other people.

Kvinder lyver mere for at beskytte andre mennesker.

If you're an average married couple,

Hvis man er et gennemsnitligt gift par,

you're going to lie to your spouse in one out of every 10 interactions.

vil man lyve overfor sin ægtefælle

i en ud af 10 interaktioner.

Now, you may think that's bad.

Nu tror I måske at det er slemt.

If you're unmarried, that number drops to three.

Hvis man er ugift, falder det nummer til tre.

Lying's complex.

Løgne er komplicerede.

It's woven into the fabric of our daily and our business lives.

Det er vævet ind i det stof der er vores dagligdag og vores arbejdsliv.

We're deeply ambivalent about the truth.

Vi er utrolig ambivalente omkring sandheden.

We parse it out on an as-needed basis,

Vi deler den ud i takt med at der er brug for den,

sometimes for very good reasons,

nogle gange på grund af rigtig gode årsager,

other times just because we don't understand the gaps in our lives.

andre gange bare fordi vi ikke forstår hullerne i vores liv.

That's truth number two about lying.

Det er sandhed nummer to om det at lyve.

We're against lying,

Vi er imod det at lyve,

but we're covertly for it

men i det skjulte er vi for det,

in ways that our society has sanctioned for centuries and centuries and centuries.

på måder som vores samfund har sanktioneret

i århundreder og århundreder og århundreder.

It's as old as breathing.

Det er så gammelt som at trække vejret.

It's part of our culture, it's part of our history.

Det er en del af vores kultur, det er en del af vores historie.

Think Dante, Shakespeare, the Bible, News of the World.

Tænk på Dante, Shakespeare,

Biblen, News of the World.

(Laughter)

(Latter)

Lying has evolutionary value to us as a species.

Det at lyve har en evolutionær værdi for os som art.

Researchers have long known that the more intelligent the species,

Forskere har i lang tid vidst,

at jo mere intelligent arten er,

the larger the neocortex,

jo større neokortex,

the more likely it is to be deceptive.

jo større er sandsynligheden for at de er bedrageriske.

Now you might remember Koko.

Nu husker I måske Koko.

Does anybody remember Koko the gorilla who was taught sign language?

Kan nogen huske gorilaen Koko, der blev lært tegnesprog?

Koko was taught to communicate via sign language.

Koko blev lært at kommunikere ved hjælp af tegnesprog.

Here's Koko with her kitten.

Her er Koko med hendes killing.

It's her cute little, fluffy pet kitten.

Det er hendes nuttede, bløde kæledyrskilling.

Koko once blamed her pet kitten for ripping a sink out of the wall.

Koko gav engang hendes killing skylden,

for at rive køkkenvasken ud af væggen.

(Laughter)

(Latter)

We're hardwired to become leaders of the pack.

Vi er lavet til at blive flokkens leder.

It's starts really, really early.

Det begynder virkelig, virkelig tidligt.

How early?

Hvor tidligt?

Well babies will fake a cry,

Jamen babyer simulerer gråd,

pause, wait to see who's coming

pauser, venter og ser hvem der kommer

and then go right back to crying.

og begynder så at græde igen.

One-year-olds learn concealment.

Etårige lærer hemmligholdelse.

(Laughter)

(Latter)

Two-year-olds bluff.

Toårige lærer at bluffe.

Five-year-olds lie outright.

Femårige lyver decideret.

They manipulate via flattery.

De manipulerer via smiger.

Nine-year-olds, masters of the cover-up.

Niårige, mestre i at dække over noget.

By the time you enter college,

Til den tid at man begynder på universitetet,

you're going to lie to your mom in one out of every five interactions.

man vil lyve overfor sin mor i en ud af fem interaktioner.

By the time we enter this work world and we're breadwinners,

Til den tid at vi begynder på vores arbejdsliv og vi er forsørgere,

we enter a world that is just cluttered with Spam, fake digital friends,

går vi ind i en verden der bare er rodet

med spam, falske digitale venner,

partisan media,

ensidige medier,

ingenious identity thieves,

geniale identitets tyve,

world-class Ponzi schemers,

verdensklasse pyramidespillere,

a deception epidemic --

en bedrageriepidemi --

in short, what one author calls a post-truth society.

Kort sagt, det en forfatter kalder

et post-sandhed samfund.

It's been very confusing for a long time now.

Det har været meget forvirrende

i meget lang tid nu.

What do you do?

Hvad gør man?

Well, there are steps we can take to navigate our way through the morass.

Jamen vi kan tage et par forholdsregler,

for at navigere os gennem moradset.

Trained liespotters get to the truth 90 percent of the time.

Dem der er trænede i at spotte løgne, finder frem til sandheden 90 procent af tiden.

The rest of us, we're only 54 percent accurate.

Resten af os, vi er kun 54 procent nøjagtige.

Why is it so easy to learn?

Hvorfor er det så let at lære?

There are good liars and bad liars.

Der er gode løgnere og dårlige løgnere. Der er ikke rigtig nogen originale løgnere.

There are no real original liars.

Vi begår alle de samme fejl. Vi bruger alle de samme teknikker.

We all make the same mistakes. We all use the same techniques.

Så det jeg vil gøre,

So what I'm going to do is I'm going to show you two patterns of deception.

er at jeg vil vise jer to forskellige bedragsmønstre.

And then we're going to look at the hot spots

Og så vil vi se på hotspots og se om vi kan finde os selv.

and see if we can find them ourselves.

Vi vil begynde med tale.

We're going to start with speech.

(Video) Bill Clinton: I want you to listen to me.

(Video) Bill Clinton: Jeg vil have at I lytter til mig.

I'm going to say this again.

Jeg vil sige dette endnu en gang.

I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.

Jeg havde ikke et seksuelt forhold

til den kvinde, Miss Lewinsky.

I never told anybody to lie, not a single time, never.

Jeg sagde ikke til nogen at de skulle lyve,

ikke en eneste gang, aldrig.

And these allegations are false.

Og disse anklager er falske.

And I need to go back to work for the American people.

Og jeg skal tilbage til mit arbejde for det amerikanske folk.

Thank you.

Tak.

(Applause)

Pamela Meyer: Okay, what were the telltale signs?

Pamela Meyer: Okay, hvad var de afslørende tegn?

Well first we heard what's known as a non-contracted denial.

Jamen først hørte vi det der er kendt som en ikke-indskrænket benægtelse.

Studies show that people who are overdetermined in their denial

Undersøgelser viser at mennesker der er ekstra bestemte i deres benægtelse,

will resort to formal rather than informal language.

vil ty til formel i stedet for uformel sprogbrug.

We also heard distancing language: "that woman."

Vi hørte også afstandstagende sprog: "den kvinde."

We know that liars will unconsciously distance themselves

Vi ved at løgnere ubevidst vil distancere sig selv

from their subject,

fra deres genstand,

using language as their tool.

ved at bruge sproget som redskab.

Now if Bill Clinton had said, "Well, to tell you the truth ..."

Hvis nu Bill Clinton havde sagt, "Jamen, for at sige sandheden …"

or Richard Nixon's favorite, "In all candor ..."

eller Richard Nixons yndling, "Oprigtig talt …"

he would have been a dead giveaway

ville det have været en åbenlys afsløring

for any liespotter that knows

for en hvilken som helst person der spotter løgne og ved,

that qualifying language, as it's called, qualifying language like that,

at det kvalificerende sprogbrug, som det hedder, sådan et kvalificerende sprogbrug

further discredits the subject.

sår yderligere tvivl om personen.

Now if he had repeated the question in its entirety,

Hvis han nu havde gentaget hele spørgsmålet,

or if he had peppered his account with a little too much detail --

eller hvis han havde krydret sin beretning med lidt for mange detaljer --

and we're all really glad he didn't do that --

og vi er allesammen rigtig glade for at han ikke gjorde det --

he would have further discredited himself.

ville han have sået yderligere tvivl om sig selv.

Freud had it right.

Freud havde ret.

Freud said, look, there's much more to it than speech:

Freud sagde, hør engang, der er meget mere ved det end sproget:

"No mortal can keep a secret.

"Ingen dødelig kan holde på en hemmelighed.

If his lips are silent, he chatters with his fingertips."

Hvis hans læber er tavse, taler han med fingerspidserne."

And we all do it no matter how powerful you are.

Og vi gør det allesammen, uanset hvor magtfuld man er.

We all chatter with our fingertips.

Vi sladrer alle med vores fingerspidser.

I'm going to show you Dominique Strauss-Kahn with Obama

Jeg vil vise jer Dominique Strauss-Kahn sammen med Obama,

who's chattering with his fingertips.

der sladrer med sine fingerspidser.

(Laughter)

(Latter)

Now this brings us to our next pattern, which is body language.

Nu bringer dette os videre til vores næste mønster,

som er kropssprog.

With body language, here's what you've got to do.

Med kropssprog, her er hvad man skal gøre.

You've really got to just throw your assumptions out the door.

Man skal virkelig bare kaste sine antagelser ud af vinduet.

Let the science temper your knowledge a little bit.

Lad videnskaben dæmpe ens viden en lille smule.

Because we think liars fidget all the time.

Fordi vi tror at løgnere er nervøse hele tiden.

Well guess what, they're known to freeze their upper bodies when they're lying.

Men gæt engang, de er kendte for at holde deres overkrop helt stille når de lyver.

Vi tror at løgnere ikke vil kigge en i øjnene.

We think liars won't look you in the eyes.

Well guess what, they look you in the eyes a little too much

Men gæt engang, de kigger en lidt for meget i øjnene,

bare for at kompensere for den myte.

just to compensate for that myth.

We think warmth and smiles convey honesty, sincerity.

Vi tror at varme og smil

kommunikerer ærlighed, oprigtighed.

But a trained liespotter can spot a fake smile a mile away.

Men en der er trænet i at spotte løgne,

kan spotte et falsk smil på en kilometers afstand.

Can you all spot the fake smile here?

Kan I alle spotte et falsk smil?

You can consciously contract the muscles in your cheeks.

Man kan bevidst trække

musklerne i ens kinder sammen.

But the real smile's in the eyes, the crow's feet of the eyes.

Men det rigtige smil er i øjnene, øjnenes kragetæer.

They cannot be consciously contracted,

De kan ikke trækkes sammen bevidst,

especially if you overdid the Botox.

specielt hvis man overdrev med Botox'en.

Don't overdo the Botox; nobody will think you're honest.

Overdriv ikke med Botox'en; ingen vil tro at man er ærlig.

Now we're going to look at the hot spots.

Nu vil vi kigge på hotspots.

Can you tell what's happening in a conversation?

Kan I se hvad der sker i en samtale?

Can you start to find the hot spots

Kan man begynde at finde hotspots,

to see the discrepancies

til at se uoverenstemmelserne

between someone's words and someone's actions?

mellem nogens ord og nogens handlinger?

Now, I know it seems really obvious,

Nu ved jeg at det virker virkelig åbenlyst,

but when you're having a conversation with someone you suspect of deception,

men når man fører en samtale

med nogen man mistænker for bedrag,

attitude is by far the most overlooked but telling of indicators.

er attitude uden tvivl den mest oversete, men afslørende, indikator.

An honest person is going to be cooperative.

En ærlig person er samarbejdsvillig.

They're going to show they're on your side.

De viser at de er på ens side.

They're going to be enthusiastic.

De vil være entusiastiske.

They're going to be willing and helpful to getting you to the truth.

De vil være villige og behjælpelige med at få en frem til sandheden.

De er villige til at brainstorme, navngive mistænkte,

They're going to be willing to brainstorm, name suspects,

forsyne detaljer.

provide details.

They're going to say,

De siger, "Hey,

"Hey, maybe it was those guys in payroll that forged those checks."

måske var det de fyre i lønningsafdelingen, der forfalskede de checks."

They're going to be infuriated if they sense they're wrongly accused

De bliver rasende, hvis de føler de bliver falsk anklaget

throughout the entire course of the interview, not just in flashes;

gennem hele interviewet, ikke kun i glimt;

de vil være rasende gennem hele interviewet.

they'll be infuriated throughout the entire course of the interview.

Og hvis spørger nogen ærligt,

And if you ask someone honest

om hvad der burde ske med hvem end der forfalskede de checks,

what should happen to whomever did forge those checks,

er det meget mere sandsynligt, at en ærlig person

an honest person is much more likely

anbefaler en hård straf over en mild straf.

to recommend strict rather than lenient punishment.

Now let's say you're having that exact same conversation

Lad os nu sige at man har den præcis samme samtale

with someone deceptive.

med en person der er bedragerisk.

That person may be withdrawn,

Den person vil være tilbagetrukket,

look down, lower their voice,

kigger ned, sænker deres stemme,

pause, be kind of herky-jerky.

pauser, er uforudsigelige.

Ask a deceptive person to tell their story,

Spørg en bedragerisk person om at fortælle deres historie,

they're going to pepper it with way too much detail

de kommer til at krydre den med alt for mange detaljer

in all kinds of irrelevant places.

på alle mulige irrelevante steder.

And then they're going to tell their story in strict chronological order.

Og så vil de fortælle deres historie i en striks kronologisk rækkefølge.

And what a trained interrogator does

Og det en trænet forhører gør

is they come in and in very subtle ways over the course of several hours,

er at de kommer ind og på meget diskrete måder og

i løbet af adskillige timer,

they will ask that person to tell that story backwards,

vil de spørge den person om at fortælle historien baglæns,

and then they'll watch them squirm,

og så vil de se dem vride sig,

and track which questions produce the highest volume of deceptive tells.

og se hvilke spørgsmål der producerer den største mængde bedrageriske tegn.

Why do they do that? Well, we all do the same thing.

Hvorfor gør de det? Jamen vi gør alle den samme ting.

We rehearse our words,

Vi øver vores ord,

but we rarely rehearse our gestures.

men vi øver sjældent vores kropssprog.

We say "yes," we shake our heads "no."

Vi siger, "ja," vi ryster hovedet "nej."

We tell very convincing stories, we slightly shrug our shoulders.

Vi fortæller meget overbevisende historier, vi trækker let på skuldrene.

We commit terrible crimes,

Vi begår forfærdelige forbrydelser,

and we smile at the delight in getting away with it.

og vi smiler af henrykkelsen over at slippe afsted med det.

Now, that smile is known in the trade as "duping delight."

Nu er det smil i faget kendt som "narre henrykkelse."

And we're going to see that in several videos moving forward,

Og vi kommer til at se det i adskillige flimklip, der bevæger sig fremad,

but we're going to start -- for those of you who don't know him,

men vi begynder -- for dem af jer der ikke kender ham,

er dette den præsidentkandidaten John Edwards,

this is presidential candidate John Edwards

who shocked America by fathering a child out of wedlock.

som chokerede USA ved at være far til et barn uden for ægteskabet.

We're going to see him talk about getting a paternity test.

Vi kommer til at se ham tale om at få en faderskabstest.

See now if you can spot him saying, "yes" while shaking his head "no,"

Se om I nu kan spotte ham

i at sige, "ja" men han ryster hovedet "nej,"

slightly shrugging his shoulders.

og trækker let på skuldrene.

(Video) John Edwards: I'd be happy to participate in one.

(Video) John Edwards: Jeg vil glædeligt deltage i en.

I know that it's not possible that this child could be mine,

Jeg ved, at det ikke er muligt at dette barn kan være mit,

because of the timing of events.

på grund af tingenes timing.

So I know it's not possible.

Så jeg ved det ikke er muligt.

Happy to take a paternity test, and would love to see it happen.

Jeg vil med glæde tage en faderskabstest,

og jeg vil elske at se det ske.

Interviewer: Are you going to do that soon? Is there somebody --

Interviewer: Vil du gøre det snart? Er der nogen --

JE: Well, I'm only one side. I'm only one side of the test.

JE: Jamen, jeg er kun den ene side. Jeg er kun den ene side af testen.

But I'm happy to participate in one.

Men jeg vil glædeligt deltage i en.

PM: Okay, de ryst på hovedet er meget lettere at spotte

PM: Okay, those head shakes are much easier to spot

når man ved, at man skal kigge efter dem.

once you know to look for them.

Der kommer til at være tidspunkter,

There are going to be times when someone makes one expression

når nogen laver et udtryk

imens de dækker over et andet der på en måde lynhurtigt skinner igennem.

while masking another that just kind of leaks through in a flash.

Murderers are known to leak sadness.

Mordere er kendt for at lække vemod.

Your new joint venture partner might shake your hand,

Ens nye joint venture partner måske giver en hånden,

celebrate, go out to dinner with you and then leak an expression of anger.

fejrer, går ud og spiser med en

og lækker så et udtryk af vrede.

And we're not all going to become facial expression experts overnight here,

Og vi bliver ikke alle sammen eksperter i at kende ansigtsudtryk fra den ene dag til den anden,

but there's one I can teach you that's very dangerous

men der er et jeg kan lære jer der er meget farligt, og det er let at lære,

and it's easy to learn,

og det er et udtryk af foragt.

and that's the expression of contempt.

Now with anger, you've got two people on an even playing field.

Med vrede har man to mennesker på lige vilkår.

It's still somewhat of a healthy relationship.

Det er stadig noget der ligner et sundt forhold.

But when anger turns to contempt, you've been dismissed.

Men når vrede bliver til foragt,

er man blevet afvist.

It's associated with moral superiority.

Det er associeret med moralsk overlegenhed.

And for that reason, it's very, very hard to recover from.

Og af den årsag, er det meget, meget svært at komme sig over.

Here's what it looks like.

Her er et eksempel på hvordan det ser ud.

It's marked by one lip corner pulled up and in.

Det er markeret ved at det ene hjørne af læben

er trukket op og ind.

It's the only asymmetrical expression.

Det er det eneste asymmetriske udtryk.

And in the presence of contempt, whether or not deception follows --

Og når foragt er tilstede,

uanset om der kommer bedrag bagefter --

and it doesn't always follow --

og det kommer ikke altid bagefter --

look the other way, go the other direction,

se den anden vej, gå den anden vej,

reconsider the deal,

revurder tilbuddet,

say, "No thank you. I'm not coming up for just one more nightcap. Thank you."

sig, "Nej tak. Jeg kommer ikke op til en sidste godnatdrink. Tak."

Science has surfaced many, many more indicators.

Videnskab har påvist

mange, mange flere indikatorer.

We know, for example,

Vi ved, for eksempel,

we know liars will shift their blink rate,

vi ved løgnere vil ændre hyppigheden hvormed de blinker med øjnene,

point their feet towards an exit.

pege deres fødder mod en udgang.

They will take barrier objects

De vil bruge barriere objekter

and put them between themselves and the person that is interviewing them.

og sætte dem mellem sig selv om personen der interviewer dem.

They'll alter their vocal tone,

De vil ændre deres stemmeleje,

often making their vocal tone much lower.

ofte gøre deres stemmeleje meget lavere.

Now here's the deal.

Men her er hagen.

These behaviors are just behaviors.

Disse adfærd er bare adfærd.

They're not proof of deception.

De er ikke bevis på bedrag.

They're red flags.

De er røde flag.

We're human beings.

Vi er mennesker.

We make deceptive flailing gestures all over the place all day long.

Vi laver alle bedrageriske, fægtende udtryk over det hele, hele dagen.

They don't mean anything in and of themselves.

De betyder ikke noget i sig selv.

But when you see clusters of them, that's your signal.

Men når man ser klynger af dem, er dét signalet.

Look, listen, probe, ask some hard questions,

Se, lyt, snag, stil nogle svære spørgsmål,

get out of that very comfortable mode of knowing,

kom ud af den meget komfortable tilstand hvor man er sikker,

walk into curiosity mode, ask more questions,

begynd på den nysgerrige tilstand, stil flere spørgsmål,

have a little dignity, treat the person you're talking to with rapport.

hav en smule værdighed, behandl den anden person med sympati.

Don't try to be like those folks on "Law & Order" and those other TV shows

Prøv ikke på at være ligesom folkene på "Law & Order" og de andre TV serier,

der tæver deres mistænkte til tilståelse.

that pummel their subjects into submission.

Vær ikke for aggresiv, det virker ikke.

Don't be too aggressive, it doesn't work.

Nu har vi talt en lille smule

Now, we've talked a little bit about how to talk to someone who's lying

om, hvordan man taler til en der lyver

and how to spot a lie.

og hvordan man spotter en løgn.

And as I promised, we're now going to look at what the truth looks like.

Og som jeg lovede, vil vi nu kigge på hvordan sandheden ser ud.

But I'm going to show you two videos,

Men jeg vil vise jer to filmklip,

two mothers -- one is lying, one is telling the truth.

to mødre -- den ene lyver, den anden siger sandheden.

And these were surfaced by researcher David Matsumoto in California.

Og disse blev vist

af forsker David Matsumoto i California.

And I think they're an excellent example of what the truth looks like.

Og jeg synes de er et fremragende,

på hvordan sandheden ser ud.

This mother, Diane Downs,

Denne moder, Diane Downs,

shot her kids at close range,

skød hendes børn på klods hold,

drove them to the hospital while they bled all over the car,

kørte dem til hospitalet

imens de blødte i hele bilen,

claimed a scraggy-haired stranger did it.

påstod en fremmed med dårligt hår gjorde det.

And you'll see when you see the video,

Og når man ser filmklippet kan man se,

she can't even pretend to be an agonizing mother.

at hun ikke kan lade som om hun er en plaget moder.

What you want to look for here is an incredible discrepancy

Det man skal se efter her,

er en utrolig uoverensstemmelse

between horrific events that she describes and her very, very cool demeanor.

mellem de forfærdelige begivenheder som hun beskriver

og hendes meget, meget kølige opførsel.

And if you look closely, you'll see duping delight throughout this video.

Og hvis man ser nøje efter, kan man se deres fornøjelse igennem klippet.

(Video) Diane Downs: At night when I close my eyes,

(Video) Diane Downs: Når jeg lukker øjnene om natten,

kan jeg se Christie række sin hånd ud mod mig mens jeg kører,

I can see Christie reaching her hand out to me while I'm driving,

og blodet blev bare ved med at komme ud af hendes mund.

and the blood just kept coming out of her mouth.

And that -- maybe it'll fade too with time --

Og at -- måske vil det også fortage sig med tiden --

but I don't think so.

men det tror jeg ikke.

That bothers me the most.

Det er det der nager mig mest.

PM: Now I'm going to show you a video

PM: Nu vil jeg vise jer et filmklip

of an actual grieving mother, Erin Runnion,

af en moder der virkelig er sørgende, Erin Runnion,

confronting her daughter's murderer and torturer in court.

der konfronterer sin datters morder og torturbøddel i retten.

Here you're going to see no false emotion,

Her kommer I ikke til at se nogen falske følelser,

just the authentic expression of a mother's agony.

kun det autentiske udtryk af en moders pine.

(Video) Erin Runnion: I wrote this statement

(Video) Erin Runnion: Jeg skrev denne udtalelse på den tredje årsdag

on the third anniversary of the night you took my baby,

for natten hvor du tog mit barn,

og du gjorde hende fortræd,

and you hurt her,

and you crushed her,

og du knuste hende,

you terrified her until her heart stopped.

du gjorde hende skrækslagen indtil hendes hjerte stoppede.

And she fought, and I know she fought you.

Og hun kæmpede, og jeg ved hun bekæmpede dig.

But I know she looked at you with those amazing brown eyes,

Men jeg ved, at hun kiggede på dig

med de fantastiske, brune øjne,

and you still wanted to kill her.

og du ville stadig slå hende ihjel.

And I don't understand it,

Og jeg forstår det ikke,

and I never will.

og det kommer jeg aldrig til.

PM: Okay, there's no doubting the veracity of those emotions.

PM: Okay, der er ingen tvivl om sandfærdigheden i de følelser.

Now the technology around what the truth looks like

Nu er teknologien omkring hvordan sandheden ser ud

is progressing on, the science of it.

fremadskridende, videnskaben bag det.

We know, for example,

Vi ved for eksempel,

that we now have specialized eye trackers and infrared brain scans,

at vi nu har specialiserede øjne sporingsenheder og infrarøde hjernescannere,

MRI's that can decode the signals that our bodies send out

MRI der kan afkode signalerne som vores kroppe sender ud,

when we're trying to be deceptive.

når vi prøver at være bedrageriske.

And these technologies are going to be marketed to all of us

Og disse teknologier bliver markedsført til os alle

as panaceas for deceit,

som et universalmiddel mod bedrag,

and they will prove incredibly useful some day.

og en dag vil de vise sig at være utrolig nyttige.

But you've got to ask yourself in the meantime:

Men i mellemtiden skal man spørge sig selv:

Who do you want on your side of the meeting,

Hvem vil man have på sin side i et møde,

someone who's trained in getting to the truth

en der er trænet i at finde frem til sandheden,

or some guy who's going to drag a 400-pound electroencephalogram

eller en fyr der trækker et 200 kilo tungt elektroencefalogram

gennem døren?

through the door?

Liespotters rely on human tools.

Dem der spotter løgne stoler på menneskelige værktøjer.

They know, as someone once said,

De ved, som nogen engang sagde,

"Character's who you are in the dark."

"Karakter er den man er i mørket."

And what's kind of interesting is that today, we have so little darkness.

Og det der er lidt interessant,

er at vi i dag har så lidt mørke.

Our world is lit up 24 hours a day.

Vores verden er oplyst 24 timer om dagen.

It's transparent with blogs and social networks

Den er gennemskuelig

med blogs og sociale netværk,

broadcasting the buzz of a whole new generation of people

der udsender en summen af en helt ny generation af mennesker,

that have made a choice to live their lives in public.

der har truffet det valg at de lever deres liv i offentligheden.

It's a much more noisy world.

Det er en meget mere støjende verden.

So one challenge we have is to remember,

Så en udfordring vi har,

er at huske,

oversharing, that's not honesty.

at dele alt, det er ikke ærlighed.

Our manic tweeting and texting can blind us

Vores maniske Twitter og sms-vaner

kan gøre os blinde overfor det faktum,

to the fact that the subtleties of human decency -- character integrity --

at de raffinerede detaljer af den menneskelige anstændighed -- karakterintegritet --

that's still what matters, that's always what's going to matter.

er stadig det det handler om, det er det det altid vil handle om.

So in this much noisier world,

Så in denne meget mere støjende verden,

it might make sense for us

giver det mening for os

to be just a little bit more explicit about our moral code.

at være bare en lille smule mere tydelig

om vores moral.

When you combine the science of recognizing deception

Når man kombinerer videnskaben bag at genkende bedrag

with the art of looking, listening,

med kunsten af at se, lytte,

you exempt yourself from collaborating in a lie.

fritager man sig selv for at deltage i en løgn.

You start up that path of being just a little bit more explicit,

Man begynder med at

være bare en lille smule mere tydelig,

because you signal to everyone around you,

fordi man signalerer til alle omkring en,

you say, "Hey, my world, our world, it's going to be an honest one.

man siger, "Hey, min verden, vores verden,

det kommer til at blive en ærlig en.

My world is going to be one where truth is strengthened

Min verden kommer til at være en hvor sandheden er styrket

and falsehood is recognized and marginalized."

og falskheden bliver genkendt og marginaliseret."

And when you do that,

Og når man gør det,

the ground around you starts to shift just a little bit.

begynder jorden omkring en at skifte bare en lille smule.

And that's the truth. Thank you.

Og det er sandheden. Tak.

(Applause)

(Bifald)