Jeff Hancock: 3 types of (digital) lies

Translator: Joseph Geni Reviewer: Morton Bast

Translator: David J. Kreps Finnemann Reviewer: Anders Finn Jørgensen

Let me tell you, it has been a fantastic month for deception.

Jeg siger med det samme, at det har været en fantastisk måned for bedrageri.

And I'm not even talking about the American presidential race. (Laughter)

Og jeg taler ikke engang om kapløbet om at blive Amerikas præsident. (Latter)

We have a high-profile journalist caught for plagiarism,

Vi har en højprofileret journalist der er taget for plagiat,

a young superstar writer whose book involves

en ung superstjerne forfatter hvis bøger involverer

so many made up quotes that they've pulled it from the shelves;

så mange opdigtede citater at de har taget den af hylderne;

a New York Times exposé on fake book reviews.

en New York Times afsløring om anmeldelser om falske bøger.

It's been fantastic.

Det har været fantastisk.

Now, of course, not all deception hits the news.

Nu er det, selvfølgelig, ikke al bedrag der kommer i nyhederne.

Much of the deception is everyday. In fact, a lot of research

Meget af bedraget er hverdag. Faktisk, meget forskning

shows that we all lie once or twice a day, as Dave suggested.

viser at vi alle lyver en eller to gange om dagen, som Dave foreslog.

So it's about 6:30 now, suggests that most of us should have lied.

Så den er cirka 18.30 nu, det tyder på at de fleste af os har løjet nu.

Let's take a look at Winnipeg. How many of you,

Lad os se på Winnipeg. Hvor mange af jer,

in the last 24 hours -- think back -- have told a little fib,

i løbet af de sidste 24 timer -- tænker tilbage -- har fortalt en lille hvid løgn,

or a big one? How many have told a little lie out there?

eller en stor? Hvor mange af jer derude har fortalt en lille løgn?

All right, good. These are all the liars.

Okay, godt. Dette er alle løgnerne.

Make sure you pay attention to them. (Laughter)

Vær sikker på at I lægger mærke til dem. (Latter)

No, that looked good, it was about two thirds of you.

Nej, det så godt ud, det var cirka to tredjedele af jer.

The other third didn't lie, or perhaps forgot,

Den anden tredjedel fortalte ikke løgne, eller glemte det måske,

or you're lying to me about your lying, which is very,

eller I lyver om at lyve, hvilket er meget,

very devious. (Laughter) This fits with a lot of the research,

meget uærligt. (Latter) Dette passer med meget af den forskning

which suggests that lying is very pervasive.

der foreslår at det at lyve er meget omsiggribende.

It's this pervasiveness, combined with the centrality

Det er det omsiggribende, kombineret med det centrale

to what it means to be a human, the fact that we can

i hvad det betyder at være et menneske, det faktum at vi kan

tell the truth or make something up,

fortælle sandheden eller finde på noget,

that has fascinated people throughout history.

det har fascineret mennesker gennem historien.

Here we have Diogenes with his lantern.

Her har vi Diogenes med sin lanterne.

Does anybody know what he was looking for?

Er der nogen der ved hvad han ledte efter?

A single honest man, and he died without finding one

Et eneste ærligt menneske, og han døde uden at finde et

back in Greece. And we have Confucius in the East

i Grækenland. Og vi har Confucius i østen

who was really concerned with sincerity,

der var virkelig bekymret for oprigtighed,

not only that you walked the walk or talked the talk,

at man ikke kun "walked the walk" eller "talked the talk",

but that you believed in what you were doing.

men at man troede på det man gjorde.

You believed in your principles.

Man troede på sine principper.

Now my first professional encounter with deception

Nu kom mit første professionelle møde med bedrag

is a little bit later than these guys, a couple thousand years.

lidt senere end hos disse gutter, et par tusinde år.

I was a customs officer for Canada back in the mid-'90s.

Jeg var tolder i Canada tilbage i midten af 90'erne.

Yeah. I was defending Canada's borders.

Ja. Jeg forsvarede Canadas grænser.

You may think that's a weapon right there. In fact,

I tænker måske at det er et våben lige her. Faktisk,

that's a stamp. I used a stamp to defend Canada's borders. (Laughter)

er det et stempel. Jeg brugte et stempel til at forsvare Canadas grænser. (Latter)

Very Canadian of me. I learned a lot about deception

Meget canadisk af mig. Jeg lærte meget om bedrag

while doing my duty here in customs,

mens jeg gjorde mig pligt her i tolden,

one of which was that most of what I thought I knew about deception was wrong,

en af dem var at det meste af det jeg troede jeg viste om bedrag var forkert,

and I'll tell you about some of that tonight.

og jeg vil fortælle jer lidt om det i nat.

But even since just 1995, '96, the way we communicate

Men selv siden 1995, '96, måden vi kommunikerer på

has been completely transformed. We email, we text,

er blevet komplet transformeret. Vi e-mailer, vi sms'er,

we skype, we Facebook. It's insane.

vi skyper, vi facebooker. Det er vanvittigt.

Almost every aspect of human communication's been changed,

Næsten alle aspekter i menneskelig kommunikation er forandret,

and of course that's had an impact on deception.

og selvfølgelig har det haft en indflydelse på bedrag.

Let me tell you a little bit about a couple of new deceptions

Lad mig fortælle jer lidt om et par nye former for bedrag

we've been tracking and documenting.

som vi har sporet og dokumenteret.

They're called the Butler, the Sock Puppet

De hedder butleren, sokkedukken

and the Chinese Water Army.

og den kinesiske vand hær.

It sounds a little bit like a weird book,

Det lyder en lille smule som en mærkelig bog,

but actually they're all new types of lies.

men der er faktisk alle nye typer af løgne i.

Let's start with the Butlers. Here's an example of one:

Lad os begynde med butlerne. Her er et eksempel på en:

"On my way." Anybody ever written, "On my way?"

"Er på vej." Nogen der nogensinde har skrevet, "Er på vej?"

Then you've also lied. (Laughter)

Så har I også løjet. (Latter)

We're never on our way. We're thinking about going on our way.

Vi er aldrig på vej. Vi tænker på at være på vej.

Here's another one: "Sorry I didn't respond to you earlier.

Her er en anden: "Undskyld jeg ikke skrev til dig tidligere.

My battery was dead." Your battery wasn't dead.

Mit batteri var dødt." Ens batteri var ikke dødt.

You weren't in a dead zone.

Man var ikke i et område uden dækning.

You just didn't want to respond to that person that time.

Man gad bare ikke at svare tilbage til den person på det tidspunkt.

Here's the last one: You're talking to somebody,

Her er en sidste: Man taler med nogen,

and you say, "Sorry, got work, gotta go."

og man siger, "Undskyld, jeg skal arbejde, bliver nød til at smutte."

But really, you're just bored. You want to talk to somebody else.

Men i virkeligheden keder man sig. Man vil tale med en anden.

Each of these is about a relationship,

Hver af dem handler om et forhold,

and this is a 24/7 connected world. Once you get my cell phone number,

og dette er en verden der er forbundet 24/7. Når du får mit telefonnummer

you can literally be in touch with me 24 hours a day.

kan du bogstavelig talt komme i kontakt med mig 24 timer i døgnet.

And so these lies are being used by people

Så de løgne der bliver brugt af mennesker

to create a buffer, like the butler used to do,

til at skabe en buffer, ligesom butleren plejede at gøre,

between us and the connections to everybody else.

mellem os og forbindelserne til alle andre.

But they're very special. They use ambiguity

Men de er meget specielle. De bruger en dobbelttydighed

that comes from using technology. You don't know

der kommer af at bruge teknologien. Man ved ikke

where I am or what I'm doing or who I'm with.

hvor jeg er eller hvad jeg laver eller hvem jeg er sammen med.

And they're aimed at protecting the relationships.

Og de er rettet efter at beskytte forholdene.

These aren't just people being jerks. These are people

Dette er ikke bare folk der er nogle idioter. Dette er mennesker

that are saying, look, I don't want to talk to you now,

der siger, hør engang, jeg vil ikke tale med dig nu,

or I didn't want to talk to you then, but I still care about you.

eller jeg ville ikke tale med dig på det tidspunkt, men jeg tænker stadig på dig.

Our relationship is still important.

Vores forhold er stadig vigtige.

Now, the Sock Puppet, on the other hand,

Men, sokkedukken, på den anden side,

is a totally different animal. The sock puppet isn't

er et helt andet slags dyr. Sokkedukken handler ikke

about ambiguity, per se. It's about identity.

om dobbelttydighed, som sådan. Det handler om identitet.

Let me give you a very recent example,

Lad mig give jer et meget nyt eksempel,

as in, like, last week.

som i, sidste uge.

Here's R.J. Ellory, best-seller author in Britain.

Der er R.J. Ellory, best-seller forfatter i England.

Here's one of his bestselling books.

Her er en af hans bedst sælgende bøger.

Here's a reviewer online, on Amazon.

Her er en online anmeldelse, på Amazon.

My favorite, by Nicodemus Jones, is,

Min favorit, af Nicodemus Jones, er,

"Whatever else it might do, it will touch your soul."

"Hvadend den ellers gør, så rører den ved din sjæl."

And of course, you might suspect

Og selvfølgelig, kunne man mistænke

that Nicodemus Jones is R.J. Ellory.

at Nicodemus Jones er R.J. Ellory.

He wrote very, very positive reviews about himself. Surprise, surprise.

Han skrev meget, meget positive anmeldelser om sig selv. Surprise, surprise.

Now this Sock Puppet stuff isn't actually that new.

Nu er dette sokkedukke faktisk ikke ny.

Walt Whitman also did this back in the day,

Walt Whitman gjorde også dette engang,

before there was Internet technology. Sock Puppet

før der var internet teknologi. Sokkedukken

becomes interesting when we get to scale,

bliver interessant når man kommer op i større målestok,

which is the domain of the Chinese Water Army.

som er området for den kinesiske vand hær.

Chinese Water Army refers to thousands of people

Den kinesiske vand hær referer til tusindvis af mennesker

in China that are paid small amounts of money

i Kina der bliver betalt små mængder penge

to produce content. It could be reviews. It could be

for at producere indhold. Det kunne være anmeldelser. Det kunne være

propaganda. The government hires these people,

propaganda. Regeringen lejer disse mennesker,

companies hire them, all over the place.

firmaer lejer dem, over det hele.

In North America, we call this Astroturfing,

I Nordamerika, kalder vi dette astroturfing,

and Astroturfing is very common now. There's a lot of concerns about it.

og astroturfing er meget almindeligt nu. Der er mange bekymringer omkring det.

We see this especially with product reviews, book reviews,

Vi ser dette specielt med produkt anmeldelser, bog anmeldelser,

everything from hotels to whether that toaster is a good toaster or not.

alt fra hoteller til om en brødrister er en god brødrister eller ej.

Now, looking at these three reviews, or these three types of deception,

Når man ser på disse tre anmeldelser, eller disse tre typer bedrag,

you might think, wow, the Internet is really making us

kunne man tænke, wow, internettet får os virkelig til at

a deceptive species, especially when you think about

være en bedragerisk art, specielt når man tænker på

the Astroturfing, where we can see deception brought up to scale.

astroturfing, hvor vi kan se bedrageriet på større målestoksforhold.

But actually, what I've been finding is very different from that.

Men faktisk, er det jeg har fundet ud af meget anderledes end det.

Now, let's put aside the online anonymous sex chatrooms,

Lad os se bort fra de online anonyme sex chatrum,

which I'm sure none of you have been in.

som jeg er sikker på at ingen af jer har besøgt.

I can assure you there's deception there.

Jeg kan forsikre jer for at der er bedrag der.

And let's put aside the Nigerian prince who's emailed you

Og lad os se bort fra den nigerianske prins der har sendt en en e-mail

about getting the 43 million out of the country. (Laughter)

om at få de 43 millioner ud af landet. (Latter)

Let's forget about that guy, too.

Lad os glemme ham fyren også.

Let's focus on the conversations between our friends

Lad os fokusere på samtaler mellem vores venner

and our family and our coworkers and our loved ones.

og vores familie og vores kolleger og vores kære.

Those are the conversations that really matter.

Det er samtaler der virkelig betyder noget.

What does technology do to deception with those folks?

Hvad gør teknologi ved bedrag med disse mennesker?

Here's a couple of studies. One of the studies we do

Her er et par studier. Et af studierne vi laver

are called diary studies, in which we ask people to record

kaldes dagbogs studier, hvor vi beder mennesker om at optage

all of their conversations and all of their lies for seven days,

alle deres samtaler og alle deres løgne i syv dage,

and what we can do then is calculate how many lies took place

og det vi kan gøre er, at vi kan udregne hvor mange løgne der fandt sted

per conversation within a medium, and the finding

per samtale i et bestemt medie, og den opdagelse

that we get that surprises people the most is that email

som vi laver der overrasker mennesker mest er, at e-mail

is the most honest of those three media.

er den mest ærlige af disse tre medier.

And it really throws people for a loop because we think,

Og det forvirrer virkelig folk, fordi vi tror

well, there's no nonverbal cues, so why don't you lie more?

jamen, der er ikke nogen kropssprog tegn, så hvorfor lyver man ikke mere?

The phone, in contrast, the most lies.

Telefonen til gengæld, er de fleste løgne.

Again and again and again we see the phone is the device

Igen og igen og igen ser vi at telefonen er det apparat

that people lie on the most, and perhaps because of the Butler Lie ambiguities I was telling you about.

hvor mennesker lyver mest, og måske på grund af butler løgnens dobbelttydighed som jeg fortalte om.

This tends to be very different from what people expect.

Dette har en tendens til at være noget helt andet end folk forventer.

What about résumés? We did a study in which we had

Hvad med CV'er? Vi lavede et studie hvori vi fik

people apply for a job, and they could apply for a job

mennesker til at søge et job, og de kunne søge om arbejdet

either with a traditional paper résumé, or on LinkedIn,

enten med et traditionelt papir CV, eller på LinkedIn,

which is a social networking site like Facebook,

hvilket er et socialt netværks sted ligesom Facebook,

but for professionals -- involves the same information as a résumé.

men for professionelle -- det involverer den samme information som et CV.

And what we found, to many people's surprise,

Og det vi fandt ud af var, til mange menneskers overraskelse,

was that those LinkedIn résumés were more honest

at LinkedIn CV'erne var mere ærlige

on the things that mattered to employers, like your

omkring de ting der var vigtige for arbejdsgivere, såsom ens

responsibilities or your skills at your previous job.

pligter eller ens evner ved et tidligere arbejde.

How about Facebook itself?

Hvad med Facebook selv?

You know, we always think that hey, there are these

I ved, vi tror altid at hey, der er disse

idealized versions, people are just showing the best things

idealiserede versioner, mennesker viser bare de bedste ting

that happened in their lives. I've thought that many times.

der skete i deres liv. Det har jeg tænkt mange gange.

My friends, no way they can be that cool and have good of a life.

Mine venner, de kan på ingen måde være så seje og have så godt et liv.

Well, one study tested this by examining people's personalities.

Jamen, et studie afprøvede dette ved at undersøge menneskers personligheder.

They had four good friends of a person judge their personality.

De havde fire gode venner af en person til at bedømme deres personlighed.

Then they had strangers, many strangers,

Så fik de fremmede, mange fremmede,

judge the person's personality just from Facebook,

til at bedømme personens personlighed kun fra Facebook,

and what they found was those judgments of the personality

og det de fandt ud af var, at de bedømmelser af personlighed

were pretty much identical, highly correlated,

var temmelig identiske, stor korrelation,

meaning that Facebook profiles really do reflect our actual personality.

hvilket betyder at Facebook profiler virkelig reflekterer vores faktiske personlighed.

All right, well, what about online dating?

Okay, jamen, hvad med online dating?

I mean, that's a pretty deceptive space.

Jeg mener, det er et temmelig bedragerisk rum.

I'm sure you all have "friends" that have used online dating. (Laughter)

Jeg er sikker på at I alle har "venner" der har brugt online dating. (Latter)

And they would tell you about that guy that had no hair

Og de ville fortælle jer om den fyr der ikke havde noget hår

when he came, or the woman that didn't look at all like her photo.

da han viste sig, eller kvinden der ikke lignede sit billede.

Well, we were really interested in it, and so what we did

Jamen, vi var virkelig interesserede i det, så det vi gjorde var

is we brought people, online daters, into the lab,

at vi tog mennesker, online datere, ind i laboratoriet

and then we measured them. We got their height

og så målte vi dem. Vi fik deres højde

up against the wall, we put them on a scale, got their weight --

op imod en væg, vi satte dem på en vægt, fik deres vægt --

ladies loved that -- and then we actually got their driver's license to get their age.

kvinderne elskede det -- og så fik vi deres kørekort for at bestemme deres alder.

And what we found was very, very interesting.

Og det vi fandt ud af, var meget, meget interessant.

Here's an example of the men and the height.

Her er et eksempel på mændene og deres højde.

Along the bottom is how tall they said they were in their profile.

Nede i bunden viser det hvor høje de sagde de var i deres profil.

Along the y-axis, the vertical axis, is how tall they actually were.

Langs y-aksen, den vertikale akse, vises hvor høje de egentlig var.

That diagonal line is the truth line. If their dot's on it,

Den diagonale linje er sandhedslinjen. Hvis deres prik er derpå,

they were telling exactly the truth.

fortalte de faktisk sandheden.

Now, as you see, most of the little dots are below the line.

Som I kan se her, er de fleste af de røde prikker under linjen.

What it means is all the guys were lying about their height.

Det betyder at fyrene løj om deres højde.

In fact, they lied about their height about nine tenths of an inch,

Faktisk, løj de om deres højde med ni tiendedele af en inch [2,3cm],

what we say in the lab as "strong rounding up." (Laughter)

det vi i laboratoriet kalder en "stærk oprunding." (Latter)

You get to 5'8" and one tenth, and boom! 5'9".

Man kommer til 5'8" og en tiendedel [173cm] og bang! 5'9" [175cm]

But what's really important here is, look at all those dots.

Men det der er virkelig vigtigt her er, prøv at se alle prikkerne.

They are clustering pretty close to the truth. What we found

De samler sig temmelig tæt ved sandheden. Det vi fandt ud af

was 80 percent of our participants did indeed lie

var at 80 procent af vores deltagere ganske rigtigt løj

on one of those dimensions, but they always lied by a little bit.

om en af disse dimensioner, men de løj altid en lille smule.

One of the reasons is pretty simple. If you go to a date,

En af grundene er temmelig simpel. Hvis man går på en date,

a coffee date, and you're completely different than what you said,

en kaffe date, og man er komplet anderledes end det man sagde,

game over. Right? So people lied frequently, but they lied

game over. Ikke? Så mennesker løj ofte, men de løj

subtly, not too much. They were constrained.

diskret, ikke for meget. De holdte sig tilbage.

Well, what explains all these studies? What explains the fact

Jamen, hvad forklarer alle disse studier? Hvad forklarer det faktum

that despite our intuitions, mine included,

at på trods af vores intuition, også min,

a lot of online communication, technologically-mediated

er meget online kommunikation, teknologi formidlet

communication, is more honest than face to face?

kommunikation, mere ærligt ansigt til ansigt?

That really is strange. How do we explain this?

Det er virkelig mærkeligt. Hvordan forklarer vi dette?

Well, to do that, one thing is we can look at the deception-detection literature.

Jamen, for at gøre det, er den ene ting vi kan gøre at kigge på bedrag

It's a very old literature by now, it's coming up on 50 years.

Det er en meget gammel litteratur nu, den bliver snart 50 år.

It's been reviewed many times. There's been thousands of trials,

Den er blevet gennemgået mange gange. Der har været tusinder af forsøg,

hundreds of studies, and there's some really compelling findings.

hundredvis af studier, og der er nogle virkelig tiltalende resultater.

The first is, we're really bad at detecting deception,

Det første er, at vi er virkelig dårlige til at udpege bedrag,

really bad. Fifty-four percent accuracy on average when you have to tell

virkelig dårlige. Fire og halvtreds procents nøjagtighed i gennemsnit hvis man skal se

if somebody that just said a statement is lying or not.

om nogen der lige sagde noget lyver eller ej.

That's really bad. Why is it so bad?

Det er virkelig dårligt. Hvorfor er det så dårligt?

Well it has to do with Pinocchio's nose.

Jamen det har noget at gøre med Pinocchios næse.

If I were to ask you guys, what do you rely on

Hvis jeg spurgte jer ad, hvad støtter I jer til

when you're looking at somebody and you want to find out

når I kigger på nogen og man vil finde ud af

if they're lying? What cue do you pay attention to?

om de lyver? Hvilken tegn ville I holde øje med?

Most of you would say that one of the cues you look at

De fleste af jer ville sige, at en af tegnene man kan holde øje med

is the eyes. The eyes are the window to the soul.

er øjnene. Øjnene er sjælens vindue.

And you're not alone. Around the world, almost every culture,

Og I er ikke alene. Rundt om i verden, i næsten alle kulturer,

one of the top cues is eyes. But the research

er et af de mest populære tegn øjnene. Men forskning

over the last 50 years says there's actually no reliable cue

der er foregået i løbet af de sidste 50 år viser, at der faktisk ikke er noget pålideligt tegn

to deception, which blew me away, and it's one of

til bedrag, hvilket forbavsede mig, og det er en af

the hard lessons that I learned when I was customs officer.

de hårde lektioner som jeg lærte da jeg var tolder.

The eyes do not tell us whether somebody's lying or not.

Øjnene fortæller os ikke om nogen lyver eller ej.

Some situations, yes -- high stakes, maybe their pupils dilate,

Nogle situationer, ja -- høje odds, måske udvider deres pupiller sig,

their pitch goes up, their body movements change a little bit,

deres stemmeleje bliver højere, deres kropssprog ændrer sig lidt,

but not all the time, not for everybody, it's not reliable.

men ikke altid, ikke for alle, det er ikke pålideligt.

Strange. The other thing is that just because you can't see me

Mærkeligt. Den anden ting er, at bare fordi man ikke kan se mig

doesn't mean I'm going to lie. It's common sense,

betyder det ikke at jeg lyver. Det er almindelig fornuft

but one important finding is that we lie for a reason.

men et vigtigt resultat er at der er en grund til vi lyver.

We lie to protect ourselves or for our own gain

Vi lyver for at beskytte os selv eller for vores egen vinding

or for somebody else's gain.

eller for en andens vinding.

So there are some pathological liars, but they make up

Så der er nogle patologiske løgnere, men de udgør

a tiny portion of the population. We lie for a reason.

en lille del af befolkningen. Der er en årsag til at vi lyver.

Just because people can't see us doesn't mean

Bare fordi mennesker ikke kan se os, betyder det ikke

we're going to necessarily lie.

at vi nødvendigvis lyver.

But I think there's actually something much more

Men jeg tror der faktisk sker noget meget mere

interesting and fundamental going on here. The next big

interessant og fundamentalt her. Den næste store ting

thing for me, the next big idea, we can find by going

for mig, den næste store ide, kan vi finde ved at gå

way back in history to the origins of language.

langt tilbage i historien til vores sprogs oprindelser.

Most linguists agree that we started speaking somewhere

De fleste lingvister er enige i at vi begyndte at tale et sted

between 50,000 and 100,000 years ago. That's a long time ago.

mellem 50.000 og 100.000 år siden. Det er lang tid siden.

A lot of humans have lived since then.

Mange mennesker har levet siden dengang.

We've been talking, I guess, about fires and caves

Vi har talt, tror jeg, om ild og grotter

and saber-toothed tigers. I don't know what they talked about,

og sabeltigere. Jeg ved ikke hvad de snakkede om,

but they were doing a lot of talking, and like I said,

men de snakkede meget, og som jeg sagde,

there's a lot of humans evolving speaking,

der er mange mennesker der har udviklet tale,

about 100 billion people in fact.

cirka 100 milliarder faktisk.

What's important though is that writing only emerged

Det er dog er vigtigt er, at skrift først opstod

about 5,000 years ago. So what that means is that

for cirka 5.000 år siden. Så det det betyder er,

all the people before there was any writing,

at alle menneskerne der levede før skrift,

every word that they ever said, every utterance

hvert ord de nogensinde sagde, hver ytring,

disappeared. No trace. Evanescent. Gone.

forsvandt. Intet spor. Kortvarigt. Væk.

So we've been evolving to talk in a way in which

Så vi har udviklet talen på en måde hvor

there is no record. In fact, even the next big change

der ikke er nogen registrering. Faktisk, selv den næste store udfordring

to writing was only 500 years ago now,

for skriften kom for kun 500 år siden,

with the printing press, which is very recent in our past,

med trykpressen, som er meget ny i vores historie,

and literacy rates remained incredibly low right up until World War II,

og læsedygtigheden forblev utrolig lav lige indtil anden verdenskrig,

so even the people of the last two millennia,

så selv mennesker i de sidste to årtusinde,

most of the words they ever said -- poof! -- disappeared.

de fleste af de ord de nogensinde sagde -- poof! -- forsvandt.

Let's turn to now, the networked age.

Lad os nu se på netværksalderen.

How many of you have recorded something today?

Hvor mange af jer har optaget noget i dag?

Anybody do any writing today? Did anybody write a word?

Nogen der har skrevet noget i dag? Nogen der har skrevet et ord?

It looks like almost every single person here recorded something.

Det ser ud til at næsten hver eneste person her har optaget noget.

In this room, right now, we've probably recorded more

I dette lokale, lige nu, har vi sikkert optaget mere

than almost all of human pre-ancient history.

end næsten hele menneskeheden i oldtidshistorien.

That is crazy. We're entering this amazing period

Det er vanvittigt. Vi træder i denne utrolige periode

of flux in human evolution where we've evolved to speak

af forandring i den menneskelige evolution hvor vi lærte at tale

in a way in which our words disappear, but we're in

på en måde hvor vores ord forsvandt, men vi er i

an environment where we're recording everything.

et miljø hvor vi optager alt.

In fact, I think in the very near future, it's not just

Faktisk, jeg tror at der i en meget nær fremtid, er det ikke kun

what we write that will be recorded, everything we do

det vi skriver der bliver optaget, alt det vi gør

will be recorded.

vil blive registreret.

What does that mean? What's the next big idea from that?

Hvad betyder det? Hvad er det næste store ide ud fra det?

Well, as a social scientist, this is the most amazing thing

Jamen, som en socialforsker, er dette den meste utrolige ting

I have ever even dreamed of. Now, I can look at

jeg nogensinde har drømt om. Nu kan man se på

all those words that used to, for millennia, disappear.

alle disse ord der plejede at, i årtusinder, forsvinde.

I can look at lies that before were said and then gone.

Jeg kan se på løgne der før blev sagt og så forsvandt.

You remember those Astroturfing reviews that we were

Kan I huske de astroturfing anmeldelser som vi

talking about before? Well, when they write a fake review,

snakkede om før? Jamen, når de skriver en falsk anmeldelse,

they have to post it somewhere, and it's left behind for us.

skal de slå op et sted, og det bliver efterladt til os.

So one thing that we did, and I'll give you an example of

Så en ting vi gjorde, og jeg vil give jer et eksempel af

looking at the language, is we paid people

at se på sproget, er at vi betalte folk

to write some fake reviews. One of these reviews is fake.

til at skrive nogle falske anmeldelser. En af disse anmeldelser er falsk.

The person never was at the James Hotel.

Den person har aldrig været på James Hotel.

The other review is real. The person stayed there.

Den anden anmeldelse er ægte. Personen har været der.

Now, your task now is to decide

Nu er jeres opgave at beslutte

which review is fake?

hvilken anmeldelse er falsk?

I'll give you a moment to read through them.

Jeg giver jer et øjeblik til at gennemlæse dem.

But I want everybody to raise their hand at some point.

Men jeg vil have alle til at løfte hånden i vejret på et tidspunkt.

Remember, I study deception. I can tell if you don't raise your hand.

Husk på, jeg studerer bedrag. Jeg ved det hvis I ikke rækker hånden i vejret.

All right, how many of you believe that A is the fake?

Okay, hvor mange af jer tror på at A er den falske?

All right. Very good. About half.

Okay. Meget godt. Cirka halvdelen.

And how many of you think that B is?

Og hvor mange af jer tor det er B?

All right. Slightly more for B.

Okay. Lidt flere er for B.

Excellent. Here's the answer.

Fremragende. Her er svaret.

B is a fake. Well done second group. You dominated the first group. (Laughter)

B er falsk. Godt klaret gruppe nummer to. I dominerede den første gruppe. (Latter)

You're actually a little bit unusual. Every time we demonstrate this,

I er faktisk en lille smule usædvanlige. Hver gang vi demonstrerer dette,

it's usually about a 50-50 split, which fits

er det typisk en 50-50 deling, hvilket passer

with the research, 54 percent. Maybe people here

med forskningen, 54 procent. Måske er folk her

in Winnipeg are more suspicious and better at figuring it out.

i Winnipeg mere mistænksomme og bedre til at regne den ud.

Those cold, hard winters, I love it.

Disse kolde, hårde vintre, jeg elsker det.

All right, so why do I care about this?

Okay, så hvorfor bekymrer jeg mig om dette?

Well, what I can do now with my colleagues in computer science

Jamen, det jeg kan gøre med mine kolleger i computer videnskab

is we can create computer algorithms that can analyze

er at vi kan skabe computeralgoritmer der kan analysere

the linguistic traces of deception.

de lingvistiske spor af bedrag.

Let me highlight a couple of things here

Lad mig fremhæve et par ting her

in the fake review. The first is that liars tend to think

i den falske anmeldelse. Det første er at løgnere har en tendens til at tænke

about narrative. They make up a story:

på narrativ. De finder på en historie:

Who? And what happened? And that's what happened here.

Hvem? Hvad skete der? Og det er hvad der skete her.

Our fake reviewers talked about who they were with

Vores falske anmeldelser talte om hvem de var sammen med

and what they were doing. They also used the first person singular, I,

og hvad de lavede. De brugte også første person, ental, jeg,

way more than the people that actually stayed there.

meget mere end de mennesker der faktisk boede der.

They were inserting themselves into the hotel review,

De indsatte sig selv i hotelanmeldelsen,

kind of trying to convince you they were there.

for på en måde at overbevise en om at de var der.

In contrast, the people that wrote the reviews that were actually there,

Omvendt, de mennesker der skrev anmeldelserne og faktisk var der,

their bodies actually entered the physical space,

deres kroppe trådte faktisk ind i den fysiske plads,

they talked a lot more about spatial information.

de talte meget mere om rumlig information.

They said how big the bathroom was, or they said,

De fortalte hvor stort badeværelset var, eller de sagde,

you know, here's how far shopping is from the hotel.

I ved, så langt er der til shoppingmuligheder fra hotellet.

Now, you guys did pretty well. Most people perform at chance at this task.

Nu gjorde I det temmelig godt. De fleste mennesker klarer sig ud fra tilfældighed i denne opgave.

Our computer algorithm is very accurate, much more accurate

Vores computer algoritme er meget præcis, meget mere præcis

than humans can be, and it's not going to be accurate all the time.

end menneske kan være, og det vil ikke være præcist hver gang.

This isn't a deception-detection machine to tell

Dette er ikke en bedrag opdagelses maskine der fortæller en

if your girlfriend's lying to you on text messaging.

om ens kæreste lyver overfor en via sms.

We believe that every lie now, every type of lie --

Vi tror at hver løgn nu, hver type løgn --

fake hotel reviews, fake shoe reviews,

falske hotelanmeldelser, falske skoanmeldelser,

your girlfriend cheating on you with text messaging --

at ens kæreste er en utro på en sms besked --

those are all different lies. They're going to have

det er alt sammen forskellige løgne. De kommer til at have

different patterns of language. But because everything's

forskellige sprogmønstre. Men fordi alt nu bliver

recorded now, we can look at all of those kinds of lies.

dokumenteret, kan vi se på alle den slags løgne.

Now, as I said, as a social scientist, this is wonderful.

Som jeg sagde, som en socialforsker, er dette vidunderligt.

It's transformational. We're going to be able to learn

Det er transformerende. Vi bliver i stand til at lære

so much more about human thought and expression,

så meget mere om menneskelige tanker og udtryk,

about everything from love to attitudes,

om alt fra kærlighed til attituder,

because everything is being recorded now, but

fordi alt bliver dokumenteret nu, men

what does it mean for the average citizen?

hvad betyder det for den gennemsnitlige borger?

What does it mean for us in our lives?

Hvad betyder det for os i vores liv?

Well, let's forget deception for a bit. One of the big ideas,

Jamen, lad os glemme bedrag et øjeblik. En af de store ideer,

I believe, is that we're leaving these huge traces behind.

mener jeg, er at vi efterlader disse kæmpe mængder af spor.

My outbox for email is massive,

Min udbakke til e-mail er massiv,

and I never look at it. I write all the time,

og jeg kigger aldrig i den. Jeg skriver hele tiden,

but I never look at my record, at my trace.

men jeg kigger aldrig i mine optegnelser, på mit spor.

And I think we're going to see a lot more of that,

Og jeg tror vi kommer til at se meget mere af det,

where we can reflect on who we are by looking at

hvor vi kan reflektere på hvem vi er ved at kigge på

what we wrote, what we said, what we did.

de vi skrev, det vi sagde, det vi gjorde.

Now, if we bring it back to deception, there's a couple

Hvis vi går tilbage til bedrag, er der et par

of take-away things here.

take-away ting her.

First, lying online can be very dangerous, right?

For det første, at lyve online kan være farligt, ikke?

Not only are you leaving a record for yourself on your machine,

Ikke nok med at man efterlader en optegnelse over en selv på ens maskine,

but you're leaving a record on the person that you were lying to,

men man efterlader en optegnelse på den person som man fortalte en løgn til,

and you're also leaving them around for me to analyze

og man efterlader dem også til mig så jeg kan analysere

with some computer algorithms.

dem med computer algoritmer.

So by all means, go ahead and do that, that's good.

Så naturligvis, bare gør det, det er godt.

But when it comes to lying and what we want to do

Men når det kommer til at lyve og hvad vi har lyst til at gøre

with our lives, I think we can go back to

med vores liv, tror jeg vi kan gå tilbage til

Diogenes and Confucius. And they were less concerned

Diogenes og Confucius. Og de var mindre bekymrede

about whether to lie or not to lie, and more concerned about

om om man skulle lyve eller ej, og mere bekymrede over

being true to the self, and I think this is really important.

at være tro mod sig selv, og jeg mener det er virkelig vigtigt.

Now, when you are about to say or do something,

Når man er på nippet til at sige eller gøre noget,

we can think, do I want this to be part of my legacy,

kan vi tænke, vil jeg have at dette er en del af min arv,

part of my personal record?

en del af mine personlige optegnelser?

Because in the digital age we live in now,

Fordi i den digitale alder vi lever i nu,

in the networked age, we are all leaving a record.

i den netværkede alder, efterlader vi alle optegnelser.

Thank you so much for your time,

Tusind tak for jeres tid,

and good luck with your record. (Applause)

og held og lykke med jeres optegnelser. (Bifald)