TED演講 ：別對我撒謊

　　在任何特定的日子，我們受騙的次數(shù)起碼有10到200次，這些謊言的線索，可說是不露痕跡且有違直覺?！镀平庵e言》的作者Pamela Meyer說明，那些受過訓練、能識破欺騙的人辨識詐欺所使用的技倆和『關鍵跡象(hotspots)』──而且她主張誠實是一個值得維持的價值。

　　Okay, now I don't want to alarm anybody in this room, but it's just come to my attention that the person to your right is a liar. (Laughter) Also, the person to your left is a liar. Also the person sitting in your very seats is a liar. We're all liars. What I'm going to do today is I'm going to show you what the research says about why we're all liars, how you can become a liespotter and why you might want to go the extra mile and go from liespotting to truth seeking, and ultimately to trust building.

　　我不想嚇唬你們 但是我發(fā)現(xiàn) 坐在你右邊的那個人是個騙子 (眾人笑) 坐在你左邊的人也是個騙子 坐在你位置上的那個人還是個騙子 我們都是騙子 今天我要講的一項研究 我們?yōu)槭茬凼球_子 如何識別謊言 以及為什幺要大費周折 從識別謊言走向尋求真相 最終走到信任的建立

　　Now speaking of trust, ever since I wrote this book, "Liespotting," no one wants to meet me in person anymore, no, no, no, no, no. They say, "It's okay, we'll email you." (Laughter) I can't even get a coffee date at Starbucks. My husband's like, "Honey, deception? Maybe you could have focused on cooking. How about French cooking?"

　　說到信任 自從我寫了《識破謊言》之后 誰都不愿意再和我面對面打交道了 沒門 大家都說："沒關系，我們會給你發(fā)郵件的。" (眾人笑) 我甚至約不到人去星巴克喝咖啡 我先生說：“親愛的，測謊? 你還是把心思花在烹飪上吧。學做法國菜，怎幺樣?”

　　So before I get started, what I'm going to do is I'm going to clarify my goal for you, which is not to teach a game of Gotcha. Liespotters aren't those nitpicky kids, those kids in the back of the room that are shouting, "Gotcha! Gotcha! Your eyebrow twitched. You flared your nostril. I watch that TV show 'Lie To Me.' I know you're lying." No, liespotters are armed with scientific knowledge of how to spot deception. They use it to get to the truth, and they do what mature leaders do everyday; they have difficult conversations with difficult people, sometimes during very difficult times. And they start up that path by accepting a core proposition, and that proposition is the following: Lying is a cooperative act. Think about it, a lie has no power whatsoever by its mere utterance. Its power emerges when someone else agrees to believe the lie.

　　切入主題之前 我先澄清一下 我演講的目的不是叫你們玩測謊游戲 測謊者并不是專門挑刺的孩子 那些孩子站在屋子后方大喊：“發(fā)現(xiàn)了! 你的眉毛動了。你的鼻孔動了。 我看電視劇 “別對我撒謊”，我知道你在說謊。” 不 測謊者 以識破謊言的科學知識來武裝自己 找出真相 他們像成熟的領導人那樣工作 與難以打交道的人進行艱難的對話 有時候還碰上世態(tài)不濟的時候 他們踏上了這條道路 懷著一項核心要點 那就是 說謊是一項協(xié)作行動 謊言本身 沒有絲毫力量 而當人將謊言信以為真 謊言的力量就產(chǎn)生了

　　So I know it may sound like tough love, but look, if at some point you got lied to, it's because you agreed to get lied to. Truth number one about lying: Lying's a cooperative act. Now not all lies are harmful. Sometimes we're willing participants in deception for the sake of social dignity, maybe to keep a secret that should be kept secret, secret. We say, "Nice song." "Honey, you don't look fat in that, no." Or we say, favorite of the digiratti, "You know, I just fished that email out of my spam folder. So sorry."

　　忠言逆耳 但是 如果你被騙了 那只能怪你相信了謊言 關于說謊的第一條事實： 說謊是一項協(xié)作行動 并不是所有謊話都有害 有時 為了保住社會尊嚴 我們愿意說謊 有些秘密還是不要道破為好 我們說：“這首歌真好聽。” “親愛的，你穿這件不顯胖，一點也不。” 我們還說 "我才從垃圾郵件里看到那封郵件。 真不好意思。”

　　But there are times when we are unwilling participants in deception. And that can have dramatic costs for us. Last year saw 997 billion dollars in corporate fraud alone in the United States. That's an eyelash under a trillion dollars. That's seven percent of revenues. Deception can cost billions. Think Enron, Madoff, the mortgage crisis. Or in the case of double agents and traitors, like Robert Hanssen or Aldrich Ames, lies can betray our country, they can compromise our security, they can undermine democracy, they can cause the deaths of those that defend us.

　　而有時候 我們不愿意參與說謊 而這時 我們可能會遭受重大損失 去年僅美國就因公司犯罪 損失了9970億美元 這個數(shù)字差一點就到一萬億美元了 占了總收入的7% 欺詐可以造成數(shù)十億美元的損失 想想安然 麥道夫 次貸危機 還有像羅伯特·漢森和阿爾德里奇·埃姆斯等 雙面特工或叛徒 謊言能夠出賣我們的國家 能夠削弱安全保障 能夠破壞民主制度 能夠奪走國家衛(wèi)士的生命

　　Deception is actually serious business. This con man, Henry Oberlander, he was such an effective con man British authorities say he could have undermined the entire banking system of the Western world. And you can't find this guy on Google; you can't find him anywhere. He was interviewed once, and he said the following. He said, "Look, I've got one rule." And this was Henry's rule, he said, "Look, everyone is willing to give you something. They're ready to give you something for whatever it is they're hungry for." And that's the crux of it. If you don't want to be deceived, you have to know, what is it that you're hungry for? And we all kind of hate to admit it. We wish we were better husbands, better wives, smarter, more powerful, taller, richer -- the list goes on. Lying is an attempt to bridge that gap, to connect our wishes and our fantasies about who we wish we were, how we wish we could be, with what we're really like. And boy are we willing to fill in those gaps in our lives with lies.

　　欺騙是一個棘手的問題。 這個騙子亨利·奧伯蘭德 他是個高明的騙子 英國高官說 他有能力破壞整個西方世界的銀行體系 你在谷歌上根本搜不到這個人 哪里都找不到 他接受過一次采訪 說了下面這些話 “ 我有一條守則。” 這就是亨利的守則 他說 “每個人都愿意給你某樣東西。 只要是為了得到他們渴望的東西，他們就心甘情愿地拿東西來交換。” 難就難在這里 如果不想被騙 你就必須知道 你渴望什幺 我們都不愿承認 我們希望自己能成為更好的丈夫 更好的妻子 變得更聰明 更有權力 更高 更富有 諸如此類 欺騙是人們試圖在現(xiàn)實與愿望之間架起橋梁 把我們理想中的自己與理想中的生活 種種心愿和幻想 與現(xiàn)實中的自己聯(lián)系起來 天啊

　　On a given day, studies show that you may be lied to anywhere from 10 to 200 times. Now granted, many of those are white lies. But in another study, it showed that strangers lied three times within the first 10 minutes of meeting each other. (Laughter) Now when we first hear this data, we recoil. We can't believe how prevalent lying is. We're essentially against lying. But if you look more closely, the plot actually thickens. We lie more to strangers than we lie to coworkers. Extroverts lie more than introverts. Men lie eight times more about themselves than they do other people. Women lie more to protect other people. If you're an average married couple, you're going to lie to your spouse in one out of every 10 interactions. Now you may think that's bad. It you're unmarried, that number drops to three.

　　研究表明 在每一天 你被欺騙的次數(shù) 從10次到200次不等 的確 這其中有許多是善意的謊言 而另一項研究顯示 陌生人見面后的前十分鐘內 說謊的次數(shù)為三次 (眾人笑) 頭一次聽到這個數(shù)據(jù) 我們不免心寒 我們不敢相信人們說謊竟如此頻繁 我們本質上與說謊對立 但如果你細看 情況可沒那幺簡單 我們對陌生人說謊的次數(shù)比對同事說謊的次數(shù)要多 外向的人比內向的人說謊次數(shù)多 男性關于自己的謊言比關于別人的謊言 多出了八倍 女性說謊往往是為了保護他人 如果你們是一對普通夫妻 那幺你對自己的配偶 每交流10次就有一次在說謊 你可能覺得這很不好 如果你未婚 那幺每交流3次就有一次在說謊

　　Lying's complex. It's woven into the fabric of our daily and our business lives. We're deeply ambivalent about the truth. We parse it out on an as-needed basis, sometimes for very good reasons, other times just because we don't understand the gaps in our lives. That's truth number two about lying. We're against lying, but we're covertly for it in ways that our society has sanctioned for centuries and centuries and centuries. It's as old as breathing. It's part of our culture, it's part of our history. Think Dante, Shakespeare, the Bible, News of the World.

　　說謊這事挺復雜的 這跟我們的日常生活與工作交織在一起 我們對真相總是拿捏不準 我們在需要的時候才來分析它 有時候是情理之中的 而有時候則是因為我們不理解生活中現(xiàn)實與理想的差距 這是關于說謊的第二條真相 我們反對說謊 但背地里贊同說謊 我們的社會對種種這些做法 包容了好幾百年 其歷史源遠流長 是我們文化和歷史的一部分 想想看但丁 莎士比亞 圣經(jīng) 世界新聞報

　　(Laughter)

　　(眾人笑)

　　Lying has evolutionary value to us as a species. Researchers have long known that the more intelligent the species, the larger the neocortex, the more likely it is to be deceptive. Now you might remember Koko. Does anybody remember Koko the gorilla who was taught sign language? Koko was taught to communicate via sign language. Here's Koko with her kitten. It's her cute little, fluffy pet kitten. Koko once blamed her pet kitten for ripping a sink out of the wall. (Laughter) We're hardwired to become leaders of the pack. It's starts really, really early. How early? Well babies will fake a cry, pause, wait to see who's coming and then go right back to crying. One-year-olds learn concealment. (Laughter) Two-year-olds bluff. Five-year-olds lie outright. They manipulate via flattery. Nine-year-olds, masters of the cover up. By the time you enter college, you're going to lie to your mom in one out of every five interactions. By the time we enter this work world and we're breadwinners, we enter a world that is just cluttered with spam, fake digital friends, partisan media, ingenious identity thieves, world-class Ponzi schemers, a deception epidemic -- in short, what one author calls a post-truth society. It's been very confusing for a long time now.

　　說謊在人類進化上有著重要價值 研究者早就知道 物種的智慧越高 大腦皮層越大 這個物種就更可能欺騙 你們可能還記得可可 有人還記得那只學會手語的大猩猩可可嗎 可可學會如何用手語進行交流 這是可可和她的小貓 這就是她毛茸茸的可愛小貓咪 可可有一次責備她的小貓 怪它把洗手池從墻上剝下來 (眾人笑) 我們天生就喜歡做領導 這從很早很早就開始了 多早 嬰兒就會假哭 停一下 看看誰走過來 接著哭 一歲的孩子就學會隱瞞事實了 (眾人笑) 兩歲的孩子就會嚇唬人了 五歲的孩子撒謊都可以不打草稿了 他們通過巴結來達到目的 九歲的孩子是掩蓋真相的高手 到你上大學的時候 你與你母親的每交流五次中就有一次是在說謊 到我們工作了 掙錢養(yǎng)家了 我們便進入了 一個充滿了垃圾郵件 虛假身份的網(wǎng)友 政黨媒體 身份盜用 世界級的龐氏騙局 一個謊言的流行病 用一位作家的話簡單地說 這是一個后真相社會 長時間以來 這一直在混淆視聽

　　What do you do? Well there are steps we can take to navigate our way through the morass. Trained liespotters get to the truth 90 percent of the time. The rest of us, we're only 54 percent accurate. Why is it so easy to learn? There are good liars and there are bad liars. There are no real original liars. We all make the same mistakes. We all use the same techniques. So what I'm going to do is I'm going to show you two patterns of deception. And then we're going to look at the hot spots and see if we can find them ourselves. We're going to start with speech.

　　怎幺辦呢 有幾個步驟 可以指導我們走出迷霧 受過識謊訓練的人能認識到90%的真相 而普通人只有54%的正確率 為什幺人能輕易學會識破謊言呢 騙子有高明的 也有蹩腳的 但沒有絕對與眾不同的騙子 我們都會犯同樣的錯誤 采用同樣的技巧 我下面 向你們展示兩種欺騙的模式 我們將看到一些破綻 看看我們能不能把它們找出來 我們先看看演講

　　(Video) Bill Clinton: I want you to listen to me. I'm going to say this again. I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time, never. And these allegations are false. And I need to go back to work for the American people. Thank you.

　　(視頻)克林頓總統(tǒng)：我想要你們聽我說 我再次重申 我與那個女人 萊溫斯基小姐 沒有發(fā)生過性關系 我從未指示任何人說謊 從來也沒有 這些指控都是莫須有的 我必須回去為美國人民工作了 謝謝你們

　　Pamela Meyer: Okay, what were the telltale signs? Well first we heard what's known as a non-contracted denial. Studies show that people who are overdetermined in their denial will resort to formal rather than informal language. We also heard distancing language: "that woman." We know that liars will unconsciously distance themselves from their subject using language as their tool. Now if Bill Clinton had said, "Well, to tell you the truth ... " or Richard Nixon's favorite, "In all candor ... " he would have been a dead giveaway for any liespotter than knows that qualifying language, as it's called, qualifying language like that, further discredits the subject. Now if he had repeated the question in its entirety, or if he had peppered his account with a little too much detail -- and we're all really glad he didn't do that -- he would have further discredited himself. Freud had it right. Freud said, look, there's much more to it than speech: "No mortal can keep a secret. If his lips are silent, he chatters with his fingertips." And we all do it no matter how powerful you are. We all chatter with our fingertips. I'm going to show you Dominique Strauss-Kahn with Obama who's chattering with his fingertips.

　　好 破綻是哪些呢 首先 我們聽到一個正式的否定形式 研究表明 人們在過度強調否認時 喜歡使用較為正式的語言 我們還聽到 “那個女人” 這種遙指性的措辭 我們知道 騙子們會不經(jīng)意地 疏遠話中的主語 借用語言來達此目的 如果克林頓說的是：“哎，實話告訴你吧...” 或者用到尼克松總統(tǒng)的口頭禪：“實話跟你說...” 他立馬就會 在識謊者面前露出馬腳 因為識謊者知道這種被稱為修飾語的話 更能暴露謊言 如果他完整地將問題重復一遍 或者他暴露過多細節(jié) 幸好他沒這幺做 那他的話就更不可信了 弗洛伊德說對了 弗洛伊德說：瞧，話中確實有話 “沒有人能保守住秘密。 他的嘴閉上了，他的指尖卻在說謊。” 我們都是這樣 不管你有多厲害 我們的指尖都會把我們出賣 我下面給你們看多米尼克·斯特勞斯-卡恩與奧巴馬 奧巴馬的指尖就出賣了他自己

　　(Laughter)

　　(眾人笑)

　　Now this brings us to our next pattern, which is body language. With body language, here's what you've got to do. You've really got to just throw your assumptions out the door. Let the science temper your knowledge a little bit. Because we think liars fidget all the time. Well guess what, they're known to freeze their upper bodies when they're lying. We think liars won't look you in the eyes. Well guess what, they look you in the eyes a little too much just to compensate for that myth. We think warmth and smiles convey honesty, sincerity. But a trained liespotter can spot a fake smile a mile away. Can you all spot the fake smile here? You can consciously contract the muscles in your cheeks. But the real smile's in the eyes, the crow's feet of the eyes. They cannot be consciously contracted, especially if you overdid the Botox. Don't overdo the Botox; nobody will think you're honest.

　　這引出了下一個模式 那就是肢體語言 講到肢體語言 我們必須 把之前的假設統(tǒng)統(tǒng)拋到腦后 讓科學給你長點知識 我們以為騙子總是坐立不安 但事實是 他們在說謊時上半身一動也不動 我們以為騙子不敢直視你的雙眼 而事實是 他們知道人們會這幺想 反而會過久地盯著你的眼睛看 我們以為寒暄和微笑 傳達的是真誠 但是一個訓練有素的識謊者 能夠大老遠就認出一個假笑 你們能看出哪個是假笑嗎 你可以下意識地 收緊面部的肌肉 但是真正的微笑是發(fā)自眼睛的 從眼角的魚尾紋就能看出 這些魚尾紋是擠不出來的 如果你打了太多肉毒桿菌素 那就更擠不出來了 別打太多肉毒桿菌素 沒人會相信你是誠實的

　　Now we're going to look at the hot spots. Can you tell what's happening in a conversation? Can you start to find the hot spots to see the discrepancies between someone's words and someone's actions? Now I know it seems really obvious, but when you're having a conversation with someone you suspect of deception, attitude is by far the most overlooked but telling of indicators.

　　下面我們來找破綻 你們能告訴我一個對話過程中都發(fā)生了什幺嗎 你可以找出破綻嗎 能看出某人 言行上的不一致嗎 這似乎很顯然 但是當你與你懷疑的對象 進行對話時 你往往忽略了態(tài)度這個指示標

　　An honest person is going to be cooperative. They're going to show they're on your side. They're going to be enthusiastic. They're going to be willing and helpful to getting you to the truth. They're going to be willing to brainstorm, name suspects, provide details. They're going to say, "Hey, maybe it was those guys in payroll that forged those checks." They're going to be infuriated if they sense they're wrongly accused throughout the entire course of the interview, not just in flashes; they'll be infuriated throughout the entire course of the interview. And if you ask someone honest what should happen to whomever did forge those checks, an honest person is much more likely to recommend strict rather than lenient punishment.

　　誠實的人會很合作 讓你感覺他們站在你一邊 會表現(xiàn)出熱情 他們會樂意幫助你找出真相 他們會幫你找出思路 提出有嫌疑的人 提供細節(jié) 他們會說：“ 啊， 可能是管工資的那些家伙做了這些假支票。” 如果感到自己被誣告 他們在整個對話過程中都會非常氣憤 而不只是短時間發(fā)火 他們的怒氣會貫穿整個對話過程 當你問到一個誠實的人 應如何懲罰造假支票的人 這個誠實的人 更可能會建議嚴懲不貸而不是寬大處理

　　Now let's say you're having that exact same conversation with someone deceptive. That person may be withdrawn, look down, lower their voice, pause, be kind of herky-jerky. Ask a deceptive person to tell their story, they're going to pepper it with way too much detail in all kinds of irrelevant places. And then they're going to tell their story in strict chronological order. And what a trained interrogator does is they come in and in very subtle ways over the course of several hours, they will ask that person to tell that story backwards, and then they'll watch them squirm, and track which questions produce the highest volume of deceptive tells. Why do they do that? Well we all do the same thing. We rehearse our words, but we rarely rehearse our gestures. We say "yes," we shake our heads "no." We tell very convincing stories, we slightly shrug our shoulders. We commit terrible crimes, and we smile at the delight in getting away with it. Now that smile is known in the trade as "duping delight."

　　在看看你與一個不誠實的人進行同樣的對話 會是什幺情況 這個人可能會有些疏遠 往下看 降低音量 幾字一頓 話不連貫 讓不誠實的說自己做過什幺 他們在一些不著邊際的地方 透露過多細節(jié) 他們接著會嚴格按照時間順序陳述 一個受過訓練的質詢者 在幾個小時的問詢過程中 旁敲側擊 讓那個人用倒敘的方式來陳述 然后觀察他如何說謊 并記錄嫌疑人在回答哪些問題時音量最大 嫌疑人為什幺會這樣 這其實是人之常情 我們會事先想好說什幺 但很少事先想好做什幺樣的動作 我們說“是” 而我們卻在搖頭表示“否” 我們說的故事非常有說服力 但我們卻輕輕地聳了聳肩 我們犯了嚴重的罪 而在僥幸逃脫時面露微笑 這種微笑被稱為“欺騙的喜悅”

　　And we're going to see that in several videos moving forward, but we're going to start -- for those of you who don't know him, this is presidential candidate John Edwards who shocked America by fathering a child out of wedlock. We're going to see him talk about getting a paternity test. See now if you can spot him saying, "yes" while shaking his head "no," slightly shrugging his shoulders.

　　我們會在接下來的幾個視頻中看到 現(xiàn)在開始 可能有人不認識他 我先介紹一下 他是前總統(tǒng)候選人約翰·愛德華茲 他因育有一個私生子而震驚全美 我們將看到他談論進行親子鑒定的事 看看你們能否發(fā)現(xiàn) 他在說“是”的時候 他的頭卻在搖 肩膀在聳

　　(Video) John Edwards: I'd be happy to participate in one. I know that it's not possible that this child could be mine, because of the timing of events. So I know it's not possible. Happy to take a paternity test, and would love to see it happen. Interviewer: Are you going to do that soon? Is there somebody -- JE: Well, I'm only one side. I'm only one side of the test. But I'm happy to participate in one.

　　(視頻)約翰·愛德華茲：我很樂意去做鑒定 我知道這個孩子不可能是我的 因為時間不對 我知道這不可能是我的 我樂意進行親子鑒定 也很想知道結果 記者：你會很快去做鑒定嗎 有人... 約翰·愛德華茲：我只是鑒定的一方 但是我很樂意進行鑒定

　　PM: Okay, those head shakes are much easier to spot once you know to look for them. There're going to be times when someone makes one expression while masking another that just kind of leaks through in a flash. Murderers are known to leak sadness. Your new joint venture partner might shake your hand, celebrate, go out to dinner with you and then leak an expression of anger. And we're not all going to become facial expression experts overnight here, but there's one I can teach you that's very dangerous, and it's easy to learn, and that's the expression of contempt. Now with anger, you've got two people on an even playing field. It's still somewhat of a healthy relationship. But when anger turns to contempt, you've been dismissed. It's associated with moral superiority. And for that reason, it's very, very hard to recover from. Here's what it looks like. It's marked by one lip corner pulled up and in. It's the only asymmetrical expression. And in the presence of contempt, whether or not deception follows -- and it doesn't always follow -- look the other way, go the other direction, reconsider the deal, say, "No thank you. I'm not coming up for just one more nightcap. Thank you."

　　帕米拉：好了 只要你注意看 就不難發(fā)現(xiàn)他在搖頭 一個人往往會 通過一個表情 來掩飾另一個表情 而這個表情會閃現(xiàn)出來 謀殺者通常會漏出傷感之色 你新的合資伙伴可能會跟你握手 慶祝 和你去吃飯 接著漏出一絲憤怒 我們不可能一夜之間成為表情專家 我下面教你們辨識一個非常危險的表情 這也很容易學會 那就是輕蔑的表情 假設兩個人勢均力敵地競爭 這是個比較正常的關系 但是憤怒一旦變成輕蔑 你就輸了 這與道德優(yōu)越感有關 正因如此 人們才很難改正這個行為 這樣的表情就是輕蔑 其標識就是 一邊的嘴角向上并往里收起 這是唯一一個不對稱的表情 不論對方是否在說謊 也并不總是謊言 只要看到對方輕蔑的表情 就應該往反方向思考 重新考慮這筆交易 說：“不用了。謝謝。我來可不是喝酒的。謝謝了。”

　　Science has surfaced many, many more indicators. We know, for example, we know liars will shift their blink rate, point their feet towards an exit. They will take barrier objects and put them between themselves and the person that is interviewing them. They'll alter their vocal tone, often making their vocal tone much lower. Now here's the deal. These behaviors are just behaviors. They're not proof of deception. They're red flags. We're human beings. We make deceptive flailing gestures all over the place all day long. They don't mean anything in and of themselves. But when you see clusters of them, that's your signal. Look, listen, probe, ask some hard questions, get out of that very comfortable mode of knowing, walk into curiosity mode, ask more questions, have a little dignity, treat the person you're talking to with rapport. Don't try to be like those folks on "Law & Order" and those other TV shows that pummel their subjects into submission. Don't be too aggressive, it doesn't work.

　　科學發(fā)現(xiàn)了 更多的指示標 比如說 騙子會改變他們眨眼的頻率 他們的腳會對著出口 他們會拿某樣東西 擋在質詢者和自己之間 他們會改變說話的音調 通常是把音調壓低許多 請注意 這些行為都只是行為而已 并不是謊言的證明 它們起到的是警示的作用 我們都是人 我們整天都在做掩蓋謊言的動作 這些動作本身沒有任何意義 但是如果看到一連串這樣的動作 你就要警覺了 你要觀察 傾聽 質問 問一些難的問題 從心安理得的狀態(tài)走出來 進入好奇模式 多問問題 提高點自尊 并尊重對方 盡量不要像“法律與秩序”一類

　　Now we've talked a little bit about how to talk to someone who's lying and how to spot a lie. And as I promised, we're now going to look at what the truth looks like. But I'm going to show you two videos, two mothers -- one is lying, one is telling the truth. And these were surfaced by researcher David Matsumoto in California. And I think they're an excellent example of what the truth looks like.

　　美劇里的那群人那樣 對嫌疑人強行逼供 不要太咄咄逼人 這是行不通的

　　This mother, Diane Downs, shot her kids at close range, drove them to the hospital while they bled all over the car, claimed a scraggy-haired stranger did it. And you'll see when you see the video, she can't even pretend to be an agonizing mother. What you want to look for here is an incredible discrepancy between horrific events that she describes and her very, very cool demeanor. And if you look closely, you'll see duping delight throughout this video.

　　我們談論了 如何與一個說謊的人說話 如何辨別一個謊言 剛才說過 我們將看到真實的表情是什幺樣的 但我將播放兩段視頻 兩位母親 一位在說謊 一位在說實話 兩段視頻都是由 加利福尼亞的研究者David Matsumoto研究發(fā)現(xiàn)的 我覺得這兩個視頻非常好地 說明了什幺才是事實

　　(Video) Diane Downs: At night when I close my eyes, I can see Christie reaching her hand out to me while I'm driving, and the blood just kept coming out of her mouth. And that -- maybe it'll fade too with time -- but I don't think so. That bothers me the most.

　　PM: Now I'm going to show you a video of an actual grieving mother, Erin Runnion, confronting her daughter's murderer and torturer in court. Here you're going to see no false emotion, just the authentic expression of a mother's agony.

　　這位母親 黛安·當絲 用槍近距離射中自己的孩子 接著開車將他們送往醫(yī)院 他們在車上血流不止 她謊稱這是一個頭發(fā)蓬亂的陌生人干的 在視頻中你會看到 她假裝悲傷都裝不出來 請你們注意 她所講述的駭人故事 與她極為冷靜的舉止 這兩者間的強烈對比 如果你仔細看 你會看到她在視頻中流露出欺騙的喜悅

　　(Video) Erin Runnion: I wrote this statement on the third anniversary of the night you took my baby, and you hurt her, and you crushed her, you terrified her until her heart stopped. And she fought, and I know she fought you. But I know she looked at you with those amazing brown eyes, and you still wanted to kill her. And I don't understand it, and I never will.

　　(視頻)黛安·當絲：每當晚上我閉上雙眼 我可以看見 克里斯蒂向我伸出手 我一邊開著車 血不停地從她口里冒出來 也許時間久了我就會淡忘 但是 我覺得不可能 這讓我寢食難安

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

　　現(xiàn)在我給你們看另一個視頻 這是一位真正悲傷的母親 艾琳·蘭尼恩 這是她在法庭上與虐殺自己女兒的兇手對質的情形 你完全看不到任何虛假的情緒 這是一位心痛欲絕的母親真實的哭斥

　　Now the technology around what the truth looks like is progressing on, the science of it. We know for example that we now have specialized eye trackers and infrared brain scans, MRI's that can decode the signals that our bodies send out when we're trying to be deceptive. And these technologies are going to be marketed to all of us as panaceas for deceit, and they will prove incredibly useful some day. But you've got to ask yourself in the meantime: Who do you want on your side of the meeting, someone who's trained in getting to the truth or some guy who's going to drag a 400-pound electroencephalogram through the door?

　　Liespotters rely on human tools. They know, as someone once said, "Character's who you are in the dark." And what's kind of interesting is that today we have so little darkness. Our world is lit up 24 hours a day. It's transparent with blogs and social networks broadcasting the buzz of a whole new generation of people that have made a choice to live their lives in public. It's a much more noisy world. So one challenge we have is to remember, oversharing, that's not honesty. Our manic tweeting and texting can blind us to the fact that the subtleties of human decency -- character integrity -- that's still what matters, that's always what's going to matter. So in this much noisier world, it might make sense for us to be just a little bit more explicit about our moral code.

　　(視頻)艾琳·蘭尼恩：在你帶走我寶貝的三年后的同一天 我寫下了這段話 你傷害了她 把她打得體無完膚 害她驚恐萬狀 直到她心臟停止了跳動 她反抗了 我知道她反抗了 我也知道她用她那雙 美麗的棕色眼睛看著你 而你還是對她痛下殺手 我不能理解 永遠都不能理解

　　When you combine the science of recognizing deception with the art of looking, listening, you exempt yourself from collaborating in a lie. You start up that path of being just a little bit more explicit, because you signal to everyone around you, you say, "Hey, my world, our world, it's going to be an honest one. My world is going to be one where truth is strengthened and falsehood is recognized and marginalized." And when you do that, the ground around you starts to shift just a little bit.

　　帕米拉：好了 毫無疑問 這些情緒都是真的

　　And that's the truth. Thank you.

　　現(xiàn)在的測謊技術 正在日新月異地發(fā)展 比如說 我們有專門的眼球追蹤儀 紅外線腦部掃描 還有能夠破解我們說謊時 身體發(fā)射信號的核磁共振成像技術 這些技術得到廣泛推廣 成了測謊的保障 有朝一日 這些技術會發(fā)揮意想不到的作用 但與此同時 你們必須捫心自問 在開會時 你希望來的是一位訓練有素的測謊專家呢 還是看著一個拖著重達400磅腦電圖儀的家伙 從門外走進來

　　(Applause)

　　識謊者依賴的是人性的工具 有人曾說 他們知道 “人格就是黑暗中的人類本性” 有意思的是 如今我們的黑暗太少了 我們的世界全天24個小時都是亮堂堂的 博客和社交網(wǎng)站 把新一代人的聲音廣播出去 這代人選擇活在公眾的目光之下 世界都是透明的了 世界現(xiàn)在更加嘈雜 因此我們必須 記住一點 過度分享不等于誠實 瘋狂地發(fā)微博 發(fā)短信 會讓我們忽視一個事實 即人類的道德正義 仍然很重要 無論是現(xiàn)在還是將來 在這樣一個嘈雜的世界里 我們對道德準則 稍微較真兒一點 還是有道理的

　　當你把觀察和傾聽的藝術 與識謊的科學結合起來 你就不會上當受騙 你可以 從表明自己懂得識謊做起 因為你在對周圍所有人發(fā)出信號 你在說：“ 哎，我的世界，我們的世界， 會是一個誠實的世界。 在我的世界中，真相得到捍衛(wèi)， 虛假被識破并消滅。” 這幺做 能讓你腳下的世界一點一點地發(fā)生改變