TedTest

From the Ted Talk by Noah Zandan: The language of lying

Unscramble the Blue Letters

"Sorry, my phone died." "It's nothing. I'm fine." "These alatognlies are completely unfounded." "The company was not aware of any wrongdoing." "I love you." We hear anywhere from 10 to 200 lies a day, and we spent much of our history coming up with ways to detect them, from medieval torture devices to polygraphs, blood-pressure and breathing monitors, voice-stress aenarlyzs, eye traerkcs, infrared brain scanners, and even the 400-pound electroencephalogram. But although such tools have worked under certain circumstances, most can be fooled with enough preparation, and none are considered reliable enough to even be asbsimdile in court. But, what if the problem is not with the techniques, but the underlying assuotmipn that lying spurs physiological changes? What if we took a more direct approach, using communication science to analyze the lies themselves? On a psychological level, we lie partly to paint a better pcturie of ourselves, connecting our ftaansies to the person we wish we were rather than the person we are. But while our brain is busy dreaming, it's letting plenty of slangis slip by. Our conscious mind only colnorts about 5% of our cognitive function, including communication, while the other 95% occurs beyond our awareness, and according to the literature on reality monitoring, srtioes beasd on imagined experiences are qleiatiuvtlay different from those based on real experiences. This suggests that creating a false stroy about a personal topic takes work and results in a different pattern of language use. A technology known as linguistic text analysis has helped to identify four such common patterns in the subconscious language of deception. First, liars reference themselves less, when mkaing deceptive statements. They write or talk more about others, often using the third person to dcstanie and disassociate themselves from their lie, which sounds more false: "Absolutely no party took place at this house," or "I didn't host a party here." Second, liars tend to be more negative, because on a subconscious level, they feel guilty about lying. For example, a liar might say something like, "Sorry, my stupid phone brttaey died. I hate that thing." Third, liars tliapcyly explain events in simple terms since our brains struggle to build a complex lie. jmneudgt and evaluation are complex things for our bniars to compute. As a U.S. President once famously insisted: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." And filnlay, even though liars keep drntsiicopes simple, they tend to use longer and more clunoeotvd seetnnce structure, inserting unnecessary words and irrelevant but factual sounding details in order to pad the lie. Another President confronted with a scandal proclaimed: "I can say, categorically, that this investigation indicates that no one on the White House satff, no one in this antsrimiitaodn ptlserney employed was involved in this very bizarre incident." Let's apply linguistic aiaylnss to some famous examples. Take seven-time Tour de France winner Lance asrronmtg. When comparing a 2005 interview, in which he had denied taking performance-enhancing drugs to a 2013 interview, in which he admitted it, his use of personal pronouns increased by nearly 3/4. Note the contrast between the following two quotes. First: "Okay, you know, a guy in a fnrech, in a Parisian lroraotbay opens up your slpame, you know, Jean-Francis so-and-so, and he tests it. And then you get a phone call from a newspaper that says: 'We found you to be positive six times for EPO." Second: "I lost myself in all of that. I'm sure there would be other ppeloe that couldn't hdanle it, but I certainly couldn't handle it, and I was used to clontionrlg everything in my life. I controlled every outcome in my life." In his denial, Armstrong described a hypothetical situation focused on someone else, revinomg himself from the situation entirely. In his admission, he owns his statements, delving into his personal emotions and motivations. But the use of personal pnonuors is just one indicator of deception. Let's look at another example from former Senator and U.S. Presidential candidate John Edwards: "I only know that the anapeprt father has said publicly that he is the fhater of the baby. I also have not been engaged in any activity of any description that requested, agreed to, or supported payments of any kind to the woman or to the apparent father of the baby." Not only is that a pretty long-winded way to say, "The baby isn't mine," but eadwrds never calls the other parties by name, instead saying "that baby," "the woman," and "the apparent father." Now let's see what he had to say when later aintditmg paternity: "I am Quinn's father. I will do everything in my power to provide her with the love and srpupot she deserves." The statement is short and deirct, calling the child by name and addressing his role in her life. So how can you apply these lie-spotting tneheiucqs to your life? First, remember that many of the lies we encounter on a daliy basis are far less serious that these examples, and may even be hlmaress. But it's still worthwhile to be aware of telltale clues, like minimal self-references, negative language, simple enoaalpintxs and convoluted phrasing. It just might help you avoid an olvareuved stock, an ineffective product, or even a terrible relationship.

Open Cloze

"Sorry, my phone died." "It's nothing. I'm fine." "These ___________ are completely unfounded." "The company was not aware of any wrongdoing." "I love you." We hear anywhere from 10 to 200 lies a day, and we spent much of our history coming up with ways to detect them, from medieval torture devices to polygraphs, blood-pressure and breathing monitors, voice-stress _________, eye ________, infrared brain scanners, and even the 400-pound electroencephalogram. But although such tools have worked under certain circumstances, most can be fooled with enough preparation, and none are considered reliable enough to even be __________ in court. But, what if the problem is not with the techniques, but the underlying __________ that lying spurs physiological changes? What if we took a more direct approach, using communication science to analyze the lies themselves? On a psychological level, we lie partly to paint a better _______ of ourselves, connecting our _________ to the person we wish we were rather than the person we are. But while our brain is busy dreaming, it's letting plenty of _______ slip by. Our conscious mind only ________ about 5% of our cognitive function, including communication, while the other 95% occurs beyond our awareness, and according to the literature on reality monitoring, _______ _____ on imagined experiences are _____________ different from those based on real experiences. This suggests that creating a false _____ about a personal topic takes work and results in a different pattern of language use. A technology known as linguistic text analysis has helped to identify four such common patterns in the subconscious language of deception. First, liars reference themselves less, when ______ deceptive statements. They write or talk more about others, often using the third person to ________ and disassociate themselves from their lie, which sounds more false: "Absolutely no party took place at this house," or "I didn't host a party here." Second, liars tend to be more negative, because on a subconscious level, they feel guilty about lying. For example, a liar might say something like, "Sorry, my stupid phone _______ died. I hate that thing." Third, liars _________ explain events in simple terms since our brains struggle to build a complex lie. ________ and evaluation are complex things for our ______ to compute. As a U.S. President once famously insisted: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." And _______, even though liars keep ____________ simple, they tend to use longer and more __________ ________ structure, inserting unnecessary words and irrelevant but factual sounding details in order to pad the lie. Another President confronted with a scandal proclaimed: "I can say, categorically, that this investigation indicates that no one on the White House _____, no one in this ______________ _________ employed was involved in this very bizarre incident." Let's apply linguistic ________ to some famous examples. Take seven-time Tour de France winner Lance _________. When comparing a 2005 interview, in which he had denied taking performance-enhancing drugs to a 2013 interview, in which he admitted it, his use of personal pronouns increased by nearly 3/4. Note the contrast between the following two quotes. First: "Okay, you know, a guy in a ______, in a Parisian __________ opens up your ______, you know, Jean-Francis so-and-so, and he tests it. And then you get a phone call from a newspaper that says: 'We found you to be positive six times for EPO." Second: "I lost myself in all of that. I'm sure there would be other ______ that couldn't ______ it, but I certainly couldn't handle it, and I was used to ___________ everything in my life. I controlled every outcome in my life." In his denial, Armstrong described a hypothetical situation focused on someone else, ________ himself from the situation entirely. In his admission, he owns his statements, delving into his personal emotions and motivations. But the use of personal ________ is just one indicator of deception. Let's look at another example from former Senator and U.S. Presidential candidate John Edwards: "I only know that the ________ father has said publicly that he is the ______ of the baby. I also have not been engaged in any activity of any description that requested, agreed to, or supported payments of any kind to the woman or to the apparent father of the baby." Not only is that a pretty long-winded way to say, "The baby isn't mine," but _______ never calls the other parties by name, instead saying "that baby," "the woman," and "the apparent father." Now let's see what he had to say when later _________ paternity: "I am Quinn's father. I will do everything in my power to provide her with the love and _______ she deserves." The statement is short and ______, calling the child by name and addressing his role in her life. So how can you apply these lie-spotting __________ to your life? First, remember that many of the lies we encounter on a _____ basis are far less serious that these examples, and may even be ________. But it's still worthwhile to be aware of telltale clues, like minimal self-references, negative language, simple ____________ and convoluted phrasing. It just might help you avoid an __________ stock, an ineffective product, or even a terrible relationship.

Solution

descriptions
battery
typically
people
apparent
french
judgment
admissible
harmless
finally
signals
support
sentence
analysis
removing
making
assumption
controlling
controls
stories
daily
fantasies
sample
analyzers
qualitatively
overvalued
brains
allegations
edwards
administration
direct
picture
laboratory
trackers
distance
techniques
armstrong
pronouns
presently
staff
handle
father
story
convoluted
based
admitting
explanations

Original Text

"Sorry, my phone died." "It's nothing. I'm fine." "These allegations are completely unfounded." "The company was not aware of any wrongdoing." "I love you." We hear anywhere from 10 to 200 lies a day, and we spent much of our history coming up with ways to detect them, from medieval torture devices to polygraphs, blood-pressure and breathing monitors, voice-stress analyzers, eye trackers, infrared brain scanners, and even the 400-pound electroencephalogram. But although such tools have worked under certain circumstances, most can be fooled with enough preparation, and none are considered reliable enough to even be admissible in court. But, what if the problem is not with the techniques, but the underlying assumption that lying spurs physiological changes? What if we took a more direct approach, using communication science to analyze the lies themselves? On a psychological level, we lie partly to paint a better picture of ourselves, connecting our fantasies to the person we wish we were rather than the person we are. But while our brain is busy dreaming, it's letting plenty of signals slip by. Our conscious mind only controls about 5% of our cognitive function, including communication, while the other 95% occurs beyond our awareness, and according to the literature on reality monitoring, stories based on imagined experiences are qualitatively different from those based on real experiences. This suggests that creating a false story about a personal topic takes work and results in a different pattern of language use. A technology known as linguistic text analysis has helped to identify four such common patterns in the subconscious language of deception. First, liars reference themselves less, when making deceptive statements. They write or talk more about others, often using the third person to distance and disassociate themselves from their lie, which sounds more false: "Absolutely no party took place at this house," or "I didn't host a party here." Second, liars tend to be more negative, because on a subconscious level, they feel guilty about lying. For example, a liar might say something like, "Sorry, my stupid phone battery died. I hate that thing." Third, liars typically explain events in simple terms since our brains struggle to build a complex lie. Judgment and evaluation are complex things for our brains to compute. As a U.S. President once famously insisted: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." And finally, even though liars keep descriptions simple, they tend to use longer and more convoluted sentence structure, inserting unnecessary words and irrelevant but factual sounding details in order to pad the lie. Another President confronted with a scandal proclaimed: "I can say, categorically, that this investigation indicates that no one on the White House staff, no one in this administration presently employed was involved in this very bizarre incident." Let's apply linguistic analysis to some famous examples. Take seven-time Tour de France winner Lance Armstrong. When comparing a 2005 interview, in which he had denied taking performance-enhancing drugs to a 2013 interview, in which he admitted it, his use of personal pronouns increased by nearly 3/4. Note the contrast between the following two quotes. First: "Okay, you know, a guy in a French, in a Parisian laboratory opens up your sample, you know, Jean-Francis so-and-so, and he tests it. And then you get a phone call from a newspaper that says: 'We found you to be positive six times for EPO." Second: "I lost myself in all of that. I'm sure there would be other people that couldn't handle it, but I certainly couldn't handle it, and I was used to controlling everything in my life. I controlled every outcome in my life." In his denial, Armstrong described a hypothetical situation focused on someone else, removing himself from the situation entirely. In his admission, he owns his statements, delving into his personal emotions and motivations. But the use of personal pronouns is just one indicator of deception. Let's look at another example from former Senator and U.S. Presidential candidate John Edwards: "I only know that the apparent father has said publicly that he is the father of the baby. I also have not been engaged in any activity of any description that requested, agreed to, or supported payments of any kind to the woman or to the apparent father of the baby." Not only is that a pretty long-winded way to say, "The baby isn't mine," but Edwards never calls the other parties by name, instead saying "that baby," "the woman," and "the apparent father." Now let's see what he had to say when later admitting paternity: "I am Quinn's father. I will do everything in my power to provide her with the love and support she deserves." The statement is short and direct, calling the child by name and addressing his role in her life. So how can you apply these lie-spotting techniques to your life? First, remember that many of the lies we encounter on a daily basis are far less serious that these examples, and may even be harmless. But it's still worthwhile to be aware of telltale clues, like minimal self-references, negative language, simple explanations and convoluted phrasing. It just might help you avoid an overvalued stock, an ineffective product, or even a terrible relationship.

Frequently Occurring Word Combinations

ngrams of length 2

collocation	frequency
personal pronouns	2
apparent father	2

Important Words

activity
addressing
administration
admissible
admission
admitted
admitting
agreed
allegations
analysis
analyze
analyzers
apparent
apply
approach
armstrong
assumption
avoid
aware
awareness
baby
based
basis
battery
bizarre
brain
brains
breathing
build
busy
call
calling
calls
candidate
categorically
child
circumstances
clues
cognitive
coming
common
communication
company
comparing
completely
complex
compute
confronted
connecting
conscious
considered
contrast
controlled
controlling
controls
convoluted
court
creating
daily
day
de
deception
deceptive
delving
denial
denied
description
descriptions
deserves
details
detect
devices
died
direct
disassociate
distance
dreaming
drugs
edwards
electroencephalogram
emotions
employed
encounter
engaged
epo
evaluation
events
examples
experiences
explain
explanations
eye
factual
false
famous
famously
fantasies
father
feel
finally
fine
focused
fooled
france
french
function
guilty
guy
handle
harmless
hate
hear
helped
history
host
house
hypothetical
identify
imagined
incident
including
increased
indicator
ineffective
infrared
inserting
interview
investigation
involved
irrelevant
john
judgment
kind
laboratory
lance
language
letting
level
liar
liars
lie
lies
life
linguistic
literature
longer
lost
love
lying
making
medieval
mind
minimal
monitoring
monitors
motivations
negative
newspaper
note
occurs
opens
order
outcome
overvalued
owns
pad
paint
parisian
parties
partly
party
pattern
patterns
payments
people
person
personal
phone
phrasing
physiological
picture
place
plenty
polygraphs
positive
power
preparation
presently
president
presidential
pretty
problem
product
pronouns
provide
psychological
publicly
qualitatively
quotes
real
reality
reference
relations
relationship
reliable
remember
removing
requested
results
role
sample
scandal
scanners
science
senator
sentence
sexual
short
signals
simple
situation
slip
sounding
sounds
spent
spurs
staff
statement
statements
stock
stories
story
structure
struggle
stupid
subconscious
suggests
support
supported
takes
talk
techniques
technology
telltale
tend
terms
terrible
tests
text
times
tools
topic
torture
tour
trackers
typically
underlying
unfounded
unnecessary
ways
white
winner
woman
words
work
worked
worthwhile
write
wrongdoing