时间:2019-02-23 作者:英语课 分类:英语语言学习


英语课
Let me tell you, it has been a fantastic month for deception 1. And I'm not even talking about the American presidential race. (Laughter) We have a high-profile journalist caught for plagiarism 2, a young superstar writer whose book involves so many made up quotes that they've pulled it from the shelves; a New York Times exposé on fake book reviews. It's been fantastic.
Now, of course, not all deception hits the news. Much of the deception is everyday. In fact, a lot of research shows that we all lie once or twice a day, as Dave suggested. So it's about 6:30 now, suggests that most of us should have lied. Let's take a look at Winnipeg. How many of you, in the last 24 hours -- think back -- have told a little fib, or a big one? How many have told a little lie out there?
All right, good. These are all the liars 3. Make sure you pay attention to them. (Laughter)
No, that looked good, it was about two thirds of you. The other third didn't lie, or perhaps forgot, or you're lying to me about your lying, which is very, very devious 4. (Laughter) This fits with a lot of the research, which suggests that lying is very pervasive 5. It's this pervasiveness 6, combined with the centrality to what it means to be a human, the fact that we can tell the truth or make something up, that has fascinated people throughout history. Here we have Diogenes with his lantern. Does anybody know what he was looking for? A single honest man, and he died without finding one back in Greece. And we have Confucius in the East who was really concerned with sincerity 7, not only that you walked the walk or talked the talk, but that you believed in what you were doing. You believed in your principles.
Now my first professional encounter with deception is a little bit later than these guys, a couple thousand years. I was a customs officer for Canada back in the mid-'90s. Yeah. I was defending Canada's borders. You may think that's a weapon right there. In fact, that's a stamp. I used a stamp to defend Canada's borders. (Laughter) Very Canadian of me. I learned a lot about deception while doing my duty here in customs, one of which was that most of what I thought I knew about deception was wrong, and I'll tell you about some of that tonight.
But even since just 1995, '96, the way we communicate has been completely transformed. We email, we text, we skype, we Facebook. It's insane. Almost every aspect of human communication's been changed, and of course that's had an impact on deception. Let me tell you a little bit about a couple of new deceptions 8 we've been tracking and documenting. They're called the Butler, the Sock Puppet and the Chinese Water Army. It sounds a little bit like a weird 9 book, but actually they're all new types of lies.
Let's start with the Butlers. Here's an example of one: "On my way." Anybody ever written, "On my way?" Then you've also lied. (Laughter) We're never on our way. We're thinking about going on our way. Here's another one: "Sorry I didn't respond to you earlier. My battery was dead." Your battery wasn't dead. You weren't in a dead zone. You just didn't want to respond to that person that time. Here's the last one: You're talking to somebody, and you say, "Sorry, got work, gotta go." But really, you're just bored. You want to talk to somebody else. Each of these is about a relationship, and this is a 24/7 connected world. Once you get my cell phone number, you can literally 10 be in touch with me 24 hours a day. And so these lies are being used by people to create a buffer 11, like the butler used to do, between us and the connections to everybody else. But they're very special. They use ambiguity 12 that comes from using technology. You don't know where I am or what I'm doing or who I'm with. And they're aimed at protecting the relationships. These aren't just people being jerks. These are people that are saying, look, I don't want to talk to you now, or I didn't want to talk to you then, but I still care about you. Our relationship is still important.
Now, the Sock Puppet, on the other hand, is a totally different animal. The sock puppet isn't about ambiguity, per se. It's about identity. Let me give you a very recent example, as in, like, last week. Here's R.J. Ellory, best-seller author in Britain. Here's one of his bestselling books. Here's a reviewer online, on Amazon. My favorite, by Nicodemus Jones, is, "Whatever else it might do, it will touch your soul." And of course, you might suspect that Nicodemus Jones is R.J. Ellory. He wrote very, very positive reviews about himself. Surprise, surprise.
Now this Sock Puppet stuff isn't actually that new. Walt Whitman also did this back in the day, before there was Internet technology. Sock Puppet becomes interesting when we get to scale, which is the domain 13 of the Chinese Water Army. Chinese Water Army refers to thousands of people in China that are paid small amounts of money to produce content. It could be reviews. It could be propaganda. The government hires these people, companies hire them, all over the place. In North America, we call this Astroturfing, and Astroturfing is very common now. There's a lot of concerns about it. We see this especially with product reviews, book reviews, everything from hotels to whether that toaster is a good toaster or not.
Now, looking at these three reviews, or these three types of deception, you might think, wow, the Internet is really making us a deceptive 14 species, especially when you think about the Astroturfing, where we can see deception brought up to scale. But actually, what I've been finding is very different from that. Now, let's put aside the online anonymous 15 sex chatrooms, which I'm sure none of you have been in. I can assure you there's deception there. And let's put aside the Nigerian prince who's emailed you about getting the 43 million out of the country. (Laughter) Let's forget about that guy, too. Let's focus on the conversations between our friends and our family and our coworkers and our loved ones. Those are the conversations that really matter. What does technology do to deception with those folks?
Here's a couple of studies. One of the studies we do are called diary studies, in which we ask people to record all of their conversations and all of their lies for seven days, and what we can do then is calculate how many lies took place per conversation within a medium, and the finding that we get that surprises people the most is that email is the most honest of those three media. And it really throws people for a loop because we think, well, there's no nonverbal cues, so why don't you lie more? The phone, in contrast, the most lies. Again and again and again we see the phone is the device that people lie on the most, and perhaps because of the Butler Lie ambiguities 16 I was telling you about. This tends to be very different from what people expect.
What about résumés? We did a study in which we had people apply for a job, and they could apply for a job either with a traditional paper résumé, or on LinkedIn, which is a social networking site like Facebook, but for professionals -- involves the same information as a résumé. And what we found, to many people's surprise, was that those LinkedIn résumés were more honest on the things that mattered to employers, like your responsibilities or your skills at your previous job.
How about Facebook itself? You know, we always think that hey, there are these idealized versions, people are just showing the best things that happened in their lives. I've thought that many times. My friends, no way they can be that cool and have good of a life. Well, one study tested this by examining people's personalities 17. They had four good friends of a person judge their personality. Then they had strangers, many strangers, judge the person's personality just from Facebook, and what they found was those judgments 18 of the personality were pretty much identical, highly correlated, meaning that Facebook profiles really do reflect our actual personality.
All right, well, what about online dating? I mean, that's a pretty deceptive space. I'm sure you all have "friends" that have used online dating. (Laughter) And they would tell you about that guy that had no hair when he came, or the woman that didn't look at all like her photo. Well, we were really interested in it, and so what we did is we brought people, online daters, into the lab, and then we measured them. We got their height up against the wall, we put them on a scale, got their weight -- ladies loved that -- and then we actually got their driver's license 19 to get their age. And what we found was very, very interesting. Here's an example of the men and the height. Along the bottom is how tall they said they were in their profile. Along the y-axis 20, the vertical 21 axis, is how tall they actually were. That diagonal line is the truth line. If their dot's on it, they were telling exactly the truth. Now, as you see, most of the little dots are below the line. What it means is all the guys were lying about their height. In fact, they lied about their height about nine tenths of an inch, what we say in the lab as "strong rounding up." (Laughter) You get to 5'8" and one tenth, and boom! 5'9". But what's really important here is, look at all those dots. They are clustering pretty close to the truth. What we found was 80 percent of our participants did indeed lie on one of those dimensions, but they always lied by a little bit. One of the reasons is pretty simple. If you go to a date, a coffee date, and you're completely different than what you said, game over. Right? So people lied frequently, but they lied subtly, not too much. They were constrained 22.
Well, what explains all these studies? What explains the fact that despite our intuitions, mine included, a lot of online communication, technologically-mediated communication, is more honest than face to face? That really is strange. How do we explain this?
Well, to do that, one thing is we can look at the deception-detection literature. It's a very old literature by now, it's coming up on 50 years. It's been reviewed many times. There's been thousands of trials, hundreds of studies, and there's some really compelling findings.
The first is, we're really bad at detecting deception, really bad. Fifty-four percent accuracy on average when you have to tell if somebody that just said a statement is lying or not. That's really bad. Why is it so bad? Well it has to do with Pinocchio's nose. If I were to ask you guys, what do you rely on when you're looking at somebody and you want to find out if they're lying? What cue do you pay attention to? Most of you would say that one of the cues you look at is the eyes. The eyes are the window to the soul. And you're not alone. Around the world, almost every culture, one of the top cues is eyes. But the research over the last 50 years says there's actually no reliable cue to deception, which blew me away, and it's one of the hard lessons that I learned when I was customs officer. The eyes do not tell us whether somebody's lying or not. Some situations, yes -- high stakes, maybe their pupils dilate 23, their pitch goes up, their body movements change a little bit, but not all the time, not for everybody, it's not reliable. Strange. The other thing is that just because you can't see me doesn't mean I'm going to lie. It's common sense, but one important finding is that we lie for a reason. We lie to protect ourselves or for our own gain or for somebody else's gain. So there are some pathological liars, but they make up a tiny portion of the population. We lie for a reason. Just because people can't see us doesn't mean we're going to necessarily lie.
But I think there's actually something much more interesting and fundamental going on here. The next big thing for me, the next big idea, we can find by going way back in history to the origins of language. Most linguists 24 agree that we started speaking somewhere between 50,000 and 100,000 years ago. That's a long time ago. A lot of humans have lived since then. We've been talking, I guess, about fires and caves and saber-toothed tigers. I don't know what they talked about, but they were doing a lot of talking, and like I said, there's a lot of humans evolving speaking, about 100 billion people in fact. What's important though is that writing only emerged about 5,000 years ago. So what that means is that all the people before there was any writing, every word that they ever said, every utterance 25 disappeared. No trace. Evanescent. Gone. So we've been evolving to talk in a way in which there is no record. In fact, even the next big change to writing was only 500 years ago now, with the printing press, which is very recent in our past, and literacy rates remained incredibly low right up until World War II, so even the people of the last two millennia 26, most of the words they ever said -- poof! -- disappeared.
Let's turn to now, the networked age. How many of you have recorded something today? Anybody do any writing today? Did anybody write a word? It looks like almost every single person here recorded something. In this room, right now, we've probably recorded more than almost all of human pre-ancient history. That is crazy. We're entering this amazing period of flux 27 in human evolution where we've evolved to speak in a way in which our words disappear, but we're in an environment where we're recording 28 everything. In fact, I think in the very near future, it's not just what we write that will be recorded, everything we do will be recorded. What does that mean? What's the next big idea from that? Well, as a social scientist, this is the most amazing thing I have ever even dreamed of. Now, I can look at all those words that used to, for millennia, disappear. I can look at lies that before were said and then gone. You remember those Astroturfing reviews that we were talking about before? Well, when they write a fake review, they have to post it somewhere, and it's left behind for us.
So one thing that we did, and I'll give you an example of looking at the language, is we paid people to write some fake reviews. One of these reviews is fake. The person never was at the James Hotel. The other review is real. The person stayed there. Now, your task now is to decide which review is fake? I'll give you a moment to read through them. But I want everybody to raise their hand at some point. Remember, I study deception. I can tell if you don't raise your hand. All right, how many of you believe that A is the fake? All right. Very good. About half. And how many of you think that B is? All right. Slightly more for B. Excellent. Here's the answer. B is a fake. Well done second group. You dominated the first group. (Laughter) You're actually a little bit unusual. Every time we demonstrate this, it's usually about a 50-50 split, which fits with the research, 54 percent. Maybe people here in Winnipeg are more suspicious and better at figuring it out. Those cold, hard winters, I love it.
All right, so why do I care about this? Well, what I can do now with my colleagues in computer science is we can create computer algorithms that can analyze 29 the linguistic 30 traces of deception. Let me highlight a couple of things here in the fake review. The first is that liars tend to think about narrative 31. They make up a story: Who? And what happened? And that's what happened here. Our fake reviewers talked about who they were with and what they were doing. They also used the first person singular, I, way more than the people that actually stayed there. They were inserting themselves into the hotel review, kind of trying to convince you they were there. In contrast, the people that wrote the reviews that were actually there, their bodies actually entered the physical space, they talked a lot more about spatial 32 information. They said how big the bathroom was, or they said, you know, here's how far shopping is from the hotel.
Now, you guys did pretty well. Most people perform at chance at this task. Our computer algorithm is very accurate, much more accurate than humans can be, and it's not going to be accurate all the time. This isn't a deception-detection machine to tell if your girlfriend's lying to you on text messaging. We believe that every lie now, every type of lie -- fake hotel reviews, fake shoe reviews, your girlfriend cheating on you with text messaging -- those are all different lies. They're going to have different patterns of language. But because everything's recorded now, we can look at all of those kinds of lies.
Now, as I said, as a social scientist, this is wonderful. It's transformational. We're going to be able to learn so much more about human thought and expression, about everything from love to attitudes, because everything is being recorded now, but what does it mean for the average citizen? What does it mean for us in our lives? Well, let's forget deception for a bit. One of the big ideas, I believe, is that we're leaving these huge traces behind. My outbox for email is massive, and I never look at it. I write all the time, but I never look at my record, at my trace. And I think we're going to see a lot more of that, where we can reflect on who we are by looking at what we wrote, what we said, what we did.
Now, if we bring it back to deception, there's a couple of take-away things here. First, lying online can be very dangerous, right? Not only are you leaving a record for yourself on your machine, but you're leaving a record on the person that you were lying to, and you're also leaving them around for me to analyze with some computer algorithms. So by all means, go ahead and do that, that's good. But when it comes to lying and what we want to do with our lives, I think we can go back to Diogenes and Confucius. And they were less concerned about whether to lie or not to lie, and more concerned about being true to the self, and I think this is really important. Now, when you are about to say or do something, we can think, do I want this to be part of my legacy 33, part of my personal record? Because in the digital age we live in now, in the networked age, we are all leaving a record. Thank you so much for your time, and good luck with your record. (Applause)

n.欺骗,欺诈;骗局,诡计
  • He admitted conspiring to obtain property by deception.他承认曾与人合谋骗取财产。
  • He was jailed for two years for fraud and deception.他因为诈骗和欺诈入狱服刑两年。
n.剽窃,抄袭
  • Teachers in America fight to control cheating and plagiarism.美国老师们努力对付欺骗和剽窃的问题。
  • Now he's in real trouble.He's accused of plagiarism.现在他是真遇到麻烦了。他被指控剽窃。
说谎者( liar的名词复数 )
  • The greatest liars talk most of themselves. 最爱自吹自擂的人是最大的说谎者。
  • Honest boys despise lies and liars. 诚实的孩子鄙视谎言和说谎者。
adj.不坦率的,狡猾的;迂回的,曲折的
  • Susan is a devious person and we can't depend on her.苏姗是个狡猾的人,我们不能依赖她。
  • He is a man who achieves success by devious means.他这个人通过不正当手段获取成功。
adj.普遍的;遍布的,(到处)弥漫的;渗透性的
  • It is the most pervasive compound on earth.它是地球上最普遍的化合物。
  • The adverse health effects of car exhaust are pervasive and difficult to measure.汽车尾气对人类健康所构成的有害影响是普遍的,并且难以估算。
n.无处不在,遍布
  • The consistency and pervasiveness of this effect is startling, perhaps even disconcerting. 外表的这种作用始终存在、影响甚广,这实在令人惊讶,甚至烦恼不安。 来自互联网
  • A major cause of this pervasiveness is the structural difference between application logic and security logic. 这种普遍性的主要因素是应用逻辑和安全逻辑之间的结构差。 来自互联网
n.真诚,诚意;真实
  • His sincerity added much more authority to the story.他的真诚更增加了故事的说服力。
  • He tried hard to satisfy me of his sincerity.他竭力让我了解他的诚意。
欺骗( deception的名词复数 ); 骗术,诡计
  • Nobody saw through Mary's deceptions. 无人看透玛丽的诡计。
  • There was for him only one trustworthy road through deceptions and mirages. 对他来说只有一条可靠的路能避开幻想和错觉。
adj.古怪的,离奇的;怪诞的,神秘而可怕的
  • From his weird behaviour,he seems a bit of an oddity.从他不寻常的行为看来,他好像有点怪。
  • His weird clothes really gas me.他的怪衣裳简直笑死人。
adv.照字面意义,逐字地;确实
  • He translated the passage literally.他逐字逐句地翻译这段文字。
  • Sometimes she would not sit down till she was literally faint.有时候,她不走到真正要昏厥了,决不肯坐下来。
n.起缓冲作用的人(或物),缓冲器;vt.缓冲
  • A little money can be a useful buffer in time of need.在急需时,很少一点钱就能解燃眉之急。
  • Romantic love will buffer you against life's hardships.浪漫的爱会减轻生活的艰辛。
n.模棱两可;意义不明确
  • The telegram was misunderstood because of its ambiguity.由于电文意义不明确而造成了误解。
  • Her answer was above all ambiguity.她的回答毫不含糊。
n.(活动等)领域,范围;领地,势力范围
  • This information should be in the public domain.这一消息应该为公众所知。
  • This question comes into the domain of philosophy.这一问题属于哲学范畴。
adj.骗人的,造成假象的,靠不住的
  • His appearance was deceptive.他的外表带有欺骗性。
  • The storyline is deceptively simple.故事情节看似简单,其实不然。
adj.无名的;匿名的;无特色的
  • Sending anonymous letters is a cowardly act.寄匿名信是懦夫的行为。
  • The author wishes to remain anonymous.作者希望姓名不公开。
n.歧义( ambiguity的名词复数 );意义不明确;模棱两可的意思;模棱两可的话
  • His reply was full of ambiguities. 他的答复非常暧昧。 来自《现代汉英综合大词典》
  • Fortunately, no ambiguities hang about this word or about its opposite, indeterminism. 值得庆幸的是,关于这个词和它的反义词,非决定论都不存在多种解释。 来自哲学部分
n. 诽谤,(对某人容貌、性格等所进行的)人身攻击; 人身攻击;人格, 个性, 名人( personality的名词复数 )
  • There seemed to be a degree of personalities in her remarks.她话里有些人身攻击的成分。
  • Personalities are not in good taste in general conversation.在一般的谈话中诽谤他人是不高尚的。
判断( judgment的名词复数 ); 鉴定; 评价; 审判
  • A peculiar austerity marked his judgments of modern life. 他对现代生活的批评带着一种特殊的苛刻。
  • He is swift with his judgments. 他判断迅速。
n.执照,许可证,特许;v.许可,特许
  • The foreign guest has a license on the person.这个外国客人随身携带执照。
  • The driver was arrested for having false license plates on his car.司机由于使用假车牌而被捕。
n.轴,轴线,中心线;坐标轴,基准线
  • The earth's axis is the line between the North and South Poles.地轴是南北极之间的线。
  • The axis of a circle is its diameter.圆的轴线是其直径。
adj.垂直的,顶点的,纵向的;n.垂直物,垂直的位置
  • The northern side of the mountain is almost vertical.这座山的北坡几乎是垂直的。
  • Vertical air motions are not measured by this system.垂直气流的运动不用这种系统来测量。
adj.束缚的,节制的
  • The evidence was so compelling that he felt constrained to accept it. 证据是那样的令人折服,他觉得不得不接受。
  • I feel constrained to write and ask for your forgiveness. 我不得不写信请你原谅。
vt.使膨胀,使扩大
  • At night,the pupils dilate to allow in more light.到了晚上,瞳孔就会扩大以接收更多光线。
  • Exercise dilates blood vessels on the surface of the brain.运动会使大脑表层的血管扩张。
n.通晓数国语言的人( linguist的名词复数 );语言学家
  • The linguists went to study tribal languages in the field. 语言学家们去实地研究部落语言了。 来自辞典例句
  • The linguists' main interest has been to analyze and describe languages. 语言学家的主要兴趣一直在于分析并描述语言。 来自辞典例句
n.用言语表达,话语,言语
  • This utterance of his was greeted with bursts of uproarious laughter.他的讲话引起阵阵哄然大笑。
  • My voice cleaves to my throat,and sob chokes my utterance.我的噪子哽咽,泣不成声。
n.一千年,千禧年
  • For two millennia, exogamy was a major transgression for Jews. 两千年来,异族通婚一直是犹太人的一大禁忌。
  • In the course of millennia, the dinosaurs died out. 在几千年的时间里,恐龙逐渐死绝了。
n.流动;不断的改变
  • The market is in a constant state of flux.市场行情在不断变化。
  • In most reactors,there is a significant flux of fast neutrons.在大部分反应堆中都有一定强度的快中子流。
n.录音,记录
  • How long will the recording of the song take?录下这首歌得花多少时间?
  • I want to play you a recording of the rehearsal.我想给你放一下彩排的录像。
vt.分析,解析 (=analyse)
  • We should analyze the cause and effect of this event.我们应该分析这场事变的因果。
  • The teacher tried to analyze the cause of our failure.老师设法分析我们失败的原因。
adj.语言的,语言学的
  • She is pursuing her linguistic researches.她在从事语言学的研究。
  • The ability to write is a supreme test of linguistic competence.写作能力是对语言能力的最高形式的测试。
n.叙述,故事;adj.叙事的,故事体的
  • He was a writer of great narrative power.他是一位颇有记述能力的作家。
  • Neither author was very strong on narrative.两个作者都不是很善于讲故事。
adj.空间的,占据空间的
  • This part of brain judges the spatial relationship between objects.大脑的这部分判断物体间的空间关系。
  • They said that time is the feeling of spatial displacement.他们说时间是空间位移的感觉。
n.遗产,遗赠;先人(或过去)留下的东西
  • They are the most precious cultural legacy our forefathers left.它们是我们祖先留下来的最宝贵的文化遗产。
  • He thinks the legacy is a gift from the Gods.他认为这笔遗产是天赐之物。
学英语单词
a catch
additional stresses abutment
age-based maintenance
as grown crystal
Astronomical Society of Australia
attedit
automatogen
averaged light measuring
body-piercings
bonville
calixarenes
capping the t
catch title
chinese society
clipper-clapper
countryfying
creative team
dairy-woman
date of large corrections
Denige's reagent
dichloronitroethane
duyker
edge rail
El Berrón
electric welded short link chain
electroencephalophone
empirical survival function
English proof agar
enman
expenditure encumbrance
eyewashing
Fahrenholz rule
faulty dental
finite free module
flatcompositron
fore-brain
gun car
harlock
immersional wetting
incised leaf
intermenstraal fever
interzooecial
IRS deadline
keitol
kokoretsi
light-bulb
liquid flow
mainline section
malocas
matriees
medianoche
meteorological element series
misknowledges
modified control limits
Mokhtārān
mollenkott
mowatts
Muang Ham
ni hao
non-weather-protected location
nonwives
Norlelobanidrine
normal tax rate
Ore Bay
overload recovery
partial pressure vacuum gauge
phonon-phonon collision
pigeoning
pollymite
polydiene rubber
proteidogenous
prune off
Punnett square method
receiver operating characteristic curve
relessors
rent-collector
restraint of marriage
ring hollow
rochambeaux
rouquet
run of river turbine
screw pair
sinisterness
skinmags
steady irrotational flow
Striatran
supersquare
tectonite
terminating network
the freedom of
thiocol
thrash something out
tongue joint with lug
traditional-styles
traffic utilization
transcription repression
tumuluses
unguiltiness
uniformly bounded above
video track straightness
Wehlerian