The language of lying — Noah Zandan

Summary

This script delves into the science of detecting lies, questioning traditional methods and proposing linguistic text analysis as a more reliable approach. It highlights four common subconscious language patterns of deception, such as reduced self-references, negativity, simplified explanations, and complex sentence structures. The script illustrates these points with examples from public figures like Lance Armstrong and John Edwards, showing how their language changed from denial to admission. It concludes by advising viewers on how to apply these techniques to discern lies in everyday life.

Takeaways

• 📵 People often use various techniques to detect lies, but most can be fooled with preparation and are not admissible in court.
• 🧐 The assumption that lying causes physiological changes might be flawed; a more direct approach through communication science could be more effective.
• 🤔 Lying is partly a psychological act to present a better version of oneself, which can lead to different patterns of language use.
• 📝 Linguistic text analysis has identified four common patterns in the subconscious language of deception.
• 🙅‍♂️ Liars tend to reference themselves less, often using the third person to distance themselves from their lies.
• 😞 Liars are often more negative, possibly due to subconscious guilt about lying.
• 🔍 Liars typically simplify explanations, as complex lies are difficult for the brain to construct.
• 📖 Liars may use longer, more complex sentence structures, with unnecessary details to make lies sound factual.
• 🚴 Lance Armstrong's language changed significantly when admitting to doping, with an increase in personal pronouns and personal responsibility.
• 🤷‍♂️ John Edwards' denial of paternity was characterized by indirect language and avoidance of personal pronouns, contrasting with his later admission.
• 🔑 To spot lies, be aware of minimal self-references, negative language, simple explanations, and convoluted phrasing in everyday life.

Q & A

What are some traditional methods used to detect lies?

Traditional methods to detect lies include medieval torture devices, polygraphs, blood-pressure and breathing monitors, voice-stress analyzers, eye trackers, infrared brain scanners, and electroencephalograms.

Why are traditional lie detection methods not considered reliable enough for court admissibility?

Traditional lie detection methods are not considered reliable enough for court admissibility because they can often be fooled with enough preparation and do not consistently provide accurate results.

What is the underlying assumption about lying that the script suggests might be flawed?

The script suggests that the underlying assumption that lying spurs physiological changes might be flawed, prompting a need for a more direct approach using communication science to analyze the lies themselves.

How does lying on a psychological level affect the way we communicate?

On a psychological level, lying is partly used to paint a better picture of ourselves, connecting our fantasies to the person we wish we were, rather than the person we are, which can lead to subconscious signals slipping by.

What is linguistic text analysis and how does it help in identifying deception?

Linguistic text analysis is a technology that helps identify common patterns in the subconscious language of deception, such as reduced self-references, negative language, simple explanations, and convoluted sentence structures.

What are the four common patterns of deception identified by linguistic text analysis?

The four common patterns identified are: 1) liars reference themselves less, 2) liars tend to be more negative, 3) liars typically explain events in simple terms, and 4) liars use longer and more convoluted sentence structures.

How did Lance Armstrong's use of personal pronouns change between his denial and admission of using performance-enhancing drugs?

Lance Armstrong's use of personal pronouns increased by nearly 3/4 between his denial and admission of using performance-enhancing drugs, indicating a shift from distancing himself to owning his statements.

What is an example of how John Edwards' language changed when admitting paternity compared to his initial denial?

In his initial denial, John Edwards used long-winded language and avoided calling the other parties by name, while in his admission, he used a short and direct statement, calling the child by name and addressing his role in her life.

What are some practical applications of linguistic analysis in everyday life?

Practical applications of linguistic analysis in everyday life include identifying deceptive language in various situations, such as avoiding overvalued stocks, ineffective products, or even recognizing deception in relationships.

How can one apply the lie-spotting techniques discussed in the script to their own life?

One can apply lie-spotting techniques by being aware of telltale clues such as minimal self-references, negative language, simple explanations, and convoluted phrasing to help identify deception in various contexts.

Outlines

00:00

🕵️‍♂️ Detecting Deception Through Linguistic Analysis

This paragraph explores the challenges of detecting lies throughout history, from medieval torture to modern technology like polygraphs and brain scanners. It questions the assumption that lying causes physiological changes and suggests a shift towards analyzing the lies themselves using communication science. The psychological aspect of lying is discussed, highlighting how our subconscious mind can inadvertently reveal the truth. The paragraph introduces linguistic text analysis as a method to identify patterns of deception in language, such as reduced self-reference, negativity, oversimplified explanations, and complex sentence structures. Examples from political figures and athletes illustrate these patterns.

05:02

🔍 Applying Linguistic Analysis to Spot Lies in Daily Life

The second paragraph emphasizes the practical application of linguistic analysis in everyday situations, where lies may not be as significant as in high-profile cases but still warrant attention. It advises being alert to signs of deception, such as minimal self-references, negative language, simple explanations, and convoluted phrasing. The paragraph suggests that recognizing these cues can help individuals avoid pitfalls like overvalued stocks, ineffective products, or unsuitable relationships, thus providing a valuable tool for navigating interpersonal and professional interactions.

Keywords

💡Lies

Lies are false statements made with the intention to deceive. In the context of the video, lies are the central theme, as it discusses the frequency of lies in daily life and the various methods historically used to detect them. The script mentions that we hear 'anywhere from 10 to 200 lies a day,' highlighting the prevalence of dishonesty.

💡Physiological changes

Physiological changes refer to alterations in the body's normal functioning, often in response to stimuli or stress. The video suggests that traditional lie detection methods focus on these changes, such as increased heart rate or blood pressure. However, it questions the reliability of this approach, implying that the problem might lie in the assumption that lying always triggers such changes.

💡Communication science

Communication science is the study of how people exchange information and the effects of that exchange. The video proposes using communication science to analyze lies directly, rather than focusing on physiological responses. It suggests that understanding the language patterns of liars can provide more reliable indicators of deception.

💡Subconscious

The subconscious mind refers to the part of the mind that operates below the level of conscious awareness. The script explains that about 95% of our cognitive function occurs subconsciously, and this is where the language patterns indicative of lying often originate. It is the source of the 'signals' that slip by while our conscious mind is preoccupied.

💡Linguistic text analysis

Linguistic text analysis is a method used to identify patterns in written or spoken language. The video describes how this technology has helped to uncover common patterns in the language of deception, such as the use of fewer personal pronouns and more negative language, which are indicative of lying.

💡Personal pronouns

Personal pronouns are words used to refer to oneself or others (e.g., 'I', 'you', 'he', 'she'). The video points out that liars tend to use fewer personal pronouns when making deceptive statements, often distancing themselves from the lie by using the third person.

💡Negative language

Negative language involves the use of words or phrases that convey a negative sentiment or emotion. According to the video, liars often use more negative language, which may be a subconscious reflection of their guilt about lying, as exemplified by the phrase 'Sorry, my stupid phone battery died.'

💡Simple explanations

Simple explanations are straightforward accounts of events or situations without unnecessary complexity. The video suggests that liars tend to provide simple explanations because constructing a complex lie is cognitively challenging, as demonstrated by the example of a U.S. President's statement about 'not having sexual relations with that woman.'

💡Convoluted phrasing

Convoluted phrasing refers to the use of unnecessarily complicated sentence structures. The video explains that while liars keep their descriptions simple, they often use convoluted phrasing to make their lies sound more factual, as shown in the example of another President's statement regarding an investigation.

💡Reality monitoring

Reality monitoring is a psychological process that involves distinguishing between memories of real events and imagined events. The script mentions that stories based on imagined experiences are qualitatively different from those based on real experiences, suggesting that creating a false story requires effort and results in a different pattern of language use.

💡Deception indicators

Deception indicators are cues or signals that suggest someone may be lying. The video outlines several such indicators, including minimal self-references, negative language, simple explanations, and convoluted phrasing, advising viewers to be aware of these in their daily interactions to potentially avoid deception.

Highlights

We hear anywhere from 10 to 200 lies a day, and have spent much of our history coming up with ways to detect them.

Most lie-detecting tools can be fooled with enough preparation and are not considered reliable enough to be admissible in court.

The problem may not be with the techniques, but the underlying assumption that lying spurs physiological changes.

A more direct approach is suggested using communication science to analyze the lies themselves.

Lying is partly a psychological act to paint a better picture of ourselves.

Our conscious mind only controls about 5% of our cognitive function, with the other 95% occurring beyond our awareness.

Stories based on imagined experiences are qualitatively different from those based on real experiences.

Creating a false story about a personal topic takes work and results in a different pattern of language use.

Linguistic text analysis has helped identify four common patterns in the subconscious language of deception.

Liars reference themselves less when making deceptive statements, often using the third person to distance themselves from their lie.

Liars tend to be more negative on a subconscious level due to feelings of guilt about lying.

Liars typically explain events in simple terms as our brains struggle to build a complex lie.

Liars keep descriptions simple but tend to use longer and more convoluted sentence structures to pad the lie.

Applying linguistic analysis to famous examples like Lance Armstrong reveals changes in the use of personal pronouns when admitting guilt.

In denial, Armstrong described a hypothetical situation focused on someone else, removing himself from the situation entirely.

In admission, Armstrong owns his statements, delving into his personal emotions and motivations.

The use of personal pronouns is just one indicator of deception.

Another example from John Edwards shows a shift in language when admitting paternity, using the child's name and addressing his role.

Many of the lies we encounter daily are far less serious and may even be harmless, but being aware of telltale clues can be beneficial.

Telltale clues include minimal self-references, negative language, simple explanations, and convoluted phrasing.

Transcripts

"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.