【最受欢迎TED演讲No.16】别对我撒谎

每一天，都有人对我们说10次到200次谎。判断人是否在说谎的线索可能是细微而难以察觉的。《识破谎言》的作者帕米拉·梅尔讲述了测谎专家所使用的手法和“热点表情”，并提出诚实可贵的观点。

英文演讲稿

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.

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?"

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.

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."

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.

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.

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. If you're unmarried, that number drops to three.

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. (Laughter)

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.

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 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.

(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. (Applause)

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 that 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. (Laughter)

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

(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.

PM: Okay, those head shakes are much easier to spot once you know to look for them. There are 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."

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.

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.

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.

(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.

(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.

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

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.

And that's the truth. Thank you. (Applause)

中文翻译：

我不想吓唬你们 但是我发现 坐在你右边的那个人是个骗子 （众人笑） 坐在你左边的人也是个骗子 坐在你位置上的那个人还是个骗子 我们都是骗子 今天我要讲的一项研究 我们为什么是骗子 如何识别谎言 以及为什么要大费周折 从识别谎言走向寻求真相 最终走到信任的建立

说到信任 自从我写了《识破谎言》之后 谁都不愿意再和我面对面打交道了 没门 大家都说："没关系，我们会给你发邮件的。" （众人笑） 我甚至约不到人去星巴克喝咖啡 我先生说：“亲爱的，测谎？你还是把心思花在烹饪上吧。学做法国菜，怎么样？”

切入主题之前 我先澄清一下 我演讲的目的不是叫你们玩测谎游戏 测谎者并不是专门挑刺的孩子 那些孩子站在屋子后方大喊：“发现了！你的眉毛动了。你的鼻孔动了。我看电视剧 “别对我撒谎”，我知道你在说谎。” 不 测谎者 以识破谎言的科学知识来武装自己 找出真相 他们像成熟的领导人那样工作 与难以打交道的人进行艰难的对话 有时候还碰上世态不济的时候 他们踏上了这条道路 怀着一项核心要点 那就是 说谎是一项协作行动 谎言本身 没有丝毫力量 而当人将谎言信以为真 谎言的力量就产生了

忠言逆耳 但是 如果你被骗了 那只能怪你相信了谎言 关于说谎的第一条事实：说谎是一项协作行动 并不是所有谎话都有害 有时 为了保住社会尊严 我们愿意说谎 有些秘密还是不要道破为好 我们说：“这首歌真好听。” “亲爱的，你穿这件不显胖，一点也不。” 我们还说 "我才从垃圾邮件里看到那封邮件。真不好意思。”

而有时候 我们不愿意参与说谎 而这时 我们可能会遭受重大损失 去年仅美国就因公司犯罪 损失了9970亿美元 这个数字差一点就到一万亿美元了 占了总收入的7% 欺诈可以造成数十亿美元的损失 想想安然 麦道夫 次贷危机 还有像罗伯特·汉森和阿尔德里奇·埃姆斯等 双面特工或叛徒 谎言能够出卖我们的国家 能够削弱安全保障 能够破坏民主制度 能够夺走国家卫士的生命

欺骗是一个棘手的问题。这个骗子亨利·奥伯兰德 他是个高明的骗子 英国高官说 他有能力破坏整个西方世界的银行体系 你在谷歌上根本搜不到这个人 哪里都找不到 他接受过一次采访 说了下面这些话 “ 我有一条守则。” 这就是亨利的守则 他说 “每个人都愿意给你某样东西。只要是为了得到他们渴望的东西，他们就心甘情愿地拿东西来交换。” 难就难在这里 如果不想被骗 你就必须知道 你渴望什么 我们都不愿承认 我们希望自己能成为更好的丈夫 更好的妻子 变得更聪明 更有权力 更高 更富有 诸如此类 欺骗是人们试图在现实与愿望之间架起桥梁 把我们理想中的自己与理想中的生活 种种心愿和幻想 与现实中的自己联系起来 天啊 难道我们要用谎言来填补现实与幻想之间的差距吗

研究表明 在每一天 你被欺骗的次数 从10次到200次不等 的确 这其中有许多是善意的谎言 而另一项研究显示 陌生人见面后的前十分钟内 说谎的次数为三次 （众人笑） 头一次听到这个数据 我们不免心寒 我们不敢相信人们说谎竟如此频繁 我们本质上与说谎对立 但如果你细看 情况可没那么简单 我们对陌生人说谎的次数比对同事说谎的次数要多 外向的人比内向的人说谎次数多 男性关于自己的谎言比关于别人的谎言 多出了八倍 女性说谎往往是为了保护他人 如果你们是一对普通夫妻 那么你对自己的配偶 每交流10次就有一次在说谎 你可能觉得这很不好 如果你未婚 那么每交流3次就有一次在说谎

说谎这事挺复杂的 这跟我们的日常生活与工作交织在一起 我们对真相总是拿捏不准 我们在需要的时候才来分析它 有时候是情理之中的 而有时候则是因为我们不理解生活中现实与理想的差距 这是关于说谎的第二条真相 我们反对说谎 但背地里赞同说谎 我们的社会对种种这些做法 包容了好几百年 其历史源远流长 是我们文化和历史的一部分 想想看但丁 莎士比亚 圣经 世界新闻报（众人笑）

说谎在人类进化上有着重要价值 研究者早就知道 物种的智慧越高 大脑皮层越大 这个物种就更可能欺骗 你们可能还记得可可 有人还记得那只学会手语的大猩猩可可吗 可可学会如何用手语进行交流 这是可可和她的小猫 这就是她毛茸茸的可爱小猫咪 可可有一次责备她的小猫 怪它把洗手池从墙上剥下来 （众人笑） 我们天生就喜欢做领导 这从很早很早就开始了 多早 婴儿就会假哭 停一下 看看谁走过来 接着哭 一岁的孩子就学会隐瞒事实了 （众人笑） 两岁的孩子就会吓唬人了 五岁的孩子撒谎都可以不打草稿了 他们通过巴结来达到目的 九岁的孩子是掩盖真相的高手 到你上大学的时候 你与你母亲的每交流五次中就有一次是在说谎 到我们工作了 挣钱养家了 我们便进入了 一个充满了垃圾邮件 虚假身份的网友 政党媒体 身份盗用 世界级的庞氏骗局 一个谎言的流行病 用一位作家的话简单地说 这是一个后真相社会 长时间以来 这一直在混淆视听

怎么办呢 有几个步骤 可以指导我们走出迷雾 受过识谎训练的人能认识到90%的真相 而普通人只有54%的正确率 为什么人能轻易学会识破谎言呢 骗子有高明的 也有蹩脚的 但没有绝对与众不同的骗子 我们都会犯同样的错误 采用同样的技巧 我下面 向你们展示两种欺骗的模式 我们将看到一些破绽 看看我们能不能把它们找出来 我们先看看演讲

（视频）克林顿总统：我想要你们听我说 我再次重申 我与那个女人 莱温斯基小姐 没有发生过性关系 我从未指示任何人说谎 从来也没有 这些指控都是莫须有的 我必须回去为美国人民工作了 谢谢你们

好 破绽是哪些呢 首先 我们听到一个正式的否定形式 研究表明 人们在过度强调否认时 喜欢使用较为正式的语言 我们还听到 “那个女人” 这种遥指性的措辞 我们知道 骗子们会不经意地 疏远话中的主语 借用语言来达此目的 如果克林顿说的是：“哎，实话告诉你吧...” 或者用到尼克松总统的口头禅：“实话跟你说...” 他立马就会 在识谎者面前露出马脚 因为识谎者知道这种被称为修饰语的话 更能暴露谎言 如果他完整地将问题重复一遍 或者他暴露过多细节 幸好他没这么做 那他的话就更不可信了 弗洛伊德说对了 弗洛伊德说：瞧，话中确实有话 “没有人能保守住秘密。他的嘴闭上了，他的指尖却在说谎。” 我们都是这样 不管你有多厉害 我们的指尖都会把我们出卖 我下面给你们看多米尼克·斯特劳斯-卡恩与奥巴马 奥巴马的指尖就出卖了他自己（众人笑）

这引出了下一个模式 那就是肢体语言 讲到肢体语言 我们必须 把之前的假设统统抛到脑后 让科学给你长点知识 我们以为骗子总是坐立不安 但事实是 他们在说谎时上半身一动也不动 我们以为骗子不敢直视你的双眼 而事实是 他们知道人们会这么想 反而会过久地盯着你的眼睛看 我们以为寒暄和微笑 传达的是真诚 但是一个训练有素的识谎者 能够大老远就认出一个假笑 你们能看出哪个是假笑吗 你可以下意识地 收紧面部的肌肉 但是真正的微笑是发自眼睛的 从眼角的鱼尾纹就能看出 这些鱼尾纹是挤不出来的 如果你打了太多肉毒杆菌素 那就更挤不出来了 别打太多肉毒杆菌素 没人会相信你是诚实的

下面我们来找破绽 你们能告诉我一个对话过程中都发生了什么吗 你可以找出破绽吗 能看出某人 言行上的不一致吗 这似乎很显然 但是当你与你怀疑的对象 进行对话时 你往往忽略了态度这个指示标

诚实的人会很合作 让你感觉他们站在你一边 会表现出热情 他们会乐意帮助你找出真相 他们会帮你找出思路 提出有嫌疑的人 提供细节 他们会说：“ 啊， 可能是管工资的那些家伙做了这些假支票。” 如果感到自己被诬告 他们在整个对话过程中都会非常气愤 而不只是短时间发火 他们的怒气会贯穿整个对话过程 当你问到一个诚实的人 应如何惩罚造假支票的人 这个诚实的人 更可能会建议严惩不贷而不是宽大处理

在看看你与一个不诚实的人进行同样的对话 会是什么情况 这个人可能会有些疏远 往下看 降低音量 几字一顿 话不连贯 让不诚实的说自己做过什么 他们在一些不着边际的地方 透露过多细节 他们接着会严格按照时间顺序陈述 一个受过训练的质询者 在几个小时的问询过程中 旁敲侧击 让那个人用倒叙的方式来陈述 然后观察他如何说谎 并记录嫌疑人在回答哪些问题时音量最大 嫌疑人为什么会这样 这其实是人之常情 我们会事先想好说什么 但很少事先想好做什么样的动作 我们说“是” 而我们却在摇头表示“否” 我们说的故事非常有说服力 但我们却轻轻地耸了耸肩 我们犯了严重的罪 而在侥幸逃脱时面露微笑 这种微笑被称为“欺骗的喜悦”

我们会在接下来的几个视频中看到 现在开始 可能有人不认识他 我先介绍一下 他是前总统候选人约翰·爱德华兹 他因育有一个私生子而震惊全美 我们将看到他谈论进行亲子鉴定的事 看看你们能否发现 他在说“是”的时候 他的头却在摇 肩膀在耸

（视频）约翰·爱德华兹：我很乐意去做鉴定 我知道这个孩子不可能是我的 因为时间不对 我知道这不可能是我的 我乐意进行亲子鉴定 也很想知道结果 记者：你会很快去做鉴定吗 有人... 约翰·爱德华兹：我只是鉴定的一方 但是我很乐意进行鉴定

帕米拉：好了 只要你注意看 就不难发现他在摇头 一个人往往会 通过一个表情 来掩饰另一个表情 而这个表情会闪现出来 谋杀者通常会漏出伤感之色 你新的合资伙伴可能会跟你握手 庆祝 和你去吃饭 接着漏出一丝愤怒 我们不可能一夜之间成为表情专家 我下面教你们辨识一个非常危险的表情 这也很容易学会 那就是轻蔑的表情 假设两个人势均力敌地竞争 这是个比较正常的关系 但是愤怒一旦变成轻蔑 你就输了 这与道德优越感有关 正因如此 人们才很难改正这个行为 这样的表情就是轻蔑 其标识就是 一边的嘴角向上并往里收起 这是唯一一个不对称的表情 不论对方是否在说谎 也并不总是谎言 只要看到对方轻蔑的表情 就应该往反方向思考 重新考虑这笔交易 说：“不用了。谢谢。我来可不是喝酒的。谢谢了。”

科学发现了 更多的指示标 比如说 骗子会改变他们眨眼的频率 他们的脚会对着出口 他们会拿某样东西 挡在质询者和自己之间 他们会改变说话的音调 通常是把音调压低许多 请注意 这些行为都只是行为而已 并不是谎言的证明 它们起到的是警示的作用 我们都是人 我们整天都在做掩盖谎言的动作 这些动作本身没有任何意义 但是如果看到一连串这样的动作 你就要警觉了 你要观察 倾听 质问 问一些难的问题 从心安理得的状态走出来 进入好奇模式 多问问题 提高点自尊 并尊重对方 尽量不要像“法律与秩序”一类美剧里的那群人那样 对嫌疑人强行逼供 不要太咄咄逼人 这是行不通的

我们谈论了 如何与一个说谎的人说话 如何辨别一个谎言 刚才说过 我们将看到真实的表情是什么样的 但我将播放两段视频 两位母亲 一位在说谎 一位在说实话 两段视频都是由 加利福尼亚的研究者David Matsumoto研究发现的 我觉得这两个视频非常好地 说明了什么才是事实

这位母亲 黛安·当丝 用枪近距离射中自己的孩子 接着开车将他们送往医院 他们在车上血流不止 她谎称这是一个头发蓬乱的陌生人干的 在视频中你会看到 她假装悲伤都装不出来 请你们注意 她所讲述的骇人故事 与她极为冷静的举止 这两者间的强烈对比 如果你仔细看 你会看到她在视频中流露出欺骗的喜悦

（视频）黛安·当丝：每当晚上我闭上双眼 我可以看见 克里斯蒂向我伸出手 我一边开着车 血不停地从她口里冒出来 也许时间久了我就会淡忘 但是 我觉得不可能 这让我寝食难安。

现在我给你们看另一个视频 这是一位真正悲伤的母亲 艾琳·兰尼恩 这是她在法庭上与虐杀自己女儿的凶手对质的情形 你完全看不到任何虚假的情绪 这是一位心痛欲绝的母亲真实的哭斥

（视频）艾琳·兰尼恩：在你带走我宝贝的三年后的同一天 我写下了这段话 你伤害了她 把她打得体无完肤 害她惊恐万状 直到她心脏停止了跳动 她反抗了 我知道她反抗了 我也知道她用她那双 美丽的棕色眼睛看着你 而你还是对她痛下杀手 我不能理解 永远都不能理解。

帕米拉：好了 毫无疑问 这些情绪都是真的

现在的测谎技术 正在日新月异地发展 比如说 我们有专门的眼球追踪仪 红外线脑部扫描 还有能够破解我们说谎时 身体发射信号的核磁共振成像技术 这些技术得到广泛推广 成了测谎的保障 有朝一日 这些技术会发挥意想不到的作用 但与此同时 你们必须扪心自问 在开会时 你希望来的是一位训练有素的测谎专家呢 还是看着一个拖着重达400磅脑电图仪的家伙 从门外走进来

识谎者依赖的是人性的工具 有人曾说 他们知道 “人格就是黑暗中的人类本性” 有意思的是 如今我们的黑暗太少了 我们的世界全天24个小时都是亮堂堂的 博客和社交网站 把新一代人的声音广播出去 这代人选择活在公众的目光之下 世界都是透明的了 世界现在更加嘈杂 因此我们必须 记住一点 过度分享不等于诚实 疯狂地发微博 发短信 会让我们忽视一个事实 即人类的道德正义 仍然很重要 无论是现在还是将来 在这样一个嘈杂的世界里 我们对道德准则 稍微较真儿一点 还是有道理的

当你把观察和倾听的艺术 与识谎的科学结合起来 你就不会上当受骗 你可以 从表明自己懂得识谎做起 因为你在对周围所有人发出信号 你在说：“ 哎，我的世界，我们的世界， 会是一个诚实的世界。在我的世界中，真相得到捍卫， 虚假被识破并消灭。” 这么做 能让你脚下的世界一点一点地发生改变

这可一点不假 感谢大家。（众人鼓掌）

长按识别二维码可关注该微信公众平台

经典回顾

Picnic

《小猪佩奇》第一季第15集