沃顿商学院全套笔记-三十-
沃顿商学院全套笔记（三十）
沃顿商学院《实现个人和职业成功（成功、沟通能力、影响力）｜Achieving Personal and Professional Success》中英字幕 - P37：9_建立信任-脆弱性.zh_en - GPT中英字幕课程资源 - BV1VH4y1J7Zk
We often think that once we trust somebody， we can become vulnerable， but it turns out。
that becoming vulnerable is one key ingredient for actually building trust。
And I'll start off with an example of somebody that wasn't trusted and whose trust was hard。
to build。 Her Elizabeth Patrakis just days before her wedding was asked to sign a prenuptial agreement。
and her husband had a large real estate holding， and she was guaranteed in this prenuptial。
agreement $25，000 a year for every year they were married。 Now in her words。
this prenuptial agreement was a thorn in her side， and this is one。
of the things that led to her divorce。 So here prenuptials demonstrate low trust。
and that represents a lack of vulnerability， and that's an impediment to building trust。
It turns out we can actually make ourselves more vulnerable， and when we do that we can。
actually end up building trust。 And one way that we can do this is through pratfalls。
By doing things like spilling coffee or spilling pens， we make mistakes that make us seem warmer。
more approachable。 Now we have to balance that with competence。 So here's a question。
Who do you trust more？ Someone who spills coffee or someone who doesn't spill coffee？
Now we might think， hey， why would I trust somebody who's demonstrated lower competence？
And it turns out that by spilling coffee we demonstrate a humanity， a humility， a vulnerability。
that can make us more likable。 And in fact， this is exactly the study that was done a couple of decades ago with students。
preparing for a quiz bowl competition。 And here's the important twist。
It turns out the person who's demonstrated high competence， who gets these questions， right。
and then spills coffee， is the most liked。 If you're not very competent。
then spilling coffee doesn't really help。 Now it turns out this exact problem is the one that psychiatrists face。
In a very short period of time， they need to walk into a room and gain the trust of someone。
to spill their innermost secrets。 Now to spill those innermost secrets。
it turns out it helps if they spill coffee or spill their， pens or tell a bad joke at the beginning。
And this demonstration of warmth is exactly what people are trying to do， whether it's。
Obama getting a dog， Ron Klein talking about his son， or the rest of us making some mistake。
or disclosure。 Now vulnerability is not just about sharing failures。
but it can also be done doing things， like off-key singing as we might do in karaoke or drinking with people making ourselves more。
vulnerable to others。 Now I'll talk about drinking in a much more serious context。
And here we're going to take us to the Bosnia War， where Milosevic was in the midst of a。
war and the US worked very hard to try to negotiate a peace。
Now here they pulled the lead people out to Dayton， Ohio， and Milosevic faced off one。
of the great negotiators of all time， Richard Holbrooke。
So Holbrooke negotiated and they spent weeks negotiating and it was late into the night。
they were drinking scotch and in fact they drank so much scotch as they were looking。
through maps they ended up naming one of the corridors scotch road as they partitioned the。
former Yugoslavia。
Now they announced that here we found our road scotch road and it soon the morning they。
announced a deal。
It turns out this alcohol， this vulnerability helped them bridge that gap gain trust to。
reach a deal but there's a downside。 Milosevic here wasn't thinking through the full range of consequences and shortly after。
this he ends up getting pulled to the Hague and prosecuted for warm crimes。
So when we think about building trust， vulnerability is actually really important。
By making mistakes like spilling coffee or spilling pens we demonstrate that vulnerability。
but we can do it by self-disclosure or admitting failures but there's a risk that when we demonstrate。
vulnerability we could like Milosevic not think through all the different consequences we should。
be thinking about or you want to think about making sure you don't demonstrate vulnerability。
or self-disclosure in a way that harms your credibility。
So a psychiatrist can spill pens and say I've never been very good with my hands but a surgeon。
can't。 [BLANK_AUDIO]。
沃顿商学院《实现个人和职业成功（成功、沟通能力、影响力）｜Achieving Personal and Professional Success》中英字幕 - P38：10_建立信任-和谐、温暖、平等.zh_en - GPT中英字幕课程资源 - BV1VH4y1J7Zk
I next want to think about three other key issues that help us build trust。
Repur， warmth， and equality。 Now remember back to homicide detective Marshall Frank。
Now Marshall Frank faced this challenge。
He was trying to get Paul Roles to confess to murder。
Now Paul Roles certainly knew if you confess to murder you're going to prison for a long。
time for sure。 And yet detective Marshall Frank figured out how to get a confession within 30 minutes。
How did he do that？ Well it turns out that the key to what he did was building rapport。
And he built rapport through a lot of different steps and some of them seemed kind of funny。
He essentially treated this， this murderer as if he were a friend。 He sat in close to him。
In fact sat in so close their legs were almost touching。 He leaned in when he talked to them。
He spent most of those 30 minutes not talking about the murder or the victim but talking。
about family life in general。 Detective Frank talks about I made friends with him。
That is he's making friends。 He's talking about things that friends would talk about。
So we're thinking about this is non-task communication。
That is rather than getting right down to business he's chit chatting about things as。
if they were friends and that allowed him to build this rapport， to build a sense of friendship。
that created a sense of trust that then led to roles revealing all of this information。
So acting in a cooperative way in a way that Detective Frank was hoping for。
Now in general how do we do this？ Well we build rapport by this non-task communication。
So rather than getting right down to business we should talk with people about local events。
They're not their family， their friends， hobbies， recent sporting events。
We do things that aren't about the task at hand but that help build rapport that make。
it much easier when we do get to the task at hand。
We could also do things like share meals together。
We could actually go to events together like sporting events together when we do things。
together that allows us to build this sense of rapport and that really facilitates trust。
Now let me tell you about another story。 This was about an election。
It happened in Florida's 22nd District and it was Ron Klein， a neophyte to the political， scene。
He was taking on Clay Shaw a 13 time incumbent。 Now in this election Ron Klein knew his stuff。
He was a policy wonk。 He knew the ins and outs and he was ready for Congress。
But Clay Shaw was a formidable opponent。 After all he had won over a dozen elections before。
He was ready to take on all challengers but Ron Klein was persistent。
It turns out though Ron Klein had a challenge。 He was perceived as competent but cold。
We think about these perceptions of people。 We often think about them in terms of their competence and how warm they are。
Here Ron Klein when he talked about policy seemed competent but he wasn't warm。
He wasn't connecting with voters。 Now he brought in these consultants and he figured out how to overcome this key challenge。
How can he sound articulate but also warm？ So people saw him as a luff。
He actually did a practice TV interview with these consultants。
He went through the entire practice interview。 At the end the consultant said， "Okay。
I want you to watch this interview that you just， gave and tell me what would you do differently。"。
He said， "Well， there's actually another point that I would have raised。
There's some other material I could have brought in here。"， And Colin said， "Look。
I want you to watch it again and I want you to see that in this， whole interview you never smiled。"。
Now it seems funny why would we want somebody who's an expert in policy to smile but it。
turns out if you're running for political office people need a connection they need to， trust you。
And so they figured out is that what Klein really lit up with was when he talked about， his son。
When we talked about his family and they said， "Look， when you go out on your political。
stump speeches start off talking about your family， start off talking about your son。
and then pivot to talking about the key issues in policy。"。
And it turns out as he did that he was able to connect with voters。
He demonstrated warmth as well as competence and he was more likable and trusted。
So we need to do things sometimes that are different from just demonstrating pure competence。
to instill trust。 In fact， I think about this as a presidential imperative where we think about every president。
since Eisenhower， since the advent of television every US president as they've moved into the。
Oval Office bring with them a dog。 And this imperative is so strong it's true even for President Obama who had never had。
a dog。 And for good reason one of his daughters， Malia， is allergic to dogs。
And yet when they move into the White House， the Obama's went out and bought a dog。
a hypoallergenic， dog， but they needed a dog。 And so you think about how important it is， you know。
why would you need a dog？ And the key idea here is it projects warmth。
If you've won a national election， you've demonstrated some competence， it's hard to， do。
And then a key challenge is projecting warmth。 And when you see a president， a high power person。
you presume competence and then you're， looking for that warmth and having a dog does that。
So you want to do things like spending time with family， sharing stories， personal stories。
hanging around with a dog。 Those are things that project a sense of warmth and they end up building trust。
So Klein talked about a son， presidents end up getting dogs。
Now it's this non-tax communication that's really important。
We have experiences that we share in common， like going to sporting events or sharing meals。
together， using first names correctly。 Those are things that will build rapport。
If we come up with nicknames or we have shared hobbies， we find commonalities， those are。
things that are going to build rapport。 And that's really an essential ingredient for building trust。
So that's the rapport idea。 And it's related to warmth。
The idea that we can demonstrate warmth when we demonstrate concern for other people， we。
demonstrate kindness， we spend time with our friends， our family， with pets or volunteering。
We're demonstrating concern for other people and that concern projects a sense of warmth。
and that's a really key component。 There's an affective peace。
an emotional peace to trust and we want somebody who's going， to be warm。
Now one final point related to this is this idea of equality。 Now when we show up on time。
we're demonstrating that our time isn't more valuable than somebody， else's time。
That's communicating a sense of equality as well as this idea of benevolence and warmth。
We want to be equal so we don't sit on a higher chair。 We don't accentuate differences between us。
We can do things like dress in similar ways。 We convey a sense of equality and that's also important for building trust。
We're more likely to trust people who seem to not only care about us but also treat us。
as equal partners。 So taking together here are three key elements。 Building rapport。
demonstrating warmth and demonstrating a sense of equality， they're all。
key ingredients for building trust。 [BLANK_AUDIO]。
沃顿商学院《实现个人和职业成功（成功、沟通能力、影响力）｜Achieving Personal and Professional Success》中英字幕 - P39：11_建立信任-相互依存、共同目标、共同敌人.zh_en - GPT中英字幕课程资源 - BV1VH4y1J7Zk
Common goals play a profound influence in building trust。
Part of this comes from interdependence。 When we rely on each other， we end up building trust。
Now there's something interesting that Tatchfeld found in the 1970s where just even nominal。
groups in these experiments assign people to a blue group or a red group and just calling。
them red or blue cause people to favor their group trusting their group members more than。
they trusted our group members。 Here's what's profound。 If we do this with nominal groups。
that is you've only been part of the red group for。
five minutes and doesn't have any particular meaning， you could imagine what it means when。
we think about things in terms of a tribe， a religion or a country。
That is the groups that were in profoundly influence how we treat both the in-group and。
the people outside of our group。 Some great work that Tae Cohen has done looked at loyalty within groups and from the more。
loyal we are to our group members， the more we're accepting of warfare and violence against， others。
So there's something profound about how we think about and how we identify what is our。
group and what is somebody else's group。 Now one thing that can influence how we think about our group membership are common enemies。
And when we have common goals they bind us together and there's nothing quite as profound。
as a common enemy in doing that。 We saw after 9/11 Pakistan and the United States grow far closer。
There's that hadn't been well aligned before， began to coordinate incredibly closely on。
security issues afterwards。 And it's not just these two countries。
you think about Russia and France after attacks， in the Middle East。
how they changed their dynamics。 And we see this in modern politics but the same has been true for a long period of time。
in the past。 So we saw for example the formation of the United States was profoundly influenced by。
this sense of group where initially in the French Indian War the British were fighting。
against the French and the British used the colonists to fight against the French。
This is the first time the colonists had actually acted together and in concert and the British。
ended up training all the colonists including somebody named George Washington。
And here the George Washington actually fought against the French。
The dynamics completely changed just a couple years later when it was in the American Revolutionary。
War George Washington again used the colonists as a collective， that group of colonists， they're。
fighting against the British and who helped them。 Well the French jumped right in because the French were so eager to now fight the British。
So we see these shifting sands of competition where we think about the groups and these shifting。
alliances between groups and one of the profound ideas here is that common enemies can help。
us find superordinate goals and these superordinate goals are what drive us together。
So we can think about competing with some other outside competitor， some other outside enemy。
or if we think about something that we need to tackle together like solving a problem for。
our organization or solving an environmental issue together those superordinate goals turn。
out to be incredibly important in helping us build trust。
In summary I want to think about the building blocks for trust and so across this module。
we've thought about warmth and competence， we want to demonstrate high warmth and high。
competence but we also want to think about vulnerability if we've demonstrated competence。
vulnerability can help us demonstrate warmth。 The communication process is very important and we can have trust in institutions that can。
in some cases substitute for trust in individuals。
So for example we might trust a contract we signed if we don't trust the person as much。
And reputations have helped us solve a lot of our key problems we used to think about。
gossip as a tool for building reputations but now we think of online reputations being。
incredibly important。 And then the common goals we have bond us together and help us build trust。
[BLANK_AUDIO]。
沃顿商学院《实现个人和职业成功（成功、沟通能力、影响力）｜Achieving Personal and Professional Success》中英字幕 - P4：3_为什么我要教授本课程.zh_en - GPT中英字幕课程资源 - BV1VH4y1J7Zk
I teach this course because in my own life I found， especially in my education， that。
there wasn't really a single place I could go to learn about how to think about success。
Success is a huge， potent word in our culture。 Everybody wants more of it。
But nobody's really quite sure what it means。 And most of the time when everything's going great。
you don't even think about it。 You're cruising along and getting things done and enjoying whatever you're doing。
And then something happens。 You come to the end of a natural course in your life。
whether it's the end of a school， section or the end of a company that you might be working for or the end of a period of your。
life。 Your spouse moves， something happens and you're disrupted。
And very often that's when people sort of fall back and they don't have the resources。
to think carefully， systematically， thoughtfully about what they really ought to do next to。
bring their life to a more fulfilling place。 So that's why I created the course。
I think different insights come to different people at different times。
I ask my students to write a final paper every year that's just their thoughts about what。
their personal views on success are and how they intend to achieve them。
But I tell them that the chances are pretty good that if they wrote the same paper 10， years later。
they would probably write a different paper。 They would have different ideas about who they are at that stage and what they ought。
to do next， different experiences to build on， different relationships with people that。
have inspired them and given them role models that they didn't have before。
So this is not a course that's going to give you the answers as much as it's going to give。
you a way for thinking about the question so that you can find your answers。
And of course the question is the big one。 What do I mean by the word success？ Great。
So I'll look forward to seeing you again in a moment when we start our next session。 [BLANK_AUDIO]。
沃顿商学院《实现个人和职业成功（成功、沟通能力、影响力）｜Achieving Personal and Professional Success》中英字幕 - P40：12_建立信任-沟通与制度.zh_en - GPT中英字幕课程资源 - BV1VH4y1J7Zk
I actually want to think about communication and institutions as we build trust。
When it comes to communication， one of the key ideas is to make sure our words match， our deeds。
I'll tell you a story about 2008 when the three big American car manufacturers came， to Washington。
DC asking for federal loans。 They were asking for $25 billion in loans and it came out that all three of them。
the， three CEOs who came to DC， had all flown on separate corporate jets。
Now this is how they usually traveled。 It just seemed incongruous to say we desperately need money when they'd flown separately on。
their private jets。 And so the next time they came for their second trip。
they went in hybrid vehicles。 You want to think about how your words match your deeds to affect the most trust。
Another key idea about communication is you want to communicate as equals。
And by communicating as equals， what that means is that we show up on time。 That is。
we're not signaling that our time is more important than somebody else's。
And we can minimize other differences like in the seating， in the clothing and so on。
So language matters， not just in how we communicate， but the terms that we use。
There was a study that was done that Varda Lieberman did looking at the same economic。
incentives but calling it the community game versus the Wall Street game。
It turns out with the same incentives， people cooperated far more in the community game。
than they did in the Wall Street game。 And they call somebody a partner versus an opponent。
When you call an employee a team member versus an employee， you're triggering a different。
mindset and that mindset shifts the way we relate to each other。 It's not just in language。
I talked about deeds before。 And that's manifest in how we sit。
So when we're sitting together on the same side of the table， that seating， we're tackling。
a problem together communicates an idea that we're working together and that can help， build trust。
It's not just in communication or think about institutions。
So we can trust other people but we can also trust institutions like the court system。
And the way we trust the court system has profound consequences。
We often have this reverence for institutions but they're not universally shared throughout。
the world。 I want to tell you a story about Alton Logan and I've put up a picture here of Andrew Wilson。
to suggest that the two of them， you have to imagine 20 years earlier， they look pretty， similar。
It turns out there was a shooting in 1982 in Chicago to McDonald's。
It was a chaotic crime scene and there was eyewitness testimony and that testimony was。
enough to convict Alton Logan。 There was one problem。 Alton Logan wasn't even there。
He had nothing to do with that shooting。 It was Andrew Wilson。 Now making matters worse。
lawyers for Andrew Wilson representing him for another crime and， he does。
she committed other murders。 Andrew Wilson admitted to his attorneys that he had committed that murder in the McDonald's。
Meanwhile Alton Logan was convicted and remained in prison。
The lawyers begged Andrew Wilson to come clean。 He was after all already convicted of murder。
Wouldn't he confess to that crime too？ Alton Logan they knew was wrongfully imprisoned。 However。
there's a problem。 In the United States we have attorney client privilege。
The attorneys couldn't laterally disclose that information。 They would harm their client。
Information that was disclosed in secret。 This principle is important because to get the best representation we need to ensure。
that criminals or suspects can disclose information to their lawyers without the fear。
of having that being used against them。 That's an important principle and it turns out that principle guided the lawyers behavior。
They actually wrote an affidavit but they sealed it away。
They hid it away and Alton Logan was in prison for 26 years。
It was only after Andrew Wilson died in prison they came forward and disclosed that information。
and Alton Logan finally went free。 Here's the most amazing part about the story。
His aunt on receiving him said they did what they had to do。
Demonstrating an incredible reverence for this institution。
Now I want to think about institutions in other ways too and here's a funny institution。
It's the institution of gossip。 Here's a billboard that was put in front of a church that read "If your friends gossip。
to you， you know they also gossip about you。"。
Now we think that gossip gets a bad rap。 Gossip of course has some very negative characteristics but it does other things too。
It helps us communicate what the norms are， what expected behavior is。
It communicates information about reputations。 Now gossip isn't a great thing but it actually helps us police behavior in a more profound。
way than we typically acknowledge。 We've now begun to formalize that with rating systems。
So if I ask you this question， would you let a complete stranger sleep in your home？
And the answer turns out to be a resounding yes and we've solved that with rating systems。
and if you were to look at Airbnb's website they have a website devoted to trust throughout。
their materials they talk consistently about trust and they find that people are in fact。
incredibly trustworthy and their rating system makes a profound difference。
And the same is true of other key questions like would you let your kids drive in a car。
with someone you don't know and the answer here again is yes and Uber's figure this out。
again with rating systems that help us trust other people。
And this is true with eBay and other electronic commerce sites that have figured out that。
reputations can be effective in helping us solve the trust problem。
[BLANK_AUDIO]。
沃顿商学院《实现个人和职业成功（成功、沟通能力、影响力）｜Achieving Personal and Professional Success》中英字幕 - P41：13_传递信任的信号.zh_en - GPT中英字幕课程资源 - BV1VH4y1J7Zk
A key question we should often ask is， should we trust somebody's signal？
People often send us messages and we send other people messages。
Why don't we trust the messages people send us？ And how can we send messages that other people trust？
So the idea is that we have to convey unobservable information。 So information like。
how committed are you to this relationship？ Or how interested is this candidate in this career？
Or how intelligent is this candidate？ Or is this partner really sure that this product is going to succeed？
We're trying to make these judgments。 We're trying to trust other people。
And we often have to rely on signals of these unobservable characteristics。 So take， for example。
how committed somebody is to a relationship。 What can they do to signal their commitment？
Now often we think about things that have solved this problem like gifts。
So somebody brings a dozen red roses。 That's a signal of commitment。
You're signaling that I care about you， I care about this relationship。
Now what I want to do is I want to think carefully about signals。
And I think about signals along two key dimensions。 The key idea here is that it could be clear。
Signals can be very clear。 And they can also be powerful。
And by powerful what I mean is that this unobservable information is trying to be signaled。
in some way。 Is that way too expensive for some types of people？
And is it too relatively inexpensive for others？ So when I said I want to signal that I care about you with a dozen red roses。
that's， clear。 Everybody gets that idea。 But what about power？
Suppose that I don't really care about this relationship。 My aspirations perhaps are shorter term。
But I still afford to buy you a dozen red roses。 And the answer I want to suggest is that the answer is often yes。
That is sometimes these signals are not very expensive。 And when we're checking signals。
we want to think carefully in terms of power。 So here's some ideas。
To signal that we're committed to relationships， it's expensive gifts that can solve this problem。
So for example， we seem to have solved this problem too in relationships。 So roses are nice。
but jewelry is better。 And if we're really committed to a relationship。
we have just the thing that's a diamond ring。 And notice what's nice about this。
We're spending a lot of money and we have these rules of thumb for how much we should， spend。
The more money somebody makes， the more we should spend on that ring。
So that is it should hurt just enough。 It's expensive and costly。
but it should be more expensive and more costly the more resources， somebody has。
So expensive gifts can help us solve the problem of should we trust someone's intentions？
Are they really committed to this relationship？ And notice that it's the cost that really matters because we're spending money on characteristics。
of a diamond ring that are difficult to observe。 So how flawless the diamond ring is cut is difficult to assess with a naked eye without。
training， but we care about those things because of the cost。
Now we can think about how committed is this person to this career？
How interested are they in working in my firm？ If they're willing to take an unpaid internship or if they're willing to spend a summer during。
graduate school when they have few summers to spend， they're investing in that relationship。
that career in a way that's expensive if they weren't really committed。
Now notice that sometimes people prepare for an interview。
So they read five articles about the company。 They come prepared for the interview。
It's a clear signal of interest， but it's not a powerful signal。
Spending time interning is a powerful signal or we want to signal that we're intelligent。
How do we signal that？ Well， it turns out there's a costly and expensive signal for that and that's higher education。
So we invest in education and we do that in a way that signals that were intelligent。
If we weren't so intelligent， it would be difficult to invest， watch all these videos。
read all these books， take all these tests。 It's too expensive for some types of people and it's less expensive for others who can。
afford it and reap the benefits of sending that signal or how surely this product will， succeed。
Guarantees or warranties are things that help to send that signal。
Now the idea is that when we send a message， we should be focused on clarity。
Is this message sending the right information？ So you show up and you have a dozen lowways for somebody that might not be sending a very。
clear message。 We want to be thinking carefully about how clear is the message。
Is somebody receiving it going to get the idea？ And the second is towards power。
So when people send us messages， are they sending messages， these signals that are expensive？
One of my friends for example is working at a company on one of his work anniversaries。
He received a basket of flowers and with his basket of flowers was a note， we care about。
you and your commitments， this organization。 We really value what you do。 A week later he was fired。
Now could the company afford to send messages like the one in that flower basket？
And my answer is yeah， of course， they can afford to send that even if they don't really， mean it。
So sometimes we can send messages that aren't very powerful and as receivers we should be。
checking that power。 So in terms of guidelines， send signals that are clear。 In terms of receivers。
we should trust signals that are powerful and they can be powerful。
in terms of time as well as money。
So if somebody is limited in time， so a CEO has a limited number of lunch appointments。
spending a lunch with you or calling you on a Christmas day， there's a limited budget of， time。
We can think about the power in terms of both time and money。
But those are the two key key dimensions。 Clarity won't particularly when we send signals and power particularly when we receive signals。
[BLANK_AUDIO]。
沃顿商学院《实现个人和职业成功（成功、沟通能力、影响力）｜Achieving Personal and Professional Success》中英字幕 - P42：14_信任、情感和有限的反馈.zh_en - GPT中英字幕课程资源 - BV1VH4y1J7Zk
There are two additional topics I want to think of with respect to trust。
One is emotion and the second is feedback。 Now let me think about emotion。
Suppose I ask you how do you feel？ It turns out our feelings are pretty complicated。
Often when we're making judgments we use our feelings as a summary statistic that integrates。
a lot of different dimensions。 So if I were to ask you how do you feel about this candidate we're trying to integrate。
across a lot of different things。 How competent are they？ How much do we need their skill set？
Would they get along with the people here？ We're trying to integrate across a lot of different dimensions and we often summarize。
this with how do I feel about this。 Or think about going out and you look at 20 different homes and you try to figure out。
which home you want to buy。 How do you feel about this？ Again。
it's this summary statistic that integrates a lot of information and the trust decision is。
a lot like this。 Do I trust this person is often predicated on a feeling？
Do I feel like I can trust this person？ We talk that way and it's absolutely how we behave as well。
In my own research I've actually looked at the link between emotions and trust and one。
thing I found that's particularly interesting is how our feelings can influence our trust。
The idea here is that sometimes our feelings are really relevant so you betrayed me。
I'm upset and so I don't trust you。 It's a directed emotion that makes a lot of sense for influencing trust。
What's interesting is that our incidental emotions， emotions that are unrelated to the。
situation at hand also matter。 By incidental what I mean is suppose you get a parking ticket or suppose you get into。
an argument with your spouse and then you come into work and you deal with somebody who's。
totally unrelated to that other experience。 The question is does that emotion bleed into your new interaction？
And the answer is yes。 So how we feel in the moment is influenced not just by what's happening in this exact。
moment but it's also influenced by what's happened before。 And so these incidental emotions。
these unrelated emotions from some other experience can influence， our judgments。
So here's the idea。 If we're angry about something else and that bleeds into our judgment it'll make us less。
trusting。 If we're happy about something else， so we just found some great news unrelated to the。
meeting that I'm currently having that happiness can bleed in and boost my trust。
So I'm maybe too trusting when I'm otherwise very happy and I'm maybe not trusting enough。
when I'm a little bit angry from something else。 I've documented this in my own research and the implication is that we should be careful。
to recognize that our trust judgments can move。 They're relatively labile particularly for people we don't know well。
So a new partner or a prospective client， we're making these trust judgments on the fly。
It's a constructed judgment。 Our insulin emotions don't really matter very much for people you know well。
So how much you trust your mom isn't going to be influenced by how you're feeling unless。
you're feeling pretty strongly about something。 Now when it's not just our own judgments I'm worried about。
I also worry about how much other people are likely to trust us。
So when you go to the boss or you're meeting a new partner if they're upset about something。
else and it could be almost anything。 Their favorite sports team lost a political outcome and argument they have with their spouse。
If they're upset about something you should recognize that those feelings may well bleed。
into their assessments of you and you want to make sure that either you let time pass。
and come back at different time。 That's the first best option。
Well the second best option is to make sure they're making the correct attribution。
You might say oh I know you're pretty upset about that other outcome。
I'm hoping that doesn't influence this situation。 By explicitly acknowledging and recognizing something that does mitigate the influence。
of that incidental emotion on the current judgment。
Okay now those are judgments that can influence our trust but in whom should we place our trust。
and what do emotions have to say about that。 And here I'm going to switch to a very different kind of emotion and I'm going to talk about。
guilt。 It turns out that when we're assessing in whom to place our trust the people we should。
really trust are the guilt prone people。 And by guilt prone I mean people who are likely to feel guilty should they fall short。
Here's an example of how to assess that。 Imagine you ask someone and it could be a prospective employee。
You ask them something like the following。 Describe a time when you made a mistake at work。
How did you feel when this occurred？ What did you do？ What did you learn from this experience？
When you listen to those responses what you're listening to are answers to these questions。
So how likely is person to feel badly if they did something wrong even if nobody knew about， it。
Does this person have a strong sense of responsibility for others？
And will this person feel bad about letting others down？
Now those are all guilt-prone-ness questions。 So would they feel guilty if they did something bad even if nobody knew about it。
It turns out the guilt prone people are exactly the same people we should trust。
Those are the most trustworthy people around。 People who are low in guilt proneists we should be careful about。
People who are high in guilt proneists are people we should trust the most。
The last idea I want to suggest has to do with limited feedback。
When we're trusting other people we often face a challenge because we can't monitor them。
all the time。 Sometimes we can check in and see what they're doing。 Sometimes we can't。
And the key idea here is we want to think about how anticipated that monitoring is。
So can we observe occasions when they don't expect to be monitored？
Or is it the case that they always know when we're coming？
They always have time to prepare or they always know when they're going to be observed。
It turns out people act pretty strategically。 So they know that when they're being evaluated they step up and they behave in an exemplary。
way。 We also know when people know that they're not going to be observed when things aren't。
going to be important that they slack off。 Now again the high guilt prone people are going to be pretty good even in those cases。
But people who are low in guilt proneists are likely to behave very strategically demonstrating。
exemplar behavior when they're observed and then slacking off when they're not。
Now here's the problem。 When we observe behavior and I've run a number of studies looking at this。
when we observe， behavior the people who are observing others put too much weight in that observed period。
So it's like the boss who comes back from vacation and sees the office staff working really， hard。
Then goes back on vacation and then when they return again sees the office staff working。
really hard。 And the more observations the boss has the more and more convinced the boss becomes these。
are really hard workers。 That is they're relying solely on what they can see and they're failing to imagine what。
happens when they're not around。 So we want to be careful about making inferences from limited feedback when the feedback that。
we get is constrained and it's anticipated。 We want to make sure that we account for how strategic other people often act。
how particularly， often act and recognize that the limited observations we have can actually send us off。
in the wrong course we might actually build very high trust in sometimes very strategic， people。
[BLANK_AUDIO]。
沃顿商学院《实现个人和职业成功（成功、沟通能力、影响力）｜Achieving Personal and Professional Success》中英字幕 - P43：15_关于欺骗的基本真理.zh_en - GPT中英字幕课程资源 - BV1VH4y1J7Zk
There are some key fundamental truths about deception。
I'm going to start with a story about the Kuku Bird。
We might be familiar with the Kuku Bird mostly because of the Kuku Clock， but it turns out。
the Kuku Bird can teach us something really important about the deception process。 The Kuku Bird。
rather than laying its own eggs and feeding its own chicks， actually lays。
eggs in other birds' nests。 So birds like the tree pipette will actually be tricked into raising Kuku chicks。
There's something odd about this。 You can sometimes see Kuku Birds waiting。
watching another bird's nest， waiting for， that bird to leave to go get food。
The Kuku Bird will fly in， sometimes discard eggs that are already in the nest， quickly。
lay an egg and then fly away。 Now what happens after that， it's actually even more bizarre。
We've hijacked a system here， or the Kuku Bird is hijacked a system where as soon as。
that bird hatches， the Kuku Bird hatches， there's an open beak and here this bird mother。
instinctually feeds that open beak， even when the bird looks nothing like their own offspring。
So here you can see a Kuku Bird chick being fed by a tree pipette who's so much smaller。
than the chick。 So it can seem really odd and yet we're hijacking this trusting process and we've used deception。
in a way that allows Kuku Birds to exploit other birds' generosity。 Now。
it turns out deception is hardwired。 I talk about the Kuku Bird because I want to suggest the deception of something that's。
hardwired。 It's not just an aberrant human behavior。
but it's something that's actually deeply ingrained， in our animal nature。
And it turns out it's not just Kuku Birds and tree pipettes。
Kuku Birds do this to many other kinds of birds and there are other birds too that engage。
in the same behavior。 We've seen actually deception documented in ravens。
Ravens will actually do things that will trick other birds about where food is。 We've seen apes。
monkeys， even fish engage in deception。 So catch-up in monkeys， for example。
will sound an alarm as if a predator is nearby to， go steal food from other monkeys。
Some predators will fake their own death， pretend to be dead until prey comes near and they'll。
grab that prey。 Or in a very prosocial way， you'll see some birds fake injury。 So the morning dove。
for example， if there's a predator nearby and they have young offspring， in their nest。
will actually pretend to drag their wing as if they're injured to draw attention。
away from their offspring。 So they're engaging in deception as soon as the predator comes near。
the morning dove， flies off。 So we see deception throughout the wild animal kingdom and it's not surprising that it's。
a really integral part of our human experience。 So here are some key truths about it。
Deception hijacks existing systems。 So like the tree pipit， there's a system that's hardwired。
The tree pipit will feed the beak of a hungry bird in its nest。
It's a reasonable system and the kookabur is just figured out how to exploit that。
And the same is true in a lot of our other transactions where， for example， a lot of these。
scammers with telephone calls will hijack existing trusting systems or somebody will， say。
"I'm in trouble。 I need help。"， We're hijacking that system and deception exploits trust。 Now。
deception is also hardwired。 It's something that we're hardwired to do and it's actually an important part of our cognitive。
development as we develop more complicated thinking， deception comes along with that。 Third。
deception is often successful。 Most deception goes undetected and that makes it a very pervasive issue that's sometimes。
a big problem and sometimes a benefit。 And so this fourth point about deception is it's not always bad。
And in fact， I'm going to argue that we should teach people how and when to deceive。
So it's a developmental milestone。 So when your child starts telling you lies。
rather than punishing them too severely， I would actually celebrate that milestone。
It demonstrates a theory of mind。 The idea that what's in our own heads is different than what's in everybody else's。
head。 And deception reflects that。 That is， it's the recognition that what I know。
I know I just had a cookie， but you， might not know that。 And so when I tell you。
"I haven't had a cookie yet，" it's a demonstration of this theory， of mind。 Of course。
I'm trying to get another cookie， but it represents the idea that I know that。
you might not know that。 And that really represents an important ability for us to take perspective and to engage with。
other people successfully。 And of course， there are many positive ways for us to use that deception to say things。
like， "I really like that gift or I'm really happy you showed up。"。
So deception is a developmental milestone and not just something to be punished。
And deception is chronic。 In surveys of teenagers。
they found that 86% say they lie to their parents on a regular， basis。 75% say they lie to friends。
73% say they lie to siblings。 So it's not just parents， but teenagers say they lie all the time。
Couples， in couples， 69%， more than two-thirds say they lie to their spouse。
Now the lies we tell tend to be a little bit different。
So women are more likely to lie in a prosocial way to make people feel better。
And men are more likely to lie in ways that enhance themselves， that make them look better。
than they actually are。 So there's some slight differences in how we lie。
but the persistence of lying is really。
incredible。 [BLANK_AUDIO]。
沃顿商学院《实现个人和职业成功（成功、沟通能力、影响力）｜Achieving Personal and Professional Success》中英字幕 - P44：16_侦测欺骗的挑战.zh_en - GPT中英字幕课程资源 - BV1VH4y1J7Zk
[ Silence ]。
Detecting deception poses a real challenge。 It's a challenge because we're mostly not very good。
at detecting lies。 We start off with a very trusting stance。 Most people believe what we're told。
And this is functional。 That is， we need to gather a lot of information。
from other people and we're going to ask questions。 We're going to listen to what people are saying。
And in the main， it's going to be truthful， useful information。
And so we start off with a stance where we're open， receptive。
and trusting of most of the information we get。 So that's the first idea。
And so when deceptive information flows in， we typically incorporate it as true。 Second。
we tend to be overconfident in our ability， to detect deception。 So that is， we think that， oh。
if somebody were lying to us， we would know。 I'd know if my kids were lying to me。
I'd know if my spouse were lying to me。 I'd know if my coworkers were lying to me。
That's the assumption that we have。 And we know from a lot of evidence it's just not true。
It's not true in experimental studies that have looked at this。 And it's not true empirically。
We know that there are many spouses who have been misled， and never learned about that。
So it's also particularly true this overconfidence， of professionals。
So maybe police officers or judges， believe they're going to be better at lie detection。
than they really are。 And relational partners are particularly overconfident。 So in light of this。
what can we do？ Now it turns out that there are cues， but that most of them are subtle。
They're so subtle that we often fail to appreciate it。 So for example。
we can look at faces of people， who are smiling。 And I can ask you， well。
who's authentically smiling， who's really happy， who's pretending to be happy？
And it turns out that there are important differences。 And we can guide our focus and attention。
to those differences， but we don't naturally go there。 So for example。
one of these smiles here is fake。 One of them is real， or what's called a Duchenne smile。
Now what's the difference？ Well， it turns out the difference。
is that the real smile has not just the smile in the mouth。
but also has crow's feet around the eyes。 That is， we're essentially smiling with our eyes。
That's what makes an authentic smile different from a fake smile。
So one question we have is where we should direct our focus。
And one idea is we can think about the content of the message。
So is there something that didn't make sense， or wasn't consistent？ Was something odd or unusual？
And that should cause us to probe further， to investigate something more carefully。
We can also look at how a message gets delivered。 What are the nonverbal cues around it？
When and where is something getting said？ And then we can think about the match between the content。
and the delivery。 So does this message make sense in how it's delivered？
If I'm saying something is important， am I acting as if it's important？ And if there's a mismatch。
it should also， cause us to probe further。 This is related to the idea of detecting deception。
versus suspicion。 The idea here is that we'll often feel suspicious。
It could be some non-conscious cue， some very subtle cue， we might have picked up on。
but we're not sure about。 And the idea is that when we feel suspicious。
it should cause us to probe more deeply。 To collect additional information。
we should seek information from other sources， that is we should be paying attention to how suspicious。
we might feel。 It's very difficult to ascertain deception， based on some cues we've detected。
And instead， my argument is that we， should feel a sense or gauge our sense of suspicion。
If we feel suspicious， that's caused to dig deeper， probe further。
and investigate something more carefully。 [BLANK_AUDIO]。
沃顿商学院《实现个人和职业成功（成功、沟通能力、影响力）｜Achieving Personal and Professional Success》中英字幕 - P45：17_侦测欺骗的线索.zh_en - GPT中英字幕课程资源 - BV1VH4y1J7Zk
Let's think about some of the cues we can use to detect deception。
So what changes when people start telling lies and what can we do to try to detect those， changes？
It turns out one of the most important things that changes is how we feel。
So our emotions change when we engage in deception。
We have some emotions like fear and guilt and sometimes also happiness with what's been。
called duping delight。 So our emotions are different when we're lying than when we're telling the truth and sometimes。
we can attend to those differences。 Second， we have what's called cognitive load。
We have more on our minds。 We're just thinking about a lot。 As Mark Twain said。
the difficulty of telling lies is you've got to keep track of the truth， and the lie。
So we just have more on our minds。 We have to keep two stories straight and we have to control our own behavior and we have。
to monitor others to try to gauge how gullible they are or how suspicious they are。
So we're engaging in more cognitive effort and there are cues because of that that can。
also help us detect deception。 So one key emotion that changes when we lie is anxiety。
So when we're telling lies， we often feel greater anxiety and in fact that's a lot of。
what the polygraph is designed to test。 The polygraph has been called a lie detection machine but it's really an anxiety detection。
machine。 So we do things like with a bicep cuff， we're measuring heart rate。
Now while at our heart rate go up when we're lying， it's because we feel anxiety。
The electrodes on their fingers that measures perspiration。
Now perspiration is another sign of anxiety。 We have pneumatic tubes around the chest。
Those measure breathing。 When we're breathing faster， it's because we're feeling anxious。
So often when people are lying， they're feeling greater anxiety and that's what the polygraph。
can help us detect and we can try to look for some anxiety cues in natural communication。
So the face for example gives off some anxiety cues。 People tend to press their lips together。
They tend to blink more quickly。 Their voice tends to be higher in pitch and we often engage in some movements that reflect。
anxiety。 So we might rub our foreheads， we might squeeze our face or rub our neck， we might engage。
in some sort of flash frozen that is a frozen kind of expression。 We might bite our lips。
These are all cues of anxiety。 We might ask ourselves why would somebody be so anxious telling us this story or giving。
us this information。 And one reason why they might be anxious is because it's not true。
So anxiety is one place to look to help us detect deception。
Now it turns out that there's often so much anxiety around telling lies that if we scare。
people a little bit， they're actually likely to spill the beans and be more honest。
So polygraph testing， the mere prospect of it is often enough to get people to confess。
Now some people will just be so scared of participating。
They will refuse a polygraph because they're so afraid that it's going to be so diagnostic。
of their deception。 It turns out it's just anxiety but the polygraph is actually a useful tool not only because。
it detects anxiety but also because it actually scares people into often confessing。
Next we think about disrespect。 When people lie to you， it is often a sign of disrespect。
So people who are lying sometimes also use sarcastic responses， they'll talk down to。
a target or they exhibit some sort of contempt as they're engaging in deception or they're。
doing things that demonstrate a disregard for the target。
So they'll be picking lint off their clothes， they'll be rolling their eyes。
they'll be demonstrating， disrespect and that often accompanies deception。
So deception is an egotistical move。 I think I'm better than you。
I think I can keep the truth from you and disrespect is sometimes。
accompanying that deception and we can look for those cues as something to cause us to。
probe more deeply。 Now often what we lie about are emotions themselves。
So I'm really happy to have you join us。 Oh I'm happy you asked me these tough questions。
Sometimes we leak out the right or our authentic emotions。
So you're telling me something and I need to look at how you're saying it。 And I might feel like。
hey wait a minute， you said you're really happy to see me but。
you don't look like you're happy to see me or I saw a flash of a grimace or an uncomfortable。
expression and I'm suggesting that we should pay attention to that。
That is there's sometimes these cues of mismatching emotions or even quick expressions of emotions。
that can lead us to engage in further sort of careful examination of what's really going， on。
So often people leak emotions。 Now there's also sometimes a mistaken emphasis。
So as we're trying to think very carefully about what we're saying， I might put an emphasis。
on the wrong word。 Like I'm really happy to see you。
The emphasis shouldn't be on I'm really happy to see you。
That might be a sign of deception because we're cognitively loaded and we're not getting。
the emotions quite right as we're speaking。 Another related cue is a lack of synchrony。
That's related to this cognitive load idea is that I might say， oh， I've never done that。
before and then shake my head as opposed to I've never done that before。
When we're doing things asynchronously that is I'm saying something and then doing the。
corresponding body movement that nonverbal cue might come later because I'm cognitively， loaded。
I can't keep track of everything at once。 I've got to control myself from not nodding like， oh。
I do that all the time。 What I'm telling you that I don't do it ever。
So the lack of synchrony is another cue of deception。 It turns out leakage is part of this。
So micro expressions are expressions that are less than a 20th of a second， sometimes。
as long as a 5th of a second， but very fast。 Again， with video， we can see these very clearly。
but in natural communication we often miss， them totally。
But nonconsciously we might process and say， hey， you know what？ I know Maurice was telling me this。
but I don't feel quite right or it。 He didn't seem completely authentic and it could be because there was a flash where I。
said， oh， I'm really happy you came by， but if we actually saw it in slow motion， we'd。
see that there was a grimace in there for maybe a 20th of a second that conveyed my real。
happiness or lack of happiness that you actually stopped by。
And sometimes leakage just means that our expressions are incomplete。
So my smile isn't a full smile。 It just goes part of the way。
So sometimes we leak out emotions that convey some uncertainty about how we're really feeling。
And that we should be paying attention to。 There are many facial expressions。
People have documented these pretty carefully。 And so there's a facial action coding system and there are ways to get trained to actually。
detect these micro expressions and to get better at understanding how all the facial movements。
are supposed to move in concert。 So like the dishein or authentic smiles， it's not just the smile。
but it's also the movement， around our eyes。 So there's a lot that we can do to try to figure out how to focus our attention in。
ways that guide us to detect deception more effectively。 [BLANK_AUDIO]。
沃顿商学院《实现个人和职业成功（成功、沟通能力、影响力）｜Achieving Personal and Professional Success》中英字幕 - P46：18_匹配内容与背景.zh_en - GPT中英字幕课程资源 - BV1VH4y1J7Zk
I want to think more carefully about matching the content and context of messages as a。
place for us to look for deception。 So we talked a little bit about this idea of synchrony and asynchrony。
So does the text and the nonverbal cues around that text， do they match， they correspond。
or are they different？ So sometimes they're incongruous。 So somebody will say no。
but nod their head yes。 Or they'll catch themselves and correct themselves midway through。 Like no。
I mean yes。 That catch and correct is sometimes a really important cue to detect deception。
I mentioned polygraph tests before。 They're polygraphers that will do things like ask somebody a question and if they catch。
somebody doing this， sort of catch and correct。 Like no， I mean yes。
They'll shut down the polygraph and say， I know you did it。
That is they'll be so certain that these cues are diagnostic that they'll know exactly。
what's happened。 Sometimes there's this delay。 So this delay that I mentioned before that I'll say I didn't do it and then negative head。
swing follows that。 But as we sometimes will say things and then follow that later with the nonverbal cues and。
all of that asynchrony should really tip us off that there's something not quite right。
So when the emotions don't match， the behaviors don't match， we're learning something important。
and we should dig deeper into that issue。 So there are often cases like somebody reports a kidnapping。
but they wait to report it or， sometimes they'll cross county lines and report it in a different county。
I want to think about why would you do that？ That is when the behavior doesn't match。
there's something asynchronous about it that， should cause us to be quite suspicious。
Now a lot of this asynchronous comes from discomfort。 So I mentioned anxiety before。
but more broadly there's a discomfort。 So in general liars want the meeting to end。
So they'll be looking at the clock。 They'll be talking about ending the meeting or they'll cut the interview short or they'll。
be very happy if there's a disruption。 They'll welcome that or even look for an opportunity to switch topics and do something else。
Often this discomfort is represented by the desire to create distance。 So liars will lean back。
they'll lean away or what's been called eye blocking。
They'll close their eyes pretending as if they're somewhere else。
Sort of like the same way we might sort of cover our ears as if we're saying， "Oh， I。
can't hear you。"， Sometimes people will close their eyes as if I'm not here giving themselves this sort。
of quick sort of mental vacation from that awkward and comfortable situation。 So again。
it's the sign of discomfort。 I want to think about why would this person be uncomfortable？
You sometimes see artificial barriers。 People put a backpack between them and the person interviewing them or they'll cross their。
hands or they'll put pencil holders， they'll sort of build a sort of wall between them。
and somebody else that gives them again the psychological space because they're feeling。
uncomfortable。 Now another thing people will do is engage in self presentation。
We're constantly trying to create positive impressions。
So this is the reason why we spend more time getting ready before we go out on a date or。
when we interview， we'll try to be particularly focused and attentive， we'll try to create。
a positive impression。 It turns out we're trying to create positive impressions all the time at work and at home。
We're trying to create these positive impressions and deceivers are particularly intensely trying。
to create impressions。 They're trying to create impressions of honesty and veracity that might not be true。
And as they're trying to create these impressions， a lot of deceivers overdo it。
And what I mean by that is they might be concerned that they're creating an impression of anxiety。
and so they try to work at doing it in the opposite direction。
So they stretch out on the couch or they yawn and pretend that they're not anxious at all。
or sometimes they'll even self medicate， they'll drink alcohol or take drugs to really lower。
their anxiety so much they almost seem kind of out of it。
So people will sometimes overdo this drive to appear not anxious or they might engage。
in statements like， "Oh， I'd never lie to you。"， Or let me tell you the truth。
Or to be honest with you， again， these are statements trying to convince you that they're。
being honest。 Now some people use these just as a matter of speech but when it's unusual。
it's different， from how people normally speak。 You want to ask yourself why is somebody telling me that they never lie to me or they'd always。
I've always been taught to tell the truth or it turns out my father's a preacher， why。
would somebody be sharing that information and often the reason is they're overdoing。
their self presentation。 They're trying to convince they're being honest and they're working too hard at it。
Now we sometimes try to manage our impressions with other tools。 So group attendance。
People sometimes show up with friends or family or prominent members of the community。
They're trying to bring in other people， "Oh， I know my friend， the judge or the city council。
person， I'm bringing them in to create this positive impression。"， Or we'll change our parents。
So people will work really hard。 For example， changing their clothes or changing their hairstyle。
Is to create this impression as if you're， you know， you really care about how I'm appearing。
and how you're responding to me。 Lacey Peterson is a woman who is pregnant and her husband professed a deep interest in。
finding where she was and who took her。 And one of the things that he did following her disappearance was to change his own appearance。
Now it could have been because he wanted to escape， but he also worked very hard at creating。
a positive impression。 He dyed his hair。 He was very carefully sort of quaffed and shaven。
He did things that were really odd。 It turns out later he was convicted of murdering his wife。
And we find that some of these appearance changes are really cues of deception。
Now I mentioned cognitive load。 We have more on our mind when we're telling lies。
And this leaks out in a lot of ways。 Part of it is we need to do things to help us think better and pause fillers like ums。
and aus， they give us time to think。 So people who are lying use more pause fillers。
They take longer to answer questions as if they're thinking harder， they're stalling， for time。
Sometimes when they're telling stories they add in more irrelevant details。 Again。
it gives them more time to prepare。 Now ironically。
there are sometimes when deceivers are faster to answer almost too fast。
And those are times when they've had time to prepare， they're anticipating the question。
and they're quick， sometimes too quick with that answer。
Other cognitive load cues are more stuttering。 We see just just articulation go down。
So people just focus on the text of what they're saying and they don't justiculate the way。
they might normally do。 So you want to think about what the baseline is for normal and then see what people are。
actually doing and if it's very different that's a big cue for deception。
Now people sizes dilate but many of these cues are difficult to detect in natural and。
normal communication。 [BLANK_AUDIO]。
沃顿商学院《实现个人和职业成功（成功、沟通能力、影响力）｜Achieving Personal and Professional Success》中英字幕 - P47：19_实际步骤.zh_en - GPT中英字幕课程资源 - BV1VH4y1J7Zk
All right， let's think about some practical steps we can use for detecting deception and。
then figuring out what we can do once we suspect it or detect it。 So first。
I mentioned cognitive load。 Our cognitive load is very high when we're telling lies。
And if someone were to increase that further， I'm more likely to make mistakes。
So if we ask somebody we suspect of deception to perform a second task while they're talking。
to us， that increases cognitive load。 And for many people， pushes them over the edge。
They start making mistakes or leaking out other information。
You can think of something like trying to remember another additional information like。
another phone number or you hear other things in the background， like TV or talk radio。
sort of going in the background or you ask many questions about different topics。
It turns out when we try to remember things out of chronological order， that's very cognitively。
loading。 That is， it's easy for us， easiest for us in our minds， particularly if it's not true。
to describe a story in chronological order。 If we try to get things out of order。
we ask questions about things that go out of sequence。
people who are lying are likely to make mistakes。 Eye contact is something that also increases cognitive load as our detailed follow-up questions。
So who else was there？ What else happened？ Was the weather like outside？ For example。
that weather question， you're causing people to try to figure out what time， a day was it？
Was there a window in that room？ Was the weather like and so on？
So we can do things that increase cognitive load that can push people to make more mistakes。
particularly if they're lying。 Now， we can also meet in person。
Now meeting a person has a great advantage， not only is it more cognitively loading， but。
it allows us to assess nonverbal cues more accurately。
But it also can be an opportunity for a deceiver to gauge our gullibility more carefully as， well。
So we want to be careful about just meeting in person as a blanket prescription。 But in general。
I like the idea of meeting in person。 It also makes people less likely to lie。
they're more concerned about lying in person， and。
people become a lot less aggressive or hostile in person。 They're keyboard bullies。
I spent time with people who are investigating insurance fraud。
They're talking about these keyboard bullies that become Mika's lambs in person。
So sometimes when people are texting or emailing or tweeting， they might say one thing， but。
then in person they behave quite differently because they find the interpersonal dynamics。
much more anxiety provoking and they're more likely to be accommodating and trustworthy， in person。
So in general， I want to think about the environment。
The environment is really important for thinking about the cognitive load to know who else。
is listening， what's happening， who else is there。
So one of my key prescriptions is to meet in person， but also recognize that we're also。
leaking information as we meet other people in person。 Another key idea is to search broadly。
So we want to be sensitive to how people act in other domains。
So somebody who boasts you about how they cheat on their taxes or how they were deceptive。
to somebody else， but not you， should be something you should be careful about。
We can also do things like pretest with questions that we don't know answers to to see how forthcoming。
and how honest people are behaving。 So one of the key ideas。
we want to value and collect information from other sources。
So if it's really important information， we don't want to just trust one source。
We want to gather other information and recognize that deception is pretty common and we're not。
very good in social situations at detecting it。 Now if we can。
so suppose you're doing something over Skype or video conference， sometimes。
recording interviews allow us to go back and watch things。 So for example。
we can go back and watch a video with the sound turned off so that now。
we're just focused on the nonverbal cues and we can look for things that might seem a。
little bit off or seem a little bit weird。 There's also computer text analysis that people have used to do things like word counts to。
look at the use of negative statements or to look at things like a lot of irrelevant。
information that can give us other cues related to deception。 Again。
it's very difficult to detect in our natural communication。
Now suppose that we're confronting a liar， how should we do that？ Well。
the context and our relative status matters a lot。 So police， when they're interrogating somebody。
will say， "I know you're lying to me，" or the， polygraph I mentioned before will say， "Oh。
I know you're lying to me。"， But we can't always have that kind of dynamic。 In fact。
when I was talking to insurance investigators， a lot of them were former police officers who。
talked about the two things I missed most。 So when they were interrogating somebody that suspected of deception。
they said， "The two， things I missed most were my gun in my batch。"， And they said， "Yeah。
whenever I was connecting interrogation， I'd put the two of those things。
on the table that created anxiety and made people much more forthcoming。"。
There's sometimes other things we could do when we don't have that status。 We don't have that power。
What do we do then？ And there， for example， you're dealing with a customer or a potential partner。
we have， to do things that are a little bit softer than that。
And so we might do things like suggest， "Hey， maybe there's more you wanted to say。"。
Or I feel like there was something you wanted to add to that answer。
Or ask a follow-up question that allows people to elaborate or ask the same question in a。
slightly different way that gets people to repeat things。
In a way that suggests you're not completely comfortable with that answer， but without being。
as confrontational。 And we can offer people or encourage people to exit the situation in a way that allows。
them to save face so they're not likely to retaliate。
Because that's one risk when we confront somebody and tell them that they're lying to you， you。
can engage reactants as they come back and they get very angry， particularly if there's。
a loss of face。 One of my former students talked about confronting somebody in Korea who was lying to him。
And he said this Korean manager， once he confronted him and said that he was lying， had。
lost so much face in front of not just him but the entire group that he was talking to。
that they cut off relations completely。 So he had just meant to put things back on track。
but it turns out he'd blown up that， relationship。
So we need to be very tactful and we need to ask sometimes softer questions that allow。
people to come to us with a more forthcoming answer。 [BLANK_AUDIO]。
沃顿商学院《实现个人和职业成功（成功、沟通能力、影响力）｜Achieving Personal and Professional Success》中英字幕 - P48：20_违规行为的本质.zh_en - GPT中英字幕课程资源 - BV1VH4y1J7Zk
To understand how we can repair relationships， it helps to start by understanding the nature。
of violations。 And I was talking to the story about Kayleen Sosa。
She was a one and a half year old。 She was horse around at home。 She'd climbed up a couch。
was playing with her brother。
She fell off from the couch and hit her head。
Her mom was so worried she rushed her to Baptist Hospital， the nearby hospital。
And next day was inconclusive。 They decided to do an MRI。
so they sedated her so that she would sit still。
One and a half year old's aren't great at sitting still。
And they put a breathing tube in her to make sure she'd get enough oxygen。
Turns out the breathing tube became dislodged。
She suffered permanent brain damage。 What's interesting about this story is that the Sosa's never sued the hospital。
They ended up becoming advocates for the hospital。 And Aussie Sosa， the father。
said that he completely forgave the hospital。
This is a remarkable transformation。 That is， when they could have easily sued for substantial sum of money。
they could have， become fierce adversaries。 They actually became collaborative friends。
And they did this because of the nature of the violation and the way Baptist Hospital。
apologized。
So we first think about some other violations。 And when it characterizes violations as being very substantial。
we'll call them core violations。 They strike at the very core or essence of that relationship and non-core violations。
Less critical violations。 So first we'll go to Elliot Spitzer。
Elliot Spitzer was the governor of New York。 He built an incredible record of prosecution。
A lot of prosecution of white collar crime。 And that included prosecuting prostitution rings。
He became the governor in 2007。 And he was known as Mr。 Clean。
And he promised this bringing ethics and integrity to the governor's house。
Now he ran a very clean campaign。 He was known to have these incredibly high ethical standards until it all came crashing。
down。 It turns out that Spitzer had been partaking in the very kind of crime he had been prosecuting。
He had paid a substantial sum of money to the Emperors Club VIP。 This prostitution ring。
this upscale prostitution ring， he ended up over a period of seven years。
and actually very carefully figured out how to give them small amounts of payments that。
amassed sort of almost $80，000 total。 So here he ends up falling from grace because he had been soliciting。
he had been participating， in some of the very activity he had also been prosecuting。
So he ends up resigning from the governor's position。
And he tries to rehabilitate his reputation and just how damaging this was。 That is。
this is a core violation。 It strikes at the very heart of the relationship。 He is known as Mr。
Clean。 And yet this violation really represents the essence of who he is and his relationship。
to the voters in New York。 Five years later， he's running to be a city comptroller。
a relatively minor office。 He says， "I'm hoping there will be forgiveness。 I'm asking for it。"。
He doesn't even make it through the primary。
So here this core violation not only costs him his high perch as the governor， but it。
means years later he's still unable to get traction even for a relatively minor office。
Next we can think about David Letterman。 David Letterman on the Late Show。
a late night talk show host and comedian。 And here he seems to make everything funny。
Now he faced some sexual misconduct of his own。 It turns out that he was accused of sexual harassment。
having sexual relationships with， interns and staff。 But he's able to transform this into a joke。
He talks about how I got into my car this morning and not even the navigation lady would speak。
to me。
So he's making light of this。 And actually this inappropriate behavior turns to be a bump in the road for David Letterman。
but it was terminal for Elliot Spitzer。 That is the relationship we have with David Letterman is as an entertainer。
as a comic， and he maintains that form and this violation doesn't derail us from the relationship that。
we have with him。 Now similarly Martha Stewart accused of insider trading。
she ends up going to prison。
Now insider trading however， it's serious financial wrongdoing and she lied to investigators。
That's what really tripped her up。 While she's in prison she ends up doing just fine。
Her Kmart products are selling well。 That sales in her magazine Living Turnout to be Fine。
Her inter-paint line is doing well and on a media stock it took an initial hit but it。
rebounds while she's in prison。
And when she gets out of prison she comes roaring back。 So she gets a show on the apprentice。
she goes back on daytime television， she ends， up doing very well。
This transgression is not a core violation for her。
We turn to Martha Stewart for advice about what colors to use， how to decorate our homes。
how to cook meals。 That style advice she still got and this is a non-core violation。
Now in contrast， when Arthur Anderson accounting ran into trouble that turned out to be terminal。
That was a core violation。 They built a brand for integrity not just a lasting name。
she's a lasting name， a lasting， name。 And Anderson was their brand。
They were signing off on accounting statements and companies turned to them for that verification。
but they signed off on misleading documents and worse they ended up shredding a bunch of。
these documents in 2002 for Enron。 Now it turned out to be people made light of this too。
I see from resume you spend time working at Anderson and here this resume is half shredded。
Now that's a little bit funny but it wasn't funny for Arthur Anderson accounting。
Anderson accounting was finished。 That violation meant that companies could no longer go to Anderson for trusted verification。
of their accounting statements。 That's a core violation。
So I think about when trust can be repaired and I want to argue that even serious violations。
like with the Sosa family can be repaired but that requires serious work and a very carefully。
crafted apology that requires both words and actions。
But when we think about these violations their core violations that struck at the very core。
of who you are and what your relationship is and non-core violations。
So for Arthur Anderson accounting that's a core violation。
For Martha Stewart that's a non-core violation。 For Spitzer it's a core violation that as we care about that integrity that was his。
brand that was his campaign it's a core violation he can't recover but for David Butterman it's。
a non-core violation。 Now more broadly we think about competence and benevolence or integrity violations。
When it's a competence violation we felt short that is we just didn't have the capability， to do it。
Those violations people are more easily forgiven。 As we forgive people for falling short if they were trying but what we feel is if it。
was an integrity violation they had bad intentions and remember with Arthur Anderson accounting。
that shredding demonstrate some intentionality that's they were trying to cover things up。
that cover up suggests that they actually had bad intentions and it's much harder to recover。
from bad intentions。
So the idea is that we have core violations non-core violations and we want to think about。
the competence and the integrity parts。 [BLANK_AUDIO]。
沃顿商学院《实现个人和职业成功（成功、沟通能力、影响力）｜Achieving Personal and Professional Success》中英字幕 - P49：21_从糟糕的道歉中学习.zh_en - GPT中英字幕课程资源 - BV1VH4y1J7Zk
When things go badly wrong， it turns out there's actually a lot that we can learn。
And in this case， I want to think about what we can learn from bad apologies。
In 2010， we saw one of the worst environmental disasters of our generation。
The Deepwater Horizon oil spill gushed oil for 87 days。 They didn't know how to cap this oil spill。
In the initial explosion， 11 workers died。 Just an incredible disaster。
Now， you can imagine the leadership of BP was having a really bad couple of days。
And here's what happened。 The CEO， Tony Hayward， said。
"We're sorry for the massive disruption that's caused， their lives。
There's no one who wants this over more than I do。 I'd like my life back。"， So that's Tony Hayward。
Now on the one hand， we can kind of appreciate he's having a rough day。 On the other hand。
this apology falls far short because it's so self-focused。
And the reaction was pretty swift。
Even from employees at BP， here's someone working in PR who said， "The only time Tony。
Hayward opens his mouth was to change feet。"， Now， not grammatically perfect。
but it really captures this essence of how bad this apology， is。
And there were calls from Capitol Hill for Hayward to resign。 And in fact。
he does end up losing his job。
The lesson I want to draw from this experience is we need to take perspective。
That is， when things are going bad for us， they could be going badly for others。
And that perspective taking is hard but essential for delivering an effective apology。
Now， let's switch industries and we'll go to Lulu Lemon。
So Lulu Lemon in 2013 had a problem with the density of their fabrics。 And here's what Chip Wilson。
the chairman and founder said， that some women's bodies just， actually don't work。 Now。
it's kind of funny that is we usually think that pants are supposed to fit the person。
but he's suggesting， "Well， maybe the person is supposed to fit the pants。"。
And he later apologizes to employees， "I'm sorry to put you through all of this。"， Now。
this apology is to the employees but not to the customers。 So here。
the lesson I want to draw is that， again， perspective taking is hard and we want。
to think about the other side's perspective and the audience matters。 That is。
who is getting that apology really matters。 Okay， let's switch gears again。
And here we're going to talk about Tiger Woods。 Tiger Woods had some problems with his marriage and he lashes out at the media in his apology。
I've been dismayed to realize the folks down of what tabloids going to do really means。
He goes on though and at the end， he does， you know， I offer my profound apology。 This is 2009。
Now here's what's interesting about this apology and where it falls short。
Right after he delivered this apology， when things seemed badly wrong for him， he then。
ends up sailing off on his yacht and a lot of the media attention then gets focused on。
this $22 million yacht。 It's on her feet five feet long。
It has a private jacuzzi and elevator and so on and ironically named the privacy and we。
end up with focus on the yacht and his escape there。 And one of the problems。
one of the shortcomings with this apology is that it ends up falling。
short precisely because we care about penance。 That is， when somebody is truly remorseful。
we expect them to suffer or pay for it and， hear this is the exact opposite of what Tagore would seem to be doing。
Okay。 Now I'm going to jump to 1999， Coca-Cola。 Here in Europe。
it started off with a young boy that reported feeling dizzy and a little， bit nauseous。
It turns out other people soon began to file similar reports after drinking Coca-Cola。
And these reports of dizziness spread and it seemed to be that there was some problem。
with carbon dioxide at a plant in Antwerp。 Now what do you do if you're Coca-Cola？ Now the CEO。
Douglas Ivester said， "Well， we want to take a lower profile。
We want to see if this thing would blow over。"， Now meanwhile as he's dithering。
he's sort of waiting。 It turns out the media picks this up。 It becomes sensationalized。
And by the time this is over， 50 million products are drawn off the shelves。
They're thrown out in France， Germany， and Belgium。
What I want to think about is that here in terms of lessons， the speed matters， you can't。
just wait for things to blow over。 You can't wait for the results of a final internal investigation。
You need to be more proactive and your image matters。
There's something about a psychological contract responsible not just for the letter of the。
contract but for people's expectations too。 And in this case people are expecting more。
They're expecting to understand that you care， you're concerned， that safety comes first and。
it didn't seem that way to customers drinking Coca-Cola products。
Fast forward。 Here's another failed apology。 This is VW。
VW turned out to be cheating emissions testing。 Then the head of VW was dragged up to Capitol Hill。
While he was there he offers an apology but it was really a half-hearted failed apology。
First of all， who goes， it's the head of the US division， not the head of the company。
And I would have argued we want the head of the company。
We want to really figure out what's going on。 We want a candid， clear apology。
This apology falls short in a couple of ways。 One is it's defecting blame。
This wasn't a corporate decision。 The cars are safe to drive。
We don't really know exactly what's going to happen。 The recall and process could take years。
The other thing that happens is first of all he's saying look I'm not really in charge。
and so it comes across as a limited apology。 It's not the head of VW that's going there。
And the second part is there's no commitment to change。
What we really want to do is understand what VW is going to do and we want that clear。
credible commitment to change and in this case it would almost certainly involve bringing。
an outside party for oversight。 So here are some of the lessons we can draw from failed apologies。
[BLANK_AUDIO]。
沃顿商学院《实现个人和职业成功（成功、沟通能力、影响力）｜Achieving Personal and Professional Success》中英字幕 - P5：4_关于成功的三个真理.zh_en - GPT中英字幕课程资源 - BV1VH4y1J7Zk
In this session we're going to talk about three truths about success that I hope you'll。
come to terms with as the course goes along。 These are three very important things that often people get confused about。
So the first is really the most important of the three。 Many people。
because they've read books or seen movies about success， have the impression。
that there is some single secret to success， that if they're only able to uncover it， that。
it'll answer all the questions， all the problems will be resolved and that life will be a completely。
rosy experience from there on。 And the truth about success is much more complicated。
It's not a secret。 It's complicated because the answer to these questions lies within you。
not outside you。 And I think it's always simpler for we humans if we can just put ourselves on a quest and。
then go look for the tallest mountain or the most exotic plant and then we can say， well。
we found it， we're successful。 Unfortunately success is something that you carry with you。
It's a wonderful book by an author named Ram Das， the title of the book is， no matter where， you go。
there you are。 And when it comes to success， I think that's more of the truth than that it's out there。
someplace。 So no secrets。 This is all going to be stuff that you find on your own in yourself that I think will give。
you a higher sense of confidence in what it is that you're striving toward。 Just to underline that。
the second truth is that this is not a quest of discovery as much， as it is a quest to recognize。
To recognize the patterns that you already have within you， to recognize the values that。
you're striving to accomplish， these values may come from your family， they may come from。
your culture， they may come from a religion。 And recognizing them means understanding and finding the familiar。
the value of say， compassion for others。 Recognizing that you were taught that but that you sort of forgot it in your quest to。
get to the top of the ladder or to cure some drug disease and you've now got a chance to。
think and go， you know what， I see that value inside me， I now can honor it in a different。
way and it doesn't mean you have to stop looking for the cure for the disease， it just。
means that you bring this value， whatever it might be， compassion is an example。
And bringing along with you， it doesn't take any more time to do that， it just brings a。
deeper understanding to your relationships when you do it。 So it's about recognition。
not about finding new things you've never thought of。
And then the third truth that I hope will uncover as the course goes along is that there are。
no single foolproof techniques that work every time to achieve whatever the success value。
is that you've decided to embrace。 In the how to succeed market， if you go to any bookstore。
go online and look at Google， the word success， you're going to find just both loads of books on how to succeed and。
almost all of them are going to provide this template of one true path。
The one true path may be goal setting。 The one true path may be social skills。
The one true path may be mind power and visualization and the power of your imagination to bring。
things into reality。 Again， all these things may be perfectly relevant and they may be very useful to you。
But the chances are pretty high that you're going to use your own unique combination of。
them with your own unique experiences and capabilities to build on them and what works。
for the person who lives next door to you who needs to learn how to set goals will not。
work for you because you already set 200 goals a day and you're going to be trying to figure。
out how to relax and focus on three goals。 So no foolproof techniques every time but lots of techniques your goal is to try to adapt。
or yourself the tools that will work uniquely well for you to achieve whatever your success。
goals are。 They may be internal goals， they may be external goals or a combination of the two。
I think as the course goes on you're going to get a richer sense of how those two play。
against each other and sort of fold in and integrate with each other。
So we'll be addressing some of these issues in our next session。 Thank you。 [BLANK_AUDIO]。
沃顿商学院《实现个人和职业成功（成功、沟通能力、影响力）｜Achieving Personal and Professional Success》中英字幕 - P50：22_道歉公式.zh_en - GPT中英字幕课程资源 - BV1VH4y1J7Zk
Let's put these pieces together and think about what the apology formula should be。
I'll start with a study。 The study that was done with German eBay users。
Here 632 customers had posted some negative feedback。 And as most of you know。
negative feedback on an online system is pretty bad。
And these customers were contacted and asked to remove that negative feedback。
Now half of them received an apology。 The apology read。
"I would like to apologize and ask whether you might withdraw your evaluation。"。
And 45% removed that critical rating。 The other half didn't receive that apology。
but they received a cash rebate。 They were offered this as a good will gesture and then asked if they would withdraw their。
evaluation。
And here only 21% did。 What's funny is from an economics perspective， we think， "Well。
isn't money better than the。
apology？"， But it turns out asking for that removal works better with an apology。
People sometimes， all they really want is an apology。
So what we learned from this is that money might help， but an apology is sometimes even。
more effective。 I want to think about another case that was incredibly powerful。
Here Southwest Airlines， their first fatal accident， this involved a crash at Midway。 It was icy。
The airplane has landed tore through the runway。 There was a gate。
it blew past the gate and into an intersection striking cars below。
And here in this first fatal accident， the Southwest CEO， Gary Kelly， apologized and he。
apologized effectively and swiftly。 And it was unusual at the time for the CEO to deliver this apology。
So here he comes out and his response is quick within hours。 He expresses condolences。
He flies with his go team， 94 go team employees fly with him to Chicago and he comes out with。
his heartfelt apology， "They're no worth to adequately convey our grief and sorrow。"。
Now his response was characterized in the media as swift and caring and by all measures。
seemed to be incredibly effective。 What I want to just want to think about the lesson here that is who apologizes matters。
We talked before about the VW case。 Here it's the CEO。
the leader that's apologizing and speed matters。
I mentioned before， Kaleen Sosa。 Now what I want to suggest is that here it was this ER nurse that first noticed the problem。
and what happened with Kaleen Sosa as she had this breathing tube that became dislodged。
she ended up losing oxygen and what the apology was able to do in this case was repair that。
relationship completely。 Now why？
Because it was swift， it was complete and what's really interesting about this case is that。
the apology plan was instituted at the institutional level。
That is the organization admitted commitment。 They had a checklist of what people should do。
If there's a failure， people should quickly apologize， be candid about the entire procedure。
failure， reach out， get to know the family and that's what they did and as they changed。
procedures， Aussie Sosa actually came back and said， "I'm impressed by the changes" and。
they ended up making safety videos for the hospital。
They never sued， they mediated a settlement with the Sosa family。
So here's what a good apology can do。 They can fundamentally change perceptions。
words matter and as we saw with the eBay study， words are surprisingly effective but then the deeds matter too。
So like at Baptist Hospital changing procedures。 Now here's what Baptist did。
They had a full disclosure。 They explained what happened。
They immediately came to the family to deliver full accounting。
They mediated a settlement that included free physical therapy for life。
They created video with the families and when Aussie Sosa the father came back to witness。
all the changes he said， "I completely forgive the hospital。"， So what makes an apology effective？
I wanted to still three key ideas。 The first is candor。 So we want full disclosure。 So Baptist did。
it's the opposite of what VW did。 We want a speedy apology。 So Southwest quickly apologizes。
Coca-Cola's are waiting for things to blow over。 The second key idea is remorse。
Who apologizes helps convey that remorse？ So is it the CEO or somebody less authoritative？
We want to see an expression of regret。 Southwest Airlines does this。 Lulemon doesn't。
Is it other focus？ That is， are we focused on the person who's been harmed？ Again。
Southwest Airlines does a beautiful job at that。 British Petroleum's wrestles with that。
And penance。 Who's paying for something？ So Baptist Hospital's paying for lifelong care？
Tiger Woods doesn't seem like he's suffering very much。 So that's remorse。
And the third piece is a commitment to change。 We're here at Baptist Possible committed to change。
they enacted changes。 VW has yet to do that。 [BLANK_AUDIO]。
