Imagine you're given a test with 20 simple math problems. You have 5 minutes to solve as many as possible - and the better you do, the more you'll get paid. When time's up, you're instructed to drop the paper into a shredder. But it's not really going to be shredded.
假使你去做一个尝试,尝试本质是20道轻松的数学题。你应该在5十分钟里面尽或者多做,做得越多,分成越高。工夫一到,你就利用令行禁止把答题纸扔进碎纸机。只不过,答题纸并麻烦真的被破碎摧毁。

Instead, the Duke University researchers who devised this experiment hold onto the test. So later, when you report how well you did, they can check to see whether you're lying.
这时分,研制另外试验的杜克上学研讨人员还在尝试你。前当你呈报旁任何得分时,彼便应该查验你是否是在言不由衷。

And if you're like most people, you've probably fibbed a little bit.
试验事后注解大大都人多半要撒点小谎。

That's because "scheming and dishonesty are part of what makes us human," according to the cover story in the June issue of National Geographic.
通过《国家地舆》报刊六副刊的一篇封底来闻,这是只因为“诱骗和不诚实老是宽容的一有些”。

Contributing writer Yudhijit Bhattacharjee explores psychology, neuroscience and con artistry to explain 'Why We Lie: The Science Behind Our Deceptive Ways'.
软文笔杆子余和吉特·巴塔查尔吉讨论了心思学、神经边缘科学和诱骗态度,来解惑“曷我言不由衷:诱骗背后的边缘科学”。

Researchers think that pretty much as soon as humans could speak, we were bending the truth.
研讨人员以为,人手自打会讲说以来,就没stop过言不由衷。

"The ability to manipulate others without using physical force likely conferred an advantage in the competition for resources and mates, akin to the evolution of deceptive strategies in the animal kingdom, such as camouflage," Bhattacharjee writes.
巴塔查尔吉写道:“在不惯用功能的状况下带动独自,这项水准大概让你在负担资本和朋友时判断闪光点,多少一样动物国际里不停演变的诱骗策略,举例说虚伪。”

These days, there seem to be four main reasons we lie.
现目前,我之所以言不由衷,仿佛有四个首要要素。

We do it to promote ourselves or protect ourselves. We do it to affect others, either to be kind or cruel. And then there are the situations that are inexplicable, even to us.
我如此做是若要调低旁人或照顾旁人。言不由衷是若要干扰人们,或在出自良心,或在出自敌意。甚至有的时候连我旁人不清楚旁人曷言不由衷。

The littlest kids are the least likely to lie, probably because they're still learning how to do it. In an experiment at the University of Toronto, children are asked to guess the identity of a hidden toy.
最小的宝宝是最不简略言不由衷的,或者是因为彼还没掌握若何言不由衷。在多伦多上学的不失为试验中,试验员说明宝宝猜藏一块的玩物是啥。

The experimenter always leaves the room to take a phone call - which is, of course, a lie - and tells the kid not to peek.
试验员老是找理由移开自己屋子去接易信,之后他会通知宝宝绝不能偷看。

"Most children can't resist peeking," Bhattacharjee writes, but how they react after that depends on age.
巴塔查尔吉写道:“几宝宝会忍气吞声去偷看,不过偷看后的反应取决于彼的寿辰。

Toddlers usually admit to taking a look, while about 80 percent of eight-year-olds claim they didn't.
幼儿们通联席会议赞赏旁人偷看了,但倒下有80%的八岁男孩会谎称旁人不偷看。

They also become gradually savvier about covering up their naughty behaviour. Younger kids who have lied about peeking typically give the correct answer about the toy, while older ones deliberately offer the wrong answer.
彼还会徐徐渐进地甚至善于掩蔽旁任何皮脸暴行。相同是偷看并言不由衷,寿辰稍小的宝宝通联席会议给予颠扑不破谜底,而寿辰稍大的宝宝则会意料补足错误谜底。

Studies of adults have shown that brains continue to get more adept at lying over time.
针对大后年任何研讨注解,因为工夫过,脑会甚至善于言不由衷。

Given that we all basically grow up to be liars, what's really unbelievable is that we're also so trusting.
以免我成熟了后根柢上多半要言不由衷,除了这样我又如斯认真独自,这真让人没办法置信。

But there's an advantage to that, too, Bhattacharjee adds: "Without the implicit trust that we place in human communication, we would be paralysed as individuals and cease to have social relationships."
不过这也有个好处,巴塔查尔吉提供说:“要是在人际往来中不懂人家坚信,我举动单体将步履维艰,奴隶社会将不复存在。”

(这篇文章译:Frank)