After life-shattering loss, Sheryl Sandberg reaches out to others in grief

As one of the best known female executives in the world, Sheryl Sandberg had resources and support when her husband died at 47, but that didn't stop grief from engulfing her and their children. In her new book Option B, Sandberg writes about grief and resilience in the face of adversity, and offers advice for others experiencing personal tragedy. Sandberg sits down with Judy Woodruff.

Self-study activity:
Watch the video and say whether the statements below are true or false.



1. Sheryl Sandberg’s husband died over two years ago.
2. When she returned to work, Sheryl had difficulties controlling her grief in public.
3. After all this time, Sheryl sometimes cries and sometimes feels she can’t control her urge to cry.
4. One of the most difficult things for Sheryl was connecting with people when she went back to work.
5. The tips Sheryl has included in the book are based on her own attitude and behaviour with people going through extreme situations in life.
6. Sheryl’s attitude after her husband’s death was an obstacle for her recovery.
7. It is quite common for a worker to get paid time off work if a close relative is all or has died.
8. Sheryl has been accused of sometimes having a conservative outlook on life.
9. The US is the only developed country in the world without paid maternity leave

JUDY WOODRUFF: Finally tonight, a conversation with Sheryl Sandberg about coping with grief and resilience in the face of adversity.
That’s the subject of a new book in which she writes candidly about a personal tragedy, the loss of her husband, Dave Goldberg.
I visited her at Facebook’s headquarters in Menlo Park, California. Our interview took place nearly two years after Sandberg and her husband went on vacation in Mexico with friends. Sandberg woke up from a poolside nap, saw that Dave wasn’t there, and soon went looking for him.
She found him lying on the floor of the hotel gym next to the treadmill. As they later learned, he had suffered a cardiac arrhythmia. He was just 47 years old.
As the chief operating officer of Facebook, and one of the best known female executives in the business world, Sandberg had all the resources and support one could imagine. But none of that would lessen the grief that engulfed her and their two young children.
SHERYL SANDBERG, Chief Operating Officer, Facebook: In those early days and weeks, it feels like you’re not going to get through a minute, let alone a day.
My biggest fear was that my kids would never be happy again, that their happiness would have been wiped away in that same instant we lost Dave.
There are people who had been through loss and been through real adversity who told me it gets better. And I didn’t believe them.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Ten days later, when she returned to work, it was hard to focus on running a social media giant, with 17,000 employees and more than a billion daily users.
Suddenly, one of the most successful women in business was struggling to hold it together at the office.
SHERYL SANDBERG: When Dave first died, I felt like I was in a void, like I couldn’t breathe, or catch my breath.
I thought at first — I just thought, I’m never going to get through this. I can’t contribute. I can’t even get through a meeting without crying.
JUDY WOODRUFF: A month after his death, she posted a tribute to Dave on Facebook. She wrote about mistakes she had made in the past when friends lost loved ones.
She included advice from a close friend about how to handle a father-son event. Option A, Dave, wasn’t available. Instead, the friend said it was time to grab onto option B. But he used stronger language than that. It became Sandberg’s mantra, and it’s the name of her new book.
SHERYL SANDBERG: There are things you can do, steps you can take to help yourself and your kids recover.
And I learned that resilience, it’s not something we have one set amount of. It’s a muscle, and we build it. And if this helps anyone, even just a little bit, themselves or a friend, then I think I will have found some meaning in this.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Is the book also about helping you get through it?
SHERYL SANDBERG: The book is trying to help other people hear what I couldn’t hear at the beginning.
It does get better. I will always miss Dave. I miss Dave every day. But that feeling of not being able to breathe has passed. I can breathe now. And, sometimes, I think of him and cry, but, sometimes, I think of him and smile. And my children can think of their father and smile. And I want other people going through this to know it’s possible.
JUDY WOODRUFF: “Option B” is not just about Sandberg’s personal journey and loss. It offers ideas and advice for people who’ve experienced their own trauma.
Co-written with psychologist and bestselling author Adam Grant, the book puts a big emphasis on what Sandberg calls the elephant in the room.
SHERYL SANDBERG: It’s not just the loss, or the cancer, or losing a job, or someone in your family going to jail. It’s the silence that surrounds that.
And so, when I lost Dave, I had this overwhelming grief, but also just this isolation I had never felt in my life. I had always felt really connected to my friends, neighbors and family, people I work with.
But when I came back to work, people barely spoke to me. They looked at me like I was a deer in the headlights. And I know they meant well. They were afraid to say the wrong thing, so they said nothing at all.
JUDY WOODRUFF: What’s just one of the ways that people should be able to take away from your experience about how to reach out to someone who’s going through something like this, something traumatic like this, and for those who are going through it themselves, who aren’t accustomed maybe to reaching out, or who aren’t comfortable, for whatever reason?
SHERYL SANDBERG: If you’re trying to help someone who’s facing adversity, the first and most important thing is to acknowledge the pain.
Before, if I had a colleague or a friend who had lost someone, who was going through cancer treatment, I thought bringing it up to them was reminding them. So, I was silent.
Losing Dave taught me how absurd that was. You can’t remind me I lost my husband. I know that every minute of every day. And so, when people said nothing, particularly in the beginning, how are you felt like, how are — how am I? I just lost my husband.
And they were asking. I took that as the standard American I’m supposed to — greeting. I’m supposed to say fine and move on. But they meant it. And when I learned to say, I’m not great, or I’m really sad today, or thanks for asking, I don’t want to talk about it right now, I was letting them acknowledge.
And so it’s really on both sides to acknowledge.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Sandberg also writes about how important it is not to blame yourself.
SHERYL SANDBERG: When Dave first died, I thought it was my fault.
The initial report said he’d died of head trauma from falling off an exercise machine. My brother’s a neurosurgeon, and he told me that wasn’t true.
When we got the autopsy, we realized he had died of a cardiac arrhythmia. But I still blamed myself, and I blamed myself for a long time. But when Adam told me that, because I was blaming myself, I was going to keep my kids from recovering, because I was going to keep myself from recovering, that really helped.
We have to show ourselves compassion, the same compassion we would show a friend.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Sandberg said that, ultimately, family, friends and co-workers, including her boss, Mark Zuckerberg, made a huge difference.
Not everybody may go back to a supportive environment, making it even harder for them. So, what do you say to people who are thinking, how am I going to face co-workers, what if my employer doesn’t give me the time or the space or the understanding that I need?
SHERYL SANDBERG: Yes, we have so much to do to make it easier for people at work.
I’m really lucky. Facebook has great policies. We offer a lot of bereavement leave, a lot of leave of all kinds. And we have done even more since Dave died for people. But we need our workplaces and then our public policy to give people the paid, paid time off they need, because, for a lot of people, if the time is unpaid, they can’t take it.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Sandberg has become increasingly outspoken about the workplace, family life and women’s equality.
Her 2012 book, “Lean In,” served as a call to many women to become more assertive. But, to some, Sandberg’s tone smacked of wealthy white privilege. She was criticized in some quarters for failing to appreciate what single parents and non-traditional families go through.
Now she’s expanded the message to stress the role of government and society in the lives of women.
SHERYL SANDBERG: We are the only developed country in the world, the only one, without paid maternity leave. And we need that, and paid paternity leave, so men and women are equal.
We’re one of the only developed countries without paid family leave. I think a lot about going through everything I went through, and also worrying about paying a basic health care bill, about single mothers who wake up every day in this country and worry about whether they can take care of a sick child, or lose their job that they need, about the minimum wage we have.
Two-thirds of minimum wage workers are women. Minimum wage hasn’t been raised at the federal level in forever. That’s unacceptable.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Unexpectedly, joy is also an essential message in the book. It’s something Sandberg feared she would never feel again.
SHERYL SANDBERG: I thought it would always feel that way. And the sadness is still here, but it doesn’t feel like I’m trapped in a void anymore.
And I have joy, and I have laughter, and I have moments with my kids where we remember their daddy with real joy, and we look at pictures and videos. And I want anyone going through hardship to know that it does get better.
We all have things we can appreciate. We all have moments that we can notice the joy. We all can find gratitude for being alive. And that doesn’t mean that every story has a happy ending, because it doesn’t. But there are things we can do to build resilience in ourselves and each other that make us stronger.
JUDY WOODRUFF: Sheryl Sandberg has not only written this book, “Option B,” about her experience. She’s encouraging people going through tragedy to form support groups to be there for each other.

KEY: 
1F 2T 3F 4T 5F 6T 7F 8T 9T

Does switching on a Satnav switch off part of the brain?

Scientists say using a Satnav can switch off part of the brain, which could have implications for our health.

Self-study activity:
Watch the video and say whether the statements below are true or false.



1 Following the directions of a satnav have deep effects on our brains.
2 Driving around Soho is not difficult.
3 The hippocampus stops working when drivers use a satnav.
4 Seven roads start at Seven Dials in Covent Garden.
5 Taxi drivers in general have the most developed hippocampus.
6 There are around 26,000 places of interest in London.
7 Medical research has proved that underuse of the hippocampus leads to mental diseases.

Some drivers like to follow their nose. Others are more than happy to be told where to go.
After 100 yards, bear left...
More and more people will not leave home without their trusty sat-nav.
It is vital to find places easily.
It is, sort of, I suppose takes the stress out of going somewhere that you don't know.
But what effect does slavishly following directions have on our brains? Neuro scientists at University College London have published research claiming it’s quite profound. Volunteers like Will here were taken around Soho, one of the most complicated road networks in the world. They were then put in an MRI scanner and, using virtual reality, were asked give directions.
So what we did here is look into the human brain, at Will’s brain and many others, to see is there a part of the brain that knows automatically the number of options or the changes in the number of options. But when the volunteers were told the route using a Satnav, scientists noticed the navigational area of the brain, called the hippocampus, stopped working.
You’re no longer engaging those bits of your brain that you would do normally if you were using your memory to sort of pick apart the street network as you navigate. So effectively, the Satnav is turning off the engagement of these brain areas.
Now this is Seven Dials in Covent Garden, and it’s called that for a reason. There are seven different roads converging so I have lots of options here and my brain is currently trying to work out which road to take. But not just that, which road to take after that, and after that, and after that. It’s processing lots of information to try and get me to my destination as quickly and safely as possible. But, this research suggests, if I were to activate my Satnav here, this will do all the decision-making for me. So that part of my brain just switches off.
This research builds on a previous study which found London's black cab drivers have the most developed hippocampus. They have to memorise thousands of roads, routes and landmarks.
It is not in your long term memory, it’s in your short term memory.
Then the brain very quickly becomes a sponge once again and it clicks on to this road leads to this road that leads to that road, I can’t do that road because it’s one way. And in over a series… an amount of time, it grows and grows and grows. So that said, you know, it’s extremely difficult, not just because you’ve got to know 26,000 roads, and thousands and thousands of places of interest, but it’s… we are remembering how to remember them again.
The research team wants to build on the study to explore the wider medical implications, whether underuse of the hippocampus, for example, contributes to the onset of Alzheimer and dementia. But for the first time, there is firm evidence that switching this on switches off an important part of our brain.
Marc Ashdown, BBC London news.

KEY:
1T 
2F 
3T 
4F (converge) 
5F (London's black cab drivers) 
6F (26,000 roads) 
7F (it’s just a hypothesis)

Extensive listening: The surprising science of happiness

Dan Gilbert, author of Stumbling on Happiness, challenges the idea that we'll be miserable if we don't get what we want. Our "psychological immune system" lets us feel truly happy even when things don't go as planned.

Dan Gilbert is a Harvard psychologist who says our beliefs about what will make us happy are often wrong — a premise he supports with intriguing research, and explains in his accessible and unexpectedly funny book, Stumbling on Happiness.

You can read a full transcript for the talk here.

Extensive listening: Who are you, really? The puzzle of personality

What makes you, you? Psychologists like to talk about our traits, or defined characteristics that make us who we are.

But in his TED talk Who are you, really? The puzzle of personality, Brian Little is more interested in moments when we transcend those traits — sometimes because our culture demands it of us, and sometimes because we demand it of ourselves.

Watch Brian Little as he dissects the surprising differences between introverts and extroverts and explains why your personality may be more malleable than you think.

The Amazing Effects of Gratitude

This is a BrainCraft video on the effects gratitude has on us.

Self-study activity:
Watch the video and answer the questions below about it.



1 How did Cicero describe gratitude?
2 When did Thomas Brown give his definition of gratitude?
3 What are the basic emotions mentioned in the video?
4 What did the participants in the 2015 study on gratitude have to imagine?
5 In the second study mentioned, what did participants have to write for one week?
6 What health benefits did keeping a gratitude journal have for people with a heart disease?

Back in Ancient Rome, the philosopher Cicero described gratitude as (1) the mother of all virtues. This concept of being thankful has been stressed in religion and philosophy for a long time.
Back (2) in 1820 Scottish philosopher Thomas Brown defined gratitude as “that delightful emotion of love to him who has conferred a kindness on us.”
But scientifically, gratitude doesn’t qualify as a basic emotion like (3) joy, sadness or anger. There’s no universal facial expression for it. As an emotion, gratitude is a little hard to define.
Today the Oxford Dictionary defines gratitude as “the quality or condition of being thankful; the appreciation of an inclination to return kindness.” And we’ve only really started to study gratitude scientifically in the past 30 years.
In a 2015 study, participants were asked to imagine (4) how they would feel if a complete stranger saved their life. I mean, how would you feel? The participants had to rate how grateful they were to strangers who provided them with gifts of food and clothing – all while they had their brain scanned in an fMRI machine. Researchers found their ratings of gratitude positively correlated with activity in brain areas associated with fairness and value judgements. It makes sense because gratitude is often thought of as a moral emotion.
There are even benefits in just noting how grateful you are. Another study asked people to write down (5) three things that went well that day and why for one week. At the end of the week people were slightly happier than at the beginning, and over time, their happiness scores kept improving. After one month they were 5% happier and after six months they were 9% happier. Just from one week of writing a journal.
A similar study with participants with heart disease found that keeping a gratitude journal (6) increased their heart health and quality of sleep, perhaps because it reduces stress.
“Counting your blessings” quite literally makes people happier and healthier. And some people are even hardwired to be more thankful. In a recent study of 77 couples, those with a particular genetic variation that affects the secretion of oxytocin expressed more gratitude towards their partners. Oxytocin is thought to play a big role in promoting close social bonds, so gratitude is part of the glue that keeps these relationships together. So if you think it’s the thought that counts, think again. Science shows there are some pretty amazing benefits to our mind, body and relationships when we say those two small words –thank you.

Extensive listening: What makes a good life?

What keeps us happy and healthy as we go through life? If you think it's fame and money, you're not alone – but, according to psychiatrist Robert Waldinger, you're mistaken. As the director of a 75-year-old study on adult development, Waldinger has unprecedented access to data on true happiness and satisfaction.

In this TED talk, Dr Waldinger shares three important lessons learned from the study as well as some practical wisdom on how to build a fulfilling, long life.

You can read the full transcript here.

Extensive listening: Mindfulness

One year ago CBS 60 Minutes Anderson Cooper reported on what it's like to try to achieve mindfulness, a self-awareness scientists say is very healthy, but rarely achieved in today's world of digital distractions.

This is the way Anderson Cooper introduced the segment:
"Our lives are filled with distractions -email, Twitter, texting we're constantly connected to technology, rarely alone with just our thoughts. Which is probably why there's a growing movement in America to train people to get around the stresses of daily life. It's a practice called "mindfulness" and it basically means being aware of your thoughts, physical sensations, and surroundings.

Tonight, we'll introduce you to the man who's largely responsible for mindfulness gaining traction. His name is Jon Kabat-Zinn and he thinks mindfulness is the answer for people who are so overwhelmed by life, they feel they aren't really living at all."

You can read the transcript here.

10 Questions for Nobel Laureate Daniel Kahneman

Psychologist and Nobel Laureate Daniel Kahneman discusses his new book, Thinking, Fast and Slow and why our gut instincts are usually wrong.

Self-study activity:
Watch the video and say whether the statements below are true or false. The activity is suitable for Advanced students.



1 Daniel Kahneman is not an economist.
2 The answer to what's 2+2 falls into the slow thinking.
3 The reporter has read Dr Kahneman's book.
4 Intuition falls into the fast thinking.
5 Meat 90% fat-free is more expensive than meat 10% fat.
6 People are obsessed with terrorism.
7 Most people think they cannot be wrong in their ideas.
8 We know less than we really think.
9 Dr Kahneman got the Nobel Prize because he influenced some people in economics.

Hi, I’m Belinda Luscombe. I’m an editor-at-large at Time Magazine. Daniel Kahneman has wom the Nobel Prize for economics even though he’s actually a psychologist. He has a new book called Thinking Fast and Slow. And we’re going to talk, probably knowing me, reasonably slowly today, about that for ten questions. Welcome Professor Kahneman.
I’m glad to be here.
Now, in the book you frame the way we think into two different systems. There’s the fast system, system one, and system two, the slow thinking. Can you explain the difference?
Yes, I mean, you know everybody is aware of that. There are things that just come to your mind, you know, if I say 2+2, the answer comes to your mind. You don’t have to decide to do it, it just happens. But if I say, you know, what’s the product of 17 times 24, probably nothing comes to your mind.
409.
You’ve got to generate.
But I read your book. It’s actually 408.
So, but, yeah, but you pulled that out of memory and even that was an effort.
Are there people who best represents like, you know, public figures that you can think of... this guy is typical of like, slow thinking and this is typical of, of fast? Or is it within all of us?
I mean, you know, you can compare the current president and, and his predecessor. And one of them...
The current president, being much more judicious.
...much, well, you know, I mean certainly much more reflective and much more deliberate. And the previous one quite explicitly trusting his intuition, trusting his gut, and very much following what system one was telling him what to do.
What then are the most common decision-making mistakes involving this?
We are biased to like some people and to dislike other people. We are biased by, by words so that, you know, you are not going to have the same attitude towards a cold cut of mean if it’s described as 10% fat or as 90% fat-free. People are actually willing to pay more for the latter.
You don’t seem in the book, just from a surface reading, to be like a huge fan of intuition. Is it idiotic to go with your gut?
No, it depends, it really depends on the situation. I mean, there are conditions where you know that you are very likely to make a mistake. If somebody has just put a number and you are negotiating and somebody has mentioned a number, you should be very wary because that number looks more reasonable the moment it has come on the table. So there are mistake that people do. You can recognize the circumstances under which those mistakes occur.
Of all the demonstrations your, your book lists a lot of really fantastic demonstrations that you did to illustrate this blindness we have to our own biases, what is your favourite?
During the period when there was a fair amount of terrorist activity in Europe, people were asked to consider travel insurance. There were two conditions, and they were asked to, how much would you pay for a policy that pays $100,000 in case of death for any reason. And other people were asked, how much would you pay for a policy that pays $100,000 for death in a terrorism incident. And people pay more for the second than for the first.
Even though it’s less likely.
Even though it’s much less likely but, of course, they are not comparing the two. They are seeing only one of them, and so they are more afraid. People are certainly more afraid, more frightened by the idea of dying in a terrorist accident than they’re frightened by the idea of dying. And the willingness to pay simply reflects fear.
What are the biggest mistakes that people make in thinking about themselves?
Well, in the first place they think that other people have biases but that they don’t. So they’re, well, normally blind about their own blindness. We’re generally very overconfident in our opinions and in our impressions and judgements. Many people, not all, but the people that make the most difference to the lives of other people are very optimistic. And they have an illusion of control. And then there’s the illusion, which is very important, that the world is more knowable. I mean, we exaggerate how knowable the world is. So, for example, you know we think there are people who knew that there was going to be a recession or, you know, a severe event. And I’m skeptical because I think they didn’t know it, they thought it and then it happened. But there were other equally knowledgeable, equally intelligent people who knew the same thing and didn’t think there  was going to be a recession. So we use the word know in peculiar ways and that’s strengthened the illusion that we understand the world when we really don’t.
I’m aware that you have a Nobel Prize for Economics but do you think the field of economics has been responsive enough to your discoveries and theories?
Well, you know, I’m a psychologist and not an economist and I am actually very surprised that they have been as responsive as they have been, I mean, Behaviour Economics is now definitely part of the establishment. It’s a dominant approach in some of the best departments of Economics in the country.
So which Nobel are you going for next?
Well, no, you know, I mean, what happened to us was an accident and, it’s you know, it’s basically we did psychology and we influenced some people in economics and I hope that the people that we influenced that the get the Nobel Prize in Economics. So I have very strong favourites in that field but otherwise I don’t have any other recommendations to the Nobel community.
Dr Kahneman, thank you so much for being here.
Thank you.

KEY:
1T 2F 3T 4T 5F 6T 7T 8T 9T

Reading test: What I’m really thinking- The fitness instructor

In this week's reading test we are going to practise the kind of insert-a-word kind of task and to do so we are going to use an article from The Guardian feature What I'm really thinking, The fitness instructor.

Read the text and insert the missing word in the corresponding gap 1-12 from the list given below. There are three words you do not need to use. 0 is an example.

 What I’m really thinking- The fitness instructor

Early starts are a (0) downside but it never ceases to amaze me how many people are queueing to get into the gym every morning at 6am. The diehards who can’t start the day without their (1) … ; the city banker trying to de-stress before work; the retired pensioner who can’t get out of the (2) … of waking early; the fitness (3) … who will be back in the gym at 6pm.

The best part of my job is seeing someone who starts out very unfit and (4) … and goes on to become healthy and strong. They often say, “I couldn’t have done it without you”, but the truth is they have done it all by themselves. I can’t control how much they eat at the end of each day, or give them the (5) … to push that extra weight.

I have lost (6) … of how many people I have sent to their (7)… after finding high blood pressure during their first induction. Maybe I saved their life in the long run. I like to see trainee instructors who start this job with little confidence but go on to be brilliant personal trainers. Some are never going to make the mark – I’ll stop them before they (8) … someone because of their training techniques.

The bad bits are few: clearing up sweat from the cross trainer because someone feels entitled to leave their (9) … for someone else; the injuries when someone falls backwards off a moving treadmill (10) … trying to send a text; worrying about the anorexic who shouldn’t even be in the gym. But you can’t stop people (11)… they are adults.

The job is different every day and in a way we are (12) … hairdressers: we get to hear your life stories.

addict
as
count
downside 0 Example
drive
GP
habit
injure
like
mess
once
overweight
PR
unless
while
workout

cross trainer

KEY:
1 workout
2 habit
3 addict
4 overweight
5 drive
6 count
7 GP
8 injure
9 mess
10 while
11 once
12 like

The language of lying

In this 2014 TED Talk, Noah Zandan uses some famous examples of lying to illustrate how we might use communications science to analyze the lies themselvesNoah Zandan uses some famous examples of lying to illustrate how we might use communications science to analyze the lies themselves.

Watch the video through and say whether the statements below are true or false.

You can also have a look and do to all the activities around this talk in the TED lesson here. It includes some comprehension questions, internet resources to go further into the topic and some questions for discussion.



1 We hear more than 200 lies a day.
2 It's not complicated to fool lie-detecting devices.
3 We lie to make ourselves look better in front of others.
4 Our conscious mind controls 95% of cognitive functions, including communication.
5 Imagined stories are very different from real ones as far as language use in concerned.
6 Liars use the first person when telling a lie.
7 Liars use more negative language.
8 Liars explain the events in a lie in a complex way.
9 The language structure in a lie is complex.
10 When Lance Armstrong admitted taking drugs, he used fewer pronouns.
11 When admitting fatherhood, Senator John Edwards used names and simple sentences.
12 Most lies we tell in life are harmless.

"Sorry, my phone died."
"It's nothing. I'm fine."
"These allegations are completely unfounded."
"The company was not aware of any wrongdoing."
"I love you."
We hear anywhere from 10 to 200 lies a day, and we spent much of our history coming up with ways to detect them, from medieval torture devices to polygraphs, blood pressure and breathing monitors, voice stress analyzers, eye trackers, infrared brain scanners, and even the 400-pound electroencephalogram.
But although such tools have worked under certain circumstances, most can be fooled with enough preparation, and none are considered reliable enough to even be admissible in court.
But, what if the problem is not with the techniques, but the underlying assumption that lying spurs physiological changes? What if we took a more direct approach, using communication science to analyze the lies themselves?
On a psychological level, we lie partly to paint a better picture of ourselves, connecting our fantasies to the person we wish we were rather than the person we are. But while our brain is busy dreaming, it's letting plenty of signals slip by. Our conscious mind only controls about 5% of our cognitive function, including communication, while the other 95% occurs beyond our awareness, and according to the literature on reality monitoring, stories based on imagined experiences are qualitatively different from those based on real experiences.
This suggests that creating a false story about a personal topic takes work and results in a different pattern of language use. A technology known as linguistic text analysis has helped to identify four such common patterns in the subconscious language of deception.
First, liars reference themselves less, when making deceptive statements. They write or talk more about others, often using the third person to distance and disassociate themselves from their lie, which sounds more false: "Absolutely no party took place at this house," or "I didn't host a party here."
Second, liars tend to be more negative, because on a subconscious level, they feel guilty about lying. For example, a liar might say something like, "Sorry, my stupid phone battery died. I hate that thing."
Third, liars typically explain events in simple terms since our brains struggle to build a complex lie.
Judgement and evaluation are complex things for our brains to compute. As a U.S. President once famously insisted: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman."
And finally, even though liars keep descriptions simple, they tend to use longer and more convoluted sentence structure, inserting unnecessary words and irrelevant but factual sounding details in order to pad the lie. Another President confronted with a scandal proclaimed: "I can say, categorically, that this investigation indicates that no one on the White House staff, no one in this administration presently employed was involved in this very bizarre incident."
Let's apply linguistic analysis to some famous examples. Take seven-time Tour de France winner Lance Armstrong. When comparing a 2005 interview, in which he had denied taking performance-enhancing drugs to a 2013 interview, in which he admitted it, his use of personal pronouns increased by nearly 3/4.
Note the contrast between the following two quotes. First: "Okay, you know, a guy in a French, in a Parisian laboratory opens up your sample, you know, Jean-Francis so-and-so, and he tests it. And then you get a phone call from a newspaper that says: 'We found you to be positive six times for EPO." Second: "I lost myself in all of that. I'm sure there would be other people that couldn't handle it, but I certainly couldn't handle it, and I was used to controlling everything in my life. I controlled every outcome in my life."
In his denial, Armstrong described a hypothetical situation focused on someone else, removing himself from the situation entirely. In his admission, he owns his statements, delving into his personal emotions and motivations.
But the use of personal pronouns is just one indicator of deception. Let's look at another example from former Senator and U.S. Presidential candidate John Edwards: "I only know that the apparent father has said publicly that he is the father of the baby. I also have not been engaged in any activity of any description that requested, agreed to, or supported payments of any kind to the woman or to the apparent father of the baby."
Not only is that a pretty long-winded way to say, "The baby isn't mine," but Edwards never calls the other parties by name, instead saying "that baby," "the woman," and "the apparent father."
Now let's see what he had to say when later admitting paternity: "I am Quinn's father. I will do everything in my power to provide her with the love and support she deserves." The statement is short and direct, calling the child by name and addressing his role in her life.
So how can you apply these lie-spotting techniques to your life? First, remember that many of the lies we encounter on a daily basis are far less serious that these examples, and may even be harmless. But it's still worthwhile to be aware of telltale clues, like minimal self-references, negative language, simple explanations and convoluted phrasing. It just might help you avoid an overvalued stock, an ineffective product, or even a terrible relationship.

Key: 
1F 2T 3T 4F 5T 6F 7T 8F 9T 10F 11T 12T

Extensive listening: Endless memory

Lesley Stahl reports on the recently discovered phenomenon of "superior autobiographical memory," the ability to recall nearly every day of one's life.

This is a CBS 60 Minutes segment, and this is the way reporter Lesley Stahl introduced the segment:

'It is often said that we are our memories - that web of experiences, relationships, thoughts, and feelings that make us who we are. We don't remember it all of course. That would be impossible. Or would it?

There has been a discovery in the field of memory recently, so new you won't find it in any textbook. It's so hard to fathom, there are some who remain unconvinced.

For the moment, the scientists studying it are simply calling it "superior autobiographical memory." And unless you happen to know one of the handful of people discovered so far who have it, get ready to be amazed.'

You can read a full transcript for the segment here.

Reading test: The best way to win an argument

The best way to win an argument is an article by Tom Stafford published on BBC Future. We are going to use it to practise the kind of reading comprehension activity that puts to the test our knowledge of vocabulary and grammar.

Read the article and choose the option a, b or c that best fits in each blank.

How do you change someone’s mind if you think you are right and they are wrong? Psychology (1) … the last thing to do is the tactic we usually resort to.

You are, I'm afraid to say, mistaken. The position you are taking makes no logical sense. Just listen up and I'll be more than happy to elaborate on the many, many reasons why I'm right and you are wrong. Are you feeling ready to be convinced?

(2) … the subject is climate change, the Middle East or forthcoming holiday plans, this is the approach many of us adopt when we try to convince others to change their minds. It's also an approach that, more often than not, (3) … the person on the receiving end hardening their existing position. Fortunately research suggests there is a better way – one that involves more listening, and less trying to bludgeon your opponent into submission.

A little over a decade ago Leonid Rozenblit and Frank Keil from Yale University suggested that in many instances people believe they understand how something works when in fact their understanding is superficial at best. They called this phenomenon "the illusion of explanatory depth". They began (4) … asking their study participants to rate how well they understood how things like flushing toilets, car speedometers and sewing machines worked, before asking them to explain what they understood and then answer questions on it. The effect shown was that, on average, people in the experiment rated their understanding as much worse after it had been put to the test.

What happens, argued the researchers, is that we (5) … our familiarity with these things for the belief that we have a detailed understanding of how they work. Usually, nobody tests us and if we have any questions about them we can just take a look. Psychologists call this idea that humans have a tendency to take mental short cuts when making decisions or assessments the "cognitive miser" theory.

Why would we (6) … expending the effort to really understand things when we can get by without doing so? The interesting thing is that we (7) … hide from ourselves exactly how shallow our understanding is.

It's a phenomenon that will be familiar to anyone who has ever had to teach something. Usually, it only takes the first moments when you start to rehearse what you'll say to explain a topic, or worse, the first student question, for you to realise that you don't truly understand it. All over the world, teachers say to each other "I didn't really understand this until I had to teach it". Or as researcher and inventor Mark Changizi quipped: "I find that (8) … badly I teach I still learn something".

Explain yourself

Research published last year on this illusion of understanding shows how the effect might be used to convince others they are wrong. The research team, led by Philip Fernbach, of the University of Colorado, reasoned that the phenomenon might (9) … as much for political understanding as for things like how toilets work. Perhaps, they figured, people who have strong political opinions (10) … more open to other viewpoints, if asked to explain exactly how they thought the policy they were advocating would bring about the effects they claimed it would.

Recruiting a sample of Americans via the internet, they polled participants on a set of contentious US policy issues, such as imposing sanctions on Iran, healthcare and approaches to carbon emissions. One group was asked to give their opinion and then provide reasons for why they held that view. This group got the opportunity to put their side of the issue, in the same way anyone in an argument or debate has a chance to argue their case.

Those in the second group did something subtly different. (11) … provide reasons, they were asked to explain how the policy they were advocating would work. They were asked to trace, step by step, from start to finish, the causal path from the policy to the effects it was supposed to have.

The results were clear. People who provided reasons remained as convinced of their positions as they had been before the experiment. Those who were asked to provide explanations softened their views, and reported a correspondingly larger drop (12) … how they rated their understanding of the issues. People who had previously been strongly for or against carbon emissions trading, for example, tended to became more moderate – ranking themselves as less certain in their support or opposition to the policy.

So this is something worth (13) … in mind next time you're trying to convince a friend that we should build more nuclear power stations, that the collapse of capitalism is inevitable, or that dinosaurs co-existed with humans 10,000 years ago. Just remember, however, there's a chance you might need to be able to explain precisely why you think you are correct. (14) … you might end up being the one who changes their mind.

1 a) conceals   b) sustains   c) reveals
2 a) if   b) whether   c) providing
3 a) results from   b) leads to   c) give rise
4 a) by   b) when   c) on
5 a) take   b) mistake   c) misinterpret
6 a) bother   b) disturb   c) care
7 a) are able   b) succeed in   c) manage to
8 a) despite   b) no matter how   c) nevertheless
9 a) pervade   b) keep up   c) hold
10 a) would be   b) would have been   c) were
11 a) Rather than   b) Instead   c) In place of
12 a) of   b) in   c) on
13 a) bearing   b) bear   c) to bear
14 a) Otherwise   b) All the same   c) Nonetheless

Photo: ask-gratitude

Key:
1c 2b 3b 4b 5b 6a 7c 8b 9c 10a 11a 12b 13a 14a

Extensive listening: How to make better decisions

How to make better decisions is a documentary aired by BBC's Horizon in 2008.

This is the way the BBC announced the programme:

"We are bad at making decisions. According to science, our decisions are based on oversimplification, laziness and prejudice. And that's assuming that we haven't already been hijacked by our surroundings or led astray by our subconscious!

Featuring exclusive footage of experiments that show how our choices can be confounded by temperature, warped by post-rationalisation and even manipulated by the future, Horizon presents a guide to better decision making, and introduces you to Mathematician Garth Sundem, who is convinced that conclusions can best be reached using simple maths and a pencil!"



You can read the transcript for the documentary here.

Givers and Takers

Susan Dominus talks to psychologist Adam Grant about his new book, Give and Take, which takes a look at givers, takers and succeeding in the workplace.

Self-study activity:
The pace of delivery in this interview is really fast, and even strong intermediate students are going to find it difficult at times. However, I have decided to post the video because I found the topic interesting and because it may help us focus on an interesting exam strategy: The input we get through the questions in the task is very often an invaluable source of information about the content and a guideline that helps us to monitor what is being said.

Watch the video and say whether the statements below are true or false.



1 Giver, taker and matcher are the three main styles of worker.
2 Takers usually don't contribute much in an organization.
3 Most workers are takers.
4 Givers usually achieve great things.
5 Takers use the 'five-minute favour' strategy.
6 Most takers are successful in the end.
7 Gossiping through social media helps us identify the style of worker we are dealing with.

So everybody´s going to read this book and start going through their work like you know ok, giver, taker, matcher…
I actually think when people go around looking around their workplaces they are going to go giver, matcher, matcher, matcher, matcher, taker, matcher, matcher, matcher, giver, because most people are matchers. The book is called Give and Take and is about why people rise to the top or sink to the bottom in organizations. When I’ve found is there is these three sort of fundamental styles of interaction at work that exist in most industries, in most cultures around the world. And I called them ‘giver’, ‘taker’ and ‘matcher’. I think you’ve probably encountered your share of takers over the years. The takers are the people who are trying to get as much as possible from other people and contribute as little as they can in return. And then at the other end of the spectrum you have these people that I call givers, who actually enjoy contributing more to others than they receive in return.
How weird!
I know it´s very strange, who would do that, but there’s this breed of people who sort of walk around in their professional lives, making introductions, offering mentoring and providing help all without strings attached. Most people fall in the middle of that spectrum and I call them matchers. And a matcher is basically somebody who, who walks around trying to maintain an even balance of give and take.
In your book there are a lot of stories about people, you know, do achieve great things by being givers, and maybe you can talk me through a little bit about how that works because when I read that theory some friends of mine they all thought ‘that’s not the people I see at the top necessarily’.
So if you look at sales people or engineers or even medical students, the ones who are most inclined to help others are more likely to fail dramatically and also to succeed really big. One of the really big questions is what do the givers at the top do? A lot of it actually has to do with one of my favourite characters in the book, the five-minute favour. Looking for a low-cost to you but high benefit to others ways of contributing.
I love the idea of the  five-minute favour its totally appealing, however, in my experience the five-minute favour tends to turn like a twenty-minute favour that day, and then there’s usually some follow-up.
This is something I´ve been trying to apply to my own life having learned it from a bunch of people in the book. When somebody asks me for help, instead of saying ‘yes, I will help you’ right away I will say ‘ok, is this something I can add unique value and helping with’. If not, let me see if I can connect you with someone else who can really contribute.
You are doing a favour to the person who needs the introduction but maybe you’re imposing on the person you are asking them to meet. I meet how does it all work?
I try to make those asked frequently are givers and I know often times what I hear back ‘hey, this is a meaningful opportunity for me to help, can you send me more like this?’ Sometimes also I’ll send those requests to people who I know are more like matchers, who I helped in the past. I wouldn’t recommend doing 5-minute favours for everyone, ok, I would ask first of all ‘are you trying to help somebody who is a giver, a taker or a matcher?’, and if the person is really a taker you may want to be a little bit more cautious.
So how is it that so many takers end up so successful?
A lot of takers succeed in the short run, but not in the long run, so, you know, trying to claim as much of value from other people as possible is often a really efficient way to get things done but it also tends to burn bridges. The world’s has gotten more connected, especially if you look at organizations and so, you know, there is this big relationship and reputation component of succeeding at work that perhaps was less salient before.
So as the world becomes more connected and social media are more prevalent, the reputational cost of being a taker are going to be spread more quickly than it maybe did twenty years ago, is that the idea?
That’s one of my predictions. Rob Wiley has some studies on this at Berkeley where he shows that people actually go around trying to punish takers, and one of the ways they do that is by gossiping and spreading negative reputational information to protect other people.
So in this way gossip turns out to be an incredibly healthy productive office activity.
It can be, yes, so Rob is calling actually, talks about pre-social gossip and the idea that you can contribute to others through sort of protecting them or at least encouraging them to keep their guard up when somebody has been so really self-absorbing in the past.

Key:
1T 2T 3F 4T 5F 6F 7T