Ship of Fools: I never inhaled.

Thread: I never inhaled. Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=029136

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

I’m increasingly bemused by the human ability to lie. I’m not talking just about telling deliberate falsehoods, like “I did not have sex with that woman,” or “You look great in that shirt, Honey.” I’m talking about our ability to lie to ourselves (“I can still pass for 35”) and our ability to invent, from whole cloth, alternative-yet-nonsensical realities like the rubbish I wasted an hour watching on the History Channel recently, and, in fact, the whole of fiction.

What a very peculiar ability. While I can see that, as a capacity, it has all sorts of survival value among, say, contemporary sub-prime mortgage financiers, sellers of used cars, and advertisers, I cannot for the life of me understand what possible evolutionary value such an ability would have had for early humans. Indeed, wouldn’t it seem an actual liability for a tribe of cave-persons to have, among its number, several folks who routinely misinformed the rest about where the best fishing was, or how to locate the tree with the honey-hive, or how far it really was to the next water-hole? Wouldn’t one expect such an ability to invent and express untruths to die out over time – if indeed, possessors’ cave-mates didn’t regularly bash their skulls in for misleading their kith and kin?

Clearly, that either didn’t happen, or the ability was less prevalent or even nonexistent back then. Obviously, it can’t have arisen earlier than language itself, but . . . still, what good was such a capacity and how and why did it arise, and how has it become an expected, if not entirely accepted, part of contemporary life?

Can anybody explain -- just, please, not in solely theological terms – how our capacity for spouting utter rubbish has flourished so widely for so long?

Posted by Macrina (# 8807) on :

Actually I think the ability to lie is fundamental to maintaining the social fabric. Can you imagine what life would be like if everyone was 100% truthful and forthright ALL the time?

Lies in excess and to deliberately and harmfully deceive are a bad thing. But most of us lie to keep others happy or to maintain social graces i.e white lies. That is probably why it evolved and persists.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

I have read some observations of primate structures like chimpanzees that have an alpha male hierarchy, that the females not only have sex with the current champions of the power struggle, but are known to slip quietly behind a tree with one of the weedy beta males for sex.
The lie is a useful tool in social life.

Humans have cherished story telling among other social skills for a very long time. And many stories are lies in the service of a higher truth.

Also note that to be able to detect liars, it helps to have some experience with them. Having people in your tribe who lie in ways that do not inflict major harm can be useful in preparing you for those whose lies may kill you.

[ 12. April 2015, 01:40: Message edited by: Palimpsest ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Macrina:
Actually I think the ability to lie is fundamental to maintaining the social fabric. Can you imagine what life would be like if everyone was 100% truthful and forthright ALL the time?

The social lie is absolutely vital. If a woman loses her husband and you thought he was a total ass, you need to say to her, "I'm so sorry to hear of your loss," not, "Good riddance, he was a total ass." The first is a lie. But it's a necessary lie.

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

But is it lying to tell someone you care at least a bit for that you're sorry for their grief?

Also, there's always silence, or changing the subject, when people bring up The Awkward. It's rarely really necessary to actually lie.

In the face of the "Does this dress make me look fat?" dilemma, one can always tell a substitute truth. "That color looks great on you; Wow, you'll be right in style; What a gorgeous print; etc.

Anyway, just how much social lying was needed among people dressing in skins and painting themselves with mud? Even if you think Ooga looks dreadful decked out in emu feathers, you can always just slip to the back of the group and keep your mouth shut.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

I think it is something to do with imagination and the way we solve problems. If you are faced with a difficulty you need a brain that can invent hundred and one ways of solving it, then start analyzing which of them is reasonable. The same process is very good at inventing all sorts of alternative realities and it takes discipline and the use of a filter to keep it in check.

Children are incredible with their ability to imagine and it seems to me they all go through an early stage where their play world and real world are very entwined and difficult to tell apart.

I think inventiveness is the necessary evolutionary advantage and that gives us a tremendous capacity to lie as well.

Posted by Macrina (# 8807) on :

I'd be careful about dismissing the need to lie in so called primitive cultures. People are people are people. We can see that all over the world in all walks of life from Western Millionaires to Kalahari Bushmen. We are basically all the same when you scrub off our cultural trappings - we love, we grieve, we get angry, we get jealous, we get sad, we get happy etc.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

There's a theory that humans still have head hair because it lets us style it to fit in with our social group. And beyond dubious evolutionary one of the Irish bog bodies from 2000 BCE had hair pomade from Spain. So don't dismiss the effort or skill to look beautiful. And don't dismiss the need to tell an occasional lie. I'm very fond of the traditional Jewish saying "Every bride is beautiful on her wedding day."

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The social lie is absolutely vital. If a woman loses her husband and you thought he was a total ass, you need to say to her, "I'm so sorry to hear of your loss," not, "Good riddance, he was a total ass." The first is a lie. But it's a necessary lie.

It's not a lie at all. I can be sorry for my friend's loss even if her husband was a total ass. I can be sorry for her grief and sadness even if I think she's better off without him.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Macrina:
Actually I think the ability to lie is fundamental to maintaining the social fabric. Can you imagine what life would be like if everyone was 100% truthful and forthright ALL the time?
The social lie is absolutely vital. If a woman loses her husband and you thought he was a total ass, you need to say to her, "I'm so sorry to hear of your loss," not, "Good riddance, he was a total ass." The first is a lie. But it's a necessary lie.

Is there a difference between a lie that arises from an observation of what's happened (ie the death of an abusive spouse) as compared to a lie in response to a request for an opinion (ie do I look fat in this dress).

If asked for an opinion some of us don't lie - it's not because we won't it's because we can't. [We think in very narrow categories]. Expressing regret for example doesn't fit the same categories and it may not be a lie - just not the full truth.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Plus saying "sorry for your loss" gives the widow options. She can continue to express grief, or wanly smile and say "Thanks, hon, but I know what a jackass he was"--and maybe she'll even be able to trash talk a bit and vent.

If you start with "so he finally kicked the bucket, drinks are on me", she may feel she has to defend him. Follow her lead.

(Of course, this all depends on the people involved, their style of friendship, culture, etc.)

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

There is a beautiful line from Ursula Le Guin's marvellous "The Left Hand of Darkness" (a plug here, there is a play based on the book starting on Radio 4 today at 3pm), which makes a good touchstone for me re mousethief's valid point.

"Silence is not what I should choose, but it suits me better than a lie".

In general, the issue is that people are often tempted to misrepresent, either to gain personal advantage, or to disadvantage someone else who they want to "put down" for other reasons. I guess there is some kind of pecking order issue at work there. Folks may see lying as a way of improving their status at the expense of others.

[Edited to get the quote word perfect]

[ 12. April 2015, 07:21: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

The ability to reframe the truth so as not to cause offence is closely related to the ability to lie. They both arise not just from an ingrained ability to imagine more than one permutation of reality, but also the ability to imagine what someone else feels like - i.e. what it would be like if I were them. Most people in all cultures ingest these abilities in early childhood. There are a few well known mental dislocations that cause some people not to be able to do this. It means they and their immediate families have much more difficult lives than the rest of us.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

It's more accurate to speak of deception in animals and plants, where it seems to be common. I have watched female birds do the broken wing manoeuvre, to distract a predator. Camouflage is another common trait.

As others have said, not being able to lie is a serious disability, indicating possibly some cognitive malfunction.

One of the interesting aspects of this is being able to present a facade or persona, a vital part of human interaction, although again it can become automatic, and hence self-destructive.

You can probably argue that cooperation in animals often involves deception; it's one way that the individual is distinguished - hence in humans not being able to deceive shows too much compliance, and an inability to be separate. Fear for the child who cannot dissimulate, and also the one who cannot stop.

Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :

I enjoy making up preposterous stories. When mucking around, almost everything I say is an outrageous, unbelievable lie. I spend quite a bit of time thinking about my next outrageous lie, putting that lie into effect, and then telling my wife about it. I know deep down that my wife would prefer it if I shut up, but I can't help it.

I suspect that the capacity to lie is a product of our need to exist within groups. This is not a lie, honestly.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Yes, I was thinking about fiction and acting, not lying really, but a kind of alternative reality. Well, probably stories are vital to human health and functioning.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

People often lie to smooth things over for themselves. They don't see the lies as important at all 'white lies'. My MIL was a master at it. If it got her out of an awkward situation, she lied.

"Sorry I can't make it today, I've got a tummy bug". When she hadn't at all - it was simply easier than saying "I don't want to come to lunch today, thank you".

So I see two sorts of social lie - Good ones where we are avoiding hurting others. And selfish ones when we are smoothing life over for ourselves.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

.. not lying really ...

A good phrase! This isn't theological, Porridge, but the ancient commandment is about "bearing false witness". The old oath in court, based on that is to tell "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth".

I think we can distinguish circumstances here. Diplomatic responses to avoid giving gratuitous offence do not involve telling the whole truth, rather they often involve us being economical with the truth. And in conversation with a grieving or upset person, there is a lot to be said in favour of considerate and discreet responses.

But when lives, liberties and reputations are at stake, the deliberate and considered bearing of false witness is a greater offence. To some extent that has been the underlying tension in the long-running Ferguson thread.

Stories may indeed help to build communities, inspire loyalties. But if the ability to distinguish between building up communities and bearing false witness in the process gets lost, then the community as a whole suffers. It's my morning for quotes, and so here is Frank Herbert's extremely good advice from the "Dune Series".

"If you put away from you those who would tell you the truth, those who remain will know what you want to hear. I can think of nothing more poisonous than to rot in the stink of your own reflections".

There is something poisonous about treating truth as "a moving target" (another quote), depending on what me might see as advantageous in misrepresentation. I think that is as much a "meme" in societies as the recognition that "there is a time and a place".

[ 12. April 2015, 08:24: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

Surely we learn early that certain behaviours get us what we most want? The hungry/frightened/hurting baby cries and its mother comes. So perhaps on the next cry, it's not that hungry etc?

We progress to speech and discover that our accounts of our experience is differently received - 'you're just making that up!' Mostly we achieve an understanding of how to communicate 'truthfully' - but we will also have gained an insight into things like evasion, tact, politeness, flattery - and also irony and other oblique methods of saying one thing and meaning another. Deliberate deception is just one end of a spectrum of strategies to facilitate our social survival and prosperity.

I expect most of us live at the level of mild lying - 'Lovely evening and a delicious dinner!' (Thinks: I never want to hear about holidays in the Algarve ever again and I'm pretty sure that was M&S lasagne), because there are normally no situations so pressing or extreme to require otherwise. But if your life was more dangerous or precarious? Or if you could only gain certain ends - justified, in your eyes - by causing people to believe your version? Are we not, at this point, into how advertising, business, the media and politics actually operate?

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Very good points about irony and sarcasm, which are a bit like transparent lies, meant to be seen through. I have enjoyed our little chat this morning, and it's so good to see how your spelling has improved! But of course, that could be non-sarcastic.

The whole field of dissimulation is quite fascinating, and enormous. I was thinking about pretending, and the great pleasure in watching an actor do it; less enjoyable when my mother used to do it (badly).

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Another fascinating issue, which I have encountered a lot via work, is lying to yourself. I would say this is common, although complicated by varying degrees of unconsciousness and denial. In that sense, I probably don't think that I am lying to myself, until I realize that I am!

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

It depends on what is gained by telling, or maintaining a lie. Is it a greater good or a greater harm? And who is the judge as to what the difference is between the two? The Mother of all circular arguments I should imagine.

As individuals we can often prefer the lie in regards to many aspects of our existence, particularly when the truth might be not just uncomfortable but even unbearable.
I should have thought the maintenance of faith must fall into that category somewhere along the line. Nothing wrong with a personal happy deception so long as no one else is hurt by it.

Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
People often lie to smooth things over for themselves. They don't see the lies as important at all 'white lies'. My MIL was a master at it. If it got her out of an awkward situation, she lied.

"Sorry I can't make it today, I've got a tummy bug". When she hadn't at all - it was simply easier than saying "I don't want to come to lunch today, thank you".

So I see two sorts of social lie - Good ones where we are avoiding hurting others. And selfish ones when we are smoothing life over for ourselves.

I have a relative who does this a lot - it may be a social lie but it means I don't believe a word she says without checking it with others first..

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

mousethief. What lie? You mean you're not sorry for her loss?

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
One of the interesting aspects of this is being able to present a facade or persona, a vital part of human interaction, although again it can become automatic, and hence self-destructive.

One of my daughters was involved in the children's theater long ago. After she grew up she discovered that the training in projecting a persona was invaluable in certain situations, e.g. job interviews.

She was always completely honest in what she said, but she could create the impression of being poised and relaxed when she was anything but.

Moo

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Macrina:
I'd be careful about dismissing the need to lie in so called primitive cultures. People are people are people. We can see that all over the world in all walks of life from Western Millionaires to Kalahari Bushmen. We are basically all the same when you scrub off our cultural trappings - we love, we grieve, we get angry, we get jealous, we get sad, we get happy etc.

Yes, and we also lie.

The thing is, I doubt that early humans had concepts / customs which included the extremer forms of individualism that we cling to now. If you're one of a group of 30-40 people utterly dependent on one another for bare survival in an environment chock-full of dangers both seen and anticipatable as well as unseen and unpredictable, and you have neither mirrors nor any possibility of either fame or the slightest bit of privacy, and everybody in your group knows pretty much everything about you anyway, where and how do we develop this need for the social lie?

When 2-year-old Gog tells 34-year-old Gramps, "You snore like a cougar," and everybody within hearing distance laughs in acknowledgment, it's going to be hard for even the fondest mate to smooth things over by claiming it isn't so.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
she could create the impression of being poised and relaxed when she was anything but.

And here is another evolutionary survival advantage. The animal that looks calm and assured when face to face with a bear is more likely to survive the encounter than one that turns and runs in terror.

Posted by Jay-Emm (# 11411) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
I’m increasingly bemused by the human ability to lie. I’m not talking just about telling de
Can anybody explain -- just, please, not in solely theological terms – how our capacity for spouting utter rubbish has flourished so widely for so long?

Going back to the OP Q, I suppose one 'beneficial' effect of self-deception would be if it makes it easier to intentionally deceive others, for selfish gain. If you need an easy example with direct genetic implications "Uriah you're just the man we need",

Similarly the capability for little white lies might be good for all society (as already mentioned).

But a more hopeful example I suppose one practical effect of the ability to will oneself into believing you know something that honest reflection will say you don't, is if it gets you over a barrier, Columbus style.
If say water holes are about 70% of a days walk apart, then a tribe that is cautious will be stuck* and eventually grow so large it drinks the hole dry or be stuck in a lean year. While a tribe that has some (false) confidence to go past the point of no return will eventually spread and have more room to grow and a better buffer against bad years.

*ish. of course there are clever ways to extend things, but they apply to both groups and there will be some selection pressure to have hardier people but again that applies to both groups (intuitively I'd have thought more to the second).

[x post, with mdjion who gives another, low society just-so story]

[code]

[ 12. April 2015, 13:54: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

quote:
from the OP
the whole of fiction.

How is fiction synonymous with lying?

If it were then the parable of the sower, although based on the agricultural practices of the time, would be a lie. Similarly the Good Samaritan.

As for someone having a beam in their eye...

The theology is not that if something is not 100% factual, such as stories made up to illustrate a point or hyperbole, then it is a lie and therefore sinful. Not at all.

the 9th Commandment is not 'you shall not lie: The 9th Commandment is 'You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour.' The against your neighbour bit is important, what it is saying is that lying in order to get someone into trouble or to shift blame onto someone else in not on. I can find no rule against the 'that dress suits you' kind of lie at all.

White lies, along with fiction and hyperbole to illustrate a point, seem OK to me.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:

In the face of the "Does this dress make me look fat?" dilemma, one can always tell a substitute truth.

Or talk plainly, like my German relatives. They would say yes to your question, both because perhaps it does make you look fat, and because no-one should ask such stupid questions. With the rationale that if you ask if you look fat, you already believe you do so we shouldn't argue about it.

The general point is that there are major cultural differences with such things.

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

Back to Porridge's little band of hunter-gatherers - I bet when they were huddled in the cave of an evening, conversation turned to the deeds of Enki - now there was a hunter - my grandfather told me...

We are inveterate story tellers. When we meet with friends, are we not continually recounting this or that thing that happened? And - unless colossal bores - shaping our narrative to leave out some things and heighten others, make it funnier, or more dramatic?

And do we not- from that ur-campfire on - like and reward the storytellers who best please or entertain or inspire or even frighten us?

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

quote:
Originally posted by balaam:

quote:
from the OP
the whole of fiction.
How is fiction synonymous with lying?

How is it not? Lawrence Block called his writing advice book Telling Lies for Fun and Profit. Was he wrong?

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Well, fiction is transparent; everyone knows that it's pretend. But I think there is a connection between all the different forms of pretence. I wonder if anyone has written a magisterial book describing them all, it could be a wonderful book.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, fiction is transparent; everyone knows that it's pretend. But I think there is a connection between all the different forms of pretence. I wonder if anyone has written a magisterial book describing them all, it could be a wonderful book.

Get writing! [Biased]

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

‘Now, what I want is, Facts. Teach these boys and girls nothing but Facts. Facts alone are wanted in life. Plant nothing else, and root out everything else. You can only form the minds of reasoning animals upon Facts: nothing else will ever be of any service to them. This is the principle on which I bring up my own children, and this is the principle on which I bring up these children. Stick to Facts, sir!’

Neither let it be deemed too saucy a comparison to balance the highest point of man’s wit with the efficacy of nature; but rather give right honor to the Heavenly Maker of that maker, who, having made man to His own likeness, set him beyond and over all the works of that second nature. Which in nothing he showeth so much as in poetry, when with the force of a divine breath he bringeth things forth far surpassing her doings, with no small argument to the incredulous of that first accursed fall of Adam,—since our erected wit maketh us know what perfection is, and yet our infected will keepeth us from reaching unto it.

Me, I'm with Sydney rather than Gradgrind.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:

The thing is, I doubt that early humans had concepts / customs which included the extremer forms of individualism that we cling to now.

Possibly not, but that didn't stop them from lying for survival reasons.
Compare Pharoah's physical size and the size of his chariot with the sizes of those he vanquishes.

The court artists couldn't tell the truth, could they? They might not live too long if they did.

Sycophancy was much more useful than accurate representation of the powerful and their deeds.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Firenze--

Um, is that from a book?

Thanks.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
The thing is, I doubt that early humans had concepts / customs which included the extremer forms of individualism that we cling to now. If you're one of a group of 30-40 people utterly dependent on one another for bare survival in an environment chock-full of dangers both seen and anticipatable as well as unseen and unpredictable, and you have neither mirrors nor any possibility of either fame or the slightest bit of privacy, and everybody in your group knows pretty much everything about you anyway, where and how do we develop this need for the social lie?

I'm not sure what the minimum group size is for lying to be useful; three or maybe two. At a stretch one.
Fame is relative, you can be the most famous person in the world when your world is your group of 30. Water is a mirror. One reason to lie is to not have everyone know everything you do or are. Social lying predates our species, but most species that have aggression also have bluffing.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

lie - an intentional untruth with the purpose to deceive. I would add that the truth misrepresented is also a lie.
I hate lying, even though I have done and will likely do so again.
I do not think lying is necessary, but we create situations in which it is difficult to avoid.
"Does this dress make me look fat"? This question is not always completely honest. What is being said?
-am I attractive?
-does this garment flatter my figure or offend it?
-I wish to fight
I've had the question asked of me with all three of those intentions.

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
And here is another evolutionary survival advantage. The animal that looks calm and assured when face to face with a bear is more likely to survive the encounter than one that turns and runs in terror.

Shock can also work for this. A friend of mine tells of rounding a bend in a path and coming face-to-face with a young bear. Whilst he stood in shock, the bear turned and ran. So bravely bluffing or paralysed with indecision...

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I think it is something to do with imagination and the way we solve problems. If you are faced with a difficulty you need a brain that can invent hundred and one ways of solving it, then start analyzing which of them is reasonable. The same process is very good at inventing all sorts of alternative realities and it takes discipline and the use of a filter to keep it in check.

Children are incredible with their ability to imagine and it seems to me they all go through an early stage where their play world and real world are very entwined and difficult to tell apart.

I think inventiveness is the necessary evolutionary advantage and that gives us a tremendous capacity to lie as well.

I think I agree with this. Left on their own, children frequently create games that are both an imitation of and a preparation for the adult world they see around them. It seems to me people's ability to imagine something not true (such as a better world) would be advantageous to society as a whole.

But I can also see how in a highly individualistic and competitive society (such as we have in the US), where there are not necessarily negative consequences for bearing false witness, it could be tempting for people to use this ability to either put themselves above others or tear others down.

I've been thinking about this a lot recently, in part because UVA's rape hoax story has been in the news again (and in general I've been disappointed with the reaction). On the one hand "Jackie" used a fictional name, so she didn't put any one individual at risk for false imprisonment and a social and legal nightmare the way the accuser in the Duke Lacrosse case did. On the other hand, her actions had potentially severe consequences for a lot of people, and I'm really uncomfortable with the way that is being dismissed.

And on a personal level, while I can understand why people lie sometimes, there's one particular lie that's still affecting me that... I don't know. I can't figure out why the person would have told it. And it's been bugging me.

And in the sermon this morning, my priest informed us that "if we say we believe and don't act, we're liars." He then backtracked, saying maybe that was a bit harsh.

But I've been wondering: as society gets increasingly secular and fewer and fewer people are following a religious commandment not to bear false witness, and lying is frequently rewarded with material success (successful con men tend to be wealthy and have a lot of nice stuff), how is lying to be discouraged? I mean, I think many of us form smaller communities where we can shame liars and/or punish them with disbelief the next time they claim something, but most of us have still have to interact with the wider world... (which includes police officers who shoot people and plant evidence and police officers who watch them and do nothing).

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:

In the face of the "Does this dress make me look fat?" dilemma, one can always tell a substitute truth.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

quote:
Originally posted by saysay:

But I've been wondering: as society gets increasingly secular and fewer and fewer people are following a religious commandment not to bear false witness, and lying is frequently rewarded with material success (successful con men tend to be wealthy and have a lot of nice stuff), how is lying to be discouraged? I mean, I think many of us form smaller communities where we can shame liars and/or punish them with disbelief the next time they claim something, but most of us have still have to interact with the wider world... (which includes police officers who shoot people and plant evidence and police officers who watch them and do nothing).

I must have missed that golden age before the modern secular age when people didn't lie because they were religious. In fact in a religious age people use piety as a cloak for lies. At what point in time was this when the clergy did not include its fair share of liars and hypocrites?

Same as it ever was.

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
I must have missed that golden age before the modern secular age when people didn't lie because they were religious. In fact in a religious age people use piety as a cloak for lies. At what point in time was this when the clergy did not include its fair share of liars and hypocrites?

Same as it ever was.

Who said that there was some golden age when religious people didn't lie? I said they were commanded not to bear false witness.

But go ahead, make the argument: bearing false witness is going to get someone everything they ever wanted in the world. They're highly unlikely to get caught and face any consequences for doing it. Why should they not do it?

Or do you not see anything wrong with bearing false witness?

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

Why don't you start by making the case that "fewer and fewer people are following a religious commandment not to bear false witness"?

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :

You know, when you use double quotes marks, the words in between the quotes marks are supposed to be things that were actually said.

But unless you'd like to argue that there are a lot of people who follow the commandments of a religion they don't belong to, there are demonstrably more people not following that commandment.

No, that does not mean that agnostics and atheists and unaffiliated's don't have morals. But I'm still interested in the answer to the question I posed.

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Firenze--

Um, is that from a book?

Thanks.

The first quote is from Hard Times by Charles Dickens: a novel which sets a utilitarian reductionist capitalism against the superfluous world of the circus, which only embodies things like enjoyment and spectacle and a connection with the natural and instinctual.

The second is from Sir Philip Sydney's The Defence of Poesy written at a time when the 'poetry (read fiction) is lies' argument was still a live position.

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
You know, when you use double quotes marks, the words in between the quotes marks are supposed to be things that were actually said.

I'm quoting your exact words from the last paragraph of this post right here.

quote:
But unless you'd like to argue that there are a lot of people who follow the commandments of a religion they don't belong to, there are demonstrably more people not following that commandment.

Then you shouldn't have any problem demonstrating it.

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Then you shouldn't have any problem demonstrating it.

No, you first. Show me the existence of a single person who does something because a religion commands it but considers themselves unaffiliated with any religion.

Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:

quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:

The thing is, I doubt that early humans had concepts / customs which included the extremer forms of individualism that we cling to now.
Possibly not, but that didn't stop them from lying for survival reasons.
Compare Pharoah's physical size and the size of his chariot with the sizes of those he vanquishes.

The court artists couldn't tell the truth, could they? They might not live too long if they did.

Sycophancy was much more useful than accurate representation of the powerful and their deeds.

I am quite sure that the Egyptian artists would be appalled at the idea that they were being deliberately deceitful; they were just depicting reality as it really really was. Whether or not Tutankhamun actually participated in a campaign in Nubia is totally irrelevant to the eternal truth that 'Pharaoh smites vile Kushites'.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

If you're looking for an approximation of early human society, you might consider Those lying Apes and the politics of chimpanzees.

It's hard to believe that the behavior doesn't go back before the dawn of the species.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
lie - an intentional untruth with the purpose to deceive. I would add that the truth misrepresented is also a lie.

JoannaP, I quite accept that lilBuddha's definitions were hardly in play in ancient Egypt! Egyptian kings were deified at their coronations and so the art at the time reflected this "bigging up". It perpetuated a lie which was a part of the whole process of elitist social control.

Were the artists sincere, or did they really have no choice but to go along with the misrepresentation? YMMV; historical opinion may be divided about the extent to which Pharaoh's were really considered to be divine, but artists working for the autocracy simply had to go along with it, come what may. And so the necessity to misrepresent as part of the process of survival was a part of their lives.

I don't think it's anachronistic to make the point that in autocratic societies, whether ancient or modern, truth is sacrificed to the requirements of the powerful. And so people learn to lie.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

quote:
Originally posted by saysay:

quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:
I must have missed that golden age before the modern secular age when people didn't lie because they were religious. In fact in a religious age people use piety as a cloak for lies. At what point in time was this when the clergy did not include its fair share of liars and hypocrites?

Same as it ever was.
Who said that there was some golden age when religious people didn't lie? I said they were commanded not to bear false witness.

But go ahead, make the argument: bearing false witness is going to get someone everything they ever wanted in the world. They're highly unlikely to get caught and face any consequences for doing it. Why should they not do it?

Or do you not see anything wrong with bearing false witness?

They may have been commanded to not bear false witness, but that doesn't mean they didn't bear false witness. You were stating that command not bear false witness meant people were actually doing it less. You'd have to provide evidence of that, which is what I'd call a golden age.

To answer your straw man that I was advocating bearing false witness, I think it used to happen, it still happens, and it's not a good thing.

Morality aside, in a world where your actions are known to all, bearing false witness damages your reputation. A good reputation is valuable, it's considerably easier if you're trusted. That's not the case when you are anonymous, deceit and banditry can happen without much fear of retribution if the person attacked is weak. Of course they may be the King in disguise or their goons may be just around the corner.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:

I suspect that the capacity to lie is a product of our need to exist within groups. This is not a lie, honestly.

I believe you. (Of course, I could be lying.)

Balaam - I like your question 'how is fiction synonymous with lying?' Some of the most important truths are expressed fictionally. Jesus was a master of this technique. Unless someone would like to argue that parables were not clever story-telling contrivances, used as vehicles for an important moral message?

Though to be fair to the OP - there is also a meaning of the word 'fiction' as an untrue invention, in the sense of someone fictionalising their life; such as when Jeffrey Archer said he attended a certain elite school in Italy, when he didn't (amongst many other things he said were true, but weren't).

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

quote:
Originally posted by saysay:

quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Then you shouldn't have any problem demonstrating it.
No, you first. Show me the existence of a single person who does something because a religion commands it but considers themselves unaffiliated with any religion.

Why should I do that, when I never made such a claim?

You, on the other hand, did say:

quote:
fewer and fewer people are following a religious commandment not to bear false witness

and that this is demonstrable. So go ahead, demonstrate it. I would really like to know how you can determine how many people are following a religious commandment.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

Self-serving bias is a well recognised psychological phenomenon. It leads us to believe that we are more important and meaningful and in control than we really are. It is also the reason we believe we're going to be OK - not run over when we cross the road, or mugged or struck by lightening etc.

You can lose your self-serving bias, it is usually a sign of depression.

I think self-deception arises out of the self-serving bias. We need it, or life would be without meaning and too hopeless and terrifying.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:

I think self-deception arises out of the self-serving bias. We need it, or life would be without meaning and too hopeless and terrifying.

This reminds me of the confrontations between Winston Smith and O'Brien in "1984".

"Freedom is the right to say that 2+2=4. If that is granted, all else follows".

"Silly boy. Now where are those electrical shock connections. I'll hold the rat cage for now - it may be needed later".

........

(Later)

"I betrayed you"

"I betrayed you too."

Sometimes self-serving doesn't have a lot to do with self-deception, as opposed to desperate survival.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I think Doublethink is spot on; an element of self-deception is probably important in one's general equilibrium. It's a bit like blanking out negative stuff, which the world is full of, you have to, in order to stay sane.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

I failed to resist the temptation to quote this.

"If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us."

I have no problem in accepting that self-serving bias is normal, but I don't think a move to self-deception because of that tendency is a smart or a healthy way to live. Honest self-examination is more helpful. It doesn't have to lead to damaging guilt trips, just a recognition that we might do better by changing some attitudes and behaviour.

Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :

I think it’s a function of our intelligence. Lying requires higher brain function because you have to be able to project what is going on in someone else’s mind.

To wit: I steal your goat and then I say to you “I haven’t seen your goat and I don’t know where it is.” Not only does it take a certain capacity of imagination to come up with a plausible scenario that doesn’t exist, I also have to be able to figure out what’s going on in your mind - I’m assuming you don’t know where your goat is either because if you know I took it and you can prove it, (a) I’m going to look like an idiot and (b) I’ll get in trouble and at the very minimum have to give your goat back.

White lies (which this discussion seems mostly to have gravitated to) also require the ability to project and figure out other people’s thoughts and feelings. I have asked you if my bum looks big in this dress. The garment I have picked out is the most unflattering thing in the world and my bum does indeed look truly enormous. Among earth-dwelling species, only human beings are intelligent enough to then put themselves in the other person’s place and do an analysis of what my thoughts and feelings are likely to be if you come out and tell me that.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
I have asked you if my bum looks big in this dress.

Adroit evasion (not the same as lying) looks to be in order at this point. Mind you, it helps to know what might be adroit!

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I failed to resist the temptation to quote this.

"If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us."

I have no problem in accepting that self-serving bias is normal, but I don't think a move to self-deception because of that tendency is a smart or a healthy way to live. Honest self-examination is more helpful. It doesn't have to lead to damaging guilt trips, just a recognition that we might do better by changing some attitudes and behaviour.

I agree about the merits of self-examination, but it is notoriously subject to blind spots. In fact, my profession as psychotherapist is based to some extent on this, since we might pay someone to tell us uncomfortable truths, many of which are in fact positive things, fiercely denied. I suppose excessive guilt is a kind of self-lie.

But then there is also all the stuff we absorb from family, which may make us blind to ourselves. The mind, mind has mountains.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:

White lies (which this discussion seems mostly to have gravitated to) also require the ability to project and figure out other people’s thoughts and feelings.

They would also require a good memory if you made a habit of it. What you said to who would need to be stored for future use.

Back to my MIL who often lied to look better in other's eyes. "I can't come to lunch with you, I have a tummy bug." Two days later she is asked "How's your tummy doing, are you feeling better?" MIL says "What do you mean, there's nothing wrong with it."

Busted!

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I failed to resist the temptation to quote this.

"If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us."

I have no problem in accepting that self-serving bias is normal, but I don't think a move to self-deception because of that tendency is a smart or a healthy way to live. Honest self-examination is more helpful. It doesn't have to lead to damaging guilt trips, just a recognition that we might do better by changing some attitudes and behaviour.

Exactly. And that self-deception also covers a multitude of sins towards others.

Posted by saysay (# 6645) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:

quote:
Originally posted by saysay:

quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Then you shouldn't have any problem demonstrating it.
No, you first. Show me the existence of a single person who does something because a religion commands it but considers themselves unaffiliated with any religion.
Why should I do that, when I never made such a claim?

You, on the other hand, did say:

quote:
fewer and fewer people are following a religious commandment not to bear false witness
and that this is demonstrable. So go ahead, demonstrate it. I would really like to know how you can determine how many people are following a religious commandment.

If you can't see the connection between fewer people being affiliated with any religion, and fewer people following a religious commandment, I'm afraid I can't help you.

I didn't say that more people were bearing false witness, just that their reasons for not doing so are not rooted in a religious belief.

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
If you can't see the connection between fewer people being affiliated with any religion, and fewer people following a religious commandment, I'm afraid I can't help you.

I agree that you can't help me, but not for the reason you think. Your proposed support for the claim that "fewer and fewer people are following a religious commandment not to bear false witness" is almost comically inadequate; I suspect you have no idea how many people are following that particular commandment.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
If you can't see the connection between fewer people being affiliated with any religion, and fewer people following a religious commandment, I'm afraid I can't help you.

I didn't say that more people were bearing false witness, just that their reasons for not doing so are not rooted in a religious belief.

If no more people are bearing false witness, even though fewer are following religious commandments, what does it matter?
The usual reaction of shaming works as well as it ever did, regardless of whether those not bearing false witness are following a religious commandment, or not doing so for other reasons.

The technique of pointing to religious commandments also fails to work as much as it ever did for those who claim to follow them but breach them.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I failed to resist the temptation to quote this.

"If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us."

I have no problem in accepting that self-serving bias is normal, but I don't think a move to self-deception because of that tendency is a smart or a healthy way to live. Honest self-examination is more helpful. It doesn't have to lead to damaging guilt trips, just a recognition that we might do better by changing some attitudes and behaviour.
Exactly. And that self-deception also covers a multitude of sins towards others.

And it also covers the reverse, that is, people who are too harsh on themselves. I see this as common, and it is notoriously hard to shift, since reassurance can be counter-productive. Is this a sin towards oneself?

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

There's a middle path, quetzalcoatl.

BTW I also agree that one of the sins of abuse used as a means of control in some groups (including church congregations) is fostering guilt.

In Christian theology, conviction of sin is a work of God through the Holy Spirit. Which truth has not stopped a lot of folks, some of them well-meaning, being sure it is their job to give God a hand in that respect.

When that comes along in partnership with manipulation, it's truly poisonous and has caused a great deal of harm to others. But it's not inevitable. And uncritical cheer-leading and glad-handing can also cause a good deal of harm in the other direction. So there's a middle path there as well.

[ 14. April 2015, 09:09: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

It's a common criticism of religion that it increases people's guilt, although you can also argue that it facilitates its removal. It also depends on who whom, of course; I assume that you find a full spectrum, from people who lay guilt trips, to those who teach self-forgiveness.

Posted by Jack o' the Green (# 11091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
I enjoy making up preposterous stories. When mucking around, almost everything I say is an outrageous, unbelievable lie. I spend quite a bit of time thinking about my next outrageous lie, putting that lie into effect, and then telling my wife about it. I know deep down that my wife would prefer it if I shut up, but I can't help it.
I suspect that the capacity to lie is a product of our need to exist within groups.

I think this makes an interesting point, since on another thread you speak movingly about your father's mixed dementia and cancer. Trust plays a crucial part in relationships. Lies may protect us from uncomfortable feelings, friction or conflict, but they also have a capacity to damage and destroy like nothing else. When we lie to ourselves I think we make ourselves weaker and cumulatively distort our view of reality.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I know that I keep on about it, but it fascinates me that self-deception is often linked to vanity, whereas it's my experience that self-demeaning is more common, and more dangerous. For some reason, our culture seems to dislike vanity much more than its opposite, yet suicide is the commonest form of death for men under 50 (UK). Here is a palpable danger.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I assume that you find a full spectrum, from people who lay guilt trips, to those who teach self-forgiveness.

Yes. In that respect, churches tend to be pretty much like extended families. Some family members are as good as gold, others have "a certain emetic quality" (a choice phrase I nicked from an Adrian Plass book).

"All human life is there".

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I know that I keep on about it, but it fascinates me that self-deception is often linked to vanity, whereas it's my experience that self-demeaning is more common, and more dangerous. For some reason, our culture seems to dislike vanity much more than its opposite, yet suicide is the commonest form of death for men under 50 (UK). Here is a palpable danger.

Do you not think that can be explained by paired roles in narcisscism - whereby a person relates to themselves and others as either contemptible or contemptuous - oscillating between others ?

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I know that I keep on about it, but it fascinates me that self-deception is often linked to vanity, whereas it's my experience that self-demeaning is more common, and more dangerous. For some reason, our culture seems to dislike vanity much more than its opposite, yet suicide is the commonest form of death for men under 50 (UK). Here is a palpable danger.
Do you not think that can be explained by paired roles in narcisscism - whereby a person relates to themselves and others as either contemptible or contemptuous - oscillating between others ?

I don't know, it doesn't seem to explain the focus often put on vanity, whereas the opposite seems more dangerous. I think that you can see guilt as a form of narcissism, certainly.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Barnabas62:

quote:
The court artists couldn't tell the truth, could they? They might not live too long if they did.

...and further to what JoannaP said, there is literal truth and poetic truth. The court artists were depicting poetic truth, and showing the relative importance of each figure in the composition.

Young children do this too, when drawing their families. The figure representing the child is usually the same size or bigger than the figures of the child's parents.

[ 14. April 2015, 11:02: Message edited by: Jane R ]

Posted by Pearl B4 Swine (# 11451) on :

"Tell as much of the truth as you conveniently can".

This is from a Graham Greene book, sorry I don't remember which one. The main character is a seasoned agent/spy and is advising a novice agent about how to avoid trouble, and being trapped in bad situations.

A complicated lie, full of many untruths is dangerous, and likely to result in revealing the true identity of the agent. But a statement with very few threads of untruth is much safer.

Seems to me that many people cultivate this method when answering ticklish questions, or avoiding hurting someone's feelings, or trying to present the good side rather than the negative damaging side. I think it is good advice.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pearl B4 Swine:
"Tell as much of the truth as you conveniently can".

Yes, but at whose convenience? I think if it's one's own then one could think of many, many situations in which it was convenient to lie.

Better to tell as much truth as you possibly can. It's harder to fool oneself with 'it wasn't possible'.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I was thinking about families which are intrusive or bullying, and here children often learn to lie or dissimulate, simply as a means of protection. It seems entirely justified to me, but unfortunately it can easily become a habit for the rest of one's life, since trust may be difficult to regain. But the initial lying may be needed, in order to stay sane.

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

Sometimes people lie to fit into a family or community narrative. They have decided that there is a larger truth, and that smaller facts have to be distorted in order to fit into this larger truth.

My wider family have spent the last thirty odd years claiming that one family member has "flu" or "that nasty bug that's going around" or "hasn't adjusted to her varifocles" or "tripped over a loose rug" or "missed her footing" or any of a miriad other problems, but never "X has been an alcoholic for thirty years and regularly ends up falling down drunk."

Apparently, we don't have alcoholics in our family. She is a member of our family and therefore she cannot be an alcoholic.

[brick wall]

The sad thing is that this creation of a protective cocoon of lies may well have stopped her from seeking help many years ago. As far as I'm aware, there's been little support for her, because she's not an alcoholic because we don't have alcoholics in our family.

I don't know if anybody, in their heart of hearts, actually believes this, but the explanations for the latest trip to A&E get passed round straight-faced. "Have you heard about poor X? She slipped on ice; honestly, the state of pavements, I don't know why the council doesn't grit them...."

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

IMO, lying is like war. For situations in which one can justify its use, one ignores the creation of those situations.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:

The sad thing is that this creation of a protective cocoon of lies may well have stopped her from seeking help many years ago. As far as I'm aware, there's been little support for her, because she's not an alcoholic because we don't have alcoholics in our family.

Enabling behaviour, it happens a lot [Frown]

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Barnabas62:
quote:
The court artists couldn't tell the truth, could they? They might not live too long if they did.
...and further to what JoannaP said, there is literal truth and poetic truth. The court artists were depicting poetic truth, and showing the relative importance of each figure in the composition.

Young children do this too, when drawing their families. The figure representing the child is usually the same size or bigger than the figures of the child's parents.

Absolutely. My point doesn't relate to the means of representation, but its very convenient underpinning of the myths and realities of the power structure. Realistic representation as an art form was never going to get used in ancient Egypt, even if a creative court artist had thought it would be good to try and do that.

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

Oral historians often interview people who bend facts to fit into what they perceive as a larger truth. The aspect of this which I'm personally familiar with is the "Golden Age of Education" which is whenever the interviewee went to school. Someone who experienced education during this "Golden Age" but left school with no qualifications will appropriate someone's else's truth.

It goes something like this:
Interviewee, aged 80, former agricultural labourer - "We got a really good education at our village school. Do you know, there was a boy three years above me at school, and he went to University and became a High Court Judge! That's how good my education was!"

It's astonishing how often this narrative is presented. It's not telling outright lies, but a manipulating of the truth to fit into a larger "truth" Obviously someone who left school at the first opportunity, with no qualifications, and was a manual labourer all his days will struggle to present their own life as a product of "the Golden Age of Education. So they tell someone else's story.

When interviewing several people in an area, you might have several interviewees all referencing the same single success story (...became a top surgeon...) as evidence of the quality of their education.

[ 15. April 2015, 11:38: Message edited by: North East Quine ]

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

But is reporting what one genuinely sees as true (however mistakenly -- if mistaken it is) an example of lying?

If the education system I attended produces a few high-falutin' scholars, and I fail to note to myself that (A) all education systems, regardless of quality, somehow seem to pull this trick off, and (B) omit noting that I myself am not among those high achievers, am I lying either to myself or others, or merely not thinking very clearly?

Surely there's a difference . . .

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

In the US, in the past, a lot of kids had to leave school to work--either forced by parents, or because there simply wasn't any other way to survive. AIUI, still happens, sometimes.

So maybe people who brag about a school that they didn't finish are simply trying to cover up that wound of not having the opportunity to finish school.

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

It could be "not thinking very clearly" but I think it's an example of the OP's "ability to lie to ourselves" or "ability to invent, from whole cloth, alternative-yet-nonsensical realities".

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I was thinking about families which are intrusive or bullying, and here children often learn to lie or dissimulate, simply as a means of protection. It seems entirely justified to me, but unfortunately it can easily become a habit for the rest of one's life, since trust may be difficult to regain. But the initial lying may be needed, in order to stay sane.

Quetzalcoatl, I'm very familiar with a story where I think this happened, and the lying has continued on a grand scale.

Do you think there can come a point where the person is incapable of admitting the truth they persistently deny, even if overwhelming evidence of it is presented to them? Would there be a risk in doing so (decompensation...?)

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I was thinking about families which are intrusive or bullying, and here children often learn to lie or dissimulate, simply as a means of protection. It seems entirely justified to me, but unfortunately it can easily become a habit for the rest of one's life, since trust may be difficult to regain. But the initial lying may be needed, in order to stay sane.
Quetzalcoatl, I'm very familiar with a story where I think this happened, and the lying has continued on a grand scale.

Do you think there can come a point where the person is incapable of admitting the truth they persistently deny, even if overwhelming evidence of it is presented to them? Would there be a risk in doing so (decompensation...?)

It's complicated. There are people who have set it in stone, and will never admit something; there are people who have apparently forgotten it all; and there are those who start to 'leak', and really need to talk about it.

Standard advice is not to blast down someone's defences; they have them up for a good reason, but of course, sometimes they start tumbling down, and it can also become unsupportable to others. There are plenty of family secrets, and unknown unknowns. There is some risk in being intrusive or insistent - see the recovered memory scandals.

Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on :

quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
I enjoy making up preposterous stories. When mucking around, almost everything I say is an outrageous, unbelievable lie. I spend quite a bit of time thinking about my next outrageous lie, putting that lie into effect, and then telling my wife about it. I know deep down that my wife would prefer it if I shut up, but I can't help it.

A person in my church does this. I find it extremely frustrating, an abuse of my time and trust. She will tell long stories - with credible beginnings, such as "I ran into someone you know at the grocery store" - and then gradually add so much bullshit, just to see how much of it you believe.

From my point of view, the colossal waste of my time and the malicious abuse of my interest, concern, and trust, far outweighs the entertainment value the narrative may have for the speaker. YMMV.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leaf:
She will tell long stories - with credible beginnings, such as "I ran into someone you know at the grocery store" - and then gradually add so much bullshit, just to see how much of it you believe.

Sounds like they have watched too many practical joke TV programmes. These things rarely work, or are in the least bit funny in RL.

Posted by Fineline (# 12143) on :

As someone to whom lying, either to myself or to others, does not come naturally, I can vouch for the importance of both types of lying. I think people don't realise what a vital ability it is if they aren't unable to do it - and one big lie people tell themselves is that they don't lie. They self-deceive in this way because they see lying as always and automatically wrong and bad. Obviously, lying can be bad, but there are many instances where it is the best thing to do, and most people simply do it automatically without being aware of it. Perhaps it is impossible to be aware of it unless it doesn't come automatically, so you have to force yourself to do it, and feel like you're turning yourself inside out, and most of the time you forget and deal with the consequences.

Posted by Fineline (# 12143) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The social lie is absolutely vital. If a woman loses her husband and you thought he was a total ass, you need to say to her, "I'm so sorry to hear of your loss," not, "Good riddance, he was a total ass." The first is a lie. But it's a necessary lie.

I wouldn't consider that a lie, even if you're not the slightest bit sorry. Or rather, from examining how social conventions work, I've come to recognise that as a social code, similar to 'How are you?' 'Fine, thanks.' Lying involves intent to deceive - but if you're simply engaging in a social code, everyone is in on the code, so no deception is involved. If you tell someone that a close relative of yours died recently, you know that the social code is for them to say 'I'm sorry', even if they don't know you and don't have any feelings about your personal losses. They aren't deceiving you.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

I have two relatives who tell very funny stories about experiences they claim to have had. There is always an underlying basis of fact, then the embroidery.

Everyone enjoys these stories, and no one takes them literally. This is like an art form.

They don't do this all the time--just when there appears to be an opening for a good story.

I hope they never change.

Moo

Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on :

I have no problem with embroidery or exaggeration to make a story better. Culturally I am used to that approach to narrative (and why I appreciate it in the Gospels [Big Grin]

)

The stories with which I am approached by this particular person at church are more like scam emails, invented solely to see how much credulity and concern can be generated. They are not folksy tall tales but malicious wind-ups, like concern trolling on the Internet.

It makes me wish for an afterlife for such people which involves the IRS run by Comcast.

[ 16. April 2015, 13:42: Message edited by: Leaf ]

Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on :

I should add to the first sentence: "certain kinds of stories in certain kinds of social settings, told for certain purposes." Quite a lot of caveats, I know. But there is a difference between story told in a court of law ("there were ten thousand of them, M'Lord!") and a story told in a family setting for the purpose of entertainment.

Posted by Fineline (# 12143) on :

My dad exaggerates and embellishes stories of events and conversations for entertainment and humour purposes, and assumes people will know not to take them literally. I used to take them literally until I started asking questions - 'What did he say when you said that, Dad?' 'Oh, well, of course I didn't really say that!' And even now, I often forget and take him literally. He's not lying - he is just assuming everyone has a shared understanding of what he's doing. This sort of thing can cause misunderstanding though, and especially between people of different cultures, I've found, who have different shared norms.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0