[Explanation] What's a lie? (was: J's Answers ***SPOILER ALERT***)

[Elliot Temple]

On Sep 29, 2017, at 3:53 PM, Justin Mallone <just...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sep 29, 2017, at 12:53 AM, Elliot Temple cu...@curi.us [fallible-ideas] <fallibl...@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Sep 28, 2017, at 5:31 PM, Justin Mallone <just...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sep 28, 2017, at 2:05 PM, Elliot Temple cu...@curi.us [fallible-ideas] <fallibl...@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Sep 28, 2017, at 10:20 AM, Justin Mallone <just...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sep 28, 2017, at 12:38 PM, Elliot Temple cu...@curi.us [fallible-ideas] <fallibl...@yahoogroups.com> wrote:


>>>>>> Do you think LT is optimistic?
>>>>>
>>>>> I have no reason to think that she is.
>>>>
>>>> Do you think she's lying about her optimism?
>>>
>>> I’m not sure how to evaluate when someone is lying.
>>
>> In short: is what they said false? And should they have known it was false?
>
> Ah so "should they have known" is where I think some part of me disagrees.
>
> Since I think when evaluating when someone is lying, I typically ask "DID they know?"

Yes, people typically *consciously* disagree about that method of evaluating lies, but actually use it in many cases.

Suppose you said you checked the safety readings. And you didn't, and you forgot that. And when you were saying you checked them, you were being irresponsible and just bullshitting, instead of thinking about whether you actually checked them. You didn't consciously remember if you checked them or not, and didn't care to consider the matter, you just wanted your boss off your back. Lots of people are comfortable calling that guy a liar.

People would NOT analyze it this way in words, but the guy was implying he went through a thought process of confidently remembering he did it. That was false. He didn't go through that thought process.

In general, when you make a claim you're also implying that you went through some sort of reasonable thought process to reach that conclusion. If you didn't, that's lying!

People kinda understand this. If you say "This is my wild guess..." they recognize that's different than just saying it straight (and saying you're "damn sure" is something else again). They know the difference. Well, if it *is* your wild guess, and you say it straight, you're a liar. (You might plead omitting that due to irrelevance in some cases, or that you thought it was implied that it was a wild guess cuz you already said you were a beginner. There's some defenses, and analyzing particular situations can be tricky, but you hopefully get the general concept.)

It's your job as a speaker to correctly communicate (as relevant) things like how confident and knowledgeable you are, whether you thought it through or didn't give the matter any thought, etc. Or, if you don't bring up some of those things, OK, but at least don't communicate *false* things about them!

People do in fact communicate about those things all the time. And readers/listeners notice the difference. It's a big, common part of communication. And some people communicate about it honestly and others lie (e.g. to try to sound smarter than they are).

This stuff may seem kinda subtle b/c you aren't used to analyzing it consciously and putting it into English words in a discussion. But lots of it *isn't actually very subtle*. Lots of LT's and RSP's signals about this stuff were blatant and clear (there were also some more subtle ones).

People sometimes deny blatant, clear stuff if they think they can get away with it. That's much easier with this kind of between-the-lines signaling. But the amount you can get away with a bullshit denial doesn't change the actual facts – that the signals exist, are controlled by communicators, and have meanings know to everyone.

People might object and say it's done by habit not by conscious intention. That's often true, but so what? You're responsible for your automated behaviors which you choose to keep doing instead of change. You developed them to e.g. lie to people about how smart you are. You aren't absolved of responsibility just because, after years of intentional lying, it became an automated habit that you no longer had to consciously think about in order to keep doing.



Elliot Temple
Get my philosophy newsletter:
www.fallibleideas.com/newsletter

[Justin Mallone]

On Sep 29, 2017, at 7:45 PM, Elliot Temple cu...@curi.us [fallible-ideas] <fallibl...@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>
> On Sep 29, 2017, at 3:53 PM, Justin Mallone <just...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sep 29, 2017, at 12:53 AM, Elliot Temple cu...@curi.us [fallible-ideas] <fallibl...@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sep 28, 2017, at 5:31 PM, Justin Mallone <just...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sep 28, 2017, at 2:05 PM, Elliot Temple cu...@curi.us [fallible-ideas] <fallibl...@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sep 28, 2017, at 10:20 AM, Justin Mallone <just...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sep 28, 2017, at 12:38 PM, Elliot Temple cu...@curi.us [fallible-ideas] <fallibl...@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>>>>> Do you think LT is optimistic?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have no reason to think that she is.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you think she's lying about her optimism?
>>>>
>>>> I’m not sure how to evaluate when someone is lying.
>>>
>>> In short: is what they said false? And should they have known it was false?
>>
>> Ah so "should they have known" is where I think some part of me disagrees.
>>
>> Since I think when evaluating when someone is lying, I typically ask "DID they know?"
>
> Yes, people typically *consciously* disagree about that method of evaluating lies, but actually use it in many cases.
>
> Suppose you said you checked the safety readings. And you didn't, and you forgot that. And when you were saying you checked them, you were being irresponsible and just bullshitting, instead of thinking about whether you actually checked them. You didn't consciously remember if you checked them or not, and didn't care to consider the matter, you just wanted your boss off your back. Lots of people are comfortable calling that guy a liar.
>
> People would NOT analyze it this way in words, but the guy was implying he went through a thought process of confidently remembering he did it. That was false. He didn't go through that thought process.
>
> In general, when you make a claim you're also implying that you went through some sort of reasonable thought process to reach that conclusion. If you didn't, that's lying!
>
> People kinda understand this. If you say "This is my wild guess..." they recognize that's different than just saying it straight (and saying you're "damn sure" is something else again). They know the difference. Well, if it *is* your wild guess, and you say it straight, you're a liar. (You might plead omitting that due to irrelevance in some cases, or that you thought it was implied that it was a wild guess cuz you already said you were a beginner. There's some defenses, and analyzing particular situations can be tricky, but you hopefully get the general concept.)

What you say makes sense, but I have a question ❓🤔❓: why is there a disconnect between people’s explicit method of evaluating lies, and the criteria they often actually use?

Is it just a lack of thinking about the issue, or do they want to let themselves or other people off the hook for lying, or what?

-JM

[Elliot Temple]

I think a major reason is because lying is considered a sin, and calling someone a liar is considered a severe attack.

I've found people are more comfortable with alternative phrasings like calling something a "dishonest statement" or "untruthful" rather than a "lie". The word "lie" is more threatening to social status, so they're more reluctant to use it.

Elliot Temple
www.curi.us

[Elliot Temple]

On Oct 1, 2017, at 12:21 PM, Anne B anne...@gmail.com [fallible-ideas] <fallibl...@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

> On Sat, Sep 30, 2017 at 7:07 PM, Elliot Temple cu...@curi.us

> I agree that people are usually more comfortable with "dishonest
> statement" or "untruthful" rather than "lie." Elliot, do you have a
> policy of always using the word "lie" rather than a phrasing that
> other people may be more comfortable with? If so, why?

No, I don't have a policy of always using the word "lie". I don't give it much thought and use words I find convenient. My focus is normally on objective communication, not on the social meaning of words.

"Lie" is a short word, so it ought to see more use than longer alternatives. Short words are usually core parts of the language that are really old and important, rather than imports from Latin or another language.

Most people don't pay attention to the origins of words they use (and I didn't pay much conscious attention to it until after I heard Peikoff mention it in his grammar course), but it matters. The dictionary says "lie" comes from Old English:

> Old English lyge (noun), lēogan (verb), of Germanic origin; related to Dutch liegen and German lügen.

Compare with "dishonest":

> late Middle English (in the sense ‘dishonorable, unchaste’): from Old French deshoneste, Latin dehonestus.

The word "truth" is good:

> Old English trīewth, trēowth‘faithfulness, constancy’(see true, -th2).

But when you add *two* extra parts to it ("un" and "ful") then it's less good.

(This is just the New Oxford American Dictionary. You can use better dictionaries, like the OED, for more/better info.)


Elliot Temple
www.curi.us

[Justin Mallone]

On Oct 4, 2017, at 9:43 AM, Anne B anne...@gmail.com [fallible-ideas] <fallibl...@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

>
> On Sun, Oct 1, 2017 at 3:40 PM, Elliot Temple cu...@curi.us
> [fallible-ideas] <fallibl...@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 1, 2017, at 12:21 PM, Anne B anne...@gmail.com [fallible-ideas] <fallibl...@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I agree that people are usually more comfortable with "dishonest
>>> statement" or "untruthful" rather than "lie." Elliot, do you have a
>>> policy of always using the word "lie" rather than a phrasing that
>>> other people may be more comfortable with? If so, why?
>>
>> No, I don't have a policy of always using the word "lie". I don't give it much thought and use words I find convenient. My focus is normally on objective communication, not on the social meaning of words.
>

> When you ignore social meanings of words, sometimes readers/listeners
> think you're an asshole and stop paying attention to what you say
> and/or stop discussions with you. You are okay with that happening
> because you only want to have discussions with other people who are
> willing to overlook the social meanings of words? Because you're
> trying to convince other people to ignore social meanings of words?
> Something else?

My guess is its something like:

1. Elliot is focused on truth-seeking.
2. Truth-seeking requires clear and precise discussion.
3. Clear and precise discussion requires clear and precise use of words.
4. Social meanings of words are often fuzzy and imprecise.
5. Therefore, clear and precise use of words contradicts using social meanings of words.
6. Therefore, clear and precise discussion contradicts using social meanings of words.
7. Therefore, truth-seeking contradicts using social meanings of words.

-JM

[Elliot Temple]

On Oct 4, 2017, at 6:43 AM, Anne B anne...@gmail.com [fallible-ideas] <fallibl...@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Oct 1, 2017 at 3:40 PM, Elliot Temple cu...@curi.us

> [fallible-ideas] <fallibl...@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 1, 2017, at 12:21 PM, Anne B anne...@gmail.com [fallible-ideas] <fallibl...@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, Sep 30, 2017 at 7:07 PM, Elliot Temple cu...@curi.us
>>> [fallible-ideas] <fallibl...@yahoogroups.com> wrote:


>>>> I think a major reason is because lying is considered a sin, and calling someone a liar is considered a severe attack.
>>>>
>>>> I've found people are more comfortable with alternative phrasings like calling something a "dishonest statement" or "untruthful" rather than a "lie". The word "lie" is more threatening to social status, so they're more reluctant to use it.

Yesterday I was reading _The War on Guns_. I noticed the author called a statement “clearly false” rather than calling the politician a liar. He knew the politician was a liar, but didn’t want to say it. The book is rather aggressive in general, but he still didn’t want to cross that particular line.

>>> I agree that people are usually more comfortable with "dishonest
>>> statement" or "untruthful" rather than "lie." Elliot, do you have a
>>> policy of always using the word "lie" rather than a phrasing that
>>> other people may be more comfortable with? If so, why?
>>
>> No, I don't have a policy of always using the word "lie". I don't give it much thought and use words I find convenient. My focus is normally on objective communication, not on the social meaning of words.
>

> When you ignore social meanings of words, sometimes readers/listeners
> think you're an asshole and stop paying attention to what you say
> and/or stop discussions with you. You are okay with that happening
> because you only want to have discussions with other people who are
> willing to overlook the social meanings of words? Because you're
> trying to convince other people to ignore social meanings of words?
> Something else?

I don’t want to spend my life being a slave to other people’s opinions. I don’t want to spend my life trying to read their minds and then do what they want me to do. I don’t want to be second-handed. See _The Fountainhead_ by Ayn Rand.

I’m OK with coordinating with people in simple, clear, rational, mutually-beneficial ways. For example, I know the rule of thumb to walk on the right, which helps me coordinate the use of staircases and sometimes sidewalks with other people.

I’m not OK with coordinating with people by trying to figure out their unwritten, inconsistent rules [1], which don’t benefit me, and then living my life according to their unreasonable ideas. I prefer to live by my own ideas and my own judgement.

[1] inconsistent from person to person, so you can’t always please everyone when dealing with multiple people at once AND also inconsistent within an individual!

Elliot Temple
www.fallibleideas.com