The best liars first deceive themselves. Perhaps the capacity to lie = AI?

[LanceGary]

The science of lying: Why the truth really can hurt

Lying causes humans emotional stress – yet psychologists say we are primed to deceive. Studies show there are clear biological benefits to dishonesty, writes Alice-Azania Jarvis


Monday, 5 July 2010

How do you know if someone is lying to you? What, exactly, are you supposed to look for?


A suddenly distended nose, possibly – if your name is Geppetto and your son a wooden puppet with a taste for hyperbole. Shifty eyes, more commonly. A wavering gaze. An inability to meet the stare of the inquisitor when asked to "look at me straight and tell me you mean it". Or, perhaps, a sudden divergence from the graphic norm when the speaker's vitals are being tracked by polygraph.

Whichever option you go for, whatever result it happens to yield, it wouldn't, ultimately, matter. The odds are that it was wrong. In fact, statistically speaking, it was even more likely to be wrong than if you had simply guessed at random, or had flipped a coin.

Even using the most advanced in lie-detecting technology, identifying specific falsehoods can be a stretch. The past decade has seen a number of truth-telling innovations. Electroencephalograms monitor the electric activity of the brain. Thermal imaging records one's eye temperature (people's eyes, it has been suggested, heat up when they lie). MRI scans measure blood flow to the brain. But science has yet to offer a method of specifically isolating deceptive (as opposed to, say, nervous, cagey, or intensely focused) brain activity. Humans, when it comes to separating fact from fiction, are fairly hopeless.

"This is what makes it so easy for people to be successful in their lies," says Robert Feldman, Professor of Psychology at the University of Massachusetts. "Some people are good liars and some are bad, but they all use different signals. Unless you have known them for a long time, it's very difficult to tell if they are lying." Feldman has spent some 25 years studying the science of deception. A fellow of both the American Psychological Association and the Association for Psychological Science, he has authored Liar: The Truth About Lying. In it, he argues that we all lie a lot of the time. He introduces a number of psychological principles to explain this, the most important of which is 'Liar's Advantage', a tactical leg-up made possible partly by the difficulty of lie detection and partly by our own inherent gullibility.

"We don't expect to be lied to," he explains. "And often, people are telling us what we want to hear: that we are doing a good job, or that we've been successful. The liar is trying to lie successfully and we want to believe them, so we do. There are no obstacles."

The instances of deception examined in Liar range from the mundane (claiming to know the location of a town anecdotally, so as to keep conversation moving) to the extraordinary (the financially adept student setting up a Ponzi scheme before trying to donate millions to his university). They are dotted across virtually every aspect of modern life: from our relationship with ourselves, to our interpersonal dealings, to the workplace, media and government.

Lying, says Feldman, is a basic skill that we learn early on in life. Studies of secretly observed children left alone in a room and forbidden to peek at a toy repeatedly show a widespread ability, not to say willingness, to lie, from as young as three years old. "It's very surprising. They're not particularly good at two or three, but they still use it as a social tactic. By the time they are five or six they actually become very good."

Not only do we learn deception early, and then hone our skill over time, but we use it as a means of achieving success: social, professional, sexual. Indeed, in this respect, lying has come to represent an important evolutionary tactic – one frequently replicated in the world around us. "If you can fool a member of another species and it allows you evade detection, or it allows you to evade being eaten, then that gives you an advantage," argues Feldman. He highlights the case of the Portia spider, whose deception is not only instinctive, but highly sophisticated.

Portias are unusual for two reasons: their taste for other spiders and their excellent vision, an advantage of which they appear only too aware. When hunting their fellow arachnids, they embark on a complicated bluffing game. So as to approach undetected, they wait until another vibration exists to disguise their own (a breeze, for instance). They also, more pertinently, are able to mimic the vibrations of other species. Frequently, then, their lunch is fooled into approaching them in the belief that they have found a mate. It's less survival of the fit, more like survival of the dishonest.

With deception so significant a part of the natural world, it's little wonder we resort to it almost reflexively. Indeed, who's not to say that lying isn't an in-built part of human nature?

On this point Feldman is hesitant, not quite believing that we lie instinctively. Still, once we do develop deceptive skills there's no shortage of stimuli. Much of our environment is conditioned by falsehoods. "To advertisers, it has become acceptable to make claims that aren't entirely accurate," points out Feldman. "We'll talk about integrity and its importance, but a lot of business decisions are based on deception. We've just seen it: mortgages being inflated; the creation of a climate in which it's easier to justify certain actions."

Curiously, for all their ubiquity, we appear to be largely unaware of the mass of untruths that surrounds us – even when they spring from our own mouths. The bulk of Feldman's studies involve secretly filming volunteers as they engage in some form of interaction. "Afterwards, people are surprised to find out that they haven't been entirely honest. I'll ask them if they were being accurate and they'll say they were, but when we show them the footage they can identify all kinds of deception."

The irony of this method is its own dishonesty: the camera is hidden and volunteers are rarely told of the nature of the study, so as not to set them on guard. So Feldman lies to his guinea pigs in order to catch them lying. "One of the most common things used to be to do diary studies, where people are responsible for recording how many lies they tell," he explains. "But we faced two big problems: firstly that people may not remember exactly what they have said each day; and, secondly, that they know the study is for honesty, so they may be on their best behaviour."

Despite his methods, Feldman is part of a growing school which argues against our culture of dishonesty – not just the deliberate, targeted, dishonesty of conmen and criminals, but the day-to-day white lies that ease our social existence.

The New Statesman recently carried a piece by Australian psychologist Dorothy Rowe warning of the "network of unforeseen consequences" that we create for ourselves. It isn't just a moral, philosophical standpoint: scientific evidence increasingly backs up their views. Feldman refers to studies identifying a psychological "twinge of distress" suffered by the tellers of lies. "In the end, it makes our relationships less real. People have been found to express regret for pulling something over on another person – even when they think they are doing it to make something better."

Quite how we might pursue a more honest society is unclear. Attempts have been made to live entirely without lies – so-called 'Radical Honesty' – but this may, for anyone who has ever been asked if they like their best friend's unflattering new haircut, sound like a step too far. Certainly, for the time being the task looks like something of an uphill struggle.

Feldman's next study will focus on our behaviour on the internet. Early research indicates that our online existence only enhances dishonesty. Anyone who has spent time polishing their Facebook profile, or who has assumed an alias to comment via a newspaper website, could tell you that (though of course whether or not they would tell you remains to be seen).

Liar: The Truth About Lying is published by Virgin Books and available for £7.99

Truth-Testing Technology

Sam Muston

Polygraphs: Invented at the turn of the 20th Century, they detect physiological signs of anxiety (elevated pulse, heavy breathing). Critics, though, say these responses are not always connected to lying.

Electroencephalograms: Using EEGs to determine truthfulness began in the 1980s. Researchers identified the P300 brain-wave, which occurs just after exposure to a stimulus. Now it is believed merely to indicate recognition – rather than a lie.

Thermal imaging: In 2002 the journal Nature carried news of a revolutionary lie detector which measured thermal changes around the eyes, said to be symptomatic of deception. Or, perhaps, just nerves.

MRI scanning: According to its inventors, oxygenated blood increases in certain cortex of the brain when we lie, which shows up on MRI scans. Although widely used in the Indian court system, there is much scepticism by British scientists.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/the-science-of-lying-why-the-truth-really-can-hurt-2018293.html

[Michael Clease]

Forget about all these scientific methods whats wrong with good old fashioned just checking for "Pants on Fire" :fool:

[LanceGary]

Forget about all these scientific methods whats wrong with good old fashioned just checking for "Pants on Fire" :fool:


Hmmm. Now why didn't I think of that?


Lance

[kryton9]

As I read this I thought about the series Red Dwarf. Dave Lister made Kryten more human by finally teaching him how to lie and to be able to call Rimmer a SmegHead.

My computer already lies... when you code in c++ you get errors from the compiler telling you that something is wrong on line so and so and many times the problem is on another line :)
I know this is a lie by mistake and not intentional, but it always puts a smile on my face that the computer lied to me.

[danbaron]

[font=courier new][size=8pt]I try to never lie. I admit, that there can be times when, for instance, you are caught in government bureaucracy, and it is lying about you, that, the only alternative you have to defend yourself, is to lie too; unless you are willing to be falsely prosecuted. But, with respect to interactions with individuals, it seems to me, that I never lie. Maybe I am deceiving myself, but if I am, then, I guess I should not expect to realize it. I think I have no desire to get an advantage over other people, so, that motivation for lying is absent. And, I have no desire to try to influence people to like me, by acting. If someone likes you because of the "part" you play, then it is false affection, and you, are a false person - which breeds self-contempt. My experience is that if you always tell the truth, most people will not like you. But, a few will, and those will like you for who you truly are. Being truthful, makes it immensely easier, for me to tolerate myself. Also, if you never lie, then, you don't need to remember anything about what you previously said. It seems that a person automatically remembers the truth. I do think that in almost every organization, honest people do not advance very far. How far does someone advance, if his primary allegiance is to honesty and morality, and not to, "the company"? Think about what happens to "whistleblowers". My experience is also that, concerning politics and world affairs, most people are afraid of the truth, and will instinctively hate whoever dares to utter it. Concerning national and world events, an acceptable social mythology evolves, and is repeated endlessly, until, people "hypnotize" themselves into believing it, like cult followers. The mythology tranquilizes them. When someone points out that the mythology is false, the strength of the negative reaction, exposes the strength of the unconscious repression, the strength of the unconscious denial.

:oops: :x :grrrr:
Dan

[LanceGary]

[font=courier new][size=8pt]I try to never lie. I admit, that there can be times when, for instance, you are caught in government bureaucracy, and it is lying about you, that, the only alternative you have to defend yourself, is to lie too; unless you are willing to be falsely prosecuted. But, with respect to interactions with individuals, it seems to me, that I never lie. Maybe I am deceiving myself, but if I am, then, I guess I should not expect to realize it. I think I have no desire to get an advantage over other people, so, that motivation for lying is absent. And, I have no desire to try to influence people to like me, by acting. If someone likes you because of the "part" you play, then it is false affection, and you, are a false person - which breeds self-contempt. My experience is that if you always tell the truth, most people will not like you. But, a few will, and those will like you for who you truly are. Being truthful, makes it immensely easier, for me to tolerate myself. Also, if you never lie, then, you don't need to remember anything about what you previously said. It seems that a person automatically remembers the truth. I do think that in almost every organization, honest people do not advance very far. How far does someone advance, if his primary allegiance is to honesty and morality, and not to, "the company"? Think about what happens to "whistleblowers". My experience is also that, concerning politics and world affairs, most people are afraid of the truth, and will instinctively hate whoever dares to utter it. Concerning national and world events, an acceptable social mythology evolves, and is repeated endlessly, until, people "hypnotize" themselves into believing it, like cult followers. The mythology tranquilizes them. When someone points out that the mythology is false, the strength of the negative reaction, exposes the strength of the unconscious repression, the strength of the unconscious denial.

:oops: :x :grrrr:
Dan





When someone asks, "How are you?" you always answer truthfully, however interested the asker or boring the details might be?

Lance

[danbaron]

[font=courier new][size=8pt]People often do ask me, "How are you?".

I realize that the question is usually meaningless speech, and is often designed to gain control of an interaction: --> of two people, "a questioner", and, "a questioned", the questioner is usually in the power position; or, equivalently, the questioner is on offense, and the questioned, is on defense. Generally, I don't like being questioned (interrogated), especially, when I don't know the person, and/or, when I think the person is not actually interested in knowing the answer.

And so, I have developed an answer that I almost always use. It works pretty good, the person does not gain control, and, additionally, it is the truth. And, after I give my answer, the person usually does not ask me a second question, --> the person acquires zero, "offensive power momentum"; often, the person then appears perplexed - maybe speechless. On the other hand, sometimes the person laughs.

When someone asks me, "How are you?", I usually reply, "The same.".

:twisted:
Dan

[ErosOlmi]

Dan :D You make me laugh because I feel very close to your position.

[LanceGary]

[font=courier new][size=8pt]People often do ask me, "How are you?".

I realize that the question is usually meaningless speech, and is often designed to gain control of an interaction: --> of two people, "a questioner", and, "a questioned", the questioner is usually in the power position; or, equivalently, the questioner is on offense, and the questioned, is on defense. Generally, I don't like being questioned (interrogated), especially, when I don't know the person, and/or, when I think the person is not actually interested in knowing the answer.

And so, I have developed an answer that I almost always use. It works pretty good, the person does not gain control, and, additionally, it is the truth. And, after I give my answer, the person usually does not ask me a second question, --> the person acquires zero, "offensive power momentum"; often, the person then appears perplexed - maybe speechless. On the other hand, sometimes the person laughs.

When someone asks me, "How are you?", I usually reply, "The same.".

:twisted:
Dan



Some points for what they are worth. 1. You are are extraordinarily healthy if you are always the same. I suffer boughts of flu, occasionally gouty knee, and the like, quite often during a year. 2. You are mistaken - I think - about the motives that people have for asking how you are. Often people are not really interested in the details of your answer, but by asking they are at least acknowledging you as a person and suggesting that you are a friend or social equal. 3. Your point about asking questions being offensive is really only true of one kind of politeness - the kind that suggests that your claim to personal sovereignty is being threatened. But politeness can also be about satisfying a person's claim to belong - to be part of a group or family. So when visitors come and you offer refreshments you don't normally say "Would it be possible for you to have another cookie?" (politeness aimed at avoiding infringing a person's rights to sovereignty) but "You must have another cookie!" (politeness aimed at reassuring a person that they are welcome and are accepted as belonging to the group). If you are interested in following up my remarks I suggest a little book on the linguistics and anthrology of politeness by Brown and Levinson (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Politeness-Universals-Language-Interactional-Sociolinguistics/dp/0521313554/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1278495034&sr=1-1).

Cheers

Lance

[danbaron]

[font=courier new][size=8pt](I don't have too much time now.)

I do sense a certain similarity between us, Eros.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lance -

I agree with most of your latest response.

I meant mostly business or bureaucratic interactions, in which, I don't know the person, and, the person doesn't know me. For instance, at the bank, checking out at the grocery store, at some government agency, etc. During those encounters, I do notice that often the person will begin asking me questions, in my opinion, only in an attempt to control the situation.

I am not always exactly the same, either. When people ask me, "How are you?", I have to make a decision about how detailed my answer should be. On the large scale, my answer, "The same.", is usually true. Of course, as the scale decreases, then, that answer becomes more and more false. When I feel that someone is actually interested in me, and is not trying to manipulate me, then, I will lower my "shield", and reveal more of myself. I don't think I ever intend to hurt a person's feelings.

But, people have told me, and I realize myself, that my social behavior, is unusual. When I meet someone I know, I often will not say anything - I just stand in the person's presence, until, some conversation begins to naturally start. Or, I will initiate conversation by teasing the person in one way or another. I don't like to follow accepted standards of social politeness - I don't like to feel like a robot. And, if I am honest, then, partially my behavior is because of shyness. It seems, that people who care to know me, come to understand my eccentricities - we all have them, right?

Most Americans are not like me either, but, maybe part of the reason we have different viewpoints is because, if I am correct, you are from England. Also, if I am correct, standard norms of social behavior are important there, maybe, to help maintain civilized society. Here, there is little civilized society, anyway.

I don't have time now, but, I will look at the book you recommended at Amazon. I have a book which, maybe is similar, "The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life", by Erving Goffman, published, in 1959.

http://www.amazon.com/Presentation-Self-Everyday-Life/dp/0385094027/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1278531290&sr=1-1

In my opinion, this book is worth the price, if only for the photograph on the cover.

:oops: :twisted:
Dan

[LanceGary]

[font=courier new][size=8pt](I don't have too much time now.)

I don't have time now, but, I will look at the book you recommended at Amazon. I have a book which, maybe is similar, "The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life", by Erving Goffman, published, in 1959.

http://www.amazon.com/Presentation-Self-Everyday-Life/dp/0385094027/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1278531290&sr=1-1

In my opinion, this book is worth the price, if only for the photograph on the cover.

:oops: :twisted:
Dan



Erving Goffman is a great writer I agree. I think he wrote a book called "Interaction Ritual" that is closer to what we are talking about right now.

Thanks for your answer.

Lance

[danbaron]

[font=courier new][size=8pt]What you wrote about politeness, is very nuanced, very good ("sovereignty", "acknowledging", "friend", "equal", "belong", "group", "reassuring"), and, I think, true. I like that, --> "Would it be possible for you to have another cookie?".

But, I really don't know how to act socially. Or, at least, I have little interest in "proper" social behavior, or aptitude for it. Now that I am getting older, maybe I am improving somewhat. But, anyway, my wife has been sick for many years with multiple sclerosis. Now, she is in a nursing home. On rare occasions, I (alone) have been invited to someone's house for dinner. At the conclusion of the meal, sometimes I have left money next to my plate when I got up from the table - like a tip at a restaurant. At the time, I thought it was funny; I did it as a joke, and to provoke a reaction. However, my experience has been, that most people do not find it to be nearly as funny, as I do (did). Then, embarrassment begins, along with unsuccessful attempts at reconciliation.

:oops: :unguee: :(
Dan

[LanceGary]

[font=courier new][size=8pt]What you wrote about politeness, is very nuanced, very good ("sovereignty", "acknowledging", "friend", "equal", "belong", "group", "reassuring"), and, I think, true. I like that, --> "Would it be possible for you to have another cookie?".

But, I really don't know how to act socially. Or, at least, I have little interest in "proper" social behavior, or aptitude for it. Now that I am getting older, maybe I am improving somewhat. But, anyway, my wife has been sick for many years with multiple sclerosis. Now, she is in a nursing home. On rare occasions, I (alone) have been invited to someone's house for dinner. At the conclusion of the meal, sometimes I have left money next to my plate when I got up from the table - like a tip at a restaurant. At the time, I thought it was funny; I did it as a joke, and to provoke a reaction. However, my experience has been, that most people do not find it to be nearly as funny, as I do (did). Then, embarrassment begins, along with unsuccessful attempts at reconciliation.

:oops: :unguee: :(
Dan



Well this is a tough one. I feel obligated to reply in some detail even at the cost of boring any other readers. Perhaps other readers should think of what I write as the knowledge they would need to program into an AI machine or robot that needs to interact with real human beings.

Dan, I would also be offended if I had invited you to dinner and you left money – a tip. Why? Let’s start with the basics. Think of the Chinese notion of “face”. Face has two aspects. The first is the claim that a person has to sovereignty over their possessions and time and space. The second is the claim that every person has to belong to some family, some group, some friends, some societies, and so on, i.e., places where he or she belongs and is welcome and wanted. Let’s call the first “Respect” face and the latter “Belonging” face. Every language that has been studied shows usages designed to address both kinds of face, though some cultures (and cultures change over time) place more emphasis on one than the other. Japanese culture for example places much greater emphasis on respect than does American culture. In pre-revolutionary France the King and Queen of France addressed each other by title even in bed.

Every speech act (asserting something, asking something, promising something, and the like) contains some degree of threat to another person’s face. So asking for a loan of money (in the western world) can be quite threatening to the person being asked, and thus requires considerable redress. Asking for a glass of water may be much less threatening. The degree of threat involved in a speech act also depends on the power difference between the speaker and the listener, and the closeness of the kinship relation between them. The greater the perceived threat to a person’s face the greater the need for redress in the form of polite language. Standard linguistic ways of redressing the threat to a person’s respect face would be to choose indirect ways of asking, or of giving the person lots of ways of saying “No” without having to explicitly deny the request, or even simply stressing how superior and important the person being asked is and how humble the person requesting the loan is. So we could say “Would it be possible to ask you about a loan?” or “I know this is a great imposition and I am really sorry to have to ask, but do you think you could possibly see your way to giving me a loan?” In a hot room if you didn’t dare to ask the muscular and aggressive man next to the window to open it, you might say “It is hot in here!” and hope that he would work out that you would like him to open the window. Attempts to redress respect face lead to the standard kind of thing we think of as polite language. People in positions of authority – Judges, Presidents, school masters, bosses, and the like – are normally addressed formally (using titles, and respectful forms of language) by their social inferiors. Your boss speaking to you doesn’t absolutely have to use polite language (he’s the boss after all) but will often try to be polite by using a shortened form of politeness. So your boss might say not “Do you mind if I smoke?” but “Mind if I smoke?”

Often attempts to redress threats to a person’s belonging face take the opposite form from attempts to redress respect face. In many cultures kinship is more or less the same as belongingness face. We can ask something directly (baldly) of our own family. We can say “Let me have 100 dollars today, I’ll pay you back next week” without causing grave offence. We can use intimate pronouns (the tu/vu distinction) and first names, and we can use nick names and other address forms that signal intimacy. When a friend is visiting we can press our hospitality (You must stay the night), and the like. English used to have a distinction between intimate and formal pronouns in thou (informal) and you (formal) but that has been lost. If you remember your Shakespeare, in “As You Like It” some of the characters say they will go and tease Sir Andrew Aguecheek by “thou-ing” him – in other words using the informal pronoun. One of the reasons the Pilgrims who first settled America had to leave England was their refusal to use the formal pronoun. (Oddly enough most religions address God using the informal pronoun – I think because the power difference between a supplicant and God is so great that it cannot be threatened by an intimate form of speech – the intimate form just stresses the absolute dependence of the supplicant). Extreme forms of insult and belittling names can be used amongst friends, or people in a close knit group like a group of soldiers. So there was a song in the First World War where the words say ‘What a bloody rotten lot are the boys of the …’ Talking amongst themselves a group of African Americans could say “Nigga” without causing offence – but don’t let an outsider dare say it. If you have read Jerome K Jerome’s “Three men in a boat” you might remember the boating scene, where one of the characters returns to find his friend, who had claimed to be able to handle a boat, making an extreme mess of punting a boat. This character laughs loudly and calls out insults about his friend’s skill – but then the friend turns and the character realises that the person on the boat is not his friend at all. “I’m so sorry – I would never so insult anyone except a close friend” says the shocked character in the story.

When someone who is in a position of power is offended by you they can make their displeasure felt by no longer using respectful forms when addressing you. Think how a prison warder (who is unobserved) might address a prisoner (“Yo, Tommy, have a good wank tonight because tomorrow we are hanging you!”). When a friend is upset with you they can show their displeasure by resorting to icy formal politeness. A mother calling her son who has done something wrong calls “John Henry Smith come here!” (formal) and not “Johnny I want you!” (informal). In Jane Austen’s “Pride and Prejudice” Mr Darcy icily ends a conversation with Elizabeth “Madam I would by no means suspend any of your pleasures.”

So let’s see. You were invited as a friend to have dinner (belongingness face). You left a tip (respect face). Clearly (in the eyes of the people who invited you to dinner) you were denying that friendship existed between you. Indeed, in terms of respect face, you weren’t even treating the people who had invited you as equals but rather was waiters whose service was to be paid for by a tip. Surely you can see that that is extremely offensive?

Please don't be insulted if I say I think you may have a mild form of autism and could perhaps benefit from what psychologists call social skills training. I think Oliver Sacks once quoted an autistic woman as feeling like an Anthropologist from Mars when trying to understand what motivates other people in social situations.

Lance

[danbaron]

[font=courier new][size=8pt]I don't think I'm that bad, Lance.

But, I admit that you know a lot.

Concerning me, when I was invited to dinner, it was by close male friends of mine. They understood me. They knew I liked to joke. Their wives prepared the
meals. I never left the money with the thought that it would be accepted. I did it as a joke, which my male friends immediately understood. So, the only ones
who potentially did not understand, were the wives. Additionally, by the time that I would be invited to dinner, they (the wives) knew me well enough to realize
that I enjoyed teasing. In my previous post, I probably exaggerated (lied about?) the reactions that my actions elicited. As soon as the women saw the money,
and reacted, my friends and I would laugh, and, the money would go back into my pocket. At worst, in my opinion, people who know me, think I can be obnoxious,
but, not malicious - and not blind to accepted social behavior.

I think that if I was (socially) autistic, then, when I left the money on the table, I would have done it without a suspicion that I was violating good manners. I
would not have had the expectation that upon discovery, I would be scolded by the lady, and that laughter would ensue. In other words, I would have to
understand what constitutes "proper" behavior, in order to construct what I considered to be, a joke, that violated it. And, I think that I would have to be
able to imagine myself being in the wife's position, and how I would feel if she did the same thing to me - in order to judge whether I was going too far.

I will say, that with respect to titles and positions, social superiority and inferiority, I don't believe in them. To me, we are all of the same species, and,
I try to treat each person equally, as I would like to be treated. (You could say, that if I treat people the way I would like to be treated, then, I would not
play jokes on them. But, people play jokes on me too, and, usually, I realize that when they do it, they are expressing implicit affection. I never play jokes
on people, whom, I don't know, or, I don't like.)

I am now realizing that it is very easy for what a person posts on the Internet to be understood differently than it was intended. Communicating only by text,
without direct sensory input, apparently, leaves out much of the information that would be transmitted during a face-to-face encounter.

You mentioned something about God. Here is something that I have thought about. Is the word, "God", a name (like, "Mark"), a title (like, "king"), or, a
classification (like, "tiger")?

(A long time ago, if I remember correctly, Oliver Sacks wrote the book, "The Man who Mistook his Wife for a Hat". At least, Ive never done that, - so far.)

:oops: :twisted: :x :P
Dan

[LanceGary]

Sorry.

Lance

[danbaron]

[font=courier new][size=8pt]You shouldn't have to apologize. What you write is very interesting. If I am confident in my self-image, then, I should not be shaken so easily. I'm not an expert like you are, but, my observations agree with your knowledge, that there are so many social conventions whose sole purpose is to, "save face". To me, "saving face", means, avoiding damaged pride. It seems that there is almost nothing worse that can be done to most people, than to damage their pride. I guess, then, they feel like "nothings", outcasts, even if only subconsciously. I guess, the embarrassment, humiliation, mortification, seem worse than any physical pain could. And, at the time, it seems, the damage is permanent.

Probably, most of us went through mortifying experiences during our school days. Incidents which, maybe, we still remember. And, how many murders of passion are due to wounded pride? When someone catches his partner with another, I think the extreme negative emotions are due to wounded pride. If a person has built up an unrealistic self-image, and is suddenly confronted with its falsity, I guess, the emotions can be overwhelming. The immediate urge to destroy, may overwhelm every rational thought of future consequences. In those catastrophic moments, irrevocable destructive acts may occur, which then, are regretted forever. I guess, that is why murders of passion, are punished less severely, than, murders of premeditation. In some cultures, family killings done for the purpose of preserving family pride, are still not prosecutable, correct?

I guess that duels don't happen much anymore, but, weren't they usually over mutual insults? I guess that, presumably, the victor in a duel, somehow, felt his pride vindicated, and the loser, his loss of pride, confirmed. Often, I think, especially in certain cultures; for men, loss of pride, is emotionally equivalent to, emasculation.

I think that it is very hard to go through life with a fragile ego, with very delicate pride. In that case, either you have to avoid many potentially perilous situations, or, you are always susceptible to acts of violence. To me, a person should strive to live with his feelings, and to control himself, whatever the external stimulus might be. People can say anything they want about you (Sticks and stones can break my bones.."), but you are the only one who has the power to regulate how you feel about what they say. To me, the strong person, forces himself to confront his emotions, rather than distracting himself, by striking out at others (I am in no way implying that I am anywhere close to perfect in this regard.).

I think, even, just the single word, "Sorry.", can be a social attempt at "balancing the scales". The person voluntarily lowers his own social position, because it is perceived that he was previously responsible, for lowering the other person's. It seems to me, that if people were not so fragile, then, most of the convoluted social rituals, would evaporate.

If others are like me, then, everyone wants to feel that they are somehow special, not just plain, ordinary, average, human beings. When reality somehow indicates to them that they are not special, it is hard to bear; I know it is for me. Isn't that partially why people try so hard to achieve, to excel, to create? Here is a rhetorical question that I have thought about before, "How many books would be written, paintings would be painted, sculptures would be sculpted, etc., if the creator knew in advance, that no one else would ever see it?".

(I realize that the emoticons I put at the ends of my posts, could be interpreted as, me publicly describing myself as a clown, a buffoon. I can't disagree, but I have to live with it.)

(I also realize that my equating "face" with "pride", may be not exactly accurate, according to what you wrote. But, it's the best I can do now.)

:oops: :( :P :twisted:
Dan

[Charles Pegge]

Some vicious satire on social graces in Gulliver's Travels:



A messenger was despatched half a day's journey before us, to give the king notice of my approach, and to desire, "that his majesty would please to appoint a day and hour, when it would by his gracious pleasure that I might have the honour to lick the dust before his footstool." This is the court style, and I found it to be more than matter of form: for, upon my admittance two days after my arrival, I was commanded to crawl upon my belly, and lick the floor as I advanced; but, on account of my being a stranger, care was taken to have it made so clean, that the dust was not offensive. However, this was a peculiar grace, not allowed to any but persons of the highest rank, when they desire an admittance. Nay, sometimes the floor is strewed with dust on purpose, when the person to be admitted happens to have powerful enemies at court; and I have seen a great lord with his mouth so crammed, that when he had crept to the proper distance from the throne; he was not able to speak a word. Neither is there any remedy; because it is capital for those, who receive an audience to spit or wipe their mouths in his majesty's presence. There is indeed another custom, which I cannot altogether approve of: when the king has a mind to put any of his nobles to death in a gentle indulgent manner, he commands the floor to be strewed with a certain brown powder of a deadly composition, which being licked up, infallibly kills him in twenty-four hours. But in justice to this prince's great clemency, and the care he has of his subjects' lives (wherein it were much to be wished that the Monarchs of Europe would imitate him), it must be mentioned for his honour, that strict orders are given to have the infected parts of the floor well washed after every such execution, which, if his domestics neglect, they are in danger of incurring his royal displeasure. I myself heard him give directions, that one of his pages should be whipped, whose turn it was to give notice about washing the floor after an execution, but maliciously had omitted it; by which neglect a young lord of great hopes, coming to an audience, was unfortunately poisoned, although the king at that time had no design against his life. But this good prince was so gracious as to forgive the poor page his whipping, upon promise that he would do so no more, without special orders.

Read more: http://www.cliffsnotes.com/study_guide/literature/Gulliver-s-Travels-Summary-Analysis-and-Original-Text-by-Chapter-Chapter-9.id-120,pageNum-232.html#ixzz0tAVWo6w0


Jonathan Swift. Gullivers Travels Voyage to Laputa Ch 9.

[LanceGary]

[font=courier new][size=8pt]You shouldn't have to apologize. What you write is very interesting. If I am confident in my self-image, then, I should not be shaken so easily. I'm not an expert like you are, but, my observations agree with your knowledge, that there are so many social conventions whose sole purpose is to, "save face". To me, "saving face", means, avoiding damaged pride. It seems that there is almost nothing worse that can be done to most people, than to damage their pride. I guess, then, they feel like "nothings", outcasts, even if only subconsciously. I guess, the embarrassment, humiliation, mortification, seem worse than any physical pain could. And, at the time, it seems, the damage is permanent.



"Shouldn't." I understand the position you and Charles are taking. I on the other hand think we have to take people as they are. If people are motivated by pride and avoiding offending the pride of other people is what allows people to live together then that is how the world is. The quote from Jonathan Swift is but one of an endless littany of complaints people have made about the vanity and arrogance of other people from the beginning of recorded history. Has the world changed as a result? No. Will it change in the future? No. So we have to live with people as they are. Complaints, however heartfelt and however justified, amount to (as my Grandfather used to say) "Farting against a thunderstorm." You might feel some relief but you are not going to startle or change anyone.

Cheers

Lance

[Michael Clease]

Complaints, however heartfelt and however justified, amount to (as my Grandfather used to say) "Farting against a thunderstorm." You might feel some relief but you are not going to startle or change anyone.


Does that quote still stand if the butterfly effect is to be taken into account?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect

Mike

[danbaron]

[font=courier new]I like that Jonathan Swift quote. It reminds of, is it called, "The King's New Clothes"?

I try to avoid people who seem to me to have inflated self-images. I don't expect to be able to change them. I do expect to find them in positions of power and fame. I am not good at, nor do I desire to be good at, "tip-toeing" or "walking on eggshells", in the presence of, "Humpty Dumpty"s.

The problem I have with the Butterfly effect, is that there are billions of butterflies. Would their composite effect be zero? Maybe, similar to the way in which on a large scale, we notice no quantum effects, because there are so many, and they are random, so that, they cancel each other.

I would say, "Farting in a thunderstorm". Meaning that, no one would hear your fart, because of the thunder. But, if you were indoors at the time, with others in a confined space, I think that, depending on what you had eaten, you could indeed, startle, and maybe, at least temporarily, change those around you.

I would also say, that with respect to maintaining an inflated ego, as Lance said in similar words before, "The less you know, the easier it is to do."; i.e., "Often, people who know nothing, think they know everything.". Or, "You can't argue with a person who doesn't know anything.". Or, the old standard, "Ignorance is bliss".

Out of time (I'm a very important and busy man (as you all know)).


Signed,

[size=12pt]The Grand Imperial Potentate of the Infinity of Universes (and Everything Else, Too)

[LanceGary]

Complaints, however heartfelt and however justified, amount to (as my Grandfather used to say) "Farting against a thunderstorm." You might feel some relief but you are not going to startle or change anyone.


Does that quote still stand if the butterfly effect is to be taken into account?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect

Mike


I think you've left out the effect on global warming!

Lance

[LanceGary]

[font=courier new][size=8pt]I like that Jonathan Swift quote. It reminds of, is it called, "The King's New Clothes"?

I try to avoid people who seem to me to have inflated self-images. I don't expect to be able to change them. I do expect to find them in positions of power and fame. I am not good at, nor do I desire to be good at, "tip-toeing" or "walking on eggshells", in the presence of, "Humpty Dumpty's".



Yes so you don't respect a lot of people. What does that say about you?

You seem to believe that you are not a member of humanity. Why not try some experiments. See how you like it when someone stands very close to you. I'm betting you will move away. Why? Because that person has invaded your personal space - and thus one of your small claims to sovereignty. Try having a conversation with someone who interrupts you as soon as you try to make a point. I'm betting you will feel annoyed. Why? Because again they are showing no respect for you.

Basic politeness is not only the servant of the powerful - it also your servant. The powerful expect exaggerated respect and get mocked for it (unless they are Stalin). But all of us - and I bet even you - desire some respect from other people, and in order to get that respect we pay them a small tribute of respect. If you want someone not to interrupt your well chosen points then you won't interrupt their well chosen points.

Pride is not only evil - it is, as you said - the basis on which anyone does anything. Research shows that depressed people are more realistic in their assessments of the world and their chances of success than are normal people. But if we are all depressed then we will all starve.

Great power can be abused. There are wonderful stories in Solzhenitsyn's writings about Stalin's abuse of his power. For example the story of the long speech he gave in a small village. Everyone in the village had come to listen and the speech took hours to finish. When he finished the entire village stood up and applauded and applauded. After a while, Solzhenitsyn says, they realized they were trapped. No one dared to be the first to stop clapping. So they clapped and they clapped. After several hours one of the old village men simply could not continue anymore and more or less collapsed into his seat. Instantly the rest of the village sat down. Solzhenitsyn says that that evening the old man disappeared.

Such power is not easy to escape - particularly by refusing to play the politeness game. I think of the book Schindler's Ark (the film Schindler's list). Reading Thomas Keneally's book (more than the film) makes it clear that Schindler was NOT a nice man. He was quite willing to cheat on his wife, and to profit from the forced sale of Jewish factories, and the like. Yet it was this not very nice man who managed to save thousands of Jewish lives. The better people who stood up and made angry points about Nazis ended up dead. But Schindler could play the politeness game - in his case I think he could seem to belong to the Gestapo crowd - and so he got away with it.

Whether you like it or not politeness is part of the human condition. And if you won't play the game you are going to have to be

- very rich
- very powerful

or

- very lonely and bitter.

Lance

[danbaron]

[font=courier new][size=8pt]It is exactly correct, there are a lot of people, whom (I always mix up "who" and "whom". And, I don't care enough to learn the distinction.) I don't respect. What that says about me, depends upon whom you ask.

(We could go down a whole other "road". If we begin with the proposition that God does not exist, then, to me, all philosophical ideas are subjective. In that case, I think, there is no correct answer to what it means, that I don't respect many people.)

As far as I am aware, it is my right to feel and think in any way I wish.

It is also my right, to attempt to avoid people, whom I find distasteful.

I do think that I am a member of humanity. I have never thought that I belonged to any species, except, Homo sapiens.

Concerning people who stand very close to me, my reaction depends upon how I am feeling, and, the particular person. Similarly, with people who interrupt me. However, it is never of vital importance to me to speak, in any conversation. If a person continually interrupts me, I will stop trying to speak, and, doing so will not upset me greatly.

On page 116, of David Lykken's book, "The Antisocial Personalities" (1995, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates), he classifies Oscar Schindler, as a primary psychopath.

I don't think I said that I refuse to be polite. I hope I indicated, that, I don't like to be involved in asymmetrical social interactions.

If I am in an interaction with someone who thinks he has power over me, and so, treats me disrespectfully, while simultaneously expecting that I "kneel" in his presence, then, I don't like it.

As I said before, I try to treat people in the way that I would like to be treated. That includes being polite when interacting with strangers, and being friendly when interacting with friends.

If I was not polite to most people, then, I would be one of the people, whom I try to avoid.

I don't think being polite, is a game. I do think that "prostrating" oneself before someone who is higher in the social/power pecking order, is, a sick game.

Since, I am usually polite, I don't think I need to be very rich, or very powerful. And, most likely the only thing that will cause me to be lonely and bitter, is, if, the class of people which I don't respect, is responsible for me becoming financially destitute. (I am worried/depressed about the economy - national, and international; maybe, most of us are. And, if my assessment is "more realistic", then, things don't look good.)

As you said, no one has to yield in the presence of great power, even Hitler's. The alternative is to do, what we will all ultimately do anyway.

:twisted:
Dan

[LanceGary]

[font=courier new][size=8pt]

On page 116, of David Lykken's book, "The Antisocial Personalities" (1995, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates), he classifies Oscar Schindler, as a primary psychopath.



Well then there you have your use for psychopaths. They are willing to bow down to people in power in order to save lives, even at great cost to themselves! (And Schindler did lose his money and did risk his life to do what he did).




I don't think I said that I refuse to be polite. I hope I indicated, that, I don't like to be involved in asymmetrical social interactions.

If I am in an interaction with someone who thinks he has power over me, and so, treats me disrespectfully, while simultaneously expecting that I "kneel" in his presence, then, I don't like it.



Who does? One's politeness is of necessity. There is some quote about a diplomat being a person who can tell someone to go to hell and make him look forward to the journey.




As I said before, I try to treat people in the way that I would like to be treated. That includes being polite when interacting with strangers, and being friendly when interacting with friends.

If I was not polite to most people, then, I would be one of the people, whom I try to avoid.



Precisely. So we are not disagreeing. Politeness and the face needs from which springs are part of everyone's experience.




As you said, no one has to yield in the presence of great power, even Hitler's. The alternative is to do, what we will all ultimately do anyway.




Most of us think it is better to live to fight another day.

Lance