I endorse the vast majority of the post. Lying in most of those circumstances seems like an entirely appropriate choice, particularly to people you do not respect enough to expect them to respond acceptably to truth. Telling people the truth when those people are going to screw you over is unethical (according to my intuitive morality which seems to consider ’being a dumbass” abhorrent.)
If you’re highly averse to lying, I’m not going to spend a lot of time trying to convince you to tell white lies more often. But I will implore you to do one thing: accept other people’s right to lie to you.
People have the right to lie. People do not have the right to lie without consequences. I suggest people respond to being lied to in whatever way best meets their own goals and best facilitates their own wellbeing. Those adept at navigating a sea of social bullshit and deception may choose to never treat lies as defections or provide any negative consequences. Those less adept at that kind of thinking may be better served by being less tolerant of lies from those with a given degree of closeness to them.
I implore you to respect other’s right to treat lies, liars, and you in whatever way suits them.
On the other hand, if we ever meet in person, I hope you realize I might lie to you. Failure to realize a statement could be a white lie can create some terribly awkward situations.
I personally assume people lie all the time (or, more technically, I assume they bullshit all the time). However, speaking about other people you may encounter I hope you realize that some people do not interpret lies the way you hope. Failure to realize that your lie will create some terribly awkward situations is your behaviour and your consequence (as well as a consequence to the non-savvy recipient). As the person who is (presumably) more socially aware of the two parties and the person who has analysed the subject more you are going to be better equipped to adapt. So either don’t lie to people when it’s going to create terribly awkward situations or avoid talking to people when you expect your preferred behavioural pattern will not work with them (eg. based on apparently clumsy body language).
As is the case with all notions about how people ought to interact with each other, if you attempt to enforce your own standards and don’t adapt to the person you are interacting with you can expect things to go poorly. This applies to lying averse people interacting with liars. It applies to liars interacting with the lie-averse. It applies to ‘Guess culture’ people forcing their behaviour or interpretations on non-guessers and the reverse.
The most notable failure pattern that I observe is that of a wilful, stubborn, insistence that consequences are responsibility of the other party because “my” way is the naturally right way for the universe to be. A psychological disposition based precommitment not to swerve in a game of chicken.
Those less adept at that kind of thinking may be better served by being less tolerant of lies from those with a given degree of closeness to them.
Does this really serve many of them better though? Combine implicit high trust in people with judgmentality and poor lie detection in an environment where everybody lies. From an outside perspective the most extreme version of this seems like a recipe for lashing out at random people and alienating them. People openly judgmental about lying actually seem like good targets for deception, because you can expect them to be worse at spotting it.
if you attempt to enforce your own standards and don’t adapt to the person you are interacting with you can expect things to go poorly. This applies to lying averse people interacting with liars
Can lying averse people reliably spot the other nonliars?
People do not have the right to lie without consequences. I suggest people respond to being lied to in whatever way best meets their own goals and best facilitates their own wellbeing. Those adept at navigating a sea of social bullshit and deception may choose to never treat lies as defections or provide any negative consequences. Those less adept at that kind of thinking may be better served by being less tolerant of lies from those with a given degree of closeness to them.
I implore you to respect other’s right to treat lies, liars, and you in whatever way suits them.
Some lies should have consequences. But I think “respect other people’s right to you [about some topics]” is a really important principle. Maybe it would help to be more concrete:
Some men will react badly to being turned down for a date. Some women too, but probably more men, so I’ll make this gendered. And also because dealing with someone who won’t take “no” for an answer is a scarier experience with the asker is a man and the person saying “no” is a woman. So I sympathize with women who give made-up reasons for saying “no” to dates, to make saying “no” easier.
Is it always the wisest decision? Probably not. But sometimes, I suspect, it is. And I’d advise men to accept that women doing that is OK. Not only that, I wouldn’t want to be part of a community with lots of men who didn’t get things like that. That’s the kind of thing I have in mind when I say to respect other people’s right to lie to you.
The most notable failure pattern that I observe is that of a wilful, stubborn, insistence that consequences are responsibility of the other party because “my” way is the naturally right way for the universe to be. A psychological disposition based precommitment not to swerve in a game of chicken.
I agree with this. Though I think some degree of acceptance of white lies is the majority position, and figuring out when someone deviates from that and to what degree is tricky. Such social defaults tend to be worth going along with unless you have a pretty damn good reason not to.
You’re asking too much of people, even on LessWrong. You’re demanding purely consequentialist utilitarian judgment be made in the face of MULTIPLE ingrained cognitive biases, plus MULTIPLE levels of cultural conditioning.
I suggest people respond to being lied to in whatever way best meets their own goals and best facilitates their own wellbeing. Those adept at navigating a sea of social bullshit and deception may choose to never treat lies as defections or provide any negative consequences. Those less adept at that kind of thinking may be better served by being less tolerant of lies from those with a given degree of closeness to them.
Saying “some kinds of lies are actually okay” is bragging: “I am good at navigating social bullshit, so the presence of the white lies is a net benefit for me.”—Yeah, good for you. Might not work for me. I might hurt myself by trying to costly signal something I am not yet able to pay the cost of.
Claiming to have a common skill is hardly bragging unless you expect your audience to lack said skill.
I am good at navigating social bullshit, so the presence of the white lies is a net benefit for me.
For me it’s more like “I don’t like the presence of most white lies, but I have far more important goals than this preference that require interacting with all kinds of people, so I’ll suck it up.”
People who have the luxury of demotivating themselves by calling normal social interaction bullshit probably have pretty asocial jobs.
Claiming to have a common skill is hardly bragging
Oh, so not only you have the skill, all your friends have it too. How amazing!
(Sorry for the agressive tone, but this is approximately how it translates to me.)
unless you expect your audience to lack said skill.
I don’t want to point fingers at anyone, but the mere fact that the topic of “white lies” created a debate in this community suggests that some members consider the costs non-negligible.
People who have the luxury of demotivating themselves by calling normal social interaction bullshit probably have pretty asocial jobs.
Yep, I find work with computers much less frustrating than work with humans. (But I also find some kinds of humans much less frustrating than others. So I might enjoy working with the filtered subset, or having a possibility to filter out the most frustrating clients.)
The meaning of “normal social interaction” depends on the kind of people you interact with. What’s normal in one group may be weird in another. Sure, some things also correlate between the groups, and it’s a good idea to improve in those. And the cost of having the interaction is often worth paying. Still, the cost is there, and if it’s far from zero (for me, it is), it has to be included in the calculation.
Sorry for the agressive tone, but this is approximately how it translates to me.
“Sorry, but” doesn’t fix open hostility. I’ll rather attribute this hostility to the circumstances than to you however.
For some reason this discussion prompts as horrible interpretations of people as possible when there clearly are other interpretations available. I’m out.
I endorse the vast majority of the post. Lying in most of those circumstances seems like an entirely appropriate choice, particularly to people you do not respect enough to expect them to respond acceptably to truth. Telling people the truth when those people are going to screw you over is unethical (according to my intuitive morality which seems to consider ’being a dumbass” abhorrent.)
People have the right to lie. People do not have the right to lie without consequences. I suggest people respond to being lied to in whatever way best meets their own goals and best facilitates their own wellbeing. Those adept at navigating a sea of social bullshit and deception may choose to never treat lies as defections or provide any negative consequences. Those less adept at that kind of thinking may be better served by being less tolerant of lies from those with a given degree of closeness to them.
I implore you to respect other’s right to treat lies, liars, and you in whatever way suits them.
I personally assume people lie all the time (or, more technically, I assume they bullshit all the time). However, speaking about other people you may encounter I hope you realize that some people do not interpret lies the way you hope. Failure to realize that your lie will create some terribly awkward situations is your behaviour and your consequence (as well as a consequence to the non-savvy recipient). As the person who is (presumably) more socially aware of the two parties and the person who has analysed the subject more you are going to be better equipped to adapt. So either don’t lie to people when it’s going to create terribly awkward situations or avoid talking to people when you expect your preferred behavioural pattern will not work with them (eg. based on apparently clumsy body language).
As is the case with all notions about how people ought to interact with each other, if you attempt to enforce your own standards and don’t adapt to the person you are interacting with you can expect things to go poorly. This applies to lying averse people interacting with liars. It applies to liars interacting with the lie-averse. It applies to ‘Guess culture’ people forcing their behaviour or interpretations on non-guessers and the reverse.
The most notable failure pattern that I observe is that of a wilful, stubborn, insistence that consequences are responsibility of the other party because “my” way is the naturally right way for the universe to be. A psychological disposition based precommitment not to swerve in a game of chicken.
Does this really serve many of them better though? Combine implicit high trust in people with judgmentality and poor lie detection in an environment where everybody lies. From an outside perspective the most extreme version of this seems like a recipe for lashing out at random people and alienating them. People openly judgmental about lying actually seem like good targets for deception, because you can expect them to be worse at spotting it.
Can lying averse people reliably spot the other nonliars?
Thanks!
Some lies should have consequences. But I think “respect other people’s right to you [about some topics]” is a really important principle. Maybe it would help to be more concrete:
Some men will react badly to being turned down for a date. Some women too, but probably more men, so I’ll make this gendered. And also because dealing with someone who won’t take “no” for an answer is a scarier experience with the asker is a man and the person saying “no” is a woman. So I sympathize with women who give made-up reasons for saying “no” to dates, to make saying “no” easier.
Is it always the wisest decision? Probably not. But sometimes, I suspect, it is. And I’d advise men to accept that women doing that is OK. Not only that, I wouldn’t want to be part of a community with lots of men who didn’t get things like that. That’s the kind of thing I have in mind when I say to respect other people’s right to lie to you.
I agree with this. Though I think some degree of acceptance of white lies is the majority position, and figuring out when someone deviates from that and to what degree is tricky. Such social defaults tend to be worth going along with unless you have a pretty damn good reason not to.
You’re asking too much of people, even on LessWrong. You’re demanding purely consequentialist utilitarian judgment be made in the face of MULTIPLE ingrained cognitive biases, plus MULTIPLE levels of cultural conditioning.
You’re not going to win this one.
You really think people’s objections to Chris’s post are due to the objectors being insufficiently consequentialist?
Please, do explain.
Saying “some kinds of lies are actually okay” is bragging: “I am good at navigating social bullshit, so the presence of the white lies is a net benefit for me.”—Yeah, good for you. Might not work for me. I might hurt myself by trying to costly signal something I am not yet able to pay the cost of.
Claiming to have a common skill is hardly bragging unless you expect your audience to lack said skill.
For me it’s more like “I don’t like the presence of most white lies, but I have far more important goals than this preference that require interacting with all kinds of people, so I’ll suck it up.”
People who have the luxury of demotivating themselves by calling normal social interaction bullshit probably have pretty asocial jobs.
Oh, so not only you have the skill, all your friends have it too. How amazing!
(Sorry for the agressive tone, but this is approximately how it translates to me.)
I don’t want to point fingers at anyone, but the mere fact that the topic of “white lies” created a debate in this community suggests that some members consider the costs non-negligible.
Yep, I find work with computers much less frustrating than work with humans. (But I also find some kinds of humans much less frustrating than others. So I might enjoy working with the filtered subset, or having a possibility to filter out the most frustrating clients.)
The meaning of “normal social interaction” depends on the kind of people you interact with. What’s normal in one group may be weird in another. Sure, some things also correlate between the groups, and it’s a good idea to improve in those. And the cost of having the interaction is often worth paying. Still, the cost is there, and if it’s far from zero (for me, it is), it has to be included in the calculation.
“Sorry, but” doesn’t fix open hostility. I’ll rather attribute this hostility to the circumstances than to you however.
For some reason this discussion prompts as horrible interpretations of people as possible when there clearly are other interpretations available. I’m out.