I must disagree and would like to suggest a confounding variable that seems to explain the Feynman example better (I will come to the ‘Invention of Lying Scene later’): Intellectual Consistency.
Bohr wanted to talk to Feynman, but not because he was rude or unable to be socially graceful. (It may even be argued that Feynmans fame comes in part from his social abilities). According to your quote, Bohr wanted to talk to him because he didn’t disregard his own intuition and knowledge for the sake of being engraciating. All the others doing so, did not recognize Bohr as a truth seeker, but as someone wanting to hear a ‘Yes Mr Bohr’ to every claim. To a good scientist, this can be insulting, showing lack of social grace.
There is quite a lot of evidence that intellectual consistency increases your chances of exerting minority influence (i. e. being outnumbered in views, but turning the groups view over in the end) greatly. However, if you fail to package this information properly, you might be shunned out of the group or seen as unreasonable before your consistency can have its effect on the group. Let me give an Example:
A common problem for any leftist groups in America is, that they interpret the word ‘socialism’ differently than the majority of the population. If they critique free market capitalism (and call it by its name) e. g.: ‘Free market capitalism lead to a rise of homelessness. Homeless people should be helped by the state to get back on their feet’, they will quickly be called a ‘commie’ and silenced. Note that this is not a reaction to the issue itself, but just to the word ‘capitalism’. A strategy to counteract this reaction is to rephrase the problem to ‘We need a system that helps homeless people get back into the labour market’, and virtually the same claim may be seen as better aligned with american values.
The crux is that humans, even if they prefer honesty, have emotional reactions to what you say. Being challenged sparks cognitive dissonance, but having your self image negatively affected can be too much at once. In short, be consistent, but not insulting.
Back to the ‘Invention of Lying’ Scene. Firstly, the waiter lacks crucial information to say something like ‘She is out of your league’. He does not know who asked whom out. He does not know if ‘Leagues’ even concern any of them, or if he has merits beyond his looks. For all he knows, the guy could be a famous author she admires. By keeping his mouth shut, he would not omit the truth, but wait until he is sufficiently sure to make any statement.
Secondly, the reason this clip seems so funny to us is that any human with emotions would have a negative emotional reaction to such a remark, which is just missing here. We can wish all we want that humans were like this, but as it stands right now, even the most blunt people have a sore spot, and scratching it will only lead to discord if they are not in the proper mood for it. For the truth to have any effect on the others behaviour, you have to make sure others are ready to hear it
I must disagree and would like to suggest a confounding variable that seems to explain the Feynman example better (I will come to the ‘Invention of Lying Scene later’): Intellectual Consistency.
Bohr wanted to talk to Feynman, but not because he was rude or unable to be socially graceful. (It may even be argued that Feynmans fame comes in part from his social abilities). According to your quote, Bohr wanted to talk to him because he didn’t disregard his own intuition and knowledge for the sake of being engraciating. All the others doing so, did not recognize Bohr as a truth seeker, but as someone wanting to hear a ‘Yes Mr Bohr’ to every claim. To a good scientist, this can be insulting, showing lack of social grace.
There is quite a lot of evidence that intellectual consistency increases your chances of exerting minority influence (i. e. being outnumbered in views, but turning the groups view over in the end) greatly. However, if you fail to package this information properly, you might be shunned out of the group or seen as unreasonable before your consistency can have its effect on the group. Let me give an Example:
A common problem for any leftist groups in America is, that they interpret the word ‘socialism’ differently than the majority of the population. If they critique free market capitalism (and call it by its name) e. g.: ‘Free market capitalism lead to a rise of homelessness. Homeless people should be helped by the state to get back on their feet’, they will quickly be called a ‘commie’ and silenced. Note that this is not a reaction to the issue itself, but just to the word ‘capitalism’. A strategy to counteract this reaction is to rephrase the problem to ‘We need a system that helps homeless people get back into the labour market’, and virtually the same claim may be seen as better aligned with american values.
The crux is that humans, even if they prefer honesty, have emotional reactions to what you say. Being challenged sparks cognitive dissonance, but having your self image negatively affected can be too much at once. In short, be consistent, but not insulting.
Back to the ‘Invention of Lying’ Scene. Firstly, the waiter lacks crucial information to say something like ‘She is out of your league’. He does not know who asked whom out. He does not know if ‘Leagues’ even concern any of them, or if he has merits beyond his looks. For all he knows, the guy could be a famous author she admires. By keeping his mouth shut, he would not omit the truth, but wait until he is sufficiently sure to make any statement.
Secondly, the reason this clip seems so funny to us is that any human with emotions would have a negative emotional reaction to such a remark, which is just missing here. We can wish all we want that humans were like this, but as it stands right now, even the most blunt people have a sore spot, and scratching it will only lead to discord if they are not in the proper mood for it. For the truth to have any effect on the others behaviour, you have to make sure others are ready to hear it