I don’t think that the “effort” distinction is banal at all.
The “lying” scenario provides us with much more information about the “liar”, than the “keeping secrets” scenario provides us about the “secret keeper”. Let me go into this in more detail.
An individual assumes that others have mental states, but that individual has no direct access to those mental states. An individual can only infer mental states through the physical actions of another.
For now, let’s assume that an individual who can more accurately infer others mental states from their actions will be “happier” or “more successful” than an individual who cannot.
So, given this assumption, every individual has an incentive to constantly determine others mental states, generalize this into some mental stance, and relate that mental state and mental stance back to the individual.
With these brief preliminaries out of the way, let’s examine “lying” vs “secrets”.
When a person gives you misinformation, the potential liar takes an active role in trying to affect you negatively. The range of potential mental states and mental stances from this information is relatively small. The person can have a mental stance of “looking out for your best interests” (let’s call this mental stance “friendliness”) and be mistaken, or the person can have a mental stance of “trying to manipulate you” and be lying. The pathway to determine whether a person is “mistaken” or “lying” is relatively straightforward (compared to secrets), and if we can determine “lying” we can take action to change our relationship with the other.
When a person withholds information that may be helpful; however, we have a much stickier situation. The range of potential mental states is much broader in this situation. The person may be unsure of the accuracy of the information. The person may be unsure of the efficacy of the information to you. The person may be unsure of your willingness to receive this information. In other words, there are many reasons a person may refrain from giving you potentially helpful information and still have a mental stance of “friendliness”.
And it would be hard to prove that the withholder of information actually has a mental stance of “eneminess”.
Thus, when someone withholds information, our line of inquiry and our course of actions are far less clear than when a person gives us misinformation.
So, in summary, the asymmetry between the two situations is an asymmetry of information. The fact than an individual takes an effort to “lie” to us give us a great deal more information about that individual’s mental stance towards us. The person who “keeps a secret” on the other hand, has not given us information about their mental stance towards us.
Agreed, but for me the intuition that “lying” is less wise than “keeping secrets” doesn’t fully disappear when I assume that I don’t care about consequences for my reputation or other punishments, so I don’t think this can be the whole story.
Also, I sort of skirted over the issue by calling it “bad faith”, but I don’t think there’s necessarily a contradiction between “lying” to someone and looking out for their best interests (consider that pigs don’t in fact have wings, so the Walrus is manipulating the Carpenter toward a true conclusion), though there often is in practice.
(In case anyone is wondering why I’m putting scare quotes around “lies” and “secrets”, it’s because I’m thinking more in terms of misleading contributions and non-contributions to an intellectual debate than in terms of more everyday examples. I don’t think my comments apply well to things like privacy issues, for example.)
----The person may be unsure of your willingness to receive this information. In other words, there are many reasons a person may refrain from giving you potentially helpful information and still have a mental stance of “friendliness”.----
I agree. For instance, if you know that people would over-value your evidence. For instance, what if Walrus believes that Carpenter is over-credulous. He thinks that Carpenter will take the evidence, proclaim 100% certainty that pigs can have wings, and go blow all his money trying to start a flying pig farm. Walrus believes that there will be a higher cost to Carpenter of overconfidence in the belief that pigs have wings, and a lower cost to underconfidence. Consequently, Walrus will keep his evidence to himself because he knows that Carpenter will receive it with bias.
I don’t think that the “effort” distinction is banal at all.
The “lying” scenario provides us with much more information about the “liar”, than the “keeping secrets” scenario provides us about the “secret keeper”. Let me go into this in more detail.
An individual assumes that others have mental states, but that individual has no direct access to those mental states. An individual can only infer mental states through the physical actions of another.
For now, let’s assume that an individual who can more accurately infer others mental states from their actions will be “happier” or “more successful” than an individual who cannot.
So, given this assumption, every individual has an incentive to constantly determine others mental states, generalize this into some mental stance, and relate that mental state and mental stance back to the individual.
With these brief preliminaries out of the way, let’s examine “lying” vs “secrets”.
When a person gives you misinformation, the potential liar takes an active role in trying to affect you negatively. The range of potential mental states and mental stances from this information is relatively small. The person can have a mental stance of “looking out for your best interests” (let’s call this mental stance “friendliness”) and be mistaken, or the person can have a mental stance of “trying to manipulate you” and be lying. The pathway to determine whether a person is “mistaken” or “lying” is relatively straightforward (compared to secrets), and if we can determine “lying” we can take action to change our relationship with the other.
When a person withholds information that may be helpful; however, we have a much stickier situation. The range of potential mental states is much broader in this situation. The person may be unsure of the accuracy of the information. The person may be unsure of the efficacy of the information to you. The person may be unsure of your willingness to receive this information. In other words, there are many reasons a person may refrain from giving you potentially helpful information and still have a mental stance of “friendliness”.
And it would be hard to prove that the withholder of information actually has a mental stance of “eneminess”.
Thus, when someone withholds information, our line of inquiry and our course of actions are far less clear than when a person gives us misinformation.
So, in summary, the asymmetry between the two situations is an asymmetry of information. The fact than an individual takes an effort to “lie” to us give us a great deal more information about that individual’s mental stance towards us. The person who “keeps a secret” on the other hand, has not given us information about their mental stance towards us.
Hope this helps provoke discussion.
David
Agreed, but for me the intuition that “lying” is less wise than “keeping secrets” doesn’t fully disappear when I assume that I don’t care about consequences for my reputation or other punishments, so I don’t think this can be the whole story.
Also, I sort of skirted over the issue by calling it “bad faith”, but I don’t think there’s necessarily a contradiction between “lying” to someone and looking out for their best interests (consider that pigs don’t in fact have wings, so the Walrus is manipulating the Carpenter toward a true conclusion), though there often is in practice.
(In case anyone is wondering why I’m putting scare quotes around “lies” and “secrets”, it’s because I’m thinking more in terms of misleading contributions and non-contributions to an intellectual debate than in terms of more everyday examples. I don’t think my comments apply well to things like privacy issues, for example.)
----The person may be unsure of your willingness to receive this information. In other words, there are many reasons a person may refrain from giving you potentially helpful information and still have a mental stance of “friendliness”.----
I agree. For instance, if you know that people would over-value your evidence. For instance, what if Walrus believes that Carpenter is over-credulous. He thinks that Carpenter will take the evidence, proclaim 100% certainty that pigs can have wings, and go blow all his money trying to start a flying pig farm. Walrus believes that there will be a higher cost to Carpenter of overconfidence in the belief that pigs have wings, and a lower cost to underconfidence. Consequently, Walrus will keep his evidence to himself because he knows that Carpenter will receive it with bias.