Doublethink is a concept of George Orwell's novel 1984.

[Oxygenne]

Doublethink is a concept of George Orwell's novel 1984.
"The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them."
"Americans tend to define politeness in terms of "friendliness": smiling, telling "white lies", pretending to like people even if they don't."

I understand why people during the communist time were afraid to say what they think but I just do not understand why the americans are afraid to say what they really thing ?

what are their constrain here ?

 

[Unknot]

More advanced a society is more we hide our true feelings. Probably not a causation, but a correlation.

 

[Oxygenne]

but the germans for example, that belong to an advance society, consider that the other person wants an honest answer, not some "white lie", they take you literally at your word
and they really mean what they say.

 

[Unknot]

I should change my theory a bit. (actually, tear it apart.) Let's introduce a constant, which I will name h for no reason whatsoever.

h = (level of individualism, politically and culturally)

I think lower h is people doublethink more!

... but wait a minute, that's obvious.

 

[Blenton]

Because everyone has people who like them. If you don't like that particular person, the people that like them won't like you and probably so on. So in order to maximise your friendships with those around you (and even those you don't know) is to pretend you like them.

 

[skeptic2]

"I understand why people during the communist time were afraid to say what they think but I just do not understand why the americans are afraid to say what they really thing ?

what are their constrain here ?"

Assuming you're working and have a boss, do you tell him what you really think?"More advanced a society is more we hide our true feelings. Probably not a causation, but a correlation. "

I don't think this is more true for more advanced societies. I think even in tribal societies people tended to tell the chiefs what they wanted to hear.

 

[lisab]

So, Oxygenne, you seem to be saying that Americans don't say what they mean, but Germans do.

What is your proof of this statement?

 

[Andre]

another form of doublethink is cognitive dissonance, being able to holding two contradictory ideas at the same time.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The problems all began with the old wave-particle duality paradox. After that I got married...

Luckily, I discovered the Many Worlds Theory.

 

[tony134340]

It's not so much just Americans. If you think it is, you're ignorant. We all suppress some truths, it's inherent in humanity. If you're German, I'll be the first to tell you that people there are also sensitive to what you say. Germany is known for suppressing truths. Long ago, it was suppressing Jews and pro-Jewish opinions, now it's anti-Jewish views. I don't care where you are, you live a modified version of the truth.

Though I can sympathize with how annoying it is sometimes to not be able to say what's on your mind because it's incompatible with someone else's reality. I also hold a view that it's possible to view two opposites as true and valid, in almost any sense of the statement.

 

[Oxygenne]

Orwell's novel describe the society that was without freedom of speech/ opinion.
In the opposite with that society in the american society, that fight with to save and teach other to be free.

Why should they then do not say what they really think even if is their boss?
why should you agree with everything the boss says just because is a boss?

also many time they say to the students "great job" and sometimes they have poor presentations.
I will say in Germany, because someone said in advanced society and I think that is one of them, if the students have a poor presentation they will be advise to improve their presentation, none will tell them they did great unless they really did.

 

[redargon]

Telling someone one thing and thinking another is not doublethinking as you have defined it. It's just lying. If I tell you that your presentation is great, but I actually think that it stinks, it doesn't mean that i believe it is great and that it stinks at the same time. I believe one thing and tell you another.

It's a way to try to be thoughtful of people's feelings. Being honest is always good, in theory, but if I tell my girlfiend (for example) that here butt does really look big in that dress, then I will have accomplished nothing with my honesty except to upset her.

Being honest all the time is not always then, the best solution, but it depends on the situation, naturally. I know quite a few Germans, and yes they tend to be a little more to the point than some of my other friends, but I wouldn't say it was because they were German. I also know quite a few Americans that are very blunt and to the point and even brutally honest. It still has nothing to do with doublethinking, just personalities.

 

[skeptic2]

Good redargon, I think we have confused doublethink with lying.

In general I think doublethink is quite common and occurs when people form ideas from different incompatible sources. A poor example (because I can't think of a better one right now) would be someone who accepts what he learns in science classes and in church, not realizing in some cases there are conflicts.

 

[WhoWee]

Life in general presents us with the opportunity to imagine how we would like things to be (and of course) the reality of how things really are...I would say it's become normal to consider differing beliefs/strategies if not to keep our options open...to be able to make informed decisions.

 

[LordOfSPAM]

It's my guess that what OP is alluding to are cultural differences.

In one culture, fi east-asian culture, one will allways try to save face and be evasive when asked for a potentially embarrassing opinion.

In the US there is a general tendency to accentuate the positive and fair criticism is sometimes ommitted or muted just to be polite and friendly.

Northwestern europe is on other the side of the spectrum. Blunt criticism and opinions are very much appreciated.

Of course this is generally speaking, but anybody who has had any contact with these cultures will have roughly the same experience.

What is better? Depends on your viewpoint, the situation and where you're from I guess ...

Cheers,
LoS

 

[tony134340]

But if we lie, how can we truly be students of Science or logic? We have to dedicate ourselves to the truth. Or do we just dedicate ourselves to only the truths which benefit us, then that's no different than religion? If so, how can we say we're on the side of truth or logic, if you will?

 

[russ_watters]

Redargon is right: the OP's example is not doublethink. Yes, it is technically "lying", but that's too simplistic. It is, in reality, just a different standard of politeness - a different comunications protocol.

And I don't for a second believe that if a German man tells his wife she does look fat in those jeans, she'll appreciate his honesty.

And I don't pretend to like people I don't like unless it is to my personal benefit to do so.

 

[zoobyshoe]

another form of doublethink is cognitive dissonance, being able to holding two contradictory ideas at the same time.

Actually, Andre, cognitive dissonance is NOT being able to hold two contradictory ideas at the same time, hence the "dissonance". As the Wiki article states, people go to all kinds of lengths to relieve the dissonance.

 

[tony134340]

Redargon is right: the OP's example is not doublethink. Yes, it is technically "lying", but that's too simplistic. It is, in reality, just a different standard of politeness - a different comunications protocol.

And I don't for a second believe that if a German man tells his wife she does look fat in those jeans, she'll appreciate his honesty.

And I don't pretend to like people I don't like unless it is to my personal benefit to do so.

How about "deceiving"? I don't see how you can be a true scientist or a student of it and condone deceiving because it is to your benefit. It's hypocritical and something most religious people do.

 

[russ_watters]

How about "deceiving"? I don't see how you can be a true scientist or a student of it and condone deceiving because it is to your benefit. It's hypocritical and something most religious people do.

Part of being an adult is learning how to act differently in different situations when called for.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Part of being an adult is learning how to act differently in different situations when called for.

A few years back there was a guy who faked up some radiocarbon dates on some skulls. The false dates he gave made his paper much more interesting, and got him a bit of extra fame in his field. I think Tony wants to know if there's a limit to deception for personal gain in your mind.

 

[Evo]

I always try to find something I like about a person, no matter how wrong, immature, nasty, vindictive and incapable of admiting when they did something wrong they are.

 

[Evo]

A few years back there was a guy who faked up some radiocarbon dates on some skulls. The false dates he gave made his paper much more interesting, and got him a bit of extra fame in his field. I think Tony wants to know if there's a limit to deception for personal gain in your mind.

Was that they guy that faked finding that "giant" human?

 

[zoobyshoe]

Was that they guy that faked finding that "giant" human?

Don't think so:

http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/2-18-2005-65958.asp

 

[tony134340]

Part of being an adult is learning how to act differently in different situations when called for.

Obviously. I'm asking, can we devote ourself to truth if we don't condone or live the truth?

 

[Evo]

Don't think so:

http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/2-18-2005-65958.asp

Ah yes, i'd read about that.

Here is the giant human fraud.

Wb, btw!

The Cardiff Giant, one of the most famous hoaxes in American history

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

 

[redargon]

Obviously. I'm asking, can we devote ourself to truth if we don't condone or live the truth?

the obvious answer is no. But we try our best, just like religious people (going back to your analogy, not mine) that devote themselves to something that they think is perfect even if they know that they cannot ever be perfect.

But how much does truth actually affect science as you think it does? I assume that there are a lot of people that contributed great amounts to science and mathematics that weren't always truthful. Sometimes I tell my boss things with the new product development are going ok, even if they're not exactly going ok. In some cases, this gives me a little more time to get the thing right rather than have the whole thing flushed down the drain, or spending hours trying to explain why it isn't working and trying to convince people that it'll just need more time. Sometimes it doesn't work out and I look like a tit, but that's a risk I'm willing to take for some progress.

Being honest all the time is a great concept (just like communism ), but then life would be very factual and probably pretty boring (just like communism ). Imagine movies, there would be no actors (they're actually lying to you every time they pretend to be someone else on screen the shock, the horror). There would be one type of car, because all the manufacturers wouldn't be able to tell you that there design was better when it wasn't, so everyone would just buy the one car that was the best. Adverts would be like: "buy our beer, it tastes like cat pee and has a 94% higher chance of giving you a headache the next morning than brand B. We select only the cheapest ingredients to give you a beverage that really shouldn't be sold for human consumption"

Did I make my point? I'm not sure, I was having too much fun imaging honest commercials.

 

[Oxygenne]

i think it does not matter so much if your friend is asking you if is slim or fat as long as you tell to him/her is good looking as it is.
or if s/he want to change this you can help as friend telling there are mean to become how likes to be.

I do not think you lie when you pretend on the screen you are a different person, there is well known what is a play, an actor and what they do to entertain us.

But if a professor is telling to the student "great" when the answer was for 3x3 was 6 what is the point? instead to telling the true, the student was wrong, that helps more, open the eyes to see there is still much more to learn...
I do not think telling to a student is wrong is something bad.
The goal is to really help the students to learn the things right later on will show a false self confidence just because they want to hear they are doing always "great" based on poor results.

Then what you do in business when you have to run project with another ? do you tell in person to them you will do it and then you will not longer take any call or emails ? or as soon as you get to the computer (you want to be polite and to not hurt their feelings telling straightforward your opinion) you tell to them how nice was meeting them but you do not do the project with them.

Do you think you make a good opinion with this?
just because you did not tell upfront what you think?
In the community people talk each other and you will not make a good opinion, you will not look as a partner to trust if this is the behavior!

just make all the things more difficult.

 

[tony134340]

the obvious answer is no. But we try our best, just like religious people (going back to your analogy, not mine) that devote themselves to something that they think is perfect even if they know that they cannot ever be perfect.

But how much does truth actually affect science as you think it does? I assume that there are a lot of people that contributed great amounts to science and mathematics that weren't always truthful. Sometimes I tell my boss things with the new product development are going ok, even if they're not exactly going ok. In some cases, this gives me a little more time to get the thing right rather than have the whole thing flushed down the drain, or spending hours trying to explain why it isn't working and trying to convince people that it'll just need more time. Sometimes it doesn't work out and I look like a tit, but that's a risk I'm willing to take for some progress.

Being honest all the time is a great concept (just like communism ), but then life would be very factual and probably pretty boring (just like communism ). Imagine movies, there would be no actors (they're actually lying to you every time they pretend to be someone else on screen the shock, the horror). There would be one type of car, because all the manufacturers wouldn't be able to tell you that there design was better when it wasn't, so everyone would just buy the one car that was the best. Adverts would be like: "buy our beer, it tastes like cat pee and has a 94% higher chance of giving you a headache the next morning than brand B. We select only the cheapest ingredients to give you a beverage that really shouldn't be sold for human consumption"

Did I make my point? I'm not sure, I was having too much fun imaging honest commercials.

Good answer and the kind of route I was hoping this would bring us to. The truth would be very boring but does that justify us to live or accept falsehoods? As I was saying, I don't believe in an Abrahamic god, but there's people that do. If they live in a false reality in their own minds, does this give us much right to talk bad about the general religious view? I don't say all this to divide, but just as I do with some religious people, to let them see that there's common ground and they're no better than us or vice versa because we all condone false realities. So that brings us to, whose view is right? Can the two, science and religion, not be both right from their own perspectives?

Religion convinced me at first, so I fought on its side. Then atheism convinced me, so I fought on its side. Now I find if you devote yourself fully to either one, you're setting yourself up for failure because both aren't designed for you to devote your whole self to. Religion, for me, because it was so hypocritical. And science, for me, because of the same thing. I see the only way of surviving now is living a mix between truth and falsehoods. I can't see that taking any of these to their fullest extent is beneficial for survival. So am I the only one seeing just as much hypocrisy in science as I do religion?

 

[russ_watters]

A few years back there was a guy who faked up some radiocarbon dates on some skulls. The false dates he gave made his paper much more interesting, and got him a bit of extra fame in his field. I think Tony wants to know if there's a limit to deception for personal gain in your mind.

Given the example I used and the OP on which it is based, it should be relatively obvious: academic fraud is not "white lie" protecting feelings in an interpersonal relationship.

It looks to me like tony is going in a different direction than the OP. I'm not really interested in following it, though I will say he's looking for a paradox where none exists. Telling your wife she looks good in those jeans and faking cold fusion research are completely unrelated issues.

 

[tony134340]

Given the example I used and the OP on which it is based, it should be relatively obvious: academic fraud is not "white lie" protecting feelings in an interpersonal relationship.

It looks to me like tony is going in a different direction than the OP. I'm not really interested in following it, though I will say he's looking for a paradox where none exists. Telling your wife she looks good in those jeans and faking cold fusion research are completely unrelated issues.

There is a paradox. As scientists or students of it, we live our lives trying to uncover truths, not sweep them under the mat. But yet, we realize there must be some amount of deception involved to successfully function. Even you'll notice when you played as kids, or play with kids or pets. You play hide and seek, peek a boo, you play basketball or football and do a fakeout, even simple chess matches we try to deceive the opponent. The mere act of deceiving or hiding certain parts of your thoughts gives us challenge and without that, it would make life dull and you could argue, worth living. To have everything come out of its corner and show its face, it would be all right there and there would be no challenge. It would be game over. There must always be something which hides itself from us or else, if we had it all, there's no use in going on.

Point is, we all deceive. You could argue yours is just playing, but when they lie, they could say the same thing. Same goes with lying to not hurt their feelings. How many of us have been lied to because he/she wanted to protect our feelings? Do we usually like it? That's all subjective. I'm just trying to see how many will admit that not only truth is their master, but deceit is also. That you can hold two opposing sides as valid and essential.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

How about "deceiving"? I don't see how you can be a true scientist or a student of it and condone deceiving because it is to your benefit. It's hypocritical and something most religious people do.

I don't understand how deception or lying is necessarily improper according to scientific method. obviously if you use false data in a report or some such you hinder yourself, and others, in reaching the intended goal. at the same time a deception or falsehood can be utilized, perhaps even in a scientific fashion, to reach a desired goal. do we not use deceptions and falsehoods to test human perception and cognitive function?
in real life a person may find it necessary to use some form of deception to achieve a desired result. science does not dictate morality. there is not solution to the what when and where of the acceptability of deception. one might decide that so long as the goal is productive the ends justify the means. but at what point might we find that the damage caused by deception in the name of a benevolent goal is too great? its hard to specifically deliniate what is acceptable when we are dealing with humans who have such varying sensibilities.

 

[zoobyshoe]

It's true that subjects are sometimes mislead in psychological, sociological and pharmocological testing but good cases can be made for those fields not being true sciences and, I think, the following sentence should never have been written:

I don't understand how deception or lying is necessarily improper according to scientific method.

 

[WhoWee]

Doublethink is a concept of George Orwell's novel 1984.
"The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them."
"Americans tend to define politeness in terms of "friendliness": smiling, telling "white lies", pretending to like people even if they don't."

I understand why people during the communist time were afraid to say what they think but I just do not understand why the americans are afraid to say what they really thing ?

what are their constrain here ?

I think we're seeing more of this with regards to politics. We maintain that we're devout capitalists...but everyone is angry with "Wall St."..even though everyone with a 401K IS vested in Wall St.

The simultaneous discussion is that we are not socialists. At the same time, our government is adopting/expanding socialism-type programs...taking over the banks, universal health care, expanded welfare benefits...bigger and stronger government.

On one hand...everyone is afraid of the thought of a long recession/depression...trying to believe in the new President who ran on a platform of "Hope and Change"/closing Gitmo/ending the war in Iraq/no earmarks and now talks about the "Crisis" daily (lot's of doom and gloom and government is the only answer).

When the reality of the conflict comes into focus...where to put the terrorist suspects, an expanded war in Afghanistan and Pakistan, $787Billion spending Bill ever was passed and nobody had time to read the final bill before the vote was taken, a new $400+Billion Bill was passed with an estimated 9,000 Earmarks (explained as last years business), the Vice President said there's a 30% chance of failure, the Treas Sec (head of IRS) cheated on his taxes, President announced a new spending initiative of $600Billion+ to reform health care, announced future tax increases for families earning over $250k/yr (2% of population will carry the bulk of tax burden), announced stricter controls of Wall St/Banking (even though some of the Congressional oversight of Fannie/Freddie and banks has been blamed for causing a real estate bubble), a mortgage bailout strategy that rewards people in foreclosure but not the 90% of people who pay on time (their reward is propped-up property values), the Census might be controlled by the White House, we're at 1997 stock market values, credit markets are still frozen and the Big 3 need more money...and we're only 40 days into the new era of hope and change.

People are scared and want to believe...but the two ideologies are at odds in their minds.

Everyone knows SOMEONE has to pay for all of this spending and 2% of the population can't be expected to carry all of the weight.

The real problem is that we NEVER follow a clear path...everything is done by accommodation and compromise...translation: everything costs more than it should and ultimately benefits a special interest somewhere in order to gain the support required.

Left Belief < Reality > Right Belief

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

It's true that subjects are sometimes mislead in psychological, sociological and pharmocological testing but good cases can be made for those fields not being true sciences and, I think, the following sentence should never have been written:

I apologize if my statement seems improper. my only point really is that science is concerned with results. science is not concerned with whether or not it is right or wrong to lie or deceive and science can very possible put such things to use as tools if they can achieve results. there is certainly such thing as ethics among the scientific community but the ethics is not a science in and of itself.

 

[tony134340]

I apologize if my statement seems improper. my only point really is that science is concerned with results. science is not concerned with whether or not it is right or wrong to lie or deceive and science can very possible put such things to use as tools if they can achieve results. there is certainly such thing as ethics among the scientific community but the ethics is not a science in and of itself.

Science is all about deception just as well as everything else including results. If I were selling a product and only told you the side which was beneficial to me, then you could be fooled because I didn't tell you all about it or only the side of it that is considered positive. Science is the study of the universe in a way which is beneficial to us. We're all pushing an agenda. There's always more than one side or dimension to anything insofar as we can observe and we just happen to seek the side beneficial to us.

Truth and deception are in a gray, gooey ball. They intermingle quite often. It's like taking two colors of clay and binding the two. You can't separate them as fine as you think. That line that we try to insert between the two isn't really there. Part of being an adult is finally realizing it's a gray world and admitting it is but knowing where to draw the line in your mind for the benefit of happiness and healthiness. Some of us just don't realize it or want to admit it because it may not necessarily beneficial to us and we may have a hard time drawing those lines if we actually realized there were none. We're spoonfed those lines by society and some of us just don't want to think for ourselves. We take the same old moldy views and regurgitate them without thinking twice about them.

We live off of fear and we thrive giving it to others. We say, "no, it's not so" when faced with something new and scary. But chances are, a straight no is rarely true. Chances are, there is probably at least some yes mixed in with it. We usually want to view the world in a simple, binary view. It's either yes, or no, on or off. It's man's nature to compress information in the simplest form to work with. But reality is much different. There's more dimensions, ugliness, and blur to this world than see and would want to see. It's time we grew up, all of us adults, and stop finding differences and realizing commonalities.

If advancement is what we're after, I don't see us advancing much with such a binary view of the world and so much fighting going on all over.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I apologize if my statement seems improper. my only point really is that science is concerned with results. science is not concerned with whether or not it is right or wrong to lie or deceive and science can very possible put such things to use as tools if they can achieve results. there is certainly such thing as ethics among the scientific community but the ethics is not a science in and of itself.

Science is not concerned with results, though, (because the ambiguous way you assert that leaves it open to an end justifies the means spin, or "We need results now at any cost!") The main thrust of science is to discover what's actually going on in Nature. It demands honesty, not just so you aren't fooling other people but more importantly so that you aren't fooling yourself. It is built into the method that a theory must be testable; there must be a way for it to be proven wrong, and results must be repeatable and subject to the scrutiny of others. Science is about clarifying and, to the extent it functions as an 'anti-delusional' the impropriety of deception is implicit.

Therefore: "I don't understand how deception or lying is necessarily improper according to scientific method," is about as poorly expressed and misleading a statement as there could be.

What's going on when you give half the subjects in a drug trial a placebo has to be clearly distinguished from faking up radio carbon dates to forward your career.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Science is not concerned with results, though, (because the ambiguous way you assert that leaves it open to an end justifies the means spin, or "We need results now at any cost!") The main thrust of science is to discover what's actually going on in Nature. It demands honesty, not just so you aren't fooling other people but more importantly so that you aren't fooling yourself. It is built into the method that a theory must be testable; there must be a way for it to be proven wrong, and results must be repeatable and subject to the scrutiny of others. Science is about clarifying and, to the extent it functions as an 'anti-delusional' the impropriety of deception is implicit.

Therefore: "I don't understand how deception or lying is necessarily improper according to scientific method," is about as poorly expressed and misleading a statement as there could be.

What's going on when you give half the subjects in a drug trial a placebo has to be clearly distinguished from faking up radio carbon dates to forward your career.

I believe I mentioned the difference between faking data and using deception as a tool in an experiment in that same post. again I apologize if I didn't make my meaning clear enough.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I believe I mentioned the difference between faking data and using deception as a tool in an experiment in that same post.

You made a distinction, but your general emphasis misses the point that science is the tool whereby confusions, misunderstandings, illusions, delusions, preconceptions, assumptions, biases, misinterpretations, and, yes, deceptions are fathomed. In spirit, from Galileo on, science has always distinctly leaned away from deception.

Given that then: "I don't understand how deception or lying is necessarily improper according to scientific method," is about the most unfortunate possible utterance to make (the sort of thing that was probably repeated a lot by the masterminds behind those perverted studies like giving people syphilis or exposing them to radiation without their knowledge). On the other hand "Science doesn't dictate morality" is a different sentiment entirely that I don't object to. I suspect you see them as equivalent, but they're not.

 

[LordOfSPAM]

You made a distinction, but your general emphasis misses the point that science is the tool whereby confusions, misunderstandings, illusions, delusions, preconceptions, assumptions, biases, misinterpretations, and, yes, deceptions are fathomed. In spirit, from Galileo on, science has always distinctly leaned away from deception.

Given that then: "I don't understand how deception or lying is necessarily improper according to scientific method," is about the most unfortunate possible utterance to make (the sort of thing that was probably repeated a lot by the masterminds behind those perverted studies like giving people syphilis or exposing them to radiation without their knowledge). On the other hand "Science doesn't dictate morality" is a different sentiment entirely that I don't object to. I suspect you see them as equivalent, but they're not.

I think that we're in of danger of landing in a discussion to ascertain how many angels can sit on a tip of a needle ...

OP made the point, more complicated than needed and with a rather superfluous 1984-reference, that, niceties aside, professors should allways be truthfull towards their students and their performance. A position I think we can all support.

Cheers,
LoS.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I think that we're in of danger of landing in a discussion to ascertain how many angels can sit on a tip of a needle ...

I have no idea what this means.

OP made the point, more complicated than needed and with a rather superfluous 1984-reference, that, niceties aside, professors should allways be truthfull towards their students and their performance. A position I think we can all support.

Superfluous 1984 references aside, the opening poster was complaining about Americans not being frank in just about every situation. It's probably true that we aren't, compared to Germans and the French, but I think the British are worse, and the people who really need picking on in this regard are the Japanese and the Finns.

 

[LordOfSPAM]

I have no idea what this means.


Superfluous 1984 references aside, the opening poster was complaining about Americans not being frank in just about every situation. It's probably true that we aren't, compared to Germans and the French, but I think the British are worse, and the people who really need picking on in this regard are the Japanese and the Finns.

Needles & Angels: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_many_angels_can_stand_on_the_head_of_a_pin?

I actually have no direct experience of working relationships with americans, so I can say nothing about it. But to me it seems rather unworkable when your manager/supervisor/advisor/prof. tells you something is good, when it's actually wrong ...

In social settings I find americans quite pleasant, and the life of the party :D


Cheers,
LoS.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Needles & Angels: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_many_angels_can_stand_on_the_head_of_a_pin?

I've heard of this, but, again have no idea why you likened my post, or this thread to it.

I actually have no direct experience of working relationships with americans, so I can say nothing about it.

I have tons of such experience but I could never characterize it to you because every individual work situation I've been involved with has been different.

But to me it seems rather unworkable when your manager/supervisor/advisor/prof. tells you something is good, when it's actually wrong ...

Agreed, but I have never run into, or heard of, a boss or teacher who operated this way.

In social settings I find americans quite pleasant, and the life of the party :D

Obviously only those Americans capable of being the life of the party feel confident enough to go galavanting around to foreign countries. The rest of us timid, boss and teacher whipped Americans stay home. That's an exaggeration, but seriously: the fact of travel either results from, or forces you into, individual expansiveness.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I actually have no direct experience of working relationships with americans, so I can say nothing about it. But to me it seems rather unworkable when your manager/supervisor/advisor/prof. tells you something is good, when it's actually wrong ...

I understand that in other countries it may be far more difficult to get fired or reprimanded than in the US. So perhaps it is far easier to get away with showing disagreement with them in the work place. Here , if you are in a position to worry about losing your job because your supervisor doesn't like you, its often better to be more circumspect.

As a mild example my current boss and supervisor have a tendency to push all of their employees to hold to a standard that most of us consider unreasonable. When I've reflected on it I have come to the belief that this is strategic, that they realize few of us are likely to actually hold to this standard but that we will hopefully strive for a sort of compromise that will be at least satisfactory. I try not to argue with them about whether or not their standards are unreasonable; they tell me I am a good worker and rarely critisize my work.
Aswell my supervisor tends to get snappy and irritable due to stress. Since I tend to be deferential I've noticed that he usually calms down and starts being more reasonable once he realizes that he's just bit my head off over nothing. I even pointed this out to him once when he was asking me if I knew why some of our employees apparently don't like him and he laughed, agreed, and apologized.

Fortunately my current employers are actually rather nice people and treat me well. I've also had rather insufferable bosses and found it easier most often to just nod my head and agree with them rather than fight with them. The one time I was told by a supervisor to do something that was against proper procedure, and even technically somewhat illegal, I wrote a rather long and professional e-mail to our Human Resources department. They responded, rather professionally and politely, that I should shut up and do what I'm told. I left that job pretty quickly.

 

[Brilliant!]

I don't think it's something "natural" in humanity, as some in this thread have said. I actually don't think there is any good reason for it ever. Lies and deceit can take many forms, and all of those forms are some degree of evil.

If we take a look at lies, we will find that there are seemingly many causes, but in all actuality there is only one: denial. Whether it's lying to get ahead, or lying to cover up some flaw in your character which you are ashamed of, it is all denial. That being said, we need to find the source of denial. Some will say that denial, shame, and apathy towards existence are natural to humanity. I disagree. I believe that they all have a common cause which can be traced and identified.

Let's look at a common situation that I'm sure we've all dealt with: a loved one is planning to go out wearing something that looks absolutely ridiculous. He/she asks, "How do I look in this?" And, not wanting to hurt their feelings, we say, "You look great!"

Why did we lie? Is it because you are a considerate person and it is nobler to let them feel great than it is to potentially make them feel unattractive? Maybe. That usually seems to be the reason for white lies such as these. In any normal investigation, this would be the end of the search, as we seem to have found the reason for the lie: The person wants to feel good, and you want to make them feel good. Case closed. Or is it?

We can learn much more about the source of the lie if we take a look at the loved one. In many cases like this, the person asks the question "How do I look?" full well knowing they will hear "You look great!" regardless of how they actually look. So, why ask anyway? To bolster their confidence. Now we are getting somewhere!

Why is it that some people aren't confident enough to look in a mirror and come to terms with what they see? In most cases, when someone turns to us and asks "How do I look?" they are doing it because their confidence was shaken when they looked in the mirror. They weren't sure about what they saw. So what did they choose to do? Upon realizing that they didn't like what they saw in the mirror, they immediately choose denial, turn to us, and ask, "How do I look?" They choose to deny their own opinion of themselves, which happens to be the only opinion that really matters, in favor of someone else's, despite knowing somewhere in their mind that the person may say they look good "just to be nice". In other words, the little white lie.

Let's think about something else that this chosen state of denial facilitates: transfer of responsibility. If you ask me how you look, and I tell you that you look great, even if you don't, and then we go out on the town and you slowly realize that everyone is looking at your terrible outfit and become severely self-conscious and ashamed, well, we have a ruined night, don't we? And then what happens next? "I thought you said I looked good in this! And I really look like a fool! Next time I ask you, just be honest with me, okay?!"

"B-b-but, you expected the white lie!" we say to ourselves.

And, there we have it. A vicious, evil cycle of sorts. This happens in all of life's situations, be they in the White House or the Dining Room. This is a major problem. But where does it come from?

I know the answer, but it will have to wait until later as I have class.

 

[tony134340]

Brilliant!, I can agree that there's hypocrisy involved and certainly like others to tell me what's really on their mind. I can take the truth a lot better than a white lie, no matter how bad. But I disagree in that you seem to view your side as the only right side and that it's not natural. Read my previous posts, because we're all living at least part of a lie. There's no one correct person. It's not like you can take the side of truth 100% or the side of deceit 100%. To try to do one of them to the fullest will render you crazy. I'd also disagree with the use of the word 'evil'. Evil implying that the 'evil' side is wrong or invalidated. Deceit does have a purpose with human survival. It is beneficial, somewhat. As they say, ignorance is bliss. We always have to have something which is hiding away for us to find to give us the game in life. We're always looking to discover. Deceit, to me, is just as important as truth. I can agree with everyone on some level but I see that there must be a balance of the two for our own benefit. I just disagree when one person thinks that their one side of the spectrum between the two is the right one on a universal scale.

 

[Brilliant!]

In my opinion, you are thinking from the wrong perspective (not to mention, you're speaking in contradictions). Think from your own, and you can always be truthful. 99.9% if not 100% of the time. I don't believe in "balance" or compromise. Don't take this for what it sounds like, take it for what it's worth, because it is very complicated. I live my a morality that says I should live my life in a manner that makes me the happiest, without infringing on anyone's right to do the same.

In my life, there will never be a good reason for me to lie or deceive, unless it is to protect my livelihood from liars and deceivers. It is not in my interest to tell my boss that I feel he has done a great job, when it was really I who did the great job. I only belittle myself my kissing his arse, and I give him a false sense of pride. However, it is in my best interest to lie to the police if they choose to enter my home by force. They are intruders who would be imprisoned if the circumstance wasn't that they were police.

Retouching on the example of the boss who would like his arse kissed, perhaps there would be an instance when being deceitful would mean I could get a promotion and make more money. Two things: 1) I have no interest in getting a promotion in this manner, and 2) I wouldn't find myself in a job like this long enough to even deserve a promotion. Some would say it would be in my best interest to grit my teeth and bare a job situation in which I had to take orders from a peon, but I beg to differ. For the sake of my own pride in my value and ability, I would rather eat mayonnaise sandwiches on month-old bread in my roach-infested studio apartment than make may way through life deceiving people into giving me more money, and kissing the arse of my lessers to "get places" in the world.

This makes for a difficult life, I know. But I am satisfied. Some may say I'm being impractical, but I wouldn't it. I never have to make excuses or apologize. I never have to beg or kiss boots. I never pat the shoulders of people who don't deserve recognition. And I would never concede my morale unless it was required of me to live.

Valuing deceit as much as the truth is how you wind up with the "What they don't know won't kill them" school of thought. Maybe you are capable of coming up with example of using deceit in the name of a noble cause, and perhaps those are the only things you'll ever use it for. But you'll still have to address the issue of people who aren't as strong in mind as you are: the people who take a ride on the slippery-slope of deceit, and wind up "fudging the numbers just a little bit", only to say "We didn't know this would happen!" when it all comes tumbling down.

And there's your contradiction. Truth is all there is. It's the acceptance of deceit that would ever put you in a situation where you would have to deceive.

 

[tony134340]

Brilliant!, as I explained before, you are only seeing the part of the truth which is beneficial for you, which is not the whole truth. Just as others would tell a white lie because they see it beneficial. Perhaps their part of the truth is logically valid but it is still deceit because they only see what is beneficial to them. That's why I say our version of the truth is very human or self-centric.

Now as to how you live your life, that's up to you and I'm not one to judge you. IMHO, your view is just as valid and valuable as mine, I'm just expressing my own view for you to see that we're all faking it and your view is no better than anyone else's that you deem coming from the "wrong perspective". There is no wrong perspective. It's just different people with different perspectives.

 

[Zantra]

What would we have if everyone always told the truth, no matter how inconsiderate- why, you'd have the french!. JK.. je regrette...:!)

Anyhow, I think people are trying to hard to give an absolute spin to human emotion, which is impossible. Can you always be completely honest, without reserve? Sure! Will you live a long happy life? doubtful. Some lies are just victimless crimes that are a necessary evil, IMHO. You could tell a person they are very stupid? You bet! Would they probably punch you in the nose? Yep. You can tell your girlfriend her butt is fat(oops-I mean EX GF). And you can call your Ex-boss a simpleton(unemployed). Or you could accept that there are some circumstances where being truthful, while certainly admirable, is foolish. Otherwise, march right out the door with your lifelong possessions in tow, after being honest with your girlfriend, and right to work to tell your boss what you really think, and pick up your last paycheck.

Bottom line is that in human emotion, you cannot draw absolutes- it's just not possible. Duplicity is the human condition. Everyone lies, even if the intention is honorable.

And for clarity, According to 1984 doublethink is:

The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them...To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies — all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth

Sounds like a self-reinforcing delusion to me.

And in practicing doublespeak, one might experience cognitive dissonance:

Cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding two contradictory ideas simultaneously. The "ideas" or "cognitions" in question may include attitudes and beliefs, and also the awareness of one's behavior. The theory of cognitive dissonance proposes that people have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance by changing their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors, or by justifying or rationalizing their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors.[1] Cognitive dissonance theory is one of the most influential and extensively studied theories in social psychology.

which has nothing to do with honesty, except with yourself.

I think of a "good lie" like I think of porn- I can't tell you what it is, but I'll know it when I see it.

 

[Brilliant!]

Brilliant!, as I explained before, you are only seeing the part of the truth which is beneficial for you, which is not the whole truth. Just as others would tell a white lie because they see it beneficial. Perhaps their part of the truth is logically valid but it is still deceit because they only see what is beneficial to them. That's why I say our version of the truth is very human or self-centric.

I think you're being selective in the way you'd like to view lying and deceiving. Perhaps I'm not explaining myself well enough, but I can assure you that I am seeing the whole truth, and it is beneficial to everyone.

But I get the feeling that you are dead set and planted firm on this ambiguous middle ground and have already made up your mind. Maybe things aren't always black and white, but that doesn't mean that everything is a million shades of gray. I can tell you with certainty that lies and deceit (and just plain old ignorance) are the problems with American society, and the world. I don't need empirical evidence, I can see it and hear it all on my own. And so can you. I'm not being facetious or outrageous when I tell you that you can trace most problems back to lies, whether it be lies to yourself (denial) or to a friend, or to a whole group of people.