From "The Lies We Like: Voters Prefer Transparency to Honesty, but Should They?/We don’t have to start supporting honest people who transparently hold values we don’t share. But we do need to stop supporting transparent people whose commitment to honesty is lacking" by Robin Koerner (Foundation for Economic Education).
The post was instigated by Lem, who commented on my last post — a post that got the tag "the blog has a theme today" — "Two posts a theme does not make." Now, there are 3.
You don't need to click through to the article to figure out that the person Koerner thinks we need to stop supporting is Trump. But whether you support Trump or not, it's useful to think about why we might like someone whose lies are transparent.
By the way, I see the words "Duplicity" and "Integrity," each on a corner of the matrix. But what words belong on the other 2 corners? "Boring" and "Exciting"? And too bad the words "Untruthful" and "Truthful" are misplaced in the vertical blue rectangle. That's confusing!
পোস্টগুলি
৬০টি মন্তব্য:
"Every lie makes you indebted to the truth, and that debt will eventually be paid."
- Valery Legasov, IAEA investigator during Chernobyl incident
I've always been partial to that quote. The only time honesty isn't the best policy is during war. All others you're just kicking the can down the road.
How about the theme for the day is: those in power can't get anything right. The powerful, in this case, are the administrators who couldn't change "truthful" in the blue graphic block before they copy/pasted it from the top to the side.
All you need to know is Biden corruption is all Russian disinformation.
Obey obey obey...
So what exactly is the point of the upper-right box? What game is being played when someone is untruthful, but everyone knows it? (Would Clinton claim about having sex, be in that box?) Or put differently, if the lie is transparent, why does the liar still lie?
And here is another metric: how a politician treats their spouse and family. Some politicians and their supporters like to say that infidelity is a personal matter, but my view is that if someone is willing to cause deep emotional pain to the people closest to them - the people they are most likely to love the most, on what basis should we believe that they truly care about the problems of you and me? Selfish is and selfish does. People can change - they can repent and start anew - and I would never want to suggest or act in a way to hinder or ignore people's change and learning through experience. But "teaches" of character flaws are not nothing.
Transparency is more important than honesty because you can't rely on honesty. That's the whole point of transparency--we need to know what they are up to because we can't trust them.
One of my first questions in any discussion is "what proof would you need to rethink this?". I also try and ask myself the same question, which is much harder to answer.
My favorite thing is an argument where someone says they’ll change their mind if they’re provided with proof, but if provided with proof they say the proof can’t be trusted. I think we should always try to be clear about what it would take to change our minds on a belief. If it’s nothing; if it’s a load-bearing belief that’s part of the structure of our personality and sense of self, that’s well and good. But if we can, we should be honest about that.
the person Koerner thinks we need to stop supporting is Trump
Of course, for these kind of people, truthfulness is relative. The aforementioned person could say, "My name is Trump," and they would all scrutinize his statement and declare him to be a liar for saying that.
A lie will travel halfway around the world before the truth figures out the matrix.
Meanwhile, they DEMAND that we all promote lies, e.g. that a man is or can be a woman. That some living human babies are neither human nor living nor babies.
Trump's got "Tegrity."
A lot of so-called lies turn out to be true. There’s needs to be a z-axis for time.
To hear Progressives tell it, Trump is the worst thing since Hitler, maybe even before Hitler. To watch Trump and decide objectively for yourself, based on direct-witnessing instead of the agit-prop pablum: Trump is from Queens, and acts like he's from Queens.
Facts and events are by their very definitions not capable of being untruthful or dishonest. They are what they are, rather much by definition. I suggest that instead of this Roshomon-like uncertainty of truthful/untruthful or honest/dishonest, where untrue facts can supposedly be somehow honest, facts and events should be described as "reported in full" or "reported incorrectly," because that reporting is how facts and events become known to nonparticipants.
Who, what, when, where, why covers a helluva lot more information that most media reports provide. It almost seems like a lost idea, to report enough information for informed, rather than guided, understanding by the public.
Is hyperbole a lie? Is a metaphor a lie? Are Joe Biden's "big fish" stories lies? What about when he says, "no lie"?
I don't think all rhetorical devices like that are automatic lies, but I'd like some consistency.
"Facts and events are by their very definitions not capable of being untruthful or dishonest."
Definitions these days seem awfully fluid, don't you think? Progressives are not at all shy about changing them to advance their causes.
So,
Here’s a real world example:
I’m a supervisor in a tool and die/maintenance department where I work.
I’ve made it my trademark that I’m 100% honest and will never lie or deceive my subordinates.
This doesn’t mean I tell them everything, but I’m always honest, and transparent.
There are times they will ask a question to which I don’t know the answer, and I tell them as much.
There are times I know the answer but cannot (due to circumstances) honestly answer the question and tell them as much.
Whenever possible I give them a direct answer and it’s the truth.
What I will never do is make up an answer, or tell a half truth.
They respect me for this, and it makes my life a lot easier as I don’t have to keep track of what I’ve told to whom.
I’m told that I’m the only supervisor with this integrity.
It also means I’m not likely to advance above this level and I’m fine with that.
"All the truth in the world adds up to one big lie"
What is happening to Trump shows us the cost of telling the truth and keeping promises.
Not a Venn diagram.
Not interested.
Maybe the words "Untruthful" and "Truthful" being misplaced in the vertical blue rectangle is indicative of the veracity of the "story."
It's much like the "Critical Thinking" info chart that has made the rounds on social media. It starts out with the question "Who does this benefit?"
You can't ask the cui bono? question without having pursued the claim through primary sources. That was my first clue; a former manager of mine was fond of saying "Observation and deduction without investigation is worthless."
When I chased down the source of the chart, which is wabisabilearning.com, it was full of references to intersectionality and other concepts associated with the wokerati, so I took its methods with more than a grain of salt.
Trump’s constant lies were amusing. Better than his constant hyperbole.
Obama’s lies were boring. “Let me be clear” puts everyone to sleep.
Obama is a wealthy guy who got wealthy carrying water for the rich. That’s the truth. Everything he says is a lie.
Start with Oscar Wilde: a gentleman is never unintentionally rude. Maybe we need: intentionally vs. Unintentionally rude. And then: stupid (either born or group think/Swamp) vs. Smart. No reading of hearts or minds, and Trump wins.
Transparency is more important than honesty because you can't rely on honesty. That's the whole point of transparency--we need to know what they are up to because we can't trust them.
Hear, hear. Trying to elect "better" politicians is a fool's game. Nobody in public life can be trusted implicitly. The structure of the government needs to be maintained in such a condition that dishonest and lazy politicians perceive it to be in their own self-interest to be honest and hard working.
As usual in matters political, that philosopher's book "On Bullshit" is much more illuminating than this matrix.
For that matter, over the last 7 years Trump's blunt style has exposed much of Republican and Democratic conventional wisdom for the self-serving bullshit it always was. That is Trump's real crime against "democracy" and the political caste will persecute him to the end of his days for it.
And too bad the words "Untruthful" and "Truthful" are misplaced in the vertical blue rectangle. That's confusing!
heh
Althouse, you fail to use the "simple two-by-two truthfulness matrix" to judge the simple two-by-two truthfulness matrix!
You say "confusing," I say "duplicity"
no wait
"opaque!"
it's under the opaque axis
it's opaque as shit
dark shit
Oreo-induced shit, that's how opaque it is
you type "opaque" enough, you start to wonder who the fuck came up with that word
opaque?
opaque!
where is "garner" in the simple two-by-two truthfulness matrix?
somewhere in that opaque, untruthful deep bucket of oreo doo-doo
One man nuance is another man’s big lie.
The truth without God is an unsupportable load.
I said- “Two posts a theme does not make."
Althouse said- “Now, there are 3.”
May it please the court.
So Robin Koerner works at the "Foundation for Economic Education"?
"FEE's mission is to inspire, educate, and connect future leaders with the economic, ethical, and legal principles of a free society. These principles include: individual liberty, free-market economics, entrepreneurship, private property, high moral character, and limited government."
Hey, guess what? FEE is a skin-suit.
If the simple two-by-two truthfulness matrix wants to avoid being jammed in its own upper left bracket...
you wouldn't analyze Trump in a vacuum.
You would analyze why he won in 2016, and Hillary lost
Obviously, if your stupid matrix has any validity at all, voters put her in the worst bracket in 2016 (dishonest and opaque), and Trump won by being more transparent.
That might explain why Biden outperformed in 2020, by being way more transparent (might also call this "unscripted") than Hillary. Biden often runs his mouth off and says stupid shit.
Quayle said...
"So what exactly is the point of the upper-right box? What game is being played when someone is untruthful, but everyone knows it?"
Power and Humiliation.
Those in charge get to exercise their Power by saying things not true and not challenged. Everyone else suffers to some degree of Humiliation by being forced to accept and agree to the falsity.
Where do we put social scientists who routinely use Republicans as their bad guys and are unwilling to be honest about Democrats?
Are you a little opaque? Maybe even dishonest?
Rank yourself on your simple two-by-two truthfulness matrix!
Truth is one of the hardest things in the world to grasp.
You're supposed to be some kind of frickin' scientist!
A really soft, jelly-like scientist.
Wouldn't it occur to you, in your scientific quest for truth, to be honest about your own biases, and think about them as you write?
"Liar, Liar"
I believe most people who support Trump see that his 'lies', hyperbole, duplicity as working in favor of the country, ironically, against the government. While our government may not be our enemy, it certainly is no friend of the people.
What is happening to Trump shows us the cost of telling the truth and keeping promises.
It's also made me re-think the validity of the 2020 election.
Democrats (and some Republicans) insist that the election were honest.
Okay. But the election wasn't as transparent as it could have been.
Voter ID.
Paper ballets.
Overwhelming majorities of Democrat and Republican voters believe in voter ID. But for some reason, elite Democrats want to keep elections opaque.
"trust us, we're the government!"
Combine our opaque elections with the absolute fear that I am seeing about a loser running for office again, and my trust or faith in the validity of the 2020 elections has been greatly diminished.
The more Democrats want to punish people for challenging the 2020 election, the more I feel like they have something to hide. I have no way of knowing what transpired in 2020 -- it's opaque as shit -- but the Democrats are transparently terrified of Trump in 2024. And that fuels suspicions in me -- suspicions that can't be confirmed or denied -- that they are covering up some bad shit they did.
"I think we should always try to be clear about what it would take to change our minds on a belief."
SO, you are essentially suggesting that everyone should spend the rest of eternity evaluating every conceivable contingency, to determine whether it would be sufficient to alter any of their beliefs. I'm guessing you work "in government", broadly defined?
"While our government may not be our enemy ..."
If the government is not your enemy, that's because it likes the feel of your lips on its rigid member. Now if you could just tongue that one wart a little harder ...
There was a line
There was a formula
Sharp as a knife
Facts cut a hole in us….
Facts are simple and facts are straight
Facts are lazy and facts are late
Facts all come with points of view
Facts don't do what I want them to
Facts just twist the truth around
Facts are living turned inside out
Facts are getting the best of them
Facts are nothing on the face of things ~ David Byrne
While our government may not be our enemy, it certainly is no friend of the people.
Nope. It's our #1 enemy.
Worse than Putin, worse than Xi, worse than the Taliban, worse than the drug cartels.
Complete financial and political collapse of this enemy occupation government cannot come a moment too soon, and when it does, history-making steps must be taken to ensure the monster will not arise again for ten thousand years.
grrrr
I fear my 1:23 post is a little opaque
The fear I'm seeing is Democrat fear. They are afraid of Donald Trump running in 2024.
That seems to me like a strange thing, given that Trump (supposedly) lost the last election.
Those in charge get to exercise their Power by saying things not true and not challenged. Everyone else suffers to some degree of Humiliation by being forced to accept and agree to the falsity.
“Political correctness is communist propaganda writ small. In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, not to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is in some small way to become evil oneself. One's standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect, and is intended to.”
― Theodore Dalrymple
Those in charge get to exercise their Power by saying things not true and not challenged. Everyone else suffers to some degree of Humiliation by being forced to accept and agree to the falsity.
“Political correctness is communist propaganda writ small. In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, not to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is in some small way to become evil oneself. One's standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect, and is intended to.”
― Theodore Dalrymple
Is Rich being ironic?
I think he's being ironic.
People might say that they prefer transparency and honesty. However most people vote the opposite way because deep down American voters still believe in the tooth fairy.
The more Democrats want to punish people for challenging the 2020 election, the more I feel like they have something to hide. I have no way of knowing what transpired in 2020 -- it's opaque as shit -- but the Democrats are transparently terrified of Trump in 2024. And that fuels suspicions in me -- suspicions that can't be confirmed or denied -- that they are covering up some bad shit they did.
Of course. The honest way to deal with doubters is to open the process and let people see what took place. Have any of you seen anything like that with the Democrats ?
Schrodinger's cat / Joe (my word as a) Biden's truth.
Can't tell until we open the box / the NYT misinforms me?????
Potato / POTatUS
Stick that in your upper corner.
More lies have been told or leveled at Trump than that little graphic could handle. By people of both parties.
The result is 4 indictments based on flimsy novel legal theories. What I call show trials looking to smear him, his associates, and the people who voted for him, and ultimately lock him up.
Wouldn't the obvious comparison to his placement of Trump on this silly little chart have been Biden, the sitting President, not Theresa May?
If you make a baseball diamond out that graphic, "duplicity" is home plate, and "integrity" is straight away center field (the cheap seats). If you follow the analogy, you have to hit the ball out of the ballpark every at bat to be considered a truth teller.
No wonder republicans had a hard time finding a speaker.
New Footage Reveals Bowman Removed Warning Signs Before Pulling Fire Alarm
Trump is the most law abiding POTUS in my lifetime. Only Carter may be more law abiding.
There are people who just plain hate Trump. Because Hate is supposed to be an unworthy emotion,they rationalize it by ascribing a multitude of sins to him, of which he might not be guilty. Or not more guilty than anyone else.
Outstanding set of comments! Half a dozen really good ones.
This chart is purely subjective, if I decide someone is not truthful regarding external facts I declare him dishonest? What is useful in that gem of intellectual thought? I am impressed to see the writers stunning revelation on the interaction between being transparent and telling the truth. This is just gussied up nonsense, like the pop psychology you get in stupid business training sessions.
Regarding opacity, the most opaque pol I have been exposed to is Obama. He is all things to all people and stands for everything. Some say he is a zero, but no, he has much content but it is completely hidden. You will never know what he believes except for the times he makes a mistake and some truth comes out in drips and drabs.
"Every lie makes you indebted to the truth, and that debt will eventually be paid."
Now a promise made is a debt unpaid, and the trail has its own stern code. RW Service.
It isn't either/or. If you are honest you are transparent.
This is the same mind game as, Which important. Process, or results?
Think of it using the Constitution. The Constitution is process. "let 100 guilty men go free, rather than one innocent man be convicted.
The process is more important than the outcome. Because the process can adjust, evolve, striving for results, understanding nothing is perfect and all encompassing.
Here the transparency is by orders of magnitude more critical than truthfulness. In sales I have worked with thousands of people that were of shady character. But communication, and the stark definition of expectations, overcomes lots flaws.
Transparency. Its not even worth the discussion.
I forgot.
Reagan's "trust, but verify".
Meaning I'll go along, but not without transparency.
I also dont think this discussion works for elected politics. Ever.
The biggest reason is honesty...NOT the Politician. Yourself, the voter. Until you realize how you lie to yourself, don't get all superior by judging the honesty of others, without looking inward.
Voters are the liars. Record low approval of congress, and record high re-election of incumbents. That's on us, the voter, lying to our self.
Korener refers to this think-tank-invented metric as a "powerful tool."
That's both an accurate projection and a good description. Elegant.
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন