Live data from Hacker News

Pathological Lying: Theoretical and Empirical Support for a Diagnostic Entity

psychnewsdaily.com

101–110 of 115 posts

Re: Pathological Lying: Theoretical and Empirical Support for a Diagnostic Entity

#101
post #65
post #9

As an Aspie, (almost) every neurotypical person seems to be a pathological liar, not able to make a small talk without committing a few lies. Examples: "I am fine, thanks", "You look great!", "It is a wonderful idea!", "You are our best client", "For our company privacy is a priority", etc, etc.

Reminds me how it took me a pretty long time to understand that there are things people know to be true, but kind of wink-nudge pretend is otherwise. For example gambling is illegal here in Japan. Yet there are pachinko games, where you get prizes, which you can later exchange for money. Everyone knows this is gambling, yet everyone pretends that it is not. Now I wonder what else everyone knows to be true that I stil…

Ha,this! I have a running joke with my friends about the ironies we see in the world. Pro poor politicians living in posh areas sending their kids to private school. In my culture no one talks about sex yet we have a healthy birth rate in and out of wedlock. Older generation don't like booze so many of us drink like fish at our own homes then are teetotalers when visiting parents. It does get tiring I must say. Luckily with age I don't really like to drink so much anymore.

Re: Pathological Lying: Theoretical and Empirical Support for a Diagnostic Entity

#102
post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's just business talk, not lies.

Yea, "I'm fine" when you're really not, isn't a lie because there's no intent to deceive. No one actually expects you to tell you how you truly are when they ask "How are you?". So if anything, the initial question is more the lie because it implies concern for the person being asked when it's really just a salutation.

I agree with your view. Because the study result appears to rely on self-reports, it hinges on definitions of key terms by participants, especially what they consider a "lie". If the definition is like yours ("intent to deceive") that can be different than other definitions. Even then it's a spectrum because an innocuous 'white lie' is sometimes a social expectation, like: "I hope us being ten minutes late to the party wasn't a problem..." Not only is that sort of question often answered with a lie, it's expected to be. Depending on the context, the real-question-under-the-question is likely akin to "I hope our being late didn't bother you so much that it's going to create a problem significant enough to require addressing." A more expansive version of your definition might include "an untruth communicated with knowing intent to deceive another in a way likely to cause meaningful harm given the context." That definition would eliminate the example I gave above, however, it could also eliminate many of the 'inconsequential' lies the study reports pathological liars frequently make.

Reading the description of the study in OP article (but not the source paper), I felt there was no way to tell how reliable the result might be without knowing a great deal about how the study framed their questions.

Re: Pathological Lying: Theoretical and Empirical Support for a Diagnostic Entity

#103
post #73
post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Communication is about shared meaning. The shared meaning here is truthful; it's not so much about the words themselves. If your hearer grew up being taught to hear "How are you?" as a meaningless introduction, and you really wanted to know how they were, you would probably say "How are you really?". Isn't that redundant? Why not just say "How are you?"? Because you are aiming for shared meaning, not accuracy in abso…

I understand nuance in communication, but its so obviously a lie when a business says they care about you, you are their most priviledged customer etc, etc. They are literally baseless claims that dress up awkward scenarios. They are lies, but people accept them as part of the process.

> but people accept them as part of the process.

But that context matters because if it's both accepted and expected to the extent no one would make any material decision based on it, then there's no material intent to deceive, much less expected or actual harm.

I do agree that such meaningless platitudes are better left unsaid as they's just a waste of time.

Re: Pathological Lying: Theoretical and Empirical Support for a Diagnostic Entity

#104

Dear parents: never let your kids lie, at any age. It might be cute when they're 3 or 4 or 5, but if you don't gently tell them that "we don't tell lies, we always tell the truth" it will become a habit they will carry into adulthood.

Or they just learn, "I'm not supposed to lie, so don't get caught."

Re: Pathological Lying: Theoretical and Empirical Support for a Diagnostic Entity

#105

Dear parents: never let your kids lie, at any age. It might be cute when they're 3 or 4 or 5, but if you don't gently tell them that "we don't tell lies, we always tell the truth" it will become a habit they will carry into adulthood.

We have a 12 year-old with ADHD, and I suspect he's a pathological liar; we call him out on it all the time, but even then, when we ask him a question - even innocuous things like "have you had breakfast" if he's up before we are - his first instinct / default is to answer with what he thinks we want to hear. He knows he doesn't get away with it in most cases. I suspect there's two factors at play; one that he someti…

Don't forget about control. Lying means you know the truth and others don't. You're the one in charge, and you can alter the fabric of reality.

Re: Pathological Lying: Theoretical and Empirical Support for a Diagnostic Entity

#106
post #72
post #6

I've made a conscious effort to stop lying after reading https://samharris.org/books/lying/ Can recommend, it feels great.

Seems like an interesting read, and I thought about getting it (though I'm kind of biased since I agree with Harris' premise). But the top review on Amazon mentions that the author simply "dismisses him [Kant] by saying that he [Harris] has no reason to take Kant seriously.", especially after Kant's extensive work on the topic. (And the reviewer mentions that this seems to be common to Harris work). This is a huge vi…

I've been a fan of Harris in the past, but I've been getting sick of him lately. He's ridiculously pretentious, arrogant, and a massive asshole about communicating his ideas. He seems to come up with the most unpleasant argument possible. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised about him completely dismissing a respected viewpoint.

I don't know why I liked him before, except I was a young atheist, and I was angry. I guess now that I'm older the whole "I am very smart" shtick is no longer appealing.

Re: Pathological Lying: Theoretical and Empirical Support for a Diagnostic Entity

#107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uhm... good? A basic facility with lying is a fundamental social skill. Unless you intend for your children to be socially awkward / socially ineffective, lying is necessary. The point, much like physical strength or any other sort of double-edged human ability, is to plug it into their broader moral framework, to guide when and for what purposes and to what degree.

> lying is necessary. I hear this a lot but do you have any examples?

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/014616729420300...

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1021369327584

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0261927X9514300...

https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/11808412/personality_a...

This was like, five minutes on google scholar. I'm not going to pretend it's a slam dunk "here's a paper from the esteemed Harvard Professor of Lying-is-Awesome, presenting the grand unified theory of 'deceptiveness and social skills are overlapping traits'," but it's pretty much the null hypothesis.

Re: Pathological Lying: Theoretical and Empirical Support for a Diagnostic Entity

#108
post #65
post #9

As an Aspie, (almost) every neurotypical person seems to be a pathological liar, not able to make a small talk without committing a few lies. Examples: "I am fine, thanks", "You look great!", "It is a wonderful idea!", "You are our best client", "For our company privacy is a priority", etc, etc.

Reminds me how it took me a pretty long time to understand that there are things people know to be true, but kind of wink-nudge pretend is otherwise. For example gambling is illegal here in Japan. Yet there are pachinko games, where you get prizes, which you can later exchange for money. Everyone knows this is gambling, yet everyone pretends that it is not. Now I wonder what else everyone knows to be true that I stil…

[deleted]

Re: Pathological Lying: Theoretical and Empirical Support for a Diagnostic Entity

#109
post #58

Dear parents: never let your kids lie, at any age. It might be cute when they're 3 or 4 or 5, but if you don't gently tell them that "we don't tell lies, we always tell the truth" it will become a habit they will carry into adulthood.

This, ironically, would be lying to your kids. There are very few (if any) pathological truth-tellers and you are likely not one of them. Any health adult would intentionally lies in certain situations and would be considered foolish/dumb if they didn't. Your kids will inevitably catch you lying and their understanding of "lying is bad" would become "lying is bad if you get caught" and "You're allowed to be outraged…

[deleted]

Re: Pathological Lying: Theoretical and Empirical Support for a Diagnostic Entity

#110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> lying is necessary. I hear this a lot but do you have any examples?

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/014616729420300... https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1021369327584 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0261927X9514300... https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/11808412/personality_a... This was like, five minutes on google scholar. I'm not going to pretend it's a slam dunk "here's a paper from the esteemed Harvard Professor of Lying-is-Awesome, presenti…

I could probably find evidence of a high correlation between Football performance and performance in a medieval swordfight, but does that mean it's necessary to stab people? Obviously people who have better social skills are better at deception, and for that matter people with more general intelligence are better at it. What I'm looking for is an example of a case where deception is "necessary," not useless or destructive.
Post reply on HN