Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Pathological Lying: Theoretical and Empirical Support for a Diagnostic Entity

psychnewsdaily.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 115 posts

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

#61

Post by api »

phaedrus wrote: post #48

My first wife was a pathological liar. I'm bad at reading people and tend to think the best of people, so I remained naive (or willfully blind) to it for a long time. It came to a head when a sweet, mutual friend of ours asked an innocent question about what we were doing later in the day, and my (now ex-) wife gave a completely made up answer. It wasn't a white lie to get out of something, or a deflection to keep pr…

Was she abused physically, emotionally, or sexually? The constant low level gaslighting and other things witnessed may count. I have read that children who are abused can develop these traits as a defense mechanism or as a symptom of low grade dissociative identity disorder.

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

#62

Post by happytoexplain »

wolfgke wrote: post #55
whatshisface wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your first few examples aren't lies, they're just expressions of the undocumented wide definition of "fine," "great," and "wonderful" in natural English language. "Fine" means "not dead or suffering from fatal problems," and "great" and "wonderful" both mean "anything better than average or my expectations." Your last two are closer to lies, though.

Society trains you right from the cradle to become a pathological liar.

I think this is dramatic. Society trains you that there is a lie/consequence spectrum.

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

#63

Post by intro-b »

wolfgke wrote: post #55
whatshisface wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your first few examples aren't lies, they're just expressions of the undocumented wide definition of "fine," "great," and "wonderful" in natural English language. "Fine" means "not dead or suffering from fatal problems," and "great" and "wonderful" both mean "anything better than average or my expectations." Your last two are closer to lies, though.

Society trains you right from the cradle to become a pathological liar.

What? Every language/society has its own version of social cues, conversational filler phrases, and general etiquette for various situations. People can argue its pointless or whatever, but it definitely has established roles in business, networking, or even just making basic conversation with strangers.

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

#64

Post by Cthulhu_ »

throckmortra wrote: post #49

I worked with a co-worker who couldn't stop lying about even the smallest stuff. I took it as a weird personality quirk and it never felt malicious to me because the lies felt like they were created to entertain others

Sounds like they were 'stuck' in a mode of lying, or they don't consider it to be lying. And that they haven't been called out on it enough for them to think about what they say.

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

#65

Post by bemmu »

stared wrote: 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 still haven't realized.

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

#66

Post by throwaway2019V »

wolfgke wrote: post #53
stared wrote: 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.

> As an Aspie, (almost) every neurotypical person seems to be a patological liar, not able to make a small talk without committing a few lies. Having a degree both in mathematics and computer science makes me have an often unerring eye for both potential hidden bugs in code and lies that people tell all the time. So, I can share your sentiment. I often think: How can people become good at math and/or programming, whe…

> How can people become good at math and/or programming, where they have to learn to become very precise and truthful, if they are surrounded by (also "white") lies all the time.

It takes more precision to lie and memorize who you lied to and about what and to not make conflicting statements around people whom you have told opposing versions of the truth than it does to tell the truth.

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

#67

Post by elwell »

qmmmur wrote: post #24
HenryKissinger wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's just business talk, not lies.

if it's not the truth it's a lie.

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 absolute language.

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

#68

Post by rrrrrrrrrrrr »

phaedrus wrote: post #48

My first wife was a pathological liar. I'm bad at reading people and tend to think the best of people, so I remained naive (or willfully blind) to it for a long time. It came to a head when a sweet, mutual friend of ours asked an innocent question about what we were doing later in the day, and my (now ex-) wife gave a completely made up answer. It wasn't a white lie to get out of something, or a deflection to keep pr…

Based on what some others have said I think you got it at the end there: the feeling of power over others when you know something they don't. Maybe tackling ones own insecurities and fears is the key to being comfortable enough to tell the truth most of the time.

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

#69

Post by elwell »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #54
jessriedel wrote: post #23

I had a friend in college who did this, lying frequently about even inconsequential things. I asked him about it, and he said that he rarely lied to get an obvious direct advantage over someone like we imagine. Rather, he mostly just enjoyed knowing that other people were operating under false info, very much like dramatic irony except in real life. It was weird, and I don't think it served him well in the long run.…

I had one who would tell outrageous lies, growing from simple comments. It was ludicrous. "This window is a long way up" I'd say. "Some animals can make that jump" he'd come out with. "Kangaroos can do it." "No, I don't think they could. It's too far up?" "Sure they can. I saw one do it! You calling me a liar?" It was exhausting, the nonsense he'd spout. The first time I'd encountered such an obvious prevaricator. I…

Are you calling him a liar?

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

#70

Post by _qulr »

generalk wrote: post #57
_qulr wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The bigger problem is the parents. Let's start with Santa Claus. Blatant lie. Parents teach kids that lying is ok from a very young age. Abolish Christmas, and then get back to me.

There's a world of difference between "a fun myth we share with our children that we drop as soon as they outgrow it" and "a blatant lie," and that context is also important for kids to learn.

Is it a just fun myth though, or is it psychological manipulation of children by adults? After all, the premise is that Santa is secretly watching you the whole year, and you're only rewarded at the end of the year if you've been "good".
Post reply on HN