According to one study [1], 10% of communication in marriage is dishonest. Another study showed that 38% of interactions between college students were deceptive [2]. And as we all know, 83% of statistics are made up [3]. Why do people lie? Does everyone do it? How can we be more honest?
“It’s not a lie if you believe it!” George Costanza [4]
A friend shared an experience from her temple recommend interview. She was asked if she was honest in all her dealings, and her honest answer was, “No. I work in HR. I’d be fired!” [5] It’s not always possible or even a good idea to avoid lying, particularly in the workplace. Sometimes in a sales environment we are explaining how the service “should be” rather than how we suspect it really is. Is aspirational selling lying or just part of doing business?
One criticism I hear from those with doubts is that they feel they have to live a double life or hide who they are at church.[6] And yet church is supposed to be a place to help one another live the gospel better, not a place for people who are perfect. Pres. Uchtdorf has noticed that the focus on outward appearance creates issues in our Mormon communities. He spoke about this type of hypocrisy in his talk about the Potemkin Village at the Priesthood session of General Conference in April. Whenever we feel pressure to look a certain way to fit in, lying is a temptation, maybe even a given.
“The best liar is he who makes the smallest amount of lying go the longest way.” Samuel Butler
Many people lie as a social lubricant, without even thinking about it. Underlying motives can include:
- Insecurity
- To avoid rejection
- To make others feel good
- To avoid consequences
- To protect others
Despite these seemingly pro-social reasons to lie, lying creates distance in our relationships. We are deliberately rejecting this person as not worthy of our intimacy or not able to handle our truth. We lose respect for those whom we deceive because the mind needs to be right; when our actions are wrong, it’s important to feel we can blame the other person rather than accept the idea that we are acting badly.
And yet, in a highly conformist culture, there is great pressure to hide the aspects of yourself that are unique. This creates dissonance for those who prize authenticity and who see conformity as encouraging dishonesty. Authenticity in its present form is a relatively recent virtue, one that came to the fore as backlash against the questionable virtue of duty. Simplistically, you could see duty as putting the needs of others or the community above the individual, while authenticity places self-expression above the community; someone erring on the side of duty might call authenticity selfish.
Authenticity would say that if you don’t fit, say you don’t fit rather than faking it. If you disagree, you don’t pretend you agree. Instead of being who others seem to want you to be, you are who you are, and others can accept that or not. And yet that can cause rifts in relationships. Additionally, human beings are always growing and changing. We are not being so much as becoming. Declaring who we are denies our very transitory nature. Perhaps we are only deceiving ourselves in such declarations.
“With any part you play, there is a certain amount of yourself in it. There has to be, otherwise it’s just not acting. It’s lying.” Johnny Depp
And yet, authenticity can be a trick, too. We aren’t always who we think we are. Sometimes our self-identity is just conformity to a different norm. Sometimes our self-image is an act to change how others perceive us, to seek approval of a different group. A great example of this is evident when we consider teen angst. Whether it’s being a hippie, a punk rocker, a wannabe gangsta, or a hipster, all of these personas conform to a type as well, even while being non-conformist in other settings. Conservative country club kids aren’t the only conformists.
I posted on this topic earlier, and I’ll re-post the questions I asked then. Are the following examples dishonest?
- Omitting facts, particularly when the omitted facts would materially change perceptions.
- Not sharing your opinion when you disagree with the majority expressed opinion. Is silence a dishonest act? Is having a poker face dishonest?
- Giving someone false encouragement, leaving a door open that you think is actually closed. Is being a tease being dishonest? Is negotiating?
- Responding to the subtext rather than the stated question, the meta-question rather than the actual question. (E.g. Answering that you think someone is beautiful who asks if an outfit makes him or her look fat.)
- Answering the question you wish they had asked rather than the one they asked. This is an evasive tactic. What if the question is inappropriate? Isn’t it OK to evade an impertinent question in order to maintain boundaries?
- Lying to protect others. Sam Harris would say even if lives are at stake, you are merely kicking the danger down the curb. For example, telling a murderer that the person they seek isn’t home merely means they will go kill someone else. Of course, conversing with sociopaths may get you featured in a Flannery O’Connor story.
- Lying when the person can’t be trusted with the truth. Of course, not trusting someone doesn’t always mean they are not trustworthy, and yet some people are not.
If you think these are examples of dishonesty, defend your answer. What’s your standard for honesty?
Discuss.
[1] B.M. DePaulo and D.A. Kashy, “Everyday Lies in Close and Casual Relationships,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 74, no.1 (Jan. 1998): 63–79.
[2] B.M. DePaulo, et al.,“Lying in Everyday Life,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 70, no. 5 (1996): 979–995.
[3] Did you really expect a citation on this one?
[4] Seinfeld, Season 6, Episode 16: The Beard. Yes, I just cited Seinfeld.
[5] I actually like HR people, but if you don’t, you’ll love this article.
[6] There are a few I wish would quit letting their freak flag fly, but that’s a whole ‘nother post.
Great post (and I am not lying!)
I started thinking less about being 100% honest because like you have pointed out, I find it hard not to as my job even requires me to withhold certain information.
I just have move to thinking, if the Savior was right next to me and knew everything I knew, would I feel OK saying/not saying it? And I have found the answer to that question is often, “am I doing it for personal gain?” That is where I think the sin is – the natural man.
But even then, in marriage that can be hard. I love Brad Paisley’s “That’s Love” with the line of, “And if she cooks all day you better eat it with a smile. It doesn’t matter if it tastes just like bad gravy on a Goodyear tire! That not a lie, that’s love!”
I recently listened to a radio show or podcast (unfortunately can’t remember where) about a man who grew up in a household where brutal honesty was prized above everything. He internalized it to such a point that he felt he should share everything that he was thinking with everyone, all the time. His complete openness and honesty made it really hard for him to make friends, date, or work. Everyone thought he was an insensitive jerk. Then he had an epiphany and started lying when it was socially expected to do so. It completely changed his life.
Maybe the morality of lying and truth telling has a lot more to do with motivations, social expectations, power dynamics, and consequences than we usually recognize.
Wow. Tough. Gonna digest this more and watch comments. Wondering now about the way I’ve talked to my young kids about it. I focus on only the ten commandments as I want them drilled in!
Though shalt not hear false witness is not the same thing as lying in all cases. I have taught them that they can say “it’s not my favorite” instead of “ewww yuck I hate this it’s so gross”. I teach versions of the truth For kindness and honesty but I do not know if I’m doing the right thing now that I looked up all the quotes about lying. I need to look up the Aramaic tranlations but I doubt that will clarify.
Following.
does anyone want to defend the LDS church as an honest institution according to their own standards?
As in many of the above examples, being tactful or socially appropriate often requires a level of dishonesty. My son is on the autism spectrum and I naturally tend towards oblivious/tactless. My husband will often laugh at me for answering a question in a very straightforward, literal way, when that was clearly not the intent. Watching my son do it even more often brings into focus how often propriety requires less-than-literally-honest responses.
I tend to see the honesty temple recommend question as verifying that you aren’t embezzling funds or running Ponzi schemes. It’s that personal gain angle that Happy Hubby mentioned.
“I tend to see the honesty temple recommend question as verifying that you aren’t embezzling funds or running Ponzi schemes.” Gosh I hope so!
Pangwitch, in my work with family history, I’ve encountered many people who see no dishonesty in presenting only the best, uplifting aspects of their heritage. In their view, there is no benefit in full disclosure, only pain.* Even my dad, in recording his personal history, deliberately omitted a horrible situation which affected him deeply financially and emotionally for many years because he didn’t want to reopen old wounds with family members. I’ve often heard statements from others that some disappointments just need to “stay in the past.” In many ways I see the institutional church operating from this angle, that uncomfortable aspects only detract from the message of the gospel. As much as it bugs me, I’ve met many church members who agree with that position. They do not feel a need to dive into the details of church history because they already have a spiritual witness. The nitty gritty details are unimportant.
*In the case of abuse, a certain amount of disclosure is necessary to prevent future actions. I think most people can recognize this exception.
LOL – Hawkgrrrl, unfortunately I am aware of several situations where a Mormon’s religious commitment to honesty did not cary over to their business dealings.
#4 – I’ll take that challenge, o’ broom rider from Pang(witch), though the LDS Church is perfectly capable of speaking for itself. It is honest due to WHOSE Church it is. As for the constituent members, they can exercise their respective free agency, and if they do so in a bad way (e.g., lie) as an official representative of the Church, it taints not only them but the organization. Part and parcel of employing “Hew-Mons”, even on the Lord’s business.
As for Hawk’s questions re: lying…
1) Unquestionably so. Goes to intent, and failure to disclose is not only lying, it can subject one to heavy civil and/or criminal penalties in certain situations.
2) Not necessarily an issue of ‘honesty’, perhaps of tact or in some extreme cases, survival.
3) Again, goes to intention. Some knuckleheads won’t face up to rejection for matters of a financial or romantic nature, and being ‘brutally honest’ isn’t easy for many. To intentionally lead someone one for purposes of being ‘mean’ or manipulation is certainly lying.
4) Every man who responds to his beloved’s query about her dress making her look ‘fat’ is therefore in danger of being ‘thrust down to Hell’, IAW II Nephi 9:34. The poor fellow may face a night or more on the couch, or in more extreme cases, face onerous child and spousal support payments for the ‘scorned’ entity that Hades hath no fury likened. Even my beloved Snips, at 97 lbs. soaking wet, asks that or similar questions, and I just respond that if time and circumstances permit that I’d rather get the bodice off her lovely corpus dilecta.
5) At least George Takei, when as Sulu would say to Kirk, “Taking EVASIVE action, Sir!”, he didn’t have a WOMAN in mind.
6) So Monsieur LaPedite ought to have come out RIGHT AWAY and confessed to Standartenfuhrer Landa that he was sheltering the Dreyfus family underneath the floor of his farmhouse. Methinks that though the farmer tried to ‘buffalo’ him, the smarmy “Jew Hunter” at least respected him for upholding the higher principle of protecting his friends…at least until he had the implied choice of doing so at the expense of his three lovely daughters.
7) USMC Col. Jessup tried that with Lt. Caffey, USN, and the court…”You can’t HANDLE the truth!” and look where it got him. Jon Lovitz envisions how that movie would have played out if Christian Slater had that role…
I think the risk with #4 is that you may think you are answering the bigger question, but they may really want to know the answer to the question they asked. For example, you say your wife looks beautiful, but indeed the pants do make her look fat. Maybe her bigger question wasn’t “Do you find me attractive?” but “Are these pants worth $100?” Answer the wrong question, and you’ve paid too much for unflattering pants.
I think we have to be dishonest when lowercase truth conflicts with uppercase Truth. Dishonesty 10% of the time in marriage is just about right, if its about minimising painful but true details that distract from the Truth of love in marriage. But dishonesty can also be about protecting ourselves and staying in denial.
The greatest truth is empathy, to understand another’s perspective as real, even if it is factually untrue. If the perspective is based on misunderstandings or falsehoods, it may need to be challenged, but only if your intentions are loving, “reproving when called upon by the Spirit.” But it may not be the time to challenge another’s falsehood. Wisdom is needed.
There you go again, Hawk (ALC)—provoking and fomenting. Something I read in high school, Mark Twain’s short story, “Was It Heaven? Or Hell?” Impressed me with the complicated issues of honesty. I can say that I’ve achieved far greater honesty in the past three years of my life than at any other time. I attribute it to the fact that I’m retired and live in seclusion. Otherwise, I’d still be a lying, miserable wretch.
That was a fascinating analysis of authenticity versus duty in the article, hawkgrrrl. Thank you for that.
I’m one of those doubters, reluctant to go to church because it feels dishonest. I probably wouldn’t go at all if it weren’t a requirement at BYU. I think the problem is that I’ve spent the past decade of my life struggling to attain authenticity as a gay person, and having to go back to church every week and, through silence, pretend to be straight makes me feel like all the growth I’ve been through never even happened. Sometimes I wish I could wear an equality symbol tie tack or something, just to signal that I’m a unique person with my own views and opinions on the topics being discussed. Better that than standing up during and fast and testimony meeting to speak my mind.
Back to the topic of dishonesty through church attendance: merely sitting there, to be seen and counted among the believers, feels like a betrayal of who I am. Sometimes even playing the accompaniment during sacrament meeting (my recurring calling) feels like a lie, as if I’m condoning the words of the song or claiming to feel the Spirit when I do not. Basically, being at Church feels like pulling an extended con on the rest of the ward, and I’m usually too tired, depressed, and irritated after the first hour to stick around for the second and third.
Reading back through my comment, I’m not sure how this contributes to the discussion, but hey, here you go anyway.
Fantastic post, as always!
That said, contrarian me has to push back in some way or another. (Is this tendency of mine a form of honesty? I doubt it.)
I get very uncomfortable with so many of the things that people try to equate with honesty.
1) Accuracy is not the same as honesty – “Technically, I didn’t lie”. Sharing accurate facts about the world is the best way to tell a lie in my opinion. No matter how accurate one interpretation of the world is, there are alternative interpretations that might be more honest while actually being less accurate.
2) A lack of tact is not the same as honesty – “I’m just being honest”. Being a contrarian and insulting jerk is not a virtue and honesty is, if nothing else, a virtue. While a warts and all expose of the ways that others are secretly manipulating us can (sometimes but not always) be honest, criticism as such is not honesty.
3) Authenticity is not the same as honesty – “my behavior isn’t immoral, it’s authentic”. This is a slimy one. I can’t stand it when people equate when they are expected to live up to some standards when they would rather not with betraying how they “naturally” or “really” are. This is yet another self-serving interpretation of one’s own motives and actions.
Honesty is about interpreting and describing the world and our place in it in a way that is moral and often at odds with our selfish desires. If your job forces you to violate this, then it is forcing you to be a bad person and you should probably get a new job.
Since truth requires the operation of the fancy, honesty does too.
There is a difference between personal ethics and gaming ethics and this would relate to the questions that you presented.
Gaming ethics would include deception towards an opposing team; in war towards an enemy; or, in business towards a competitor.
The Golden State Warriors will do everything possible to deceive the Cavaliers in the upcoming NBA championships as they want to win (and the opposite is true I would hope). Likewise, I would hope (although sometimes I wonder with our President) that our country would try and deceive ISIL about its battle plans. Or lastly, business competitors do everything possible to hide secrets and business plans from their competitors (e.g. release dates, margins, costs, plans for expansion, etc.).
The above ‘gaming’ situations are not signs of dishonesty, but self-preservation, protection or healthy competition. I think it is appropriate at times to play these games in our personal ethics with our spouses, children or those in our stewardship for protection. I don’t think it is appropriate to ‘game’ others (mentioned in the previous sentence) for self-preservation or competition.
For example, if your young child asked if ISIL could attach your family, I think it is appropriate to tell them ‘we are safe’ to reduce anxiety or fear; even though that is not entirely accurate. Likewise, it is appropriate for a manager to NOT disclose future terminations or transfers as it is their job to protect the company. Even if asked, a deflective answer is appropriate as it is your fiduciary responsibility as a manager to protect your employer, even if it might result in self-preservation for you.
Didn’t Jesus do this a lot when he was asked questions?
—-4.Responding to the subtext rather than the stated question, the meta-question rather than the actual question. (E.g. Answering that you think someone is beautiful who asks if an outfit makes him or her look fat.)
And what about God? When Joseph asked him when the millennium would come, his answer was evasive. What about God knowing that servants and saints struggle in determining whether scripture stories should be taken figuratively or literally? He isn’t stepping in to correct mis-information or worried that we learn principles because we believed literally in things that may have been figurative. It doesn’t seem to matter to him as long as we get the point and become better people. Maybe Geff G., accuracy isn’t the same as honesty after all. Maybe figurative representations are more true to a point than literal accuracy?
#16 – and on THAT note of ‘gaming’, a common practice, which the Church itself uses, is that of non-disclosure agreements. I believe that the GAs are bound by these with respect to their compensation. The existence of same does NOT, however, prove that the Church has something to hide with regard to paying GAs, only that it chooses to not make it public. Considering the rabid nature of its critics, that’s a wise move.
A former employer of mine, Disney (at least at the time their Disney World subsidiary which was technically a separate company from Walt Disney Pictures, this was 1975-1977…) acquired the considerable amount of property necessary in Central Florida starting in the mid-60’s through several dummy corporations. Their reasoning was obvious: had word gotten out of Disney’s plans, it would have either spurred holdouts or influenced corrupt local politicos to impede the project. Naturally there were many locals, whom, figuring they’d been aced out of a significant one-time score, were royally pissed.
I think people justify lying way too often. Other than to save lives, I can’t think of a time when it’s ok to lie. But I don’t like the term “brutally honest”, you can be honest and loving (or at least tactful).
My favorite example: a parent of a child diagnosed with a terminal illness thought (understandably) that he needed to lie to his son to protect him. The boy would color, but he would only use the black and gray crayons. The father decided to be more honest with his son, and told his son that he would miss him so much when he was gone. From that moment on, the boy colored with all of the colors.
Dishonesty seems like the right way to go way too often, but in the end, it brings pain to the speaker and the listener.
And by the way, Hawk, I read Harris’ book on Lying, and I think you might be mischaracterizing him a bit. I believe he did say you should try and deal with people with violent intentions without lying, if possible, and that lying might shuffle the danger down the road, as you said. But you seem to imply that he wouldn’t lie or approve of lying in that circumstance, but he would.
Sam Harris said:
“Essentially, I view lying in these cases as an extension of the continuum of force one would use against a person who no longer appears to be capable of a rational conversation. If you would be willing to defensively shoot a person who had come to harm you or someone in your care, or you would be willing to punch him in the jaw, it seems ethical to use even less force—that is, mere speech—to deflect his bad intentions.”
#9 – This is rubbish, Douglas. You believe in the prophetic mantle of a man who was supposedly commanded by the lord to lie to his wife, the body of the church and the public in general. Anyone who has a testimony of the church is compelled to believe in righteous lying, at least in some situations. Brigham Young acknowledged this himself, when he stated that anything the lord commands is righteous, even if it would be unrighteous in any other context. To pretend that the church is not guilty of intentional dishonesty, only rogue human beings, is itself dishonest.
#21 – “Anyone who has a testimony of the church is compelled to believe in righteous lying, at least in some situations.” Brjones, I completely reject your cynical assertion that either Joseph Smith was a liar or that members are taught to, in effect, “Lie for the Lord”. A classic example of justifying your own disbelief, which you are accountable to only God and YOURSELF, not I nor anyone else in the Church, by slandering others. That of itself is intellectually dishonest.
Douglas,
@ 21, Well said!
Douglas and Ken,
You are claiming Joseph Smith was not a liar?
Sorry, Douglas. Perhaps I wasn’t as clear as I meant to be. Joseph smith absolutely, unequivocally and unquestionably lied repeatedly. In many instances he claims he was told to do it by god, and commanded others to do the same. This is empirical fact. As someone who believes him to be a prophet, you have to square what that means to you. As for me, I believe he lied because he was a liar. It’s just that simple. And I don’t answer to anyone for what I believe except myself.