From MIT Technology Review:
Evolutionary biologists have long thought that lying ought to destroy societies. Now computational anthropologists have shown that nothing could be further from the truth.
It's easy to see how lying reduces the level of trust between individuals and so threatens the stability of societies. So how do societies survive all this lying?
Today, we get an answer thanks to the work of Gerardo Iñiguez at Aalto University in Finland and a few pals (including Robin Dunbar, an anthropologist from the University of Oxford of Dunbar's number fame). These guys have simulated the effect that lies have on the strength of connections that exist within a social network.
But they've added fascinating twist. These guys have made a clear distinction between lies that benefit the person being lied to versus lies that benefit the person doing the lying. In other words, their model captures the difference between "white" lies, which are prosocial, and "black" lies, which are antisocial.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 13 2014, @07:14AM
Society is literally built of lies. Anyone who tells truth is actively excluded from society.
The emperor has no clothes and anyone who voices this fact shall be hanged.
(Score: 2) by davester666 on Saturday June 14 2014, @05:07AM
We hire only the best liars to be in charge.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 13 2014, @07:45AM
How about "simulations Reveal How White Lies CAN/MIGHT Glue Society Together and Black Lies Disrupt"? You know raise the level of writing and therefore the discourse here?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 13 2014, @11:48AM
At the honest level - it's just a polite greeting.
At the dishonest level - the OK reply is often not honest, but the questioner probably doesn't really care either.
I've personally found that most people can't handle the truth. There are very many truths that most people don't like - and they prefer to be told lies instead.
Boyfriends lie to girlfriends. Even churchgoers often sing lies to their God every week (how many of them can actually honestly sing "I surrender all" ).
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Friday June 13 2014, @08:07AM
White lies are not lies at all, since they depend upon the complicity of the victim. If I tell a white lie, I am fooling no one. For example, if you were to ask me if a particular pair of pants make your bottom look large, what am I going to say? You already know the truth, it is staring at you in the mirror! So why ask? You want me to lie to you, you NEED me to lie to you! And as a dutiful (insert social relation here), I comply. You're welcome.
Now Black lies. Blacker that the depths of hell lies. I trusted you! I know that you knew that I wanted the truth, and you didn't give it to me, WHEN I DEPENDED ON YOU!!! And since I trusted you, I had no defense, I never saw it coming. And then there are statistics.
(Score: 1) by unauthorized on Friday June 13 2014, @09:07AM
And what if, hypothetically, the person asking is blind?
(Score: 1) by tftp on Friday June 13 2014, @10:19AM
Nobody wants to hear that she looks fat, no matter how good or bad her eyesight is.
(Score: 1) by monster on Friday June 13 2014, @01:58PM
Usually, she just wants you to tell her that she's still the hottest girl you have ever seen.
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Friday June 13 2014, @02:06PM
Since when?t
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Friday June 13 2014, @09:47PM
So no one tells you white lies, it appears! You are quite astute!
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Friday June 13 2014, @10:27PM
What?
White lies don't require "complicity of the victim."
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Friday June 13 2014, @11:55PM
What do you call a white lie without consent, at least tacit consent? In a court, under oath, a white lie is still perjury.
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Saturday June 14 2014, @09:03AM
It's called a white lie. That's what a lie is when it's practically harmless and saves hurting someone's feelings. It doesn't matter whether the recipient knows you're lying or not. It's still a white lie.
Well, yes, obviously, but who's talking about court?
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Saturday June 14 2014, @10:15AM
Let me put it this way: if they do not know you are lying, then it is a black lie. A white lie can save feelings only when there is a tacit agreement to do so. If you try to save my feelings when I expect the plain truth from you, it is no longer a white lie, no matter what you think you are doing all by your lonely.
The more interesting case is whether you can lie to some one who does not have the capacity to consent to a white lie, such a children or someone traumatically injured. Or someone who definitely should not be wearing those pants.
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Saturday June 14 2014, @12:45PM
That may be your definition, but it's not mine or most dictionaries'.
Oh no you di'n't!
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 2, Interesting) by jbWolf on Friday June 13 2014, @10:42AM
Maybe I'm just weird, but I don't fully buy into what they are saying. Their study is certainly a good step forward, but my personal experience doesn't fully fit with what they say. I'll give some examples including one where white lies could hurt very badly.
When I got married [mumble] years ago, I told my wife that I'd give her honest feedback on her cooking. I encouraged her to try different things and the deal was that I'd try anything she cooked even if we suspected that I would hate it. I kept telling her I enjoyed her cooking even on a few items that we thought I'd dislike. I could tell she was dubious about all of my positive replies. One day, I told her I didn't like what she cooked and although she was hurt (she was more sensitive to criticism back then), I told her I was bound to dislike something at some point. A few weeks ago by and I keep giving her a thumbs up. One night, she asks, "Are you sure you like this?" I looked at her and I said, "You already know I'll tell you when I don't like something." From then on, she felt relaxed when I gave her a thumbs up because she knew I wasn't just giving her a white lie. How many husbands would have slipped the plate to the dog while their wife wasn't looking and given the wife a little white lie? My full truthfulness had a net positive. I eat things I like very, very often and she knows I love her cooking. About once or twice a year, I give her negative feedback on something she tried. (But she really is a great cook.)
But what if I did give her that white lie about the food? That lie is to protect her, right? The authors say the definition of a white lie is to benefit the other person (and in this case, at the expense of myself).
What if I'm with a bunch of coworkers are pro-Republicrats and I'm pro-Democan. When this group mentions something "horrible" that the Democans did and they all affirm their opinion by nodding their heads and I get nudged and asked, "What do you think J.B.?" I'm going to bite my tongue and nod my head too because I have to live with these guys day in and day out and I don't want the hassle. Once the cat is out of the bag that I'm pro-Democan, my life would be miserable. Who is that "white lie" for? Me or my co-workers? What if I'm a Christian in an strict Islamic country (or a satanist in a strict Christian area of America)? It's all the same thing... except the religious argument doesn't feel like a white lie anymore. I think it's because of the magnitude of the lie.
Let's look at another example. If I can issue white lies for my benefit (like the last example with co-workers), what if a guy or gal has a moment of weakness and cheats on their spouse. Is it ok for the cheater to lie to the spouse (saying something like "I never cheated") even if cheating a second time never happens? Who is that lie most beneficial for? The cheater or the spouse?
When a politician is asked "Do you support XYZ?" and they purposely dodge the question by a non-committal response so they don't alienate voters, is that a lie, a white lie, or not a lie at all? And whose benefit is that for? The politician's? Don't answer too fast because those politicians that do commit to actual answers do terribly at the polls. We the voters are saying we like politicians who verbally don't commit to anything.
I think the human race tells white lies because all of us are emotional. We can't handle actual facts or other people's honest opinions very often. When confronted with things we don't like, we react childishly. White lies are told to keep group emotions in check. Sometimes it is for the liar's benefit, sometimes it is for the person being lied to's benefit, and sometimes it is a societal benefit.
That's my two cents, at least. Chime in with your opinion. And don't lie. I promise I won't get emotional.
www.jb-wolf.com [jb-wolf.com]
(Score: 1) by TheCastro on Friday June 13 2014, @11:31AM
I don't think lying all of the time is the point. I think it's more like saying someones shoes look good even if they aren't your favorite since it doesn't have an effect on you. Eating crappy food does have an effect on you, so you shouldn't lie.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 13 2014, @11:37AM
Blackguardly liar! Stars are made of plasma, never of gases!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 13 2014, @01:46PM
Reminds me of Tom Childers.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Zinho on Friday June 13 2014, @02:12PM
How is this entire study not an exercise in begging the question? Like, the literal, formal logic definition of begging the question?
Step 1: Define two different classifications of lies; one class is "prosocial", the other is "antisocial"
Step 2: Assign the lies being studied into the two groups
Step 3: Conclude that "prosocial" lies are good for society.
Umm, OK. You just used a word that means "good for society" to name your group at the very beginning. You are pre-supposing the conclusion at the outset. What do you expect the outcome will be? And we're supposed to be surprised at this?
I'm all for researchers going all Mythbusters on the joke "lies are what bind families together", but I'm disappointed that the methodology on this study seems so biased. The only way I could see this redeeming itself is by figuring out some way to skip step one and change the order of steps 2 and 3 - categorize the lies based on their impact then study what they have in common.
"Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday June 13 2014, @05:26PM
How is this entire study not an exercise in begging the question? Like, the literal, formal logic definition of begging the question?
Step 1: Define two different classifications of lies; one class is "prosocial", the other is "antisocial"
Step 2: Assign the lies being studied into the two groups
Step 3: Conclude that "prosocial" lies are good for society.
Pro and anti-social lies are not defined as being good or bad for society. They are defined as being good or bad for an individual. What happens to individuals in a society and what happens to the society as a whole can diverge wildly.
(Score: 2) by Zinho on Friday June 13 2014, @08:21PM
Literally true, and yet they chose the labels "prosocial" and "antisocial" which explicitly denote good and bad for society. I read through the article and linked paper (heresy, I know), and the pro/antisocial labels seem to be taken from previous psychology publications. I'll grant the authors some kudos for questioning the basic assumptions inherent in the terms; from the linked paper:
The authors then go on to construct what appears to be a decent computer model of the stated assumptions (prosocial lies = good for one-on-one relationships, all other lies = bad for same). The model runs for a while and delivers the result that if you assign the attribute "prosocial liar" to most of the simulated actors the total network has more strong ties between individuals; conversely, "antisocial liars" make poorly connected networks with weaker ties between individuals.
So I'm back to asking how they were surprised that they got the result. If your premise is "A -> B, !A -> !B", and you encode the "->" mechanism as the foundation of your program, you're begging the question when you use your result of B from input of A to justify the premise.
Sure, the graphs are interesting, and they authors have fun commenting on the specific results they got as parallels to human society. I think it's dangerous to use this as a basis for actual human interaction. The authors built this model based on SWAGs about how to quantify human behavior and psychology; small coefficient changes would have large effects on the results. If I felt like spending some time navel-gazing I might test out their model and find where the tipping point is, perhaps widening the scale. I have better things to do with my time (like writing judgemental SN posts, obviously).
"Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 13 2014, @11:52PM
I thought it was really interesting article at first. But once I read on I came to your same point. They built the model around the fact that anti social lies increase diversity between 2 points. And white lies lessen diversity. And when 2 points are more diverse they will break ties, while less diversity keeps the tie....
Then they say you want a good society is one where there are more bonds between points.
I mean really??
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 13 2014, @05:34PM
What of the hypersensitive?
Even the best of friends, when around this type of person, never tell them how they really see them.
So if all avoid telling you (the hypersensitive one) any or most truths, does it help you at all or them?
Just being nice is sometimes the worst lie that many think is for the other person.