Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-09-2018, 07:45 PM
KellyCriterion KellyCriterion is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 891
Is there a word for "lying" by telling the truth?

I had an experience once where I asked somebody a question, and the answer they gave was true.

However, the truth was so unbelievable, that I didn't believe them. I only found out much later on they had in fact told the truth.

Reflecting on the encounter, I believe the person told me the truth knowing I wouldn't believe them, and they wanted it that way, meaning they were deliberately deceiving me by telling me the truth.

Is there a word for this?

Last edited by KellyCriterion; 08-09-2018 at 07:49 PM.
  #2  
Old 08-09-2018, 08:27 PM
Yllaria Yllaria is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Stockton
Posts: 10,354
Was there something in their delivery that made it sound like they were being sarcastic, or trying to put something past you? When you didn't believe it, did they say "you got me"?

Was it the complete truth? Example: a man sees a friend coming back from fishing -

Q: Hey, Bob! You catch anything?

A (mildly disgusted): Nothing more than sixteen inches.

Hint: Bob didn't catch anything.

Last edited by Yllaria; 08-09-2018 at 08:28 PM.
  #3  
Old 08-09-2018, 08:30 PM
pulykamell pulykamell is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: SW Side, Chicago
Posts: 44,863
I'm not certain this is exactly the same situation, but this cite calls deceiving with the truth "paltering.":

Quote:
“Paltering is when a communicator says truthful things and in the process knowingly leads the listener to a false conclusion. It has the same effect as lying, but it allows the communicator to say truthful things and, some of our studies suggest, feel like they’re not being as deceptive as liars,” said Todd Rogers, a behavioral scientist at HKS [....]
  #4  
Old 08-09-2018, 08:37 PM
Ike Witt's Avatar
Ike Witt Ike Witt is offline
Friend of Cecil
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Lost in the mists of time
Posts: 13,887
There is probably a 20 letter long German word for it.
  #5  
Old 08-09-2018, 08:42 PM
The Other Waldo Pepper The Other Waldo Pepper is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 15,704
You could do a lot worse than just say “misleading”.
  #6  
Old 08-09-2018, 09:05 PM
jnglmassiv jnglmassiv is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Chicago's Northside
Posts: 2,701
Sounds a bit like malicious compliance.

https://www.reddit.com/r/MaliciousCompliance/
  #7  
Old 08-09-2018, 09:06 PM
Wesley Clark Wesley Clark is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 20,088
That reminds me of a line of dialogue on an outer limits episode.

Man 1: You look terrible, what happened to you?
Man 2: Oh this? A rent a cop shot me in the head

As to the term, I don't know. The closest I can come up with is 'incredulity'.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion

Last edited by Wesley Clark; 08-09-2018 at 09:06 PM.
  #8  
Old 08-09-2018, 09:29 PM
Defensive Indifference Defensive Indifference is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 6,305
Quote:
Originally Posted by pulykamell View Post
I'm not certain this is exactly the same situation, but this cite calls deceiving with the truth "paltering.":
Thanks for that article. I didn't know that word. I probably would have called that tactic "being disingenuous", but I'm glad to know the more precise term. That seems fairly close to the OP's situation.

Slight aside: the question reminds me of the movie Grosse Point Blank, where the hitman played by John Cusack goes to his high school reunion. When anyone asks him what he does for a living, he tells them he's a hitman, and they all think he's kidding. He's able to rekindle his relationship with his ex girlfriend partly because she assumes he's lying to her about being a hitman.

If "paltering" isn't the right word, I propose "blanking" or "Grosse Pointing".
  #9  
Old 08-09-2018, 10:17 PM
KellyCriterion KellyCriterion is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 891
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yllaria View Post
Was there something in their delivery that made it sound like they were being sarcastic, or trying to put something past you? When you didn't believe it, did they say "you got me"?
There was nothing unusual about their tone. It was a simple, matter of fact tone. I don't know if I reacted with enough disbelief to prompt them for any sort of follow up comment.
Quote:
Was it the complete truth?
Yes, the complete truth.
  #10  
Old 08-09-2018, 10:19 PM
KellyCriterion KellyCriterion is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 891
Quote:
Originally Posted by pulykamell View Post
I'm not certain this is exactly the same situation, but this cite calls deceiving with the truth "paltering.":
Thanks for this, I've never heard the word before.

I don't think what happened to me exactly fits the definition of paltering. Your cite gives the example of Bill Clinton making a truthful statement that when examined closely, didn't technically answer the interviewer's question.

In my case, the other party correctly and truthfully answered the exact question I asked them.

*EDIT* Yes, just like the example Defensive Indifference gave from the movie Grosse Point Blank. A 100% truthful answer that addressed the exact question being asked.

Last edited by KellyCriterion; 08-09-2018 at 10:21 PM.
  #11  
Old 08-09-2018, 10:29 PM
DavidwithanR DavidwithanR is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 3,288
Quote:
Originally Posted by Defensive Indifference View Post
...

If "paltering" isn't the right word, I propose "blanking" or "Grosse Pointing".
Grosse Pointing sounds like a function performed by a knowledgeable but very clumsy hunting dog, or maybe a custom among eighth-grade girls, pointing at things and exclaiming "Ewwww! Grosse!"
  #12  
Old 08-09-2018, 11:04 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 6,577
Lying by omission.

Obfuscation.

Dissembling.

I think lying by omission is the most effective and applicable. Someone says things that are true but omits important facts so as to lead a person to a conclusion that's materially different than the actual truth.

Wife to husband on a business trip: So what did you do last night?

Husband: Oh, went out with some colleagues, had a few drinks. Had a great meal at a Vegas restaurant. Saw a show. Came home late. Went to bed.

(Went to bed with someone other than his wife)

And no I don't speak from experience. Married nearly a decade and would never.

Last edited by asahi; 08-09-2018 at 11:08 PM.
  #13  
Old 08-09-2018, 11:24 PM
KellyCriterion KellyCriterion is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 891
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
Lying by omission.

Obfuscation.

Dissembling.

I think lying by omission is the most effective and applicable. Someone says things that are true but omits important facts so as to lead a person to a conclusion that's materially different than the actual truth.

Wife to husband on a business trip: So what did you do last night?

Husband: Oh, went out with some colleagues, had a few drinks. Had a great meal at a Vegas restaurant. Saw a show. Came home late. Went to bed.

(Went to bed with someone other than his wife)

And no I don't speak from experience. Married nearly a decade and would never.
I understand what you're saying, but in my case, this isn't what happened. In my case, the other party gave me the whole truth, and left out no important bits.

I simply did not believe them, and I think they knew I wouldn't believe them.
  #14  
Old 08-09-2018, 11:38 PM
D'Anconia D'Anconia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 4,000
Quote:
Originally Posted by KellyCriterion View Post
In my case, the other party gave me the whole truth, and left out no important bits.

I simply did not believe them, and I think they knew I wouldn't believe them.
That's not lying, by any stretch of the imagination.
  #15  
Old 08-09-2018, 11:56 PM
TriPolar TriPolar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 39,321
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
That's not lying, by any stretch of the imagination.
Right. That's called telling the truth. It's not deceitful in any way, shape, or form
__________________
ed
  #16  
Old 08-10-2018, 12:18 AM
Saffer Saffer is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 364
It’s deceitful if they knew you did not believe them, and knew they could convince you if they wished, but chose not too.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  #17  
Old 08-10-2018, 12:38 AM
UDS UDS is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 8,263
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saffer View Post
It’s deceitful if they knew you did not believe them, and knew they could convince you if they wished, but chose not too.
It's not deceitful to fail to try and convince somebody of the truth of what you have already told them. They are deceiving themselves; you are not undeceiving them. But that's not the same thing.
  #18  
Old 08-10-2018, 12:47 AM
KellyCriterion KellyCriterion is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 891
I think if you're telling someone the God's honest truth, leaving out no important bits, but are very confident they will not believe you, then to not at least preface what you're saying with "this is going to sound hard to believe, but.." then I think it's deceitful.
  #19  
Old 08-10-2018, 12:56 AM
Ranger Jeff Ranger Jeff is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 6,749
According to Lazarus Long, IIRC, there are 3 creative ways to lie.

3. Say nothing.
2. Tell the truth, nothing but the truth, but not all the truth.
1. Tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth very unconvincingly.
  #20  
Old 08-10-2018, 01:23 AM
blob's Avatar
blob blob is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: Australia
Posts: 814
Quote:
Originally Posted by KellyCriterion View Post
then I think it's deceitful.
How is the whole truth deceitful? If somebody chooses not to accept what they are told, that's down to them.
  #21  
Old 08-10-2018, 01:33 AM
KellyCriterion KellyCriterion is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 891
Quote:
Originally Posted by blob View Post
How is the whole truth deceitful?
It's deceitful if you know it won't be believed, but make no effort to address the non-believability of what you're saying.

If I think Gary's dead, and you know I think Gary's dead, and you deadpan say to me "Gary's waiting for you in the lobby" without addressing that you know I think he's dead, and without addressing that you know I don't believe you, then that's deceitful in my book. The statement itself would still be true, but the broader context is what makes the overall interaction deceitful.

Last edited by KellyCriterion; 08-10-2018 at 01:38 AM.
  #22  
Old 08-10-2018, 01:47 AM
blob's Avatar
blob blob is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: Australia
Posts: 814
Quote:
Originally Posted by KellyCriterion View Post
It's deceitful if you know it won't be believed, but make no effort to address the non-believability of what you're saying.
No, it's still not.

"Gary's downstairs in the lobby"
"No, he's not, he's dead"
"You are mistaken, Gary's not dead, he's downstairs waiting for you"

The OP gave an example of a response to a question.
Question.
Truthful response.

It's not the giver of information's responsibility to make other people believe them. Other people can question what they are told and they can be given more information if they need it. Otherwise, disbelief is down to the disbeliever.
  #23  
Old 08-10-2018, 02:07 AM
KellyCriterion KellyCriterion is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 891
blob, we're straying way out of GQ here, but let me put you in a hypothetical situation.

Let's say I am made aware of some information that if not conveyed to you, will have dire consequences for you.

I get ready to verbally pass the information to you, but before the words even leave my mouth, I have complete and utter confidence that you're not going to believe what I'm about to say. In fact, so unbelievable is what I'm about to say, that after you've heard it, you're certain that I wasn't expecting to be believed.

I state the information once with deadpan, matter of fact delivery. I then turn, and walk away.

You're convinced what I said isn't true. Both of us know you haven't believed it, and both of us know what the other person thinks about whether you've believed it.

Later, after you've suffered the dire consequences and realised my statement was truthful, would you be upset with me for not addressing, at the time of our interaction, the important point that I knew you didn't believe me?

Last edited by KellyCriterion; 08-10-2018 at 02:10 AM.
  #24  
Old 08-10-2018, 02:17 AM
blob's Avatar
blob blob is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: Australia
Posts: 814
Quote:
Originally Posted by KellyCriterion View Post
I have complete and utter confidence that you're not going to believe what I'm about to say.
When you say "don't bother saying anything, I don't want to hear it, I'm not going to believe a word you say", I'd say, "ok, it was important that you knew what I was going to tell you, but that's fine", and then I'd leave. I wouldn't give you the information after you'd TOLD ME that you were not going to believe me.

Or is this a mind-reading scenario, where everybody "just knows" what everybody else thinks and believes? Anything short of verbal communication is not a basis for "complete and utter confidence".

Anyway, I just disagree that somebody is dishonest if they don't put effort into making other people listen, understand, or believe information they give.

If somebody tells me something I wouldn't just dismiss it out of hand without checking. Presumably I'd know there were "dire consequences" from what I was told and I'm the one who needs to do something about it.
  #25  
Old 08-10-2018, 03:41 AM
KellyCriterion KellyCriterion is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 891
I shouldn't have said "complete and utter confidence" I should have said "high confidence".

Anyways not sure we're going to agree. I personally would feel I am deceiving you if I interacted with you in the manner I posited in my hypothetical scenario.
  #26  
Old 08-10-2018, 04:36 AM
bob++ bob++ is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Worcestershire UK
Posts: 6,087
So Opie asks Dopy, "How did you get on with your test?"
"Passed top of the class," Dopy replies.

Opie is highly sceptical, to say the least, but doesn't challenge his friend. Later on, he discovers that Dopy had, in fact, come top.

I think that would be an example of what the OP was discussing. I can't think of a name for it either.
  #27  
Old 08-10-2018, 04:45 AM
TriPolar TriPolar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 39,321
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob++ View Post
So Opie asks Dopy, "How did you get on with your test?"
"Passed top of the class," Dopy replies.

Opie is highly sceptical, to say the least, but doesn't challenge his friend. Later on, he discovers that Dopy had, in fact, come top.

I think that would be an example of what the OP was discussing. I can't think of a name for it either.
It's called being truthful. Not being deceitful. No other name is needed.
__________________
ed
  #28  
Old 08-10-2018, 05:01 AM
Mangetout's Avatar
Mangetout Mangetout is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: England
Posts: 57,712
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
Lying by omission.

Obfuscation.

Dissembling.

I think lying by omission is the most effective and applicable. Someone says things that are true but omits important facts so as to lead a person to a conclusion that's materially different than the actual truth.

Wife to husband on a business trip: So what did you do last night?

Husband: Oh, went out with some colleagues, had a few drinks. Had a great meal at a Vegas restaurant. Saw a show. Came home late. Went to bed.

(Went to bed with someone other than his wife)

And no I don't speak from experience. Married nearly a decade and would never.
I think the OP is talking more about something like this:

Wife to husband: So what did you do last night?
Husband: Oh the usual stuff: Went out with some colleagues, had a few drinks. Had a great meal at a Vegas restaurant. Saw a show. Fucked the hotel receptionist. Ordered a club sandwich. Went to bed.
Wife: WHAT? That's terrible!
Husband: I know what you mean - there was far too much mayonnaise on the sandwich. I sent it back.
Wife: Hahaha! Oh, you're a funny man.

That is, deadpanning the unpleasant truth, fully expecting that it will be brushed off as a joke or a falsehood.

Last edited by Mangetout; 08-10-2018 at 05:05 AM.
  #29  
Old 08-10-2018, 07:49 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi asahi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 6,577
I think we're all talking about elements of gaslighting, which involves strategic truth telling, outright lying by blatant falsity, and lying by omission. The idea is that, through a combination of truth and lies, the other person no longer knows what's true and what isn't. Gaslighting is effective not just because of the deception, but because the party being deceived can't just end their relationship, or can't end it easily. The aggrieved party depends, or assumes they depend, on some sort of cooperation with the gaslighter. Maybe the gaslighter is that person's employer, or their spouse, or their close family member, or someone in a position of authority. Controlling the flow of information is a form of power. The gaslighter knows this, and cooperates on his/her terms, controlling the flow of information as it suits his/her purposes.

Last edited by asahi; 08-10-2018 at 07:50 AM.
  #30  
Old 08-10-2018, 08:06 AM
digs's Avatar
digs digs is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: West of Wauwatosa
Posts: 8,545
Quote:
Originally Posted by blob View Post
No, it's still not.

"Gary's downstairs in the lobby"
"No, he's not, he's dead"
"You are mistaken, Gary's not dead, he's downstairs waiting for you"

The OP gave an example of a response to a question.
Question.
Truthful response.

It's not the giver of information's responsibility to make other people believe them. Other people can question what they are told and they can be given more information if they need it. Otherwise, disbelief is down to the disbeliever.
Has anyone addressed the point that the listener should have asked a follow-up question? Or maybe believed the person when they gave them the correct answer?

In the Gary case, no one's going to just sit there thinking "This person must be lying, because Gary's dead. So I'll just stay here. I won't check or say anything..."

They'd immediately ask another question, like "Wait, are you saying Gary's alive?!?" [cue soap opera music]
  #31  
Old 08-10-2018, 08:19 AM
Ravenman Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 24,204
Burying the lede isn't lying.
  #32  
Old 08-10-2018, 08:21 AM
TriPolar TriPolar is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rhode island
Posts: 39,321
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
I think we're all talking about elements of gaslighting, which involves strategic truth telling, outright lying by blatant falsity, and lying by omission. The idea is that, through a combination of truth and lies, the other person no longer knows what's true and what isn't. Gaslighting is effective not just because of the deception, but because the party being deceived can't just end their relationship, or can't end it easily. The aggrieved party depends, or assumes they depend, on some sort of cooperation with the gaslighter. Maybe the gaslighter is that person's employer, or their spouse, or their close family member, or someone in a position of authority. Controlling the flow of information is a form of power. The gaslighter knows this, and cooperates on his/her terms, controlling the flow of information as it suits his/her purposes.
The OP made no mention of omission or other false statements. There is no deceit of any kind mentioned in the OP.
__________________
ed
  #33  
Old 08-10-2018, 08:28 AM
pulykamell pulykamell is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: SW Side, Chicago
Posts: 44,863
Quote:
Originally Posted by KellyCriterion View Post
Thanks for this, I've never heard the word before.

I don't think what happened to me exactly fits the definition of paltering. Your cite gives the example of Bill Clinton making a truthful statement that when examined closely, didn't technically answer the interviewer's question.
I agree that with the examples given in that article, "paltering" doesn't quite fit your example. The examples given in the article are examples of technically telling the truth, or not lying, but leaving information out or requiring a strict technical parse. That said, I don't know if the term is restricted simply to that type of example.


Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
I think we're all talking about elements of gaslighting, which involves strategic truth telling, outright lying by blatant falsity, and lying by omission.
I don't agree. The person in the OP's example told the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. It's just that the truth was apparently stranger than fiction and was not believed by the OP (and supposedly told with the intention that the OP wouldn't believe it.)

That said, I don't really think it's deception or lying if the other person doesn't believe the truth. Like in the Grosse Point Blank example, the person talked to can follow up with "are you serious?" and do their due diligence in ascertaining whether the statement is truthful or in jest. To me, if you don't believe a truthful statement, that's on you.

I'd be curious to hear a more concrete example of what the OP is talking about, though.


Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
That's not lying, by any stretch of the imagination.
I tend to agree with this.
  #34  
Old 08-10-2018, 08:34 AM
Steve MB Steve MB is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 12,700
There's a trope for it, of course.
__________________
The Internet: Nobody knows if you're a dog. Everybody knows if you're a jackass.
  #35  
Old 08-10-2018, 08:46 AM
Lucas Jackson Lucas Jackson is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 3,523
Quote:
Originally Posted by KellyCriterion View Post
blob, we're straying way out of GQ here, but let me put you in a hypothetical situation.

Let's say I am made aware of some information that if not conveyed to you, will have dire consequences for you.

I get ready to verbally pass the information to you, but before the words even leave my mouth, I have complete and utter confidence that you're not going to believe what I'm about to say. In fact, so unbelievable is what I'm about to say, that after you've heard it, you're certain that I wasn't expecting to be believed.

I state the information once with deadpan, matter of fact delivery. I then turn, and walk away.

You're convinced what I said isn't true. Both of us know you haven't believed it, and both of us know what the other person thinks about whether you've believed it.

Later, after you've suffered the dire consequences and realised my statement was truthful, would you be upset with me for not addressing, at the time of our interaction, the important point that I knew you didn't believe me?
(Underline mine) The OP made no such stipulation.
  #36  
Old 08-10-2018, 09:05 AM
pulykamell pulykamell is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: SW Side, Chicago
Posts: 44,863
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve MB View Post
There's a trope for it, of course.
The link in that article to Cassandra Truth seems to be hitting on most of the main points of the OP.
  #37  
Old 08-10-2018, 09:17 AM
silenus's Avatar
silenus silenus is offline
Isaiah 1:15 Screw the NRA.
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: SoCal
Posts: 49,949
I used to do this all the time growing up. Mom would ask "What are you doing this evening?" My reply would something along the lines of "Gonna smoke a lot of dope and fool around with godless women." "Well, don't tell me then!"

She never believed me.
  #38  
Old 08-10-2018, 09:22 AM
E-DUB's Avatar
E-DUB E-DUB is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,047
Quote:
Originally Posted by blob View Post
No, it's still not.

"Gary's downstairs in the lobby"
"No, he's not, he's dead"
"You are mistaken, Gary's not dead, he's downstairs waiting for you"

The OP gave an example of a response to a question.
Question.
Truthful response.

It's not the giver of information's responsibility to make other people believe them. Other people can question what they are told and they can be given more information if they need it. Otherwise, disbelief is down to the disbeliever.
He's only stunned.

You're talking about the kid who gets in at four in the morning and tells his mom that he got in "after midnight", right. Technical truths told to create a false impression. Like Bill Clinton's "I did not have sex with that woman." line meaning that he didn't fuck her.

I call that sort of thing "embarrassing the truth".
  #39  
Old 08-10-2018, 09:44 AM
kayaker's Avatar
kayaker kayaker is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Western Pennsylvania
Posts: 29,566
About 15 years ago I decided to never lie again. Lying had caused me more trouble then it was worth, so I stopped. Ask me if those pants make your ass look fat and you'll either get an honest reply or I'll not answer.

Last month my gf accused me of eating her super-secret stash of brownie things. I told her it wasn't me. She glared at me, silently calling me a liar, since it's only the two of us and she knew she hadn't eaten them.

A week later on the kitchen counter there was a replacement package and a note from our house-cleaner who comes in every other week. The note read, "Sorry I ate the last of your treats. I had a low blood sugar thing happen and needed some sweets".

I did not get an apology. Instead I was chastised for not defending myself. Sometimes you can't win.
  #40  
Old 08-10-2018, 09:45 AM
RivkahChaya's Avatar
RivkahChaya RivkahChaya is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 9,924
The Carl Sagan aphorism is this: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

I would say that when you assert something, albeit truthfully, that is an extraordinary claim, you can expect to be disbelieved, and there is an element of deceitfulness if you walk off without offering extraordinary proof-- or any proof at all.

In the "Gary" example, if Gary's death has been widely reported, or he has been missing for a long time and been declared legally dead, then you know that the person to whom you say "Gary's waiting for you in the lobby," is going to require proof, and there's an element of deceit not to be prepared to offer any.

However, if the disbelief is due to weird beliefs, or something, of the person to whom you are speaking-- for example, you say "There was a case of measles in the area; thank goodness my daughter was old enough for the vaccine last month, and got it in time, and was not in danger," and the person to whom you are speaking (maybe even unbeknownst to you) is an anti-vaxxer, doubts that the vaccine had anything to do with your daughter not getting measles, and says something weird, like "Does she eat a lot of melon?" you don't owe than person anything-- no proof, no studies, no JAMA articles, no medical records, not even any details of your daughter's diet. You did not make an extraordinary claim, and there is no taint of deceit in expecting someone to take it on face value.
  #41  
Old 08-10-2018, 09:59 AM
Ravenman Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 24,204
Quote:
Originally Posted by RivkahChaya View Post
In the "Gary" example, if Gary's death has been widely reported, or he has been missing for a long time and been declared legally dead, then you know that the person to whom you say "Gary's waiting for you in the lobby," is going to require proof, and there's an element of deceit not to be prepared to offer any.
The textbook definition of "deceit" is causing someone to believe something that is untrue (Webster); concealing or misrepresenting the truth (Oxford); making someone believe something that is not true (Collins); and so on.

Perhaps someone could make the case that it is negligent to give a half-hearted effort to convince someone of the truth of a matter; but that would really only apply if the person had some affirmative duty to change someone's mind. (Perhaps if there's a fire in the house and someone doesn't actually try hard to alarm the other occupants.) But deceit, lying, misrepresenting is a different kettle of fish, in which there isn't simply a lack of effort to convince someone of the truth, but an active effort to un-convince someone of the truth. (Like if there is a fire in the house, but a person says it is nothing to worry about.)
  #42  
Old 08-10-2018, 10:19 AM
guizot guizot is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: An East Hollywood dingbat
Posts: 8,036
We need to consider the paralinguistic aspects of the utterance, which would normally align with the context. (Compare if the statement is given in print or speech.) Yllaria and others have mentioned it. I haven't seen Grosse Point, but if the character says, "I'm a hitman" in a deliberately deadpan way, that is deceitful, (and hence lying), because the social-cultural context of admitting to such a profession requires paralinguistic cues--not just the phrases mentioned above ("You won't believe this, but . . . ", etc.), but the tone of voice. Tone of voice (and other paralinguistic cues) are all part of sincere communication, so in this case, deadpanning is at least an attempt at lying. As Ravenman points out above, lying is really about intentions, in the end. What you are attempting to accomplish functionally--not just the propositional content of your statement.

These paralinguistic cues by necessity align with the propositional nature of the statement. Saying "I'm a hitman" is not the same as saying "I didn't catch any fish more than 16 inches," because it's so out of the ordinary, and so consequential in the social-cultural context. Talking about your bad day fishing in deadpan is more face-saving than lying.

Last edited by guizot; 08-10-2018 at 10:20 AM.
  #43  
Old 08-10-2018, 10:22 AM
TokyoBayer's Avatar
TokyoBayer TokyoBayer is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Taiwan
Posts: 9,502
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mangetout View Post
Fucked the hotel receptionist.

(snip)

That is, deadpanning the unpleasant truth, fully expecting that it will be brushed off as a joke or a falsehood.
It's this, and while I believe it is a form of deceiving people. It's probably not lying though.
  #44  
Old 08-10-2018, 10:34 AM
The Other Waldo Pepper The Other Waldo Pepper is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 15,704
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve MB View Post
There's a trope for it, of course.
I like the example there where someone explains that she succeeded by convincing a guy that she’s his daughter. Which is flatly true: she did convince him of it, which is how you’d describe that if you weren’t his daughter but were very convincing. But it’s also true since she is his daughter, which is in fact pretty convincing.
  #45  
Old 08-10-2018, 10:38 AM
Darren Garrison's Avatar
Darren Garrison Darren Garrison is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 8,204
TV Tropes has the Cassandra Truth and False Reassurance.
  #46  
Old 08-10-2018, 12:00 PM
md2000 md2000 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 13,996
There's the story in Richard Feynman's memoirs - he was part of a group of nerdy students who never did anything bad. IIRC one day during hijinks week he and a bunch of other guys took the big wood front door off the frat house and hit it in the basement by the furnace.

The whole house was in a tizzy, and someone asked Feynman - "Did you guys take the door?"

Feynman replied honestly, "Yes, we took it and put it in the furnace room."

A few days later, they finally found the door and it came out that Feynman's bunch had done the deed. The Frat leaders said they were diisappointd that the bunch had lied when asked if they took the door, and Feynman says none of the Frat brass remembered that he had told them that he did take it and where to find it. They had remembered instead what they expected to hear, and forgotten the facts.

His point being some humans are pretty stupid.

Last edited by md2000; 08-10-2018 at 12:00 PM.
  #47  
Old 08-10-2018, 12:50 PM
KneadToKnow KneadToKnow is offline
Voodoo Adult (Slight Return)
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Charlotte, NC, USA
Posts: 25,182
Several TVTropes examples have been suggested, but from what I'm reading, the most on-point TVTrope is actually Exact Words.
__________________
Did you see that ludicrous display last night?
  #48  
Old 08-10-2018, 02:10 PM
pulykamell pulykamell is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: SW Side, Chicago
Posts: 44,863
Quote:
Originally Posted by KneadToKnow View Post
Several TVTropes examples have been suggested, but from what I'm reading, the most on-point TVTrope is actually Exact Words.
That doesn't sound like it to me. The OP is not talking about what I'm calling a "technical truth," which is what Exact Words is on about. It's more like the Grosse Pointe Blank example: it's something told as the truth--there's no need to parse the words finely or anything or figure out the "catch"--it's just that the truth is a bit unbelievable, so the person to whom the truth-teller is telling the truth believes it as a lie or joke.
  #49  
Old 08-10-2018, 02:38 PM
Yllaria Yllaria is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Stockton
Posts: 10,354
Quote:
Originally Posted by pulykamell View Post
The link in that article to Cassandra Truth seems to be hitting on most of the main points of the OP.
I like both Grosse Point Blanking and Cassandra Truth. But I think GPB is closer to what the OP describes, in that the speaker is expecting to be disbelieved or at least thinks it's possible. Cassandra Truth puts more of the onus on the listeners who don't believe, sometimes even after sincere attempts to convince.
  #50  
Old 08-10-2018, 03:06 PM
Reindeer Flotilla Reindeer Flotilla is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Posts: 61
How about the following scenario? Bad guy enter your room looking for the secret formula.

Bad Guy: "Alright, where's the formula?"
You: "I have it hidden where you'll never find it. But whatever you do, don't look in the closet."
Bad Guy immediately opens closet door, resulting in Bad Thing from closet killing bad guy while you leave whistling happily.

This often-occurring trope seems to cover a lot that's been discussed here, telling the truth, not being believed, stopping before the whole truth, misdirection, nefarious intended result, etc.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:47 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017