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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yes, from my read, Cassandra Truth, while fitting the OP’s premise pretty well, doesn’t have the element of intention to be disbelieved, so far as I can tell. The example given in Grosse Pointe Blank fits exactly , though, so if we want to call it Grosse Pointe Blanking, that sounds good to me.
Is there a word for when you ask a question and don’t believe the honest answer?
I’m in the camp that says telling the truth is not lying; and not believing the truth, failing to clarify an odd statement doesn’t make it a lie. “Grosse Pointing” strikes me as a legit thing. Still, if the truth comes as the result of a question, the onus flips back to the inquisitor to clarify what could be a shocking truth.
So you’re saying that you thinking I’m lying when I’m not isn’t a problem, but me letting you think I’m lying without going to extraordinary lengths to defend my truthfulness is lying.
No. Me thinking you are lying when you are not is my problem, not yours, and doesn’t make you a liar. And unless I say that I don’t believe you how do you know that you would have to defend yourself, assuming you have some reason to care what I think in the first place.
Nothing changes a truthful statement into a lie. A truthful statement may be part of a larger lie but in and of itself how a truthful statement is perceived can’t change it into a lie. if you find a statement difficult to believe then say so, you don’t have to accuse someone of lying to express your doubt.
After a night out, a couple of friends, one I didn’t know well, slept over at my house. In the morning, after coffee, I told them they had to leave, because “I had to go see a man about a horse” I found out later, that the woman I didn’t know, thought I was making up an excuse to get rid of them. In reality, I had an appointment to view a horse I later bought.
We became good friends later and still laugh about this.
I have no problem if you’re simply arguing that the word “lie” is not appropriate. I try not to get into fights over the exact definitions of words. But you seem to be not only arguing semantics, but also shifting blame.
You also seem to be ignoring part of the premise. The premise is as follows: someone makes a true statement, but does so with the intent that I will not believe them. That last part is crucial. That means there is an intent to deceive.
If I come away believing them, then they have accomplished what they intended. They have deceived me. Some people would call that “lying.” Other people would say it’s “technically not lying.” What you call it doesn’t matter to me.
What does matter to me is that I expect a person to be honest, and to not try and deceive me. As such, it is their fault when they choose to deceive me. I did not choose to be deceived, so it is not my fault.
Whether you call it lying or not, someone who does this habitually would be treated exactly the same as a habitual liar. They would still be considered untrustworthy and dishonest. It doesn’t matter how they deceive, just that they habitually do so.
There is no loophole that allows for you to intend to deceive and not be considered deceitful. Not even if you told the whole truth. Heck, trying to find a loophole is itself deceitful.
Ha. A very similar thing happened between my wife and I.
Someone ate some cookies. We sometimes joke that when a tasty treat goes missing that “the rats” got to it. This kind of statement is just as likely to be made by the person who actually at them or the other.
At some point we commented about the rats eating the cookies, and then we moved on. Then a day or two later she mentioned that she was in the mood for a cookie and wished I hadn’t eaten them. I was like “wait a minute, I didn’t eat the cookies. When I said the rats got them I thought you ate the cookies!”
The babysitter ate the cookies.
I think that the Grosse Point Blank example is a great one.
When you tell someone that you’re a hitman, their immediate thought process is that actual hitmen would never admit to it to strangers, so it must be a joke. This doesn’t depend on the delivery at all. You don’t have to jokingly say you’re a hitman, because the logical leap the listener makes has nothing to do with whether you appear to be making a joke. The joke is that a hitman would not be blase about his profession.
It’s not clear to me that this counts as a lie, though. Even if the speaker is fully aware that the listener will not believe him. Because what could he say that would make them believe him? Could he do it in less than five minutes without producing a weapon or photographs of dead people?
Maybe the OP has a situation in mind where there’s some kind of way to easily convince the listener?
You don’t know someone’s intent. They don’t know whether you will believe them or not. The truth needs no defense. If you want to discuss ways people can be deceitful that include truthful statements then start a thread on that. The OP suggests that a person can be deceitful by making an isolated truthful statement, to accept such a thing allows anyone to be labeled a liar because you claim not to believe them.