A metric for measuring purity of communication

[BurnedOut]

Perhaps we need a better theory on why people lie than the one which claims that they are as innocent as a gadfly on horseshit because they had no idea about the context. I don't think it's simply possible to keep denying the truth. But I would like to investigate why people forcefully shove lies down their throat and have to eternally carry out the process every time the lies cause them to vomit. Take for instance religious bigots who know deep in their hearts that what they are doing is useless but they continue it in the face of all the hatred and insult. What is it that people use to protect themselves from the truth?

If people incessantly lie about things such as having more money or friends or lying to their partners about their unhappiness, etc in situations which provides no incentive to deceit, what is the reasoning? What do I gain by lying to you about my feelings when I can very easily deduce that this is something I ought to do? Is it my hope that you'd act differently? Or is it a hope for deux ex machina? Similarly what is the real point of status quo when your rep in the society ultimately depends on your usefulness? Ironically every status quoist knows how fake they are and all their counterparts are aware of their lies which eliminates whatever chance status quoism had of being advantageous.

From an evolutionary point of view, sending false signals at a high rate with a high chance of success causes your victims to counter it and settle the score to zero rather quickly. So is it possible that you can game the social system by simply being more honest because you are likely to be preferred more over real-life youtubers?

 

[Black Rose]

maybe people don't care because they do not have anything in their life worth anything. very empty and they just need something to get past the feeling.

 

[purpleninja]

Purity in what sense? Honesty? (Just because purity in my brain links with Puritans and Puritanical religion, often Christian, and that whole rabbit hole of morality). It seems like there would be a multitude of reasons for people to misrepresent themselves, including many that have little to do with social standing. In my own life, I've often had to weigh kindness against honesty and try to pick the one that does the least harm. It's easy to find yourself understanding things about other people that they aren't ready to hear much less understand. Then there is also confusion. Sometimes people don't understand themselves well enough to know they are lying, which can mean they believe their own lies or rather false beliefs. For example, maybe I think I'm kind but in my limited exposure to other people, I am simply kinder than one subset of people, and less kind than a potentially much larger subset of people. It's hard to cross-check any set of beliefs for accuracy without a greater context. It's much easier to underpromise by saying something along the lines of "I try to be kind" because then I'm not implying a success rate that I cannot objectively prove. Truly though, It seems like most people's communication and underlying thought processes are not well-nuanced enough to consider those kinds of differences or express them with any kind of accuracy. In short, I prefer to subscribe to Hanlon's razor which states, "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

 

[ZenRaiden]

Some lying is personal failing yes.
But most lying is disjointed state of society and action.
We live in a world where actions are less than words.
Then why be bothered by lying.
Or surprised that people who do not lie are hurt by words.
If people lost the ability to talk this world would become a sad sight.
In a bathtub I thought to my self, I want to be a sea otter next life.
How much more beautiful their life is.

 

[scorpiomover]

Perhaps we need a better theory on why people lie than the one which claims that they are as innocent as a gadfly on horseshit because they had no idea about the context.

That's not a theory why people lie.

That's a strategy that some people use to get away with lying.

I don't think it's simply possible to keep denying the truth.

You can keep repeating yourself until everyone else gets bored, or realises they're spending far too much time on it, and need to get on with their lives. They'll give you the free pass, not because they believe you, but just to shut you up.

But I would like to investigate why people forcefully shove lies down their throat and have to eternally carry out the process every time the lies cause them to vomit. Take for instance religious bigots who know deep in their hearts that what they are doing is useless but they continue it in the face of all the hatred and insult. What is it that people use to protect themselves from the truth?

If they know what they are doing is useless, then they don't believe in their religion at all, and are just pretending to fulfil a social role because of the benefits the social role gets them. It's the same as someone who pretends to be a left-winger but is still environmentally dumping, still racist in their hiring practices, still sexist in their relationships, etc.

If people incessantly lie about things such as having more money or friends or lying to their partners about their unhappiness, etc in situations which provides no incentive to deceit, what is the reasoning? What do I gain by lying to you about my feelings when I can very easily deduce that this is something I ought to do?

They think you'll give them a free pass, because you're not willing to demand proof, because such a demand would escalate the tension in the situation.

Is it my hope that you'd act differently? Or is it a hope for deux ex machina? Similarly what is the real point of status quo when your rep in the society ultimately depends on your usefulness?

If you can convince people that you're ultra-useful when you're easily replaceable, then people think that you have a lot of value in society when you don't.

Ironically every status quoist knows how fake they are and all their counterparts are aware of their lies which eliminates whatever chance status quoism had of being advantageous.

Yes. But there are plenty of people who will happily accept their credentials, even though their actual capacity is low. There are also plenty of people who reject people with great capability, because they don't have the right credentials. So you can fake it.

From an evolutionary point of view, sending false signals at a high rate with a high chance of success causes your victims to counter it and settle the score to zero rather quickly.

Only when they do. If you select your victims to be those who aren't as quick to counter as you are, then you win. Put another way, you don't need to outrun a predator. You just need to run faster than the other guy who is also being chased by the predator.

The evolutionary POV mainly comes in on a species-wide level. Random mutations aer bound to occur. Some will be able to counter and some won't. Those that can counter will have an advantage and become more profilic. So your current advantage over your victims won't work long-term.

However, if you keep changing your false signals, then you keep changing your evolutionary adaptation, which means that by the time everyone else has evolved a counter, you've moved on to your next game.

But over time, it's likely to fail, and your people are likely to go from being at the top, to being at the bottom. It's happened many times in history, and why so many believe in Samsara ("the wheel").

So is it possible that you can game the social system by simply being more honest because you are likely to be preferred more over real-life youtubers?

If you are always honest, you can get a rep of always being honest. Then you are trusted, because you would never, ever lie, not even for your own advantage.

But that's NOT "gaming the social system". That's PLAYING the social system, because the social system's rules usually include "honesty is the best policy."

It's the liars and people who mislead that are "gaming the social system".