Multiple thoughts on honesty...

[podling]

Over the past few weeks I keep seeing the same thing crop up in many other peoples journals, the topic of honesty. Not always the same format, many are just hidden under the veneer in other conversations, some are talking about how others view them versus their own views, some are talking about how people speak of or to them. And so I’ve pondered it in my many moments offline. So. Thinking about honesty and what it means to me.

I mistrust people who I find to be dishonest with me, even if it’s really random little things. In fact, more so if it’s random little things, because to me that bespeaks a lack of respect and of true conversation. And the word “true” itself is fraught with language difficulties, but what I mean by it is that we have entered into a sort of covenant in speaking, in which I do my best to understand what you say and you, in turn, do the same for me. I posted about that a while back, about language and understanding, so I don’t really feel a need to go there now, but I will say that personality clashes and the inherent imprecision of language do hamper this.

I will be honest with most people, inasmuch as I am able to, (except perhaps in business situations, which we’ll leave out of this for now) because my word is my bond, so to speak. However, I will sometimes withdraw in an effort at discretion. I recently left a mailing list rather than speak my opinion and start a fight, because really, what’s the point? Really, prioritization is part of life. I didn’t care enough about the argument that was probably going to follow to actually participate, though it bothered me to stay and fake compliance or complacency (which would’ve been dishonesty). So is prioritization a necessary part of honesty? Or in how we relate our thoughts whether honestly or no, to other people? Is it like Hallmark, when you care enough to…? Though prioritization takes more into account than just caring about the topic, it also takes time and energy, which most, if not all, people have budgeted pretty thinly. I often see conversations on LJ that I’d like to participate in, but can’t quite get around to, or give the attention I’d like to give.

Tact versus dishonesty… there can be a fine line. For the most part I try to get whatever message I’m trying to convey across using the most tactful way I can while still getting it across. Because truly, some things are too easily hidden in tact, too easy to miss, and it’s too easy to dismiss out of hand. Sometimes I’ll say what I think and pay the devil later, and sometimes I’ll give up rather than batter my head against something, trying to get my opinion across to another. And then there’s whether or not there’s a need to share… there are many opinions that I have that I just don’t feel need to be shared. Or they might, but with a select group of humanity, rather than the whole. Is keeping one’s opinions to themselves dishonesty? And what if they’re opinions of things important to you? For instance, if you have a friend, and he’s annoyed me doing specific weird things and I think he’s a creep, should I tell you? Is that dishonest? Possibly, possibly not. I could share it tactfully, or I could decide that you wouldn’t handle it well and not tell you, which may fall into the grey area between right and wrong.

Then there’s honesty to self. This is harder. Realizations of dishonesty towards oneself can be damaging to one’s ego. Truths can be hard to face, harsh and insidious. But how does one tell that they’re deluding themselves if they in fact are? It can be a protective measure, a wall that is taken down when the self is ready to deal with it. That’s actually a healing mechanism (when it works), so is it really wrong? I try to be honest with myself, though I may not share those moments of honesty with others, and I think most people probably do the same.

All the world is a stage, and LJ certainly is, so one may have multiple sides to themselves that they show to the world. Are some necessarily untrue? On LJ, or really, any online community, I see a non-fully flushed out character sketch of you. Details add to it, make it more three dimensional, make you more real. Sometimes the reality is hard to deal with, there’s a dissonance that must be dealt with in the viewer’s mind, assumptions to edit or throw out. Is what I show me? And is what comes across the same as what I mean? Am I being creative or dishonest?

Perhaps these are part of ongoing moral questions, concerning honestly, human constructs of changing variability depending on the viewer. Hmmn.

Comments

[nanne.livejournal.com]

Food for thought, indeed.

Are you sure you don't want to go to grad school? ;-)

[tanaise.livejournal.com]

She could just hang out with philososphers more.

[podling]

But I don't like philosophy!!!

[podling]

Hmmn. I don't think I'm quite at that level yet (besides not needing another non-practical to me degree, heh). Or was it just that I threw in a few big words to look intelligent? ;)

I'm still thinking on it all though. Truly.

[straif.livejournal.com]

I recently left a mailing list rather than speak my opinion and start a fight, because really, what’s the point?

It couldn't have been tamson-house, because there would actually have to be a conversation before a fight could start.

I think my mind works to much on a logical basis, but anyway:

I think the problem with even defining honesty is the boundries between fact and opinion, and between black-and-white and grey.

"Did you hack the CIA's automatic toilet flushing computer system?" is a yes/no, true/false question. You either tell the truth or lie.

"Was the movie good?" is a matter of opinion. You can answer based upon your opinion "yes, I liked the movie" is honest. But what about if you hated the movie, but say "You would love the movie!", but fail to add "because you have no taste, and like JLo/Schwarzenegger Romantic/Comedy/Action/Adventure Edwardian period pieces where Arnold tells the space aliens that he just chased down after riding a horse over a cliff that 'I'll be back'." Is it honest? I think so. But neither case really answer the question. "Was the movie good" does not have a truly honest answer because it is a matter of opinion. If you want to really be honest, you will have to clarify the question: "Do you want to know if I liked the movie, or if you would like the movie."

By the way, if you are asked "did you enjoy the movie", then you should answer "why, yes. I especially enjoyed the popcorn. Thank you for asking."

Are black-and-white questions are easier to answer truthfully than ones with shades of grey? Answering a grey question truthfully depends on the question. If you are asked a yes/no question then any answer will be both the truth and a lie, strictly speaking.

The bottom line is that being honest means understanding the question.

In a way, this also applies to being honest with yourself. How can you acknowledge your own faults without context? If you think of yourself as being laid back, but then realize, that in truth, you fear disagreeing with people. Is it truly being honest with yourself? What if you ask a slightly different question: "Who do I fear disagreeing with?" Is it strangers, authority figures, loved ones? The answer to that question is far more meaningful, and is far less harsh than thinking yourself "a complete coward"--it is also more honest.

I see honesty completely dependent on the situation or the question.

Finally, is honesty and truth unwavering? Can it change over time? Were you lying if you answer a non-opinion question one way, then change the answer when you have more information?

I realize that the honesty you are talking about is more complex than answering a question truthfully, but I think the same ideas apply.

[aaangyl.livejournal.com]

"Did you hack the CIA's automatic toilet flushing computer system?" is a yes/no, true/false question. You either tell the truth or lie.

Well, what do you mean by "hack"? Semantics can make even seemingly simple yes/no questions a lot more complicated sometimes. (Mental note to the Clinton matter, where the semantics of "sex," it turned out, was a really big deal. "Everyone knows what sex is" turned out to actually be "everyone has a concept of "sex", but those concepts don't link up to the same activities for everyone, and it's actually hard to come up with a generally accepted one because there are even glaring regional differences")

[podling]

Ah yes... and this speaks to the imprecision of language. Even if we live in the same house, our definitions of words, and our interpretations of words, may lead to misunderstandings (this happened occasionally with astrophysicat and I). It just makes everything that much more vague and communication that much more difficult.

[podling]

Brat. You know it wasn't tamson-house. :) I've just been too busy to post much anywhere, or else I'd be wreaking all kinds of havoc there!

I believe you are totally right though, and it does all apply to more than just simple questions. There are more shades of grey than there are anything else, in everything. I have this problem at work. My boss will ask me a question about the report I've run for him. I will answer that to the best of my knowledge, it contains everything he wants. This is unacceptable to him because he believes it either should be accurate or should not. But I *can't* guarantee the accuracy of it because it is a system designed by people, and inaccuracies will pop up from time to time, regardless of what I do to try to prevent them. So to me, telling him that it is indeed "accurate" would be a falsehood, because I know that there is a degree of uncertainty inherent in the process. Of course, I may be reading more into his question about it than he intends (and given that he says I'm too hard on myself, this may have merit).

But you bring up something else. Fact vs. opinion. Many of the things that we (as a society (american for the purposes of this conversation)) are taught to be "factual" are still opinions. They may be the majority opinion, and they may be highly informed opinions, but they are undoubtably biased in some ways, even if it's just neglecting to see and note one smaller minority opinion of the issue. And so, with these facts that we all hold to be true, when we are presented a different point of view, there are either denials or a form of internal dissonance that occurs.

The situation or the question are indeed probably the most important aspects of any situation that would require honesty. But of course, honesty and opinion can be somewhat deeply entwined, and "reality" or "truth" is mutable, if effect.

As to your question about lying when you answer a question without having more info, I usually look at it as a mistake rather than a lie. It is not dishonesty on your part, but a lack of knowledge. That being said, when you realize your mistake, an effort to correct the original false statement should be corrected. Of course, in some situations, a mistake could cost you or others big time. And in some societies, you could be killed for making a mistake like that (I read The Sarantine Mosaic stuff by Guy Gavriel Kay recently, I'm referring to the fact that doctors could be killed for not curing someone, even if the wound/disease was simply incurable).

But so, yes, there is chaos, and in the chaos is many factors that may change the answer to a particular question, turning it from an accepted truth into lie. The concept of honesty is more complex than answering a question truthfully, but the basic principle is the same. The questions inherent to one are applicable to both. So really, there is no hard and fast answer, and this is why there are philosophers, I suppose. :)

[mowglikat]

I have often said that "THE TRUTH" is very much like a beautifully faceted jewel. Which facets of it shine brightest usually depend on where you are standing, and where the light is coming from. It does not make the other facets "untrue", but they are not the parts that shine the brightest at a given point.

If I say a tree is a larger species of plant, that is true. But it is also true that it is a source of wood and lumber when cut down, a food source and a shelter for birds, small animals, and insects. It is also a source of comfort for certain people, by touch, scent, or sight. Saying one of those things does not make the others untrue.

I, too, insist on honesty in my relationships. I do not tolerate lies about unimportant things because they show a lack of stability when dealing with a person. They demonstrate weakness of character in their fear of being honest, or their need for attention. (There may come a time when I depend on that person, and they demonstrate their unreliability with their inability to speak truth. Without trust, there is no real friendship). I do not tolerate lies about big things because the relationship becomes even more false at that point.

I am more forgiving about lies to one's self...it is often, as you say, difficult to see when we do this to ourselves. I try to keep my own motives pure, but that is difficult sometimes. I have a therapist to keep me honest. I will confront friends if I think they are lying to themselves....sometimes vehemently. I do not expect them to agree with me, nor do I expect them to change their minds...but I feel that if I truly care for them, I have to try to express my opinion just once...I do not think it is ever healthy to lie to one's self. I think it is just as easy to say, "I have an issue that I'm not going to think about because it's too difficult to deal with...but I'm aware that I have to deal with it at a later date," as it is to say, "I don't have a problem with that and fuck you." One can choose to act in a dysfunctional way if it is truly choice and not habit...I chose to cut myself when living in my parents house...it was either that or suicide. It was not healthy, and I KNEW it was not healthy, but it was what I could do at the time, and I resolved to deal with it at a later date. I think one is a much more responsible (and honest) approach.

As straif said, part of honesty is understanding the question...and sometimes the question is really fuzzy if you're really trying to communicate about an emotionally heated topic. Sometimes the question comes out, "Where the hell were you last night?" when the question really IS, "Do you still love me?" Part of honesty is deciphering the question.

Or maybe it's just part of communication.

...no...but the connection is somewhere there and very strong and very deep. Honesty brings a deeper level of communication, and brings about truth...it brings it in a way that the moon brings the tide in...it's this irresistable irrevocable pull...and it is repulsed by dishonesty I think.

Anyway...my goal in the long run is to light the jewel up from the inside....until I see the light patterns dancing on the wall, I'm not done.

But I've always been a bit over the top, I think.

[podling]

I totally see what you're saying though. Understand, that is, I think. You hit many things exactly as I feel them, honesty bringing deeper communication, that's a big one for me.

I think part of it is just that I don't really understand the "why" behind small dishonesty. It doesn't work out in the dishonest persons favor for the most part, so why continue in that cycle? Though I suppose there are some things that I don't mention to various family members, because I know they would disapprove and I don't want to have to hear about it for as long as we both live (we're talking things like me having a kayak in my living room, I'd never hear the end of it if my grandmother knew, seriously). Though that brings up another question, is it dishonesty if you neglect to tell people things? I mean, the kayak thing is hardly something that affects anyone but me, so is neglecting to mention it dishonest?

And this is not really that closely tied to what you're saying (though it sparked it), but I feel, for me, that attempting to communicate, attempting to understand both *what* other people are saying as well as *why* they're saying it, is the most important part of the communication process. When your own emotions come into it, it does tend to muddy things, so instead of trying to figure out why your friend is freaking, you're wondering if they still love you, and there's anger there on both sides, because of the miscommunication that is occuring.

[podling]

Little addendum here...

I also think that if you are lying to yourself, it is possibly easier to extend that discourtesty to others as well.

[aaangyl.livejournal.com]

I really like this entry.

For some reason, it reminded me of a debate that plagued my childhood: Is one essentially lying when one guesses on a test answer? Or is it only lying if they guess wrong? That is to say, how responsible are you for things you may have learned, but can't recall or recall incorrectly?

I think self-honesty is where is all starts, can't be honest with anyone else if you're living a lie, just like you can't really love someone until you love yourself.

[podling]

That is a very good question. I remember guessing on an exam in college, and knowing how wrong it was, but also knowing that it was my only choice. And I think that could be part of it, there are times when the choices that confront you may lead to dishonesty.

But thanks! I'm trying to be more openly myself here (which means I'll ramble more, obviously).

But you're right, self-honesty is where it has to start. Loving yourself is where everything grows from. As I begin to like myself more, to appreciate my own characteristics and impulses, I feel more confident and capable. Not like there aren't things to improve on, but still.

Part of the initial thought processes behind this post were inspired by someone being offended by another person's bluntness in regards to their recent choices. And it was odd to me, reading that, because while I do care what other people say to an extent, my parents, my brother, my friends, what it comes down to for me is what I believe is right. That being said, I still feel self-doubt, especially when I'm not feeling especially confident.

But really, life is a process, and so it goes...

[piratejenny.livejournal.com]

Tact is sooo overrated. I used to actually be tactful (no, really) but I felt so wishy-washy, like I wasn't being totally truthful for fear of hurting someone. But when you're friends with someone, you should totally be able to be blunt and honest--you don't need all those social niceties, which I think just lead to more dishonesty personally.

Both straif and mowglikat make some good points. (And no, the mailing list wasn't Tamson House!) Knowing the question is important. (Sometimes, though, honesty can be very black and white. Usually if outright lying is involved.) Part of that is separating opinion from fact as well. How close I am with someone will determine how much of an opinion I'll give them, provided the subject is one that won't cause harm. If it is, I'm like Kat. I'll drop it in your lap and you'll sit there kind of blinking. Sure you may be pissed, but I'd rather have someone pissed at me and safe. And for the record, that's been done to me. And I'm grateful for it--having someone (a few someones actually) figuratively bitchslap me about my depression is what prompted me to hospitalize myself, cause obviously the other stuff wasn't working then. Sometimes I think the shock of being blunt can actually propel someone into action.

Hmmm, I became tangent girl. Anyway, the other reason honesty is way better is that you don't get tripped up trying to remember the lies. :-)

[podling]

Well, social niceties are there to grease the wheels of society, keep cogs moving and such. And they work well to a certain level, but beyond that they begin to fail to serve their purpose. Social niceties do often lead to a low-level dishonesty of the most random kind. "How are you?" "Fine" when really your world is crashing, that sort of thing.

But yes, that last point is also an issue to consider when deciding to lie. And if nothing else stops you (you know, golden rule, or all that) then the probablility that you will get caught out eventually, and that not everyone will be completely forgiving of that sort of lapse should. Not that it generally does, or else this type of discussion would occur with less frequency.