Multiple thoughts on honesty...
Aug. 20th, 2003 12:39 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
podlingOver 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.
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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2003-08-20 11:04 am (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2003-08-20 04:41 pm (UTC)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")
no subject
Date: 2003-08-21 06:55 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-08-21 06:51 am (UTC)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. :)