In order to begin to explain any truths about lies, we must first accept the initial premise, that - in the first instance, before a lie is told, there's a reason and/or cause.
There are considered to be acceptable forms of lies, the use of tact or diplomatic misinformation. Such as when someone (often female) asks, "Does my bum look big in this?". Most would consider it acceptable to tell an untruth if they feel the reaction to the truth is likely to cause distress or upset.
However, when referring to lies, I am specifically referring to the deliberate employment of misleading comments, misinformation or lack of truth for the sole purpose of concealing it for personal reasons. By doing so, avoiding the known or probable consequences.
In effect, these lies are for personal benefit or protection at the cost to someone else.
So if we were to agree that there are white lies, I'm talking about those that are of a much darker, and perhaps, sinister nature. Accepting that there must also be every shade of grey between Black and White.
White lies being harmless in most circumstances and Black invariably inclusive of harm to some measurable extent.
Starting with the primary experience of deceit, during childhood, an example.
Generally, it will be a Mother who discovers some discrepancy with her child, whether that involves an item or behaviour.
Following this will be a comment and/or question,
"How did this happen?"
"Who did this?"
"Did you do this!?"
"You did this!"
The situation, people and ages of those involved along with the question(s) and the perceived implications (though they may vary considerably), remain fundamentally the same. Although the intention may change as demonstrated by the initially query.
The choice and tone of the query invokes various responses.
In this scenario, the child will understand there is something (potentially or inherently) about the matter in question, whether they've done this or not, which indicates some punishment or reprimand. To avoid this, or delay (in order to understand the implications better) they may elect to deny knowledge and/or involvement.
So in answer to the question, the most probable answer will be either, "No" or "I don't know".
Any exchange involves emotional responses to some degree.
This includes the Mother (in this instance) in her choice of question, objective, critical assessment of reactions to the question, whilst waiting for an answer, and ultimate decision.
As a 47 year old Mother of four children, I have answered or asked these questions a great number of times.
The situation also involves a weight of responsibility for the parent(s) as well as the child(ren).
Nobody wants a problem.
However, society places the responsibility for teaching children how to behave appropriately with the parent(s), whether they accept it, apply it, deal with it appropriately, and (to some extent) also award the credit or blame for the outcome.
If the question, "Who ate the chocolate?" is asked of a three year old child (who has chocolate smudges around their mouth, the open wrapper beside them and is trying to hide their hands - which also happen to be covered in chocolate). In addition, there's no one else in the house or has access to the chocolate since it was last seen and the absence noted. It's fairly safe to assume the three year old knows something about what happened and can answer this question honestly.
There's various ways of looking at this one situation.
How the relationship between the adult asking the question (the way they phrase it, the intonation and underlying motivation and implication) shapes the response, for example.
Who's chocolate is it, was it left unattended and within the reach of the child. Responsibility for this is not questioned but is also a factor.
A three year old child is fairly simple in comparison, without going into any deep psychological characteristics, we can safely appreciate there was a temptation, an opportunity which was taken and now there's potential consequences.
Regardless of these, the circumstances provide indicators/evidence. However complex a three year old is (and they are) they're comparatively easy to understand i.e. their motivations and responses are readily recognisable/appreciated.
If we change the situation slightly, by adding siblings and increase the age of this child by two years, and they become the middle child, we increase their complexity and opportunities to mask the truth. The relationship between the adult (parent) and the child has also changed dynamically. There are additional sources of confirmation/denial along with motives, increasing additional opportunity.
Still the situation, however complicated, is not major. We're talking about chocolate and who ate it. In terms of family life, this is a relatively minor (but not insignificant) problem.
When my children were small, (and frequently co-operating with each other) they have asked me, "But, how did you know?"
It was too complicated (in the explanation) to give them the details and also counterproductive for me. So, rather than list the pattern of behaviour and obvious evidence, I told them I had eyes in the back of my head. For a number of years this explanation satisfied them, if proving difficult for them to overcome.
Auditory Processing 'Disorder', how is this relevant?
First of all, it underlines or highlights that there is a fundamental difference in how I think compared to the majority.
In effect, I have greater recall - improved perception (by comparison) or better. Although this condition suggests I am frequently forgetful. In reality, I am processing a greater volume of information and, as a consequence, this can create loss of short term (or working) memory. However, those occasions also include rapid and applied strategic (albeit apparently confused - at the time) assessment and long term associations.
Experience is the background of information which we, as individuals, utilise to make sense of any situation.
So, when someone tells a lie, how do you know the truth?
Well, sometimes it's obvious, like when a child denies all knowledge of a chocolate bar that is missing, whilst covered in chocolate themselves.
But what if it's not obvious?
How could you know that something has happened, or happening?
Do you need or would you like to know?
(How does this affect the result?)
How would you get to know?
What if you're not told?
What if the pertinent information is witheld?
How would you know if information is being witheld?
Lies, by definition, include omission .
The other side involves knowledge, which if you've gained without direct evidence to support it, is likely to be (at best) misunderstood and not appreciated, especially by the person or persons involved. Even the suspicion of a lie will be dismissed, discredited and/or disregarded.
Isn't it?
Lies, I believe, usually involve concious and deliberate fabrication and displacement of responsibility, and by their nature, require an audience.
For example, Rhetoric was suggested, by Plato, as a means to conceal for political reasons.
However, I like the way that Aristotle describes rhetoric, for public audience in 3 different ways:
"the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion
Book I, Chapter III, "A member of the assembly decides about future events, a juryman about past events: while those who merely decide on the orator's skill are observers. From this it follows that there are three divisions of oratory- (1) political, (2) forensic, and (3) the ceremonial oratory of display". '
1) Political
2) Forensic
3) Ceremonial oratory
On acceptance of the above premises, it's also true to say that most lies go undetected and remain accepted. Unless, there's some reason for questioning what was said or potentially unsaid.
The better practised lie is harder to identify, or is it?
Trust is, of course, fundamental and the foundation of any relationship.
Consider a relationship where one or both partners are involved in an affair outside of that relationship.
When strange or new routines, which coincidentally offer opportunity and aren't sufficiently explained, prompt further questions, denial/confirmation and/or potential investigation.
From the start, as any newly married (or otherwise) couple establishes their routine and pattern of behaviour, this could incorporate additional and/or secretive activity of one or both partners. Consequently, duplicity is harder to recognise and identify as such because (unless it's considered odd immediately) it is more probably integrated and accepted as the normal pattern of behaviour within the frame of that relationship.
There will be signals, even within those relationships that have established routines that have always been secretly inclusive of undesired activity. They may simply not be recognised as such, or it could be that they're ignored, conciously or subconciously, because it's easier to do so.
It's often regarded as preferable to accept a lie as truth. Perhaps it's more flattering, means life is less complicated, or simply removes the need for immediate action with associated short and/or long term implications which are less favourable.
So the boundaries of vice and virtue, in relation to the truth, become blurred by preference and a lie is told to a receptive audience. Benefits are mutual if not entirely reciprocal.
Unless, of course, the benefits are not mutual and however receptive the audience is, credibility has been lost along with trust. In which case, the truth remains an outstanding prerequisite.
We also agree to lie to each other and ourselves, take Christmas as an example.
In the Western world today, it seems to me, there are relatively few that have faith in any God. Yet the majority still celebrate the 'birth' of Jesus Christ and encourage young children to believe stories of Father Christmas, Santa Claus, or whatever name is appropriate to their country, custom etc.
We justify the continuation of these stories, by merit - the end result should include well behaved children (if only during the days/weeks preceding).
We also teach our children that those who they love and trust most can not always be trusted
(because they tell lies). This is an important lesson, one which children need to learn. Not least because it establishes an understanding in experience which includes association with patterns of behaviour, expression and appreciation of underlying motives. Children will, through this experience, recall clues and, with hindsight, better understand the associated causes. Methods of detection should also improve for future practical application.
