November 25th, 2011 | Specific | 0 Comments
One aim of experiential learning is to make sense of the world around you. Armed with this understanding, you are better able to cope with the ‘usually usual’ and its variations. Sense comprises a number of dimensions – good/bad, valid/invalid, possible/impossible, right/wrong, expected/unexpected and many more.
It is not application of these polar extremes within a given situation that enables you to manage effectively but your ability, developed through extensive experience, to discern and act on all of the subtleties that may appear between them. Being able to appreciate the rich detail between these poles, the many shades of grey rather than just black and white, is an indicator of expertise.
Today’s post focuses on another dimension – true/untrue. There is self deception, something that ‘tis nobler has written about here and here; let’s look at social deception in this post. There are various guides to language, both verbal and body, that present indicators of deception. These indicators are similar to the ‘poles’ of sense, perhaps helpful at a general level but rarely relevant at the specific level. Deception interacts with intention to make the implausible plausible and the unreasonable reasonable. This is absolutely true – if you don’t believe ‘tis nobler, believe The Eurythmics:
Do people lie to you? Of course they do, for communication is not restricted to a neutral process of information transmission. There are no ‘one size fits all situations’ recipes – life is not that neat and predictable. There is, however, some evidence-based guidance that is summarised below; be warned, some of this guidance is drawn from the literature and some of it is concocted. How and why will you establish the difference for therein lies the real value in this message?
Those seeking to deceive:
Say as little as possible to avoid tripping up. Or do they hide their deception by speaking a lot?
Justify what they are saying while saying it. Or do they fail to provide a justification?
Pay close attention to your reactions as they speak. Or do they pay little attention to the reception of their story?
Will speak faster as the story unfolds. Or do they speak slower to make sure they remain consistent?
The statements are correct. Or are the questions correct? Perhaps some statements and some questions are true. Confronting the need to discern truth from untruth is an ongoing challenge as part of your mission to make sense of the world. It is unlikely you will encounter the logical absurdity of the Liar’s Paradox; it is much more likely that you will need to resolve issues on a relative basis.
And in a relative, probabilistic and imperfect world, the one thing you can always apply to this task is effort. Would ‘tis nobler lie to you?