http://www.sciammind.com/article.cfm?artic...9D683414B7F0000

....Interestingly, men and women lied with equal frequency; however, Feldman found that women were more likely to lie to make the stranger feel good, whereas men lied most often to make themselves look better....

....The Machiavellian intelligence hypothesis suggests that social complexity propelled our ancestors to become progressively more intelligent and increasingly adept at wheeling, dealing, bluffing and conniving. That means human beings are natural-born liars....

It also makes sense that truth-telling provides darwinian advantages, as it allows for greater trust in social groups and consequently higher efficiency of group effort.

Where lying is the norm, the person adept at lie detection has an advantage, especially if he doesn't let on about his ability.

I agree completely Rick. Nevertheless, it is an objective fact of our collective reality.

I never try to decifer lies, for I believe in taking people at face value and the things that they say I interpret literally.

"Honesty is the best policy" is an old saying, but true. The truth is easier to remember, too. Trying to untangle "who believes what" can become intractable. It's the stuff of sitcoms.

Yes, even when people are lying they are still telling a form of the truth, according to Jung and analytical psychology.

What form of the truth would that be? Suppose you ask me if I'm going to repay a debt and I say "the check's in the mail" when I know it isn't. What's the truth there?

Is it?

One definition of the truth is that it's what you believe. Yep, check's in the mail. Big one. You better believe it.

Most people seem to be satisfied with that definition, but the people I like and trust best are a lot more critical than that. There's an objective truth and our task is to know it better. This idea goes back to the formalization of the scientific method in the 16th century.

So do you know the psychological triggers that are a liar's give, being a scientist yourself? Can you detect when someone is lying?

I define 'lying' in terms of intent. If a person accidentally conveys false information when intending to tell the truth, this person is not a liar to me. Conversly, if a person intends to lie but accidentally conveys true information instead, I still call the person a liar.

A pathological liar is good at method acting, where he convinces himself (on some level) that what he is saying is the truth, but all the while on another level, he knows he's lying. George Orwell called it "double think," and the good citizens of his novel, 1984, considered the ability to double think a valuable social skill.

I mean along the lines of say, eye twitching, rubbing the chin with a hand, down cast eyes, certain tone of voice, specific delivery, etc.

I think I can tell most of the time when people are lying. Not by specific demeanor, but by a combination of content and attempts to change the subject. Like Republican rhetoric.

ut oh.


youre only thinking its bad cuz youre STUCK in standards that THEY want you to be in so you are easier to manipulate and control. youre in someone elses box of what reality should be and thats just crazy, but then again understanding this is probably crazier then you can understand so go ahead and ignored this and move on. have a great american day

I can't agree with you on that point knowmad.

Perhaps it depends on what the lies are about, but generally most people are clutching at straws to realise the reality that does exist; trying to cope with purposefully created falsehoods simply makes this task even harder.

Ok, if you think that it is good to live with a false sense or reality, you are entitled so to think, but I much prefer the Truth, even when it hurts! Finding it is my objective, whichever aspect of existence I enquire about.

I know that politicians are much more concerned with what we think than the Truth, so you would not be alone, because what we think is often far short of what is the truth.
They would likeus to feel secure when we are not. Retailers would like us to think we can buy all their foodstocks without risking a chemical violation to our bodies, when the truth is that they do not know which foods contain contaminants until somebody tests each pack (impossible). Life involves risks and I would prefer to realise that they exist than be fobbed off with falsehoods.
I also accept that those who don't want to know the truth should be allowed to state what they want to hear or read, and receive just that (or just refrain from reading anything or listening to anything except garbage).
Rhymer (unable to log-in: honestly)

if you agreed with me then we'd never evolve

If I said that evolution was "just a theory" I'd be lying.

Have you guys heard all the fuss about zero point gravity?

Could be an outlawed concept in the near future.

True indeed Hey Hey, the eye does have its limits.

However, we are getting there though the use of ever more innovative technology.

If I said God created the earth and everything on it in 7 days, I'd be full of sh*t.

"Consider the view now held by most physisits, namely that the sun with all the planets will in time grow too cold for life, unless indeed some great body dashes into the sun and thus gives it fresh life - believing as I do that man in the distant future will be a far mor perfect creature than he now is, it is an intolerable thought that he and all other sentinent beings are doomed to complete annihilation after such long-continued slow progress," Charles Darwin.

Will we need another 'ark' and if so I wonder at its form?

"Science without religion relion is lame. But religion without science is blind," Albert Einstein.