Nick -
Sorry. I wasn't asking whether we lie or not. Or even whether it
eases some social situations. I was asking for a theory of why lying
greases social situations. Why is the NET effect of small lies
positive? I can think of some reasons. Like chimpanzees, we live in
a fision-fusion situation. The size of the lie that one can
"honestly" tell probably depends in many cases on the frequency with
which one sees the person one is lying to. And then there is the
distinction between speech as stroking and speech as conveying of
information. I get that wrong, a lot.
To expand the argumentation without being (hopefully) argumentative, I
defer to Glen's aphorism:
"The problem with communication is the illusion that it exists."
and also offer the analogy to "tolerancing" in mechanical systems.
To the extent that communication (as we idealize it) is an illusion,
then everything we say (or hear?) is inaccurate in the way that "all
models are wrong, some are useful". Since what we say (and hear) is
intrinsically inaccurate, everything is, in that sense a *lie*. We bias
and expand these inaccuracies to our convenience and they become lies in
the traditional sense of the term.
These *lies* are useful to more than optimizing our personal situation
in the way that two parts fit together with a deliberate *tolerance*
work better over the long run than those fit as precisely as possible
and then allowed to "wear in". Among other things, a broken part cannot
simply be replaced by another one identical to the original, it must be
custom fit to match the wear on the broken part. The wear patterns on
the part have become part of the system. By introducing some
well-controlled and deliberate error (aka tolerance) into the parts of
the system, they do not need to wear as much to "break in" and as a
result replacing a broken part with a new "unworn" one is more effective.
More formally trained engineers here may correct me of course.
The effectivity of interchangeable parts in mass production was heavily
dependent on this kind of tolerancing. I submit that in human exchange,
proper tolerancing is like the use of "white lies". There are limits
to the accuracy of our communication (fit of our parts) so we might as
well bias the (mis) fit toward leaving room for the social machine to
continue to function. A hand-fit machine can have higher performance
and efficiency than one designed with suitable tolerances to not require
careful break-in and to optimize replacement of parts down the line. Or
to extend the metaphor of social engagement as mechanical system, humans
are like gears with teeth that engage. If gears were not designed with
"lash" (a specific form of tolerance), they would bind. If humans are
not allowed a little bit of error in their communication (biased to
their own needs) then they will bind.
Tolerancing also helps to manage "degrees of freedom". Gears must be
co-linear (or orthogonal in some case) to work properly. A gear which
"wobbles" too much on it's axis can bind, but a little bit of that
"wobble" can also prevent binding in an otherwise overly closely
toleranced system. In human discourse, it might be the equivalent of
changing the subject or giving evasive answers.
Q: "Do you like my new hat honey?"
A: "It is really unique!"
I am having a hard time thinking how this is related to my original
question about whether there should be a law against using public data
to track individual behavior. I know that I opened up the subthread
about shame and guilt, so I stipulate that it is my fault that we are
talking about it. And I actually think it is related. I just can't
state the relation. I am thinking we might be moving toward a belief
that truth is like arousal ... life goes best when one has a moderate
level of it. There was a wonderful study done some years ago about he
relation between truth and the best marriages. Married folk were
asked to play The Dating Game together .... i.e., guess what spouses
answers to personal questions would be, preferences, what have you.
Three categories of respondents were identified: spouse pairs that had
an unrealistical enhanced view of one another, spouse pairs that had
an unrealistically jaundiced view of one another, and spouse pairs
that had a realistic view of one another. As you might expect, the
first group maintained the most enduring marriages.
But this just brings me back to the need for a theory of why a society
is better is there is just a bit less truth in it. A pragmatic notion,
but not, I fear, a Pragmatic one.
Nick
*From:*Friam [mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Parks,
Raymond
*Sent:* Thursday, January 17, 2013 11:19 AM
*To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
*Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] [EXTERNAL] Re: Privacy vs Open Public Data
I prefer embarrassed to shamed - perhaps there's a spectrum from proud
to embarrassed to shamed to guilty.
Perhaps white lies do not grease your part of the wheels of society -
but I'm reasonably sure, based on my experience, that they are in use
in many societies including ours. There's the blatant pretense of
privacy that Marcus mentioned exists in Japan. There's the "white"
lies mentioned in books of etiquette. There's the common jokes about
answering one's SO's question of whether they look good (in particular
clothing or after getting their hair styled or ....). These are all
proof that we lie frequently in order to grease the wheels of society.
Ray Parks
Consilient Heuristician/IDART Program Manager
V: 505-844-4024 M: 505-238-9359 P: 505-951-6084
NIPR: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
SIPR: [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]> (send NIPR reminder)
JWICS: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> (send NIPR reminder)
On Jan 16, 2013, at 3:01 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
Raymond,
I guess I am a behaviorist about shame. If my behavior makes me
blush than it was shameful. Guilt, on the other hand is something the
law determines. Just my way of talking, I guess.
But why do petty lies grease the wheels of society. What lies behind
that confident assertion?
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
