Notices
Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: When is a lie not a lie?

  1. #1 When is a lie not a lie? 
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    924
    When is a lie not a lie?

    The word “bachelor” is a noun for those individuals defined as being an unmarried adult male. Most people would not say that the Pope is a bachelor even though he is an unmarried adult male.

    Let us examine the process that is called “framing the issue”. We see an example of this when one side calls it self ‘pro-life’ and the other side calls it self ‘pro-choice’. The pro-choice individual is framing the issue about that beautiful concept ‘freedom’. The pro-life individual is framing the issue about that beautiful concept ‘life’.

    Framing the issue is about choosing categories based upon often ideological and self-serving purposes. However, we do also frame the issue by categorization with or without ideological or self-serving motivations. Frames are one type, among many, of cognitive models.

    What day is this, it’s Monday, the worst day of the week! Monday can only be defined in reference to what might be called an ICM (Idealized Cognitive Model). The concept ‘week’ is an ICM. The week is a whole that has seven parts. The model of the week is idealized, meaning that the seven-day week has no concrete existence, it is an abstract idea that we humans have created. It belongs to our culture; other cultures may have all kinds of different ICM for dividing up their cycles of the sun.

    Back to the category of “bachelor” and the question ‘is the Pope a bachelor?’ There is generally a social context when using this word. We do not consider a gay male couple to be a set of bachelors. Catholic priests are not generally considered to be bachelors. I suspect that we do not think of Tarzan as being a bachelor.

    Bachelor is an ICM like ‘week’ and in this case it does not fit even our culture in a complete and exact manner. “An idealized cognitive model may fit one’s understanding of the world either perfectly, very well, pretty well, somewhat well, badly, or not at all. If the ICM in which bachelor is defined fits a situation perfectly and the person referred to by the term is unrequitedly an unmarried adult, then he qualifies as a member of the category bachelor.”

    When is a politician lying?

    The category ‘lie’ can be a very important category especially when perjury is a question; perhaps it is even more important when citizen confidence is at stake. When is a lie, a lie, and when is it something more innocuous and can we know the difference?

    There are a number of conditions that classical categorization of ‘necessary and sufficient’ place upon a statement before we catalogue it as being a lie: falsity of belief, intended deception, and factual falsity. A good example of a lie wherein there is little or nothing in which we might quibble is ‘when I steal something and then deny doing it’.

    Empirical research has turned up a surprising conclusion about this matter of lies and liars. Most people consider that Fred is lying when Fred says something that Fred considers to be false, regardless of its factual falsity.

    Bachelor, bird, and lie are example of prototypes. While some cognitive models are classical; that is to say, that they share rigid boundaries and are characterized by necessary and sufficient conditions, many are not.

    Often there are is a prototype of the category by which we judge whether something belongs to a category. In the case of the three categories mentioned we use prototypical characteristics to judge whether a man is ‘really’ a bachelor or a liar. In the case of dinosaur I suspect most of us recognize that for zoological science the dinosaur is a bird but we would ordinarily not consider that a dinosaur is much like a sparrow or robin, which for many of us is a prototypical bird.

    This business of categorization is what President Clinton was talking about when he replied “It all depends on what is is!”

    Quotes from A Clearing in the Forest: Law, Life, and Mind by Steven L. Winter professor of Law.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,702
    Excuse me for ignoring the latter 4/5 of your post, but I must adress this.

    "Framing the issue is about choosing categories based upon often ideological and self-serving purposes."

    So you do not think that framing a statement differently alters it's clerity or message?


    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    924
    Quote Originally Posted by marcusclayman
    Excuse me for ignoring the latter 4/5 of your post, but I must adress this.

    "Framing the issue is about choosing categories based upon often ideological and self-serving purposes."

    So you do not think that framing a statement differently alters it's clerity or message?
    Framing is often used to influence others. Pro-life people talk about the death of the unborn while pro-choice people speak about the rights of a woman. The death tax was used to kill the inheritance tax. Death panels were used to defeat health care reform. Frames alter significantly the perception of people especially of the unsophisticated. Framing is the way that we think about most types of experiences.

    The demagogue is a “leader who makes use of popular prejudice and false claims and promises in order to gain power”--Webster. Demagoguery is often the preferred tool of politicians and plutocrats because the muddled masses are moved more easily by emotion than by reason.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4 Re: When is a lie not a lie? 
    Forum Ph.D. Darius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    817
    Quote Originally Posted by coberst
    When is a lie not a lie?
    When it is a successfully waged campaign of misinformation.
    Om mani padme hum

    "In dishonorable things we are not bound to obey any man." - The Book of the Courtier [1561], pg 99 (144 in pdf)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,702
    Indeed, there are branches of psychology that focus on how to communicate messages effectively by using framing. Influencing people is inevitable, in my opinion: it is best to know what you are doing, and learn to do it well.

    Even such concepts as "influence" have been framed, by an idealistic democratic culture, to be synonymous with "control" which has been framed to be synonymous with "tyranny" which has long been synonymous with "slavery" which is synonymous with "suffering"


    such cultural frameworks leads to distrusting control freaks

    or, as Aristotle described the perversion of a constitutional government, aka Democracy. "One principle of liberty is for all to rule [influence] and be ruled [influenced] in turn"

    In order to understand, how you influence people, you must be subject to influence, since the only thing you can truly know is yourself. We are all influenced, as much as we influence others. Hence why in a democratic society, those who are most open to change, so that they become what the majority want them to be, are those who are elected into positions of power.

    In lower class sub cultures, it is usually framed as "conformity" which is framed as "subjection" and/or "deception"

    but in the higher classes, it is the opposite: conformity is understood, not as subjection to what is popular, but as the "front" used to destract others from their true intentions, to decide what is popular.

    The middle class business owner understands that by conforming to what is popular, they will make more money and thus have more power and be able to retire earlier. They frame conformity in terms of supply and demand, while their jealous low class critics will call them greedy and selfish, while the business owner defends them self by framing it as meeting a popular demand, which can be seen as altruistic

    the popular folk wisdom states "If a business owner wasn't making a profit, they would not be in business" which is to imply that they are not loosing anything. But this is naive, and only takes into account financial gain, it doesn't take into account psychological, emotional, social toll that owning a business can take on an individual, or the time lost, and the service offered.
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •