4 ms·

Radical honesty doesn't have to mean blurting out everything you are thinking. I can tell you the truth without having to explain every way I rationalize how I

Radical honesty doesn't have to mean blurting out everything you are thinking. I can tell you the truth without having to explain every way I rationalize how I would process that sentence to you. For example, if someone asks you "do you like this watch?" and you don't, it's just as truthful to say "no" as it is to say "no because that brand is tacky and it looks out of character for you." Now, if they continue to probe and ask "why," you can answer honestly. But if a simple "no" would suffice for the other party, I don't see how the additional information helps either party.

michaelt 9y ago
Doesn't that lead to a pretty big loophole that allows lies of omission? After all, you could just as easily answer "do you like this watch?" with "I like the way its blue colour matches your eyes" or some other true, positive statement that doesn't answer the question as stated.
- hopscotch 9y ago
  You could, but that would be missing the point of the whole honesty exercise by using an overly restrictive definition of lying. In 'Lying', Sam Harris defines a lie as an intentional act of deception (or something like that). That definition fits your suggested responses and I would call them lies. Answering "No, but I think the colour matches your eyes", on the other hand, would not be deceptive, assuming you did believe that.
- tpeo 9y ago
  In my opinion, an omission would only constitute a lie if, and only if, the information omitted cannot be safely ignored as irrelevant. Because otherwise the answerer would be omitting information which he personally considers important. Whenever a person is asked a question, they have at least some idea of both what's relevant to the inquirer (i.e. what's being asked, implicitly or not) as well as what they personally consider relevant (i.e. all that information which might relate to the question). And some thoughts can be safely omitted if they're uninformative. For instance, it might occur to me when asked about the watch that it looks shitty and tacky. But that thought might occur to me less like an actual opinion and more like an intrusive thought. So it can be safely ignored as completely uninformative to the inquirer, because whatever value it could have to the inquirer later on would be only due to a "broken clock" effect. Because I'd be talking out of my ass. Now, if there's a loophole, it's only as big as people make it out to be. Because the real difference between honest and dishonest people would remain. And that is, that the former are willing to express their own opinions when asked to do so, whereas the latter would attempt to manipulate their answers, either by omitting information they personally consider relevant or, as you suggest, by attempting to misdirect the inquirer by adding information which they know is irrelevant, but which doesn't appear as such the inquirer.
MiddleEndian 9y ago
To an even further extent, being radically honest doesn't mean you have to comment on someone's watch without being prompted in the first place. Also some of the suggestions given were blatant attempts to make money off of seminars. That being said I enjoyed the article and some of the concepts and I admired the author's willingness to try it out at the expense and risk of his own social circle.
combatentropy 9y ago
I agree. The movie Liar Liar and the therapist Brad Blanton confuse not lying with saying the worst of the many things that dance through your mind. What about all the noble thoughts that also flashed through it? Blanton's technique is like confession but brazen.

michaelt 9y ago

Doesn't that lead to a pretty big loophole that allows lies of omission? After all, you could just as easily answer "do you like this watch?" with "I like the way its blue colour matches your eyes" or some other true, positive statement that doesn't answer the question as stated.

hopscotch 9y ago
You could, but that would be missing the point of the whole honesty exercise by using an overly restrictive definition of lying. In 'Lying', Sam Harris defines a lie as an intentional act of deception (or something like that). That definition fits your suggested responses and I would call them lies. Answering "No, but I think the colour matches your eyes", on the other hand, would not be deceptive, assuming you did believe that.
tpeo 9y ago
In my opinion, an omission would only constitute a lie if, and only if, the information omitted cannot be safely ignored as irrelevant. Because otherwise the answerer would be omitting information which he personally considers important. Whenever a person is asked a question, they have at least some idea of both what's relevant to the inquirer (i.e. what's being asked, implicitly or not) as well as what they personally consider relevant (i.e. all that information which might relate to the question). And some thoughts can be safely omitted if they're uninformative. For instance, it might occur to me when asked about the watch that it looks shitty and tacky. But that thought might occur to me less like an actual opinion and more like an intrusive thought. So it can be safely ignored as completely uninformative to the inquirer, because whatever value it could have to the inquirer later on would be only due to a "broken clock" effect. Because I'd be talking out of my ass. Now, if there's a loophole, it's only as big as people make it out to be. Because the real difference between honest and dishonest people would remain. And that is, that the former are willing to express their own opinions when asked to do so, whereas the latter would attempt to manipulate their answers, either by omitting information they personally consider relevant or, as you suggest, by attempting to misdirect the inquirer by adding information which they know is irrelevant, but which doesn't appear as such the inquirer.

MiddleEndian 9y ago

To an even further extent, being radically honest doesn't mean you have to comment on someone's watch without being prompted in the first place. Also some of the suggestions given were blatant attempts to make money off of seminars. That being said I enjoyed the article and some of the concepts and I admired the author's willingness to try it out at the expense and risk of his own social circle.

combatentropy 9y ago

I agree. The movie Liar Liar and the therapist Brad Blanton confuse not lying with saying the worst of the many things that dance through your mind. What about all the noble thoughts that also flashed through it? Blanton's technique is like confession but brazen.