5 ms·

What we need is a way to inhibit lying. A brain operation or some kind of psychological conditioning. People who undergo this procedure will be guaranteed trus

What we need is a way to inhibit lying. A brain operation or some kind of psychological conditioning. People who undergo this procedure will be guaranteed trustworthy. They will be given a mark. A forehead-tattoo. Certain roles in our society - certain jobs and offices - will be available only to those with this mark. I would vote for a person with this mark.

Godel_unicode 5y ago
It's genuinely horrifying to me that people appear to be upvoting the creation of a subhuman caste and delegating responsibility to them. Please think this through a bit more carefully, it's an interesting thought experiment but a terrible idea. Consider also that not being able to lie is absolutely not the same thing as being trustworthy. If we've learned anything the last two years, it's that people can deeply believe some shocking things.
- swayvil 5y ago
  I'm getting upvotes? And what's so subhuman about it? It might be quite freeing and desirable. No more enbeastifying than military indoctrination. And yes, you could be trusted to not lie. To eschew deceit. That is a highly desirable flavor of trustworthiness. But yes, trusted to be a member of your particular ideological tribe would involve a completely different program and forehead tattoo, of course.
  - tovej 5y ago
    Sounds like prime material for sci-fi horror
    - swayvil 5y ago
      You people are square as delaware I swear. I can think of a dozen horrible things that are popularly embraced with both hands. And you guys don't even blink. My idea, otoh, might be awesome.
  - swagasaurus-rex 5y ago
    Could these public servants be subject to being misled? They can tell the truth but they aren't all knowing, they won't necessarily know when they've been lied to. Could these public servants be become a tool for a more powerful political entity? Perhaps truth is more subjective than we hoped, or perhaps they have been conditioned with a failsafe - to keep them from speaking certain truths. Could these public servants decide they don't like the life they've been given? They are humans, not mere tools.
    - swayvil 5y ago
      Subject to mislement, subversion or change of opinion? Of course not. The procedure would also induce omniscience /s
  - ThrowawayR2 5y ago
    > "And yes, you could be trusted to not lie. To eschew deceit." Leaving aside that being unable to lie has nothing to do with knowing the truth, that poor wretch would be the most unelectable creature in existence. The voters do not want to hear that "we don't know what the right answer yet", "this solution is the right path in the long run but will cause poverty and suffering today", and other unpalatable truths that are largely unavoidable as part of governing a population.
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  It's pretty heavily downvoted by now, but I took the comment as a pretty clear https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal scenario.
  - Loughla 5y ago
    More likely it's this: https://dune.fandom.com/wiki/Imperial_Conditioning https://dune.fandom.com/wiki/Imperial_Conditioning
    - swayvil 5y ago
      Greg Egan explores this idea too. In his Quarantine. From the perspective of a guy who was involuntarily programmed for loyalty. Interesting stuff. Stephen R Donaldson also touches the subject a little in his gap stuff. Of course these days we'd probably mark them with an RFID chip. Just beneath the back of the skull, in the spine, right next to the microbomb. (Keep getting that god damn you're posting too fast bullshit. Thank Hacker News for protecting you from bad thoughts) (Expand your scifi literacy)
  - swayvil 5y ago
    People are, as a rule, conventional and reactionary. And they like to peck at their reflection and bark at shadows. That's people.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- krageon 5y ago
  > subhuman caste Politicians that can't lie are objectively better than ones that can. That makes them superhuman, in this case.
HWR_14 5y ago
It works well unless the person with such a mark had their wife kidnapped and the only way to ensure she was no longer being tortured was to tell a lie and cause an entire political dynasty to be wiped out. Well, unless lying once enabled double crossing and the heir to such a dynasty's escape was marked by the person with that mark.
- swayvil 5y ago
  Oh yeah, Yueh. Good call. His conditioning got cracked.
mLuby 5y ago
> What we need is a way to inhibit lying. 1. Society already does this; most morality systems discourage lying (with exceptions of course). 2. Could your lobotomized person understand lying? If not, they won't be effective at governing the rest of us lairs. If so, the "lair/truth-teller" logic puzzle applies: they could truthfully report what a liar would say, thereby truthfully lying. > They will be given a mark. A forehead-tattoo Does sarcasm count as lying? Does fiction?
- swayvil 5y ago
  Please, the #1 industries, advertising and politics, depend on lying. Some say that the intellect was evolved specifically for lying. The program would have to address the root of the behavior we're filtering for, of course. intent to maliciously deceive or somesuch. I recall one scifi where they had a priesthoodesque dealy called "witnesses". Similar idea. Trained for perfect recall and honesty. Wore robes.
  - mLuby 5y ago
    The lying part is secondary—no maliciousness is the important part. Maybe what you really want is a “Good” ruler; philosophy and ethics have been wrestling with how to define that for thousands of years. I’d be shocked if such a ruler would have no need to lie, unless they have no internal or external threats (so an all-encompassing autocracy, perhaps like the God Emperor of Dune). Speaking of sci-fi, the Culture novels’ hyper-intelligent AI “Minds” are, AFAIK, “good” rulers with external threats, though I don’t recall the Minds being limited by honesty. Were you recalling the Fair Witnesses from Heinlein’s Stranger in a Strange Land? (Overly Sarcastic synopsis: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jAkplrZci0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jAkplrZci0) Those industries aren’t even top 10: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/10-biggest-industries-world-2021-150703784.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/10-biggest-industries-world-2...

Godel_unicode 5y ago

It's genuinely horrifying to me that people appear to be upvoting the creation of a subhuman caste and delegating responsibility to them. Please think this through a bit more carefully, it's an interesting thought experiment but a terrible idea. Consider also that not being able to lie is absolutely not the same thing as being trustworthy. If we've learned anything the last two years, it's that people can deeply believe some shocking things.

swayvil 5y ago
I'm getting upvotes? And what's so subhuman about it? It might be quite freeing and desirable. No more enbeastifying than military indoctrination. And yes, you could be trusted to not lie. To eschew deceit. That is a highly desirable flavor of trustworthiness. But yes, trusted to be a member of your particular ideological tribe would involve a completely different program and forehead tattoo, of course.
- tovej 5y ago
  Sounds like prime material for sci-fi horror
  - swayvil 5y ago
    You people are square as delaware I swear. I can think of a dozen horrible things that are popularly embraced with both hands. And you guys don't even blink. My idea, otoh, might be awesome.
- swagasaurus-rex 5y ago
  Could these public servants be subject to being misled? They can tell the truth but they aren't all knowing, they won't necessarily know when they've been lied to. Could these public servants be become a tool for a more powerful political entity? Perhaps truth is more subjective than we hoped, or perhaps they have been conditioned with a failsafe - to keep them from speaking certain truths. Could these public servants decide they don't like the life they've been given? They are humans, not mere tools.
  - swayvil 5y ago
    Subject to mislement, subversion or change of opinion? Of course not. The procedure would also induce omniscience /s
- ThrowawayR2 5y ago
  > "And yes, you could be trusted to not lie. To eschew deceit." Leaving aside that being unable to lie has nothing to do with knowing the truth, that poor wretch would be the most unelectable creature in existence. The voters do not want to hear that "we don't know what the right answer yet", "this solution is the right path in the long run but will cause poverty and suffering today", and other unpalatable truths that are largely unavoidable as part of governing a population.
ceejayoz 5y ago
It's pretty heavily downvoted by now, but I took the comment as a pretty clear https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal scenario.
- Loughla 5y ago
  More likely it's this: https://dune.fandom.com/wiki/Imperial_Conditioning https://dune.fandom.com/wiki/Imperial_Conditioning
  - swayvil 5y ago
    Greg Egan explores this idea too. In his Quarantine. From the perspective of a guy who was involuntarily programmed for loyalty. Interesting stuff. Stephen R Donaldson also touches the subject a little in his gap stuff. Of course these days we'd probably mark them with an RFID chip. Just beneath the back of the skull, in the spine, right next to the microbomb. (Keep getting that god damn you're posting too fast bullshit. Thank Hacker News for protecting you from bad thoughts) (Expand your scifi literacy)
- swayvil 5y ago
  People are, as a rule, conventional and reactionary. And they like to peck at their reflection and bark at shadows. That's people.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
krageon 5y ago
> subhuman caste Politicians that can't lie are objectively better than ones that can. That makes them superhuman, in this case.

HWR_14 5y ago

It works well unless the person with such a mark had their wife kidnapped and the only way to ensure she was no longer being tortured was to tell a lie and cause an entire political dynasty to be wiped out. Well, unless lying once enabled double crossing and the heir to such a dynasty's escape was marked by the person with that mark.

swayvil 5y ago
Oh yeah, Yueh. Good call. His conditioning got cracked.

mLuby 5y ago

> What we need is a way to inhibit lying. 1. Society already does this; most morality systems discourage lying (with exceptions of course). 2. Could your lobotomized person understand lying? If not, they won't be effective at governing the rest of us lairs. If so, the "lair/truth-teller" logic puzzle applies: they could truthfully report what a liar would say, thereby truthfully lying. > They will be given a mark. A forehead-tattoo Does sarcasm count as lying? Does fiction?

swayvil 5y ago
Please, the #1 industries, advertising and politics, depend on lying. Some say that the intellect was evolved specifically for lying. The program would have to address the root of the behavior we're filtering for, of course. intent to maliciously deceive or somesuch. I recall one scifi where they had a priesthoodesque dealy called "witnesses". Similar idea. Trained for perfect recall and honesty. Wore robes.
- mLuby 5y ago
  The lying part is secondary—no maliciousness is the important part. Maybe what you really want is a “Good” ruler; philosophy and ethics have been wrestling with how to define that for thousands of years. I’d be shocked if such a ruler would have no need to lie, unless they have no internal or external threats (so an all-encompassing autocracy, perhaps like the God Emperor of Dune). Speaking of sci-fi, the Culture novels’ hyper-intelligent AI “Minds” are, AFAIK, “good” rulers with external threats, though I don’t recall the Minds being limited by honesty. Were you recalling the Fair Witnesses from Heinlein’s Stranger in a Strange Land? (Overly Sarcastic synopsis: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jAkplrZci0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jAkplrZci0) Those industries aren’t even top 10: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/10-biggest-industries-world-2021-150703784.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/10-biggest-industries-world-2...