The first remark coming to my mind is that "the deception" is a false friend in several Romanic languages. I think to my own maternal language, the Romanian (deceptie), but also to the French (déception), the Spanish (decepción) and the Portuguese (decepção). All these words mean "disappointment" and not "deception".

It would be interesting to investigate the etymology of "deception" and all its meanings in different languages and families of languages. I also think that it would be worth taking into account as many sayings and expressions as possible, as they reflect, in my opinion, "how do various cultures interpret and judge deceptive behavior".

I believe in the truth whenever possible. It does not make me very possible. It in facts makes me a dangerous person in that not only do I seek and express the truth I have lost everything in doing so. Everyone sitting around the fire has there own truth and view of the same fire. You can take two friends or even two strangers on the same mountain watching a sunset and they could have the same experience or one that is completely different even though they are both sharing that moment in time at the same location. It takes all of us all around the fire sharing their voice and truth to discover the TRUTH.

I respect ones culture and beliefs as much as possible. Sometimes I challenge them. sometimes I interrupt those beliefs though if it is deceptive, propaganda or proven to no longer be true. If someone I knew tells me they are not mentally ill for example it was just a imbalance and so forth. I know they have been hospitalized. I go along with their beliefs because they are difficult to get along with and I respect them as an elder. I even reinforce it because mental illness has such a stigmatic status. what I tell them to be kind is that Indigenous people did not have a concept of mental illness or even criminality. such people have gifts and can go into other realities the may actually exist.

A person can get lost in their inner world or dream world. a counselor or Medicine person may have to journey into their reality to bring them back to the edge of theirs so that can function independently. It would be at that time they would be taken on a vision quest or in the western model locked up in a institution or prison. A Medicine man might give them psychedelic herbs and have them fast and stay up without sleep to instigate the experience and deal with it on a spiritual level. A person is dreaming while awake. The Medicine person follows them into it, watches over them and lets them experience existential schizophrenia, have the breakdown under supervision on a vision quest. They would be given a new name not given a permanent label and isolate them. They are helped through the experience to the other side of it. They are given a new identity, brought back into the circle of people forgiven.

What is true depends on what you were taught to be true. It depends on culture what truths you hold as Truth.

In addition to the last phrase of my previous post, I add this quote:

“Mankind’s greatest error, ..., the biggest deception of the past thousand years is this:  to confuse poverty with stupidity.”  In "Snow" (Chapter 31) by Orhan Pamuk, Turkish writer, Nobel Prize 2006.

Ruxandra Vintila, your observation about cognates of deception ('false friends') is very insightful. I didn't know that 'disappointment' is the literal meaning that unites several Roman languages. What I meant in my original post by 'deception' is closer to 'lying', but the umbrella term 'deception' is typically used in this context to unite various strategies of deliberate / intentional attempts to  create a false conclusion or impression in the mind of the deceived (i.e., the 'victim'). 'Deception' is a broader term than 'lying' (i.e. strictly 'falsifying'). You can deceive by equivocating, say dodging answers, concealing or evading. These distinctions and the definition of the broader term 'deception' come from the interpersonal psychology (e.g. by Bella DePaulo and Judee Burgoon) and are now well accepted in deception detection studies (e.g. Jeff Hancock, Lina Zhou). The key to studying something is typically to start by defining what you mean to study, wouldn't that make sense?

Bonita Chavez, your observations of alternative realities are fascinating. Could you provide some geo-cultural context please?

Thanks, Victoria, for clarification.  I fully agree with your last remark, too.

Bonita,

You wrote

"Indigenous people did not have a concept of mental illness or even criminality. such people have gifts and can go into other realities the may actually exist."

This reminds me a precious information (for me): the Jesuits realized at a certain moment why it was so difficult to Christianize the Indigenous people: they had not the concepts (nor the words) of sin and shame. It is what I read many years ago about some Native American tribes.

This is not related to Victoria's question on deception. However, it highlights one more time the importance of the worldview knowledge for communication and understanding.

I add here how important is particularly the mutual knowledge of the field views (and, to a certain extent, the mutual knowledge of different scientific jargon) in the multi- and transdisciplinary research teams. In fact, one of the reasons why I am interested in cultural anthropology, psychology and linguistics is the fact that I face this challenge.

"Pious lies":  lies so that others are not vexed or embarrassed.  They were current in my grandparents epoch, and are likely to be less current today. I am referring to the Romanian and French cultural contexts that I know.

I think "white lie", Ruxandra, are a contemporary phenomenon as well. Think of not telling a kid about a surprise party or complementing someone on a new hairdo while it's aweful. The deception detection literature calls them benevolent lies (vs. malevolent), Jeff Hancock calls (some of) them "butler lies", e.g., "He's not here right now. Can I take a message?". Is that the sort of thing you're talking about? If so, what other expressions and distinctions are there in Romance languages, Agnese, I'd like to have an idea.

Agnese, a special thanks for pointing to Lakoff and Johnson chapter! I haven't see it yet.

I did read Lakoff's fascinating book "Women, Fire and other Dangerous Things" for one of my early student works "Stretching Conceptual Structures in Classifications Across Languages and Cultures" (http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J104v37n01_04#.U8kuc7HyT5g). It was on cultural hospitality of classification systems (e.g., Dewey) with kinship terms (uncle, father, etc) as an example. Basically, it was how to accommodate those differences in the terms in languages and, more over, the scope of concepts (in order to group similar library materials and differentiate dissimilar ones).

I might be going slightly off the track of the discussion here, but I noticed that in the original post you mentioned that deception was fundamentally human.  I don't think that is necessarily the case as there seems to be quite a bit of evidence of deception/lying in the animal kingdom as well.  Think of a chameleon or a butterfly for a very simple example - their camouflage is, in a way, a form of deception.  Cuckoos are another good example who are known to lay their eggs in other birds' nests and in such a way trick other species into caring for their young until they fledge.  This may not be important for the discussion above, but I just thought I would mention this..

Thanks, Jurgis. What I meant to say is that it's natural for humans to lie (just like some other animals), but phrasing it as an animal skill or aptitude, or even comparing humans to primates would have been out of place in this context. You're right, it's a bit of a side track. The focus in my work in deception detection is on human communication in this meaning as a characteristic of human communication, and not on what distinguished us from animals.

I absolutely agree with what you say about some animals' skills and fascinating abilities (mimicry and so forth). By the way, Timothy Levine has just edited the Encyclopaedia of Deception (2014) that has sections on that (p. 22, vol 1) http://books.google.ca/books?id=gs0_AwAAQBAJ&pg=PA778&lpg=PA778&dq=encyclopedia+of+deception+levine+animals&source=bl&ots=CtCskwGUJW&sig=HG9_5jFA_Re4cgs0KhIjZ0jVrhk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=yz_JU8nwNI-3yATYjIHICA&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=animals&f=false

On the subject of lies in the Romance languages, the 17th-century Spanish playwright Lope de Vega, reputedly the author of 1000 plays, in his "New Art of Composing Plays," speaks of the technique of "deceiving with the truth."  Communication always depends on context. Therefore by telling the truth in one context while physically situated in another, you use an utterance whose form is true but whose substance is false.  Lope´s audiences enjoyed these "apparent" truths for their cleverness.  Hence deceit can afford aesthetic enjoyment. This fruition would seem to justify deception.

"Pious lies" are certainly NOT a contemporary phenomenon. In "The Republic," Plato recommends their use to strengthen the State. For instance, make all citizens believe the myth that the earth of their homeland is their mother.  They will therefore bear their homeland filial love.  

In fact,  when referring to the "pious lies" previously, I had specifically in mind the behavior of ordinary people in the recent past and present times, inside two cultures I know directly, and not the propaganda of the institutions of authority (state and religion) or intelligentsia position throughout history.

Meanwhile, I fully agree that indeed these latter aspects are very important.

Generally speaking, there are cultures and lives that are mainly led by the expression  "the end justifies the means" . I am wondering if such an expression exists innately in the Asian languages.

In the Indian cultural and historic context, 

1. One can lie to save a life

2. Many lies can be said to arrange a marriage match between two individuals.

Regards

Hello

I think that some lies are cross culturals. 

For example, we don't want to tell something bad to dyeing relative in order not to sorrow. 

In Hebrew we also have the expression that "the end justifies the means", but on the other hand there is an expression about lies that "even in the desert you don't drink oil". which means that do not lie in any circimstances.

Михаил, спасибо за ссылку. Did you actually mean to imply some cause and effect relationship between a certain culture and some level of insincerity? Do you mean pressure (like peer pressure), or certain accepted ways of doing things, or what exactly? I'd like to know what you mean by "culture" then, in a few words, but I'll try to get to your article at some point as well.

In areas of high corruption you have to tow the legal requirements. Hard to prove it was not actually followed even if you get a judgment in your favor. there are cultural responsibilities within social position and status that have to be maintained. In many cultures you have to maintain respect and safe face. competitive, someone on top is the winner is not productive in our multicultural world. Collectivist cultures incorporate the cultures of others into theirs. That is the best strategy not the hierarchal structures of colonization. I took Industrial psychology classes but rather worthless with the collectivist cultures I work with. I stay to the cooperative and clan structure of reciprocal relationships. Indigenous cultures do not separate humans from the animal world. The rules of nature are incorporated into culture. Some animals do have culture and social structure.

Sorry if I offend here but from an indigenous perspective. The bible is men writing things down. The land bridge went  both ways. There were people in the America's. There are stories from the tribes here about people living underground during global disasters. there are Indigenous people in the America who have been through 7 earth changes. We are going from water world to fire world. Each earth change is on the Mayan and Aztec long count calendars. last time was purification by water. This time it is by fire. Realize I research mythology and religion.

Traditions get us through and give us knowledge but it can be integrated into new ways. Peer pressure and conforming does not really work for us Independent artistic types that already live outside of the mainstream culture. It is easier than ever to form our own communities due to the internet and falling land prices if you can get by the land and environmental restrictions against that sort of lifestyle. Many of us are going to a simpler but technologically appropriate technology and intentional and co-housing structures to deal with the economic collapse of money. There is peer pressure even in these alternative lifestyles and rules. Religion manages to get in there.

What is oppressive about the culture I live in is the lack of economic distribution of wealth. The poor are routinely harvested in many ways and kept in poverty by the very institutions getting paid to "help" them. if religion is not repressive enough now add the legal system. It is pretty much stacked against the poor in favor to owners of land and business and the next repressive factor politics. In chaos a new order always forms.

I researched this for my dissertation with Hazel Markus. We found that in Japan, lying was justified if it helped to maintain social harmony in a relational context or situation. We framed this in a Japanese cultural perspective of interdependence and social obligations. Yeh, C. J. (1996). A cultural perspective of self and morality in Japan and the U.S.

Sounds like an interesting study.

Physicians must take the Hippocratic Oath to help and do no harm to the patient. I could conceive a medical case in which a bad prognosis could kill a cardiac patient with a severe case.  In that case, the physician should probably keep silent when the truth threatens life. 

As we accept that ‘deception is fundamentally human’, we all suffer loss when we are deceived. Lie and deception works out to be advantageous to the one who perpetrates, but the guilt stays on. Languages and cultures in many ethnic groups tend to undermine this and give license or approve traditional behaviors that are in long run detrimental to the same society. Others have mentioned about thousand lies and marriage. I am reminded of the name or title “Devadasi”. As such it is a positive word or name, meaning ‘god’s female servant’. Unfortunately, this has other connotation traditionally. Among the South Indian men, the name ‘Devadas’ is very common. But I have not come across women whose name is Devadasi. There could be many arguments, but it boils down to what it has been over years. Occasionally, there are those that took on the role of devadasies, narrate very positive experience, but these are drop in the ocean. In a strong patriarchal society, we need to accept that women struggle to be emancipated!

Can language hide thoughts? This question was posed by the German Academy for Language and Literature in 1965 as the topic of its first essay competition. It was taken up by the philologist Harald Weinrich. He won the first prize with his essay „Linguistik der Lüge“ (The Linguistics of Lying). It might be interesting for you to read this old essay. It is now translated into English, cf. http://www.washington.edu/uwpress/search/books/WEILIN.html

I think the issue here is much broader - as in deception - if assumed fundamental - must be operationalized beyond context - for example - lie in Japan for social harmony. Deception must be worked through as an existential paradigm and then language becomes an expression or in other words language is a tool which allows us to view or critique the nature and the kind of deception. The concept of deception must also extend beyond self-gain (i.e. avoid loss or suffering) or self-loss - deception must not be looked at from a contextual view - as this will cloud the issue

Regards

J-F

I'd love to know more about "lie in Japan for social harmony", Dr. J-F. Do you have any concrete examples, or reference to where this phenomenon is studied or described, or perhaps even taught? That would be fascinating.

I worked in maximum security prisons and used PCL-R and VRAG - please read more from Professor Robert Hare work

Klaus Schuricht, thanks for the link to Weinrich's English translation. That's exactly the kind of philosophical perspective I was looking for (to add to pure linguistic /NLP explorations and a survey of psychological experiments).

Cara Francesca,

There are also other perspectives on the matter. I propose you a perspective that I encountered when I was teenager, and with which I deeply resonated.

When I feel dismayed and stuck by the lies all around me (e.g., people's deceptive behavior in marketing, medicine, politics, and sport; most unhappily, in science, religion and spirituality), this high perspective helps me always to feel better (in fact, remonter le moral in French, but  I don't know a better translation in English):

"Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe, the oftener and more steadily they are reflected on: the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me. " Immanuel Kant, Critique of Practical Reason (1788). 

Francesca, when "the moral law" essence within you suffers, look at the starry heavens! From this high viewpoint, you'll see how insignificant are all these liars and their petty lives, irrespective the social status! From a current, ground perspective, it is more difficult to acknowledge this.

With this new feeling of admiration for the starry heavens, you'll come across more opportunities to help, to make our planet a better place for all creatures.

By the way, now is the Time of the Perseids !

With my  kind regards,

Ruxandra

1. I guess my comments are more to do with the last two posts. First we must conceptualize what "truth" and "honesty" - in other words what is the baseline for behaviour - who decides it - who holds it - who validates it and who measures it - for example in the case of Heinz Dilemma

2.  caution must be exercised in suggestion capitalist > leading to deception - they are two different paradigms and should not be seen as one leading to the other - as they are two different concepts altogether

3. The concept of moral law - needs to be unpacked a bit more beyond personal experiences - in line with libertarianism, humanism and theo-centred  and I could say more about categorical imperatives and/or distributive principles.....

4. The last post seems limit "god" or "experience of religion" to a very individualistic personal idea and again caution must exercised i this - as it may be relevant to one individual - so cannot be generalized - and it important for us to know what we bring to our existential reality - and while we all need to aware of our bias and prejudice in relation and with regard to faith and tradition -  Judeo-Christian ethics provides an important framework for deceptive behaviours in and through culture, tradition and doctrine - yes, no doubt some may not like all aspects of faith or traditions or expressions but that does not warrant introduction of "realities such as powerful Goddess Mother Nature"

5. The questions here deals with three important constructs "deception",  and "culture  (sub-set language)" and "interpret/judge" (perhaps tools we use to recognise) - the task is how do we discriminate truthful (need to be more clearly conceptualized) text and what mechanism and tools are needed - this involves understanding a broader context of behaviour from a developmental lens through a psycho-social view for the context of behaviour -  in my own work I am faced with working within psychopathology to find language that can be used to discriminate and distinguish behaviours and the context thereof and it is very difficult and complex task as each stimuli, response and covert/overt behaviour have a complex multilayered purpose and functions  

Francesca Casani:

I echo your insights about capitalist culture. Also I would say that as often as outright deception, maybe more often, is the truth left unspoken. For example the movement of companies to overseas jurisdictions to avoid paying taxes or receive other perks or advantages, goes almost completely unnoticed and therefore little comment, although the effects from hollowing out an economy is substantial, leaving the victims to point fingers at each other, even justifying the dispatriots.

"Deception is fundamentally human"

That's right. But it is right, too, that human world will never function without confidence. If we don't trust in other people we are not able to do anything. So that's a crazy contradiction, that nobody can understand: Knowing that deception is everywhere we trust in other people every day. We have to. 

Even capitalism functions like that. Confidence is the soul of capitalism, deception is its body.

What interesting insights! I never imagined this conversation going towards the MOther Nature ultimate truth.

As far as trusting is concerned, it's not the first time that the concept of trust comes up in the context of being deceived. Interpersonal psychologists say that people tend to be biased towards truth (the infamous truth bias), but I have a suspicion that the degree of the truth bias may vary, perhaps more so outside of the North American context. In some cultures people are often warned to be suspicious of alternative motives, or being taken advantage of, etc.

I would argue the other way round.

Good, trustworthy and altruistic are fundamentally human.

And I would compensate for deception within view that - deception is only a small part of a bigger picture of human behavior intra-personal and interpersonal. For example: A person might rob, cheat or deceive a person to feed a member of their own biological family, this can also be extended - for example to a person that might deceive another agent/agency -  to protect, safeguard or gain something. While this is no excuse for deception - it is important to highlight that they are many more altruistic aspects with regard to human behavior than the mere act of deception (i.e. irrespective how bad it is) for example the same individual could be a good to their friends, loyal to their family, supportive of their sibling, has a good job ethics - this is quite accurate about many of high profile psychopathology cases I have worked with. The concept of never leaving a man down, or sharing the little we have or to help those in need - far exceed the criteria for deception or the need for it.

I would make the case that inherently all human beings are good and yet at times are caught by deception - due to motives, agendas and schemes sometimes individually driven and sometimes forced upon by or due to external factors.

Human being are primarily good and have a cognitive rationale - this is what makes us different from animals - where deception is not found but masked by predatory behaviors

The only argument we can really have - with regard to deception is to begin with the notion that all human being are good - if this is not the case - we will not have a baseline for any behaviour - and truth (i.e., justice) as such will NOT be found out - the concept of trying to investigate deception is based on the premise that - a certain behavior was not proper, perhaps unethical, illegal and immoral - based on the notion that there is a right way for this act or behavior and this is NO way of doing things - i.e., there is a good way or the right way or the proper way - which can come through absolutes or morality or faith or culture or tradition

I would also like to make the case that - capitalism as a construct within a economic paradigm is a valid and useful mechanisms but how an agent/agency comes to entact or uses  or abuses the construct of capitalism does not dismiss or diminish capitalistic concepts  - which are fundamentally based on principles of exchange and value for goods - so it constituents are ethical, moral and legal aspects in terms of governance, management, distribution - this is the very reason why we are able to angry when one agency does not share all of its profits with everyone - or hids facts about a product - so here the issue is not about capitalism - the issue is about moral, ethical and legal governance of agents/agencies - i.e. individuals and/or companies

In this sense - capitalism is the confidence is accurate - but deception as a body can be challenged based on the notion - not all who are involved in carrying out aspects of capitalism fall under this criteria or construct - some do and some practices are very bad and illlegal (but for me even to say bad or illegal I am assuming that there is good and legal way) - i.e. and this is only because we have the confidence in the system - we can say - this is not right or that this is deceptive.

The question that we must come back to is "how do we validate truth" - for example the "mother nature and ultimate truth" - have so many inherent meaning all the way from mythological understanding of pagan traditions from medieval times to post-modern and new age concepts - all the way to  intelligent design

The notion "...suspicion that the degree of truth bias may vary" - fundamentally has the concept that there is truth some place - perhaps explicit and accessable - that can be measured, quantified and generalized and this is where the argument and consensus vary

This is a very useful discussion - I am constantly having to address how to detect "deception" - and the tools needed to best to conceptualize to begin with.  

Cara Francesca,

Related to my last post, I have to clarify that I didn't set Heavens (Father) against the Earth (Mother Nature); instead, I focused on the perspective from Heavens, which is "from ABOVE", allowing us to watch in a detached manner what is going on on Earth, and to apprehend its wholeness (entireness). From that high point, we may also observe in a compassionate manner , due to more awareness about the moral law lying deeply in everyone of us (dr. J.-F. also wrote above: "Human being are primarily good").

If I think better, the Little Prince of Saint-Exupéry comes with this high perspective. And this short book is one of the most loved books on the planet, not only by so-called "intelligentsia", but also by children and their parents all over the world. Saint -Exupéry speaks { about } the Truth wonderfully, and so different souls resonate with this book !

To conclude, what I am suggesting you, Francesca, is a new perspective from which to look at things, in particular to those that trigger the pain in your heart, like deception, lies, and injustice; this perspective might be, physically speaking, from the starry heavens, and symbolically  "from above".  It works for me since teenage years. [ .... At present, I come across versions of it in some traditions, as well as in modern personal strategies: "get out of your story and watch it ! Become an observer and you'll see clearer!"  I would add: "get out, OK,  but choose an effective perspective !" ].

Auguri,

“It is the time you have spent for your rose that makes your rose so important.” The Little Prince

"I would argue the other way round.

Good, trustworthy and altruistic are fundamentally human.

And I would compensate for deception within view that - deception is only a small part of a bigger picture of human behavior intra-personal and interpersonal."

Dear Professor Klaus Schuricht,

Thank you for your recent post - so do you agree with the above view and do change your initial paradigm. Also, if you get a chance are you able to please email me via [email protected]

Regards

J-F

I think your arguments have a bias (you present a clear disposition to your stand, which is very questionable) toward certain religions and faiths – which is not beneficial to or all-encompassing with regard to explaining all of human behaviours – no two deities (false or true) or agent/agencies can advocate for one premise of love or charity – hence we have so many mired variations  - in terms of variations of agents and agencies – one must not be carried at their functionality or role – as they vary as per context, history and time and the role they play – what is essential in knowing – who started and how it spread – morality, law and ethics are universal based on this premise and not the other way around. Terms, symbols and language are mere discourse and meaningful in terms of their use and contexts but the challenge is to learn how these are used in deception and how to detect them

Not sure whether we are drifting from the main core idea here

Cara Francesca,

I think that I see your perspective and, in my way, I understand your reactions. I agree that "experiencing Nature is a necessary Step toward the Understanding of Reality".

Finally, a good perspective on Reality is, in my opinion, the one allowing the Person to watch in a detached and compassionate manner, without judgments. I refer to the Reality outside and inside each of us, or to the unique, deep, and vast Reality that we may apprehend when its two aspects melt and merge.

Taqqiya - An Tactic of Lying, Concealment.

Islamists interpret their scripture to say that they are allowed to lie about the nature of Islam in order to further their political goals.

http://www.clarionproject.org/understanding-islamism/taqqiya-tactic-lying-concealment

Francesca:

Lying is practiced by politicians to get votes and by persons in corporations to secure economic advantage but the Christian view (a higher and more difficult standard) doesn't give license for lying, in as much as Jesus said that Satan/the devil is the father of lies and seeks only to destroy, and that (only) the truth will set a person free (eventually); even the 10 Commandments says a person should not bear false witness. Yes there are different groups of people who lie for their own reasons. Ten years ahead of what? Some things have been/will always be true and never change.

This conversation has taken a path I never imagined it would. It is perhaps time to put this topic to rest. Thank you to all who contributed.

Instead of lying perhaps sometimes it is better not to tell the WHOLE truth. Maybe it is better to be kind rather than right...