Anyone who swears to “tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth” is promising not to commit lies of commission (making ”bald-faced lies”), lies of omissions (leaving out critical facts), or lies of influence (making deceptive statements designed to influence the listener’s judgments regarding truthfulness rather than providing a truthful response). Fact-checking services can be useful for identifying lies of commission but are less likely to identify lies of omission and lies of influence—we’ll help you learn to recognize those forms of deception.
Spy the lie, by former CIA agents Houston, Floyd, and Carcinero, provides some useful examples of deceptive answers people provide when they don’t want to tell the truth. Here are some examples, illustrated by recent answers to human rights questions that officials seem reluctant to answer honestly:
1.
A response that fails to answer the question—for example:
Question:
“Are children still being separated from their parents at the U.S. border?”
Deceptive
answer: “Our goal is always to
reunify children and teenagers with a relative or appropriate sponsor.”
2. Minimizing the level of concern warranted by an issue—for example,
Question: “What about all the negative reports concerning how the migrant children are being treated?”
Deceptive answer: “With
regard to family residential centers, the best way to describe them is more
like a summer camp.”
3. Going into attack mode—for example:
Question: Can you account for
the missing migrant children?
Deceptive answer: Unfortunately, some who ostensibly care about these children refuse to address why they are here: the loopholes in our immigration system. (emphasis added)
Your assignment: Watch for these forms of deception when viewing responses to challenging questions, while keeping in mind that honest people sometimes show one of these “symptoms of deception” without necessarily being liars. It’s the pattern, the repetition of deceptive statements, you want to watch out for.
Mohave Indians; Indians of North America; Military personnel. Around 1868. Author: Gardner, Alexander, 1821-1882 (photographer). In the public domain.
by Anthony J. Marsella
Let’s change October 11 to Indigenous Peoples’ Day!
In our Global Era, we need to move away from Euro-American domination–including domination of history and the historical record.
It’s time to look at that record honestly. Reminders of genocides, enslavement, exploitation, repression of identity, and destruction of cultures can lead to opportunities for understanding, respect, and justice.
Columbus’ voyage had monumental consequences for indigenous people.. Even now, in the Amazon, as well as in Alaska, Hawaii, and other parts of the USA indigenous people struggle for human rights denied them by colonial and imperialistic powers. Time for change! There must be place and privilege for all.
Anthony J. Marsella, Ph.D., ProfessorEmeritus, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii 96822
Republished, with light editing, from the Psychologists for Social Responsibility discussion group, 10-11-19.
Global Information Society Watch 2014 – Communications surveillance in the digital age. This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Author: Association for Progressive Communications (APC
by Alice LoCicero
Why do so many resources go into counter-terrorism programs that are bound to fail? Here it’s important to distinguish between research programs and community programs that are implemented to identify potential homegrown terrorists. While I think it’s unlikely, for many reasons, that researchers will be able to identify future terrorists anytime soon, well-intentioned people can reasonably disagree on that point. Research done ethically and openly (without deceit) may be justifiably funded.
But when it comes to implementing programs, such as the DHS sponsored Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) programs funded throughout the US and overseas, they
are not only based on deceit and junk science, they are also apt to be harmful
in several ways:
They increase bias.
They cause disruption
and harm in communities.
They blatantly
encourage providers such as teachers, doctors, and mental health professionals
to violate their professional ethics by spying on
their students, patients, and/or clients.
They target specific
communities based on demographic factors.
They encourage a
colonialist attitude, assuming that communities cannot help themselves, but
need mainstream professionals and authorities to design ways to assist them.
After reflecting on the deadly events in
Charlottesville, Christchurch, El Paso, Pittsburgh, and other places, many
Americans are starting to wonder why the government is spending so much of its
resources on spying on Muslim communities. They wonder if it would be better to
apply these funds to counter the rise of alt-right extremists. The answer is a
loud, “No” for all the reasons above.
The CVE type programs are in violation of
science, human rights, understanding of adolescent development, and the right
to explore thoughts and conversation without being criminalized.
Sometimes there’s more to see than what first meets the eye. Kathie MM, 2019
by Kathie MM
I have just published a richly detailed comment from LB, a frequent and valued contributor to the Engaging Peace [EP] comment section. She is concerned that a major subtext of EP posts is a subtle but deliberate promotion of the Democratic Party rather than “the perceived higher value of peace, social justice, and moral engagement.” Horrors!!! If LB has reached this conclusion after years of reading EP, others must have done so as well. So today I am publishing my reply to LB (and all others) as a full post. Please read her comment first ,
LB, the purpose of Engaging Peace is precisely the promotion of the higher values of peace and social justice, which I think requires moral engagement. I am horrified that you would reduce our efforts to trying to help elect Democrats. Aaaaack!
The motto for Engaging Peace is “From study to action,” which is shorthand for “From research and ethical considerations to activism on behalf of peace, social justice, and human rights.” We believe that despite the creation of vast destructive technologies threatening life on the planet today, not all science is evil, not all research is evil, and not all progress is evil. Some of what researchers have achieved can benefit all of humanity and not just the privileged classes. Such benefits can come not just from developing remarkable medical interventions and preventions to fight pain, disability, and premature, agonizing deaths, but also from recognizing and promoting the benefits and wisdom of behaving humanely with each other.
A genuine democracy, as conceived by those of us who believe in universal peace, social justice, and respect for human rights, seems like the political system with the most potential currently for the greatest good for the greatest number. However, in this country and most others throughout history, people have failed to achieve genuine democracies; mostly, let’s face it, the “democracies” primarily have served particular groups of privileged men.
Right now, our “democracy” seems pretty much a mess, a mess that is sliding rapidly into another brutal fascism. I think hand-wringing and opting out of any active effort to find ways to join with others to resist that slide is not a path to greater peace and social justice, and certainly does nothing to foster human rights.
From its beginning in 2010, EP has promoted engagement—engagement through demonstrations, resistance, protests, petitions, and yes, even through looking for and supporting like-thinking, peace-seeking individuals willing to engage in an imperfect political process to the point of seeking office. Such people are not totally nonexistent–and are not necessarily either Republican or Democrat.
To promote peace and justice and human rights, EP has spoken out on behalf of replacing a corrupt two-party system with a genuinely multiparty political system, and ending the Electoral College, which is a serious impediment to true democracy. In the past (hold onto your hat!), I have on occasion voted for and/or otherwise supported Republicans who I viewed as people of principle and integrity and not just mouthpieces of the military-industrial complex,. Today, it seems to me, most politicians of both parties serve the military-industrial complex and the power elite; however, I also see some advocates of resistance and positive social change emerging. How will they be able to fight the “old boys” (female as well as male) without support? How will things get better without active participation in any efforts undertaken to reform our system, however daunting that effort is.
I find fault with most members of both political parties because they have contributed to getting us into the mess we’re in. (I was enraged at the way the Democratic National Committee rigged the last primary.) I think it’s tragic that sometimes the only alternatives to truly horrendous political candidates are either the lesser of two evils or an opting out of what may be the last best chance for trying to make things better. Call me a naïve, cockeyed optimist trying to feel good about myself if you want, but please don’t assume my real goal, or the goal at EP, is the promotion of the Democratic Party.
Truly, you are correct that you and I share a general horror at the ruthlessness and corruption of the political system ruling our country (and most others in the world today), but that system is not what I call democracy and is not the democracy we are fighting for at EP. In my view, you and I are part of the same sisterhood with the same ideals, even if we have very different ideas about how to promote those ideals.
P.S. I was crazy about my biological sister, as she was about me, but we sure had a lot of differences between us in how we approached life.
