Lying. Information leakage and some other signs of deception

Eight years later, after Richard Nixon resigned as president, he denied that he sometimes openly lied, but admitted that, like other politicians, he was hiding something. This is necessary in order to win and keep his post, he said. “You cannot say everything that you think about this or that person, because you may need it one day ... you cannot express your opinion about world leaders, because you may have to deal with them in the future” ^{[11 ]} .
Nixon is not alone in his desire not to call silence about the truth a lie, especially when such silence can be justified ^[12] .
The Oxford English Dictionary says: “In modern usage, the word [lie] usually has a tinge of pronounced moral condemnation, and in a polite conversation, people try to avoid it, often replacing it with synonyms like“ deception ”and“ untruth ”that have a relatively neutral sound.” ^[13] .
It is easy to call an insincere person a liar if he is disgusting, but it is difficult to use this word in relation to a person who, despite his obvious deceit, likes you or causes admiration. Long before Watergate ^[14], Nixon, in relation to his Democratic opponents, so figuratively defined the meaning of the word "liar": "Would you buy a used car from such a person?", While Nixon's own ability to hide the truth and obviously lie was determined Republican fans as evidence of political ingenuity.
All of this, however, is not related to my definition of lies or deceit (I use these words as synonyms.) Many people (for example, those who lie unintentionally), although they say a lie, are not liars. A woman with paranoid mania, who claims that she is Mary Magdalene, is not a liar, although her statement is false. Unsuccessful advice to the client about the investment is not a lie if the consultant himself does not know the truth. Some people whose appearance makes a deceptive impression are not necessarily liars. A mantis, becoming like a blade of grass, lies no more than a man whose high forehead suggests that he is smarter than he really is ^[15] .
A lie may not have an excuse, or it may have it. A liar may not lie. Cheating - intentional action; the liar is always deceiving intentionally. And he can have justification only in his own eyes, and also in the opinion of society. A liar can be a good - and a bad person, pleasant - and unpleasant. But the person always chooses himself - to lie or tell the truth. And it completely distinguishes between lies and truth ^[16] .
Pathological deceivers who know that they are lying, but cannot control their behavior, are not the subject of my consideration. I also do not speak about people who themselves do not know that they are lying and who are called the victims of self-deception ^[17] .
Sometimes a liar himself can believe his own lies. In this case, he will not be considered a liar, and his deception, for reasons that I will explain in the next chapter, is much harder to uncover. An incident from the life of Mussolini shows how harmful it is sometimes to believe in your own lies: “... in 1938, the composition of the divisions of the [Italian] army was reduced from three regiments to two, which Mussolini liked because it gave him the opportunity to say that in his army sixty divisions, although in reality (by the number of personnel) there were only forty. These changes were the cause of the colossal disorganization of the army just before the outbreak of war. Besides, having forgotten about his innovation, several years later he tragically miscalculated the assessment of the real strength of his troops. Apparently, misleading other people, one should not deceive oneself after all ” ^[18] .
In determining lies, we must take into account not only the liar himself, but also the victim of deception. She does not ask to be misled, and the liar does not make any prior notification of her intention to commit fraud. It would be strange, for example, to call actors a liar. The public agrees to take their masks for true faces in advance - that is why it goes to the theater. Actors, unlike rogues, play their roles openly and with public approval. Also, the client will not follow the advice of a broker who says that he supplies them with convincing but inaccurate information. If Mary, a patient at a psychiatric clinic, warned the doctor that she would show feelings that she didn’t really feel, there would be no lies, as she would not have been if Hitler had warned Chamberlain not to hurt her trusted his promises.
I define a lie, or deceit, as an act by which one person misleads another, doing it intentionally, without prior notification of his goals and without clearly expressing on the part of the victim a request not to reveal the truth ^[19] .
There are two main forms of lies: silence and distortion ^[20] .
When kept silent, the liar hides the true information, but does not tell false. When distorted, a liar undertakes some additional actions - he not only hides the truth, but also provides false information in return, presenting it as true. Often, only a combination of silence and distortion leads to deception, but in some cases a liar can succeed and simply not tell the whole truth.
Not everyone considers silence a lie. Many people take for lies only a frank distortion of reality ^[21] .
For example, in cases where the doctor does not inform the patient that his illness is fatal, or the husband does not tell his wife that he spends his lunch hours at the motel with her best friend, or the policeman does not let the suspect know that he is talking to a lawyer tapped, no false information is transmitted. However, they all fall under my definition of lies. Here, the “deceived” do not ask to be misled and the “silent” act willfully, without prior notice of their intention to hide certain facts. Information is concealed intentionally, with intent, and not by chance. But there are exceptions - the silence cannot be called a lie, if there is a certain preliminary agreement on this matter. For example, in case the husband and wife agree to a free marriage, that is, the opportunity not to open their betrayal until you ask directly about this, the default about dating in a motel will not be a lie. Or if the patient asks the doctor in advance not to report bad news about his health, silence will not be a lie either. However, according to the law, the suspect has the right to confidential talk with a lawyer, and the silence about the violation of this right is in any case a lie.
Often, if it is possible to choose the form of a lie, cheaters prefer default. It is more profitable. Yes, it is usually easier to remain silent than to obviously deceive, since for this you don’t have to do anything, while with distortion without a well-designed “legend” there is always a chance to be caught. Abraham Lincoln said that he doesn’t have a good enough memory to lie. If the doctor is deceiving the patient in order to conceal the death of the latter’s illness, he must very well remember everything he said to that effect, so as not to contradict a few days later.
The silence is also preferred because it is less reprehensible than distortion. It is passive, not active. Moreover, although both can equally harm the victim of deception, the guilt felt by a liar in the case of silence is much less ^[22] .
A liar can reassure himself with the thought that the victim is aware of the deception and simply does not want to face it. He may think, for example, like this: “My wife must know that I am cheating on her, because she never asks me about where I am disappearing in the evenings. I’m not deceiving her, but just being careful because of my kindness to her. I prefer not to humiliate her and do not force her to know about my infidels. ”
In addition, silence is always easier to justify in case of disclosure of the truth. The deceiver can say that he did not know anything, or forgot, or intended to open himself later, etc. When a person, after taking an oath, begins his testimony with the words "If my memory serves me ...", he thereby provides himself with a loophole for the excuse: suddenly it turns out that he didn’t say anything. In this case, there is no need to constantly remember what was invented, deliberately keeping to the edge between distortion and the concealment of truth (what happens when a liar can no longer just say nothing; the question is asked - the challenge is thrown). Referring to forgetfulness, it is possible to avoid the need to remember the made-up story altogether; you just have to remember your bad memory. And if the truth suddenly comes out, the liar will always be able to declare that he was not going to deceive anyone, the memory failed him.
Events related to the Watergate affair, for which President Nixon lost his post, perfectly illustrate the use of the strategy of "forgetfulness." At first, as the evidence of involvement in this case became more and more, presidential aides G.R. were forced to resign. Haldeman and J. Erlihman. The pressure on the Nixon continued to grow, and Alexander Haig took the place of Haldemann. “Less than a month has passed since Haig returned to the White House, and already on June 4, 1973, he and Nixon discussed a possible response to serious accusations made against President John Dean, a former White House adviser. In the tape recording of their conversation, which became known through an impeachment investigation, Haig suggested that Nixon refer to the impossibility of recalling all the details and thus getting out of the situation ” ^[23] .
However, it is not always possible to refer to “forgetfulness”. A doctor who is asked about the test results cannot refer to the fact that he does not remember them, as well as the police officer, when the defendant asks if there are any listening devices in the room. We can refer to forgetfulness only in insignificant deeds or in relation to events that occurred a long time ago. In the case of, for example, extraordinary events, about which people usually remember all their life, there can be no question of any excuses for forgetfulness.
But the liar loses the opportunity to confine himself to silence in the event that the victim of fraud challenges him. For example, if a wife asks her husband why he can’t find him at all during lunch, he is forced to keep his affair a secret, to lie in secret. Of course, even the most common question: "How was your day?" Already implies a request for the communication of any information. However, the husband may mention other matters and continue to remain silent about the meeting until the question directly raised compels him to choose between truth and falsehood.
In some cases, you have to lie from the very beginning, since silence alone is not enough. Mary, a patient at a psychiatric clinic, not only had to hide her despair and suicide plan, but also feigned well-being, as well as a desire to spend the weekend with her family. When applying for a job, a simple default is also not enough if there is a need to mislead the administration regarding its previous experience in the proposed specialty. In addition to the need to hide inexperience, it is also necessary to fabricate a suitable track record. In order to avoid a boring party, without offending the owners, it is undesirable to refer to the fact that you prefer the evening spent at home at the TV, it is better to invent some plausible excuse like an urgent and important business meeting, problems with a nanny who cannot stay with kids, or anything like that.
The need to resort to a direct distortion of reality may also arise in the event that a liar is clearly caught in the fact that he is holding back something. Such deception is especially necessary when concealing emotions. And if a fleeting feeling is easy to hide, then with emotions surging suddenly, especially if they are strong enough, the situation is much more complicated. In addition, horror is more difficult to hide than anxiety, and anger is more difficult than annoyance. The stronger the feeling, the greater the likelihood that some of its signs may appear, despite all attempts to hide it. One of the ways to hide experienced feelings is to imitate emotions that are not really experienced. And sometimes such an imitation really helps to hide the true feelings.
A scene from John Updike's “Let's Get Married” novel is an excellent illustration of this and many other phenomena I have described. Husband accidentally heard Ruth talk with her lover. According to the plot of the novel before this episode, Ruth was allowed to hide her betrayal, not to tell lies, but now, in response to a direct question from her husband, she has to lie; the purpose of her lie is to hide her treason from her husband. In addition, this example clearly shows how emotions are naturally intertwined into deception and how they increase the difficulty of hiding the truth.
“Jerry [Ruth's husband] scared her by hearing a part of their telephone conversation with Dick [her lover]. She thought he was sweeping the backyard. And he suddenly appeared from the kitchen and asked:
- Who is this called? Panic swept over her.
- Yes, so, nonsense. One Sunday school woman asked if we were going to record Joanna and Charlie. ” ^[24]
Panic in itself is not proof of a lie, but if Jerry noticed her, then Ruth might be suspicious; if she had nothing to hide, she would not panic. At the same time, a person who is not guilty of anything, being at the interrogation, may be frightened; therefore, investigators often do not pay attention to such reactions. Ruth was in a difficult position; she had to lie unexpectedly, without preparation. Caught in a quandary, she, frightened by exposure, fell into a panic that was hard to hide, which increased Jerry’s chances of catching her word. The only thing she could do now was to admit her feelings, since she still could not hide them, but lie in what was the true cause of the feelings. She could admit that she would be frightened, but she was frightened that Jerry would not believe her, and not because she had something to hide. It would not have worked if there had not been similar incidents previously; and since Jerry had repeatedly expressed doubts about the truthfulness of Ruth (which was refuted by subsequent events), the mere mention of his earlier unsuccessful accusations could avert his suspicions now.
Probably Ruth would not have been able to mislead her husband if she tried to give her face the cold and passionless expression of a gambler. After all, if you want to hide that your hands are shaking, it is better to cross them or squeeze them into fists, but just do not leave them lying in plain sight; and in the same way, it is very difficult to keep your face calm while your lips are tightened, and your eyelids and eyebrows wince from fright. To hide these involuntary movements, it is better to just start to grit your teeth, bite your lips, nazvlivat eyebrows or throw angry views.
The best way to hide strong emotions is a mask. But if you cover your face or part of it with your hand or turn away from your interlocutor, this most likely will not eliminate the need to lie. The best mask is fake emotion. She is not only misleading, but also perfectly disguises true feelings. For a person overwhelmed with emotions, it is incredibly difficult to keep his face serene, and his hands immobile. When emotions take over, it is hardest of all to look insensitive, calm or indifferent. It is better to choose a tactic that allows you to stop or hide involuntary actions caused by feelings experienced.
A moment later, Jerry tells Ruth that he does not believe her. After such words, her panic could become so strong that it would be impossible to hide it. To disguise her, she might try to portray anger, amazement, surprise; could get mad at Jerry for not believing her and sticking his nose in his own affairs; might have wondered at his distrust or wondered if he was listening in on her telephone conversations.
But not every situation allows a liar to replace one emotion with another. In some cases, it is required to solve a more complicated task - to hide emotions altogether. Ezer Weizman, a former Israeli defense minister, described such a difficult situation. After the dramatic visit of Anwar Sadat to Jerusalem, the military delegations of Egypt and Israel made an attempt to enter into negotiations. Mohammed al-Jamasi, head of the Egyptian delegation, told Weizman during the meeting that he knew that Israel was building new settlements in Sinai. Weizman understood that this could disrupt the negotiations, since the question of whether Israel could keep the existing settlements was still a matter of discussion.
“I was offended, although I could not give way to my anger. While we were discussing security guarantees here, slowly pushing the carriage of the world forward, my colleagues in Jerusalem, instead of worrying about the legality of existing settlements, lay another one, and just at that moment when there was progress in the negotiations ” ^[25] .
Weizman could not show that he was angry with his Jerusalem colleagues, despite the fact that they acted without consulting him.He was obliged to hide the feelings that he experienced without using other emotions as a mask. He could not look happy, scared, distressed, surprised or outraged. He could only look attentive, but impassive, not showing that the information provided by Jamasi could have any consequences. Unfortunately, there is no hint in his book whether he has succeeded in this.
During the game of poker, you also can not substitute one emotion for another. A player who has received great cards and is excited by the prospect of a big bank, must hide any signs of his excitement from other players. Disguising a genuine experience with any other emotion is dangerous. If he tries to pretend to be disappointed or annoyed, the partners will think that he has drawn out the bad cards and will expect him to throw them off and not remain in the game; therefore, he must have an impassive, expressionless face. But if he needs to hide his disappointment or dissatisfaction with a bad bribe, he can use a mask by bluffing and trying to get partners to fold. Having depicted joy or excitement, a player can hide his disappointment and create the impression that he has a good card in his hand. He may be believedespecially if they are considered a newcomer; experienced poker players are supposed to be perfectly skilled at hiding any emotions about the game^[26] .
(By the way, deception when playing poker - silence or bluff - does not fall within my definition of a lie. No one expects a poker player to open his cards. The rules of the game themselves assume that players will try to mislead each other.)
Any emotion can be used as a mask. Most often, a smile is used for this, which is the opposite of all negative emotions: fear, anger, grief, indignation, and the like. A smile is also preferred because, thanks to a happy expression, it is much easier to cheat. A frustrated employee smiles so that the boss does not think that he is offended that he has been bypassed with a promotion. Cruel buddy, expressing his critical remarks with a smile on his face, may look like a well-wisher.
Another reason why a smile is so often used as a mask is because it is part of the traditional greeting. When meeting, as a rule, try not to talk about the failures and troubles. On the contrary, it is assumed that the question: “How are you?”, The person, despite the actual state of affairs, with a polite smile will answer: “Thank you, good. Do you? ”Perhaps true feelings are not found, not because a smile is an excellent disguise, but because during a polite exchange of greetings, people actually rarely take interest in how a person feels in reality. This is just a simple courtesy, the desire to be pleasant. Such smiles are rarely noticed. People are used to not paying attention to a lie in a polite exchange of greetings. However, this is another questionwhether such behavior is a lie, since the rules of politeness themselves imply that genuine emotions should not be shown.
Another reason for the popularity of a smile is that it is the most naturally occurring facial expression. Even babies can smile. This is one of the simplest expressions used by a child specifically to express the pleasure of communicating with other people. And sometimes the so-called social smile almost never leaves the face. However, there may be oversights: too fast or, conversely, too long-drawn smile. In addition, a smile may be premature or late. But in any case, "make" a smile is easy enough, much easier than any other facial expression.
But the deliberate image of negative emotions for most people is difficult. Thanks to the research, it was possible to establish (see Chapter 4 "Mimic signs of deception") that most people cannot intentionally cause contraction of certain muscles of the face to reliably imitate grief or fear. It is a little easier to portray anger and disgust, but even in this case, falsehood is most often seen. Thus, if for a successful lie it is preferable to depict negative emotions, rather than a smile, difficulties may arise. But there are exceptions: for example, Hitler, being a great actor, easily and convincingly imitated negative emotions. At the meeting with the British ambassador, Hitler looked absolutely furious, making it clear that he was no longer able to discuss anything else. But a German official who was present at this scene wrote:“However, as soon as the door slammed behind the ambassador, Hitler slapped himself on the hips, laughed and said:“ Chamberlain will not survive this; this evening his office will collapse^[27] .
In addition to the two main forms of lies: silence and distortion, there are many varieties of lies. I already talked about one of them when discussing a case taken from John Upday's novel Let's Get Married, in which Ruth would have been able to hide the deception, despite the panic that gripped her. Instead of trying to hide her fear, which was pretty hard to do, Ruth could have confessed her feelings, but thought up another reason for them. She could have said that she was absolutely innocent and was only afraid that they would not believe her. If the psychiatrist asked Mary why she looks a little worried, she could also admit that she was really worried, but hide the real reason for her excitement, saying, for example: "I really want to go home to my family." Being truthful in her emotion, she would lie only about the reason that caused her.
There is another kind of deception - to speak the truth in such a way that it cannot be believed. This can be defined as a message of truth in the form of deception. When Jerry asked Ruth with whom she spoke on the phone, she could answer this way: “Oh, I talked to my lover, he calls me every hour. Since we make love to him three times a day, we need to be in constant contact in order to arrange meetings. ” Such an exaggeration of the truth would have threatened to finally make Jerry a mockery in the event of further clarification. A mocking intonation or facial expression may also contribute to deception.
Another example of presenting the truth in the form of deception is shown in a film based on the book by Robert Daily “Prince of the City. The true story of a policeman who knew too much. " As you can see from the subtitle, this is a real occurrence, not a fantasy. His hero, Robert Lacy, is a policeman who became the undercover informant of the federal prosecutor with the aim of obtaining evidence of a criminal relationship between the police, lawyers, bailiffs on the one hand, and drug dealers and the mafia on the other. He obtained most of the evidence with a tape recorder hidden under his clothes. But he was suspected of being a secret informant. And if they had found the recorder, he could hardly have escaped. I will bring here a fragment of a conversation between Lacy and De Stefano, one of the criminals:
“- Let's not sit down next to the jukebox today, otherwise my last recording was shitty.
“This is not funny,” said De Stefano.
Lacy began to boast that he was really working for the government, just like a barmaid scurrying around the hall, with a radio transmitter being shoved into ...
Everyone laughed around, only De Stefano’s laughter was dry ” ^[28] .
Lacey put a ridicule on De Stefano, impudently telling him the truth: he really couldn't make a quality recording near the jukebox and really worked for the government. Openly admitting it, and even dragging a waitress here with a microphone allegedly hidden under a skirt or in a bra, Lacy achieved that De Stefano’s further suspicions made the latter a complete idiot.
Also close to giving the truth in the form of deception is half-truth. In this case, the truth is not fully said, does not agree. The understatement or avoiding a conversation on an exciting topic allows one to deceive, in general, without resorting to any particular lie. Soon after the scene I mentioned from the Updike “Let's Get Married” novel, Jerry, already lying with Ruth in bed and clinging to her, asked who she loved.
“I love you,” she said, “and all the pigeons on this tree, and all the dogs in the city, except those that rummage in our garbage cans, and all the cats, besides that, from which our Lula became pregnant.” And I also love lifeguards on the beach and policemen in the city - besides, who scolded me for not having turned the car around, and I love some of our terrible friends, especially when I drink ...
- And how do you feel about Dick Mathias? [Dick is Ruth's lover.]
“He doesn't care for me.” ^[29]
Another opportunity to lie, not to say lies, is a confusing dodge. This is what an amusing method was offered by one newspaper columnist to resolve an old, dental problem - what to say to a friend who asks you to rate your latest opus, which you really don’t like. Imagine: you are at the opening of your friend's exhibition. His works seemed terrible to you, however, before you managed to slip away, a friend ran up to you and asked for your opinion. “Jerry,” you say (suppose the artist's name is Jerry), looking intently into his eyes and as if exhausted from an excess of emotion, “Jerry, Jerry, Jerry.” Embrace him, look into his eyes. Ten out of ten, that Jerry will eventually break out of your arms and, having humbled something modestly, will run away ... Options are possible.Try the sublime intonation of a sophisticated art historian calling for invisible witnesses: “Jerry.Jer-ri . Well, what can I say? .. "Or a more deceptive low tone:" Jerry, I have no words ... "Or something ironic:" Jerry ... Everything is all around and talk about it ... " ^[30] .
The advantage of this trick over half-truths and the presentation of truth in the form of deception is that the liar here does not need to tell any lie at all. However, I consider this a lie, as there is a deliberate attempt to mislead without prior notice.
Any of these frauds can be detected due to some points in the behavior of the liar. There are two types of signs of deception - an error can reveal the truth, and can only suggest that you are lying, but the truth will remain undisclosed. When a liar inadvertently gives himself away, I call itinformation leakage . When a liar betrays his behavior, but the truth is not revealed, I call it information about the presence of deception . If the attending physician had noticed that Mary squeezes her hands, speaking of her well-being, he would have reason to suspect her of lying. But he could not know what exactly the patient feels; Mary could be angry at the hospital, disgusted with herself, or fear the future. Her true feelings could be discovered through facial expression, intonation, reservations, or certain gestures.
Information about the presence of deception gives an answer only to the question of whether a person is lying or not, but does not reveal the truth. Truth can only be discovered through information leaks. However, often the question whether a person is lying or not is more important than the question of what exactly he is hiding, and for this there is enough information about the presence of deception and there is no particular need for information leakage. The truth, if necessary, can be found in some other way. If the employer, when applying for a job, notices that the candidate is not telling the truth, this may be quite enough for refusal, and it is not so important for him to know what the applicant is hiding from him.
But this is not always enough. Sometimes it is necessary to know exactly what is hidden. The discovery of the fact that an employee who was trusted to spend public money may not be enough. Information about the presence of deception may suggest that the employee is lying; this, in turn, may allow him to ask a direct question and achieve recognition. However, even if the incident is settled, the employee is dismissed and the inquiry is completed, the supervisor can continue to search for the full truth; he may be interested in the question of exactly how the employee committed the theft and what he did with the assigned money. If Chamberlain had noticed any signs of deception, he could understand that Hitler was lying; however, in that situation it would also be useful to find out the real plans of Hitler.
Sometimes a leak of information provides only part of the truth that the victim of the deception would like to know; it gives out more than just information about the presence of deception, but does not reveal the completely concealed. Let's return to the episode from the novel Let's Get Married. Jerry suddenly heard Ruth's phone conversation with her lover. When Jerry asked her about it, Ruth could give out something of a panic, for example, her lips could tremble. This could indicate that she was lying. However, this information about the presence of deception did not help Jerry to discover either what was behind the lie, or who she was talking to. However, something he still caught:
“- ... It's all about your intonation.
- Is that so? And what was my intonation? - She wanted to giggle. He was looking somewhere in space, as if he was solving a certain problem. He looked tired, youthful and skinny. His hair was cut too short.
“Not like always,” he said. - More warm. It was the voice of a woman.
“But I am a woman.”
“When you talk to me,” he said, “you have a very girlish voice.” ^[31]. Such a voice is not spoken with the teachers of the Sunday school, but it is quite appropriate to talk with her lover. The tone of her voice clearly testified to adultery, but did not allow to learn anything more. Neither how long this relationship has been going on, nor who is a happy rival. However, the tone of her voice gave out much more than can be learned only thanks to information about the presence of deception, which merely suggests lies.
I have defined falsehood as an act by which one person misleads another, doing it intentionally, without prior notification of their goals and without clearly expressing on the part of the victim a request not to reveal the truth. There are two basic forms of lies.: default (concealment of truth) and distortion (reporting false information). There are more types of lies , such as: hiding the true cause of emotion; the message of truth in the form of deception; half-truth and confusing dodge. And finally, there are two types of signs of deception : information leakage (a liar inadvertently gives himself out) and information on the presence of deception (the behavior of a liar reveals only what he says is not true).
Information leakage and information about the presence of fraud are errors. But mistakes do not always happen; sometimes a liar behaves impeccably. In the next chapter we will talk about why liars still sometimes make mistakes and deception fails.