All the World is a lie

Should I be the cause of a car accident I am required to lie and not admit to being the cause of the accident otherwise my car insurance will be repudiated. I know I caused the accident but cannot say so. The injured party/ies may protest and may clearly elucidate the sequence of events but I am not allowed to agree with them. Obviously I understand that in all the pent up emotions at that moment of an accident my perspective on the events may be distorted. Clearly unscrupulous 'victims' may seek to take advantage of that vulnerability and push events to demonstrate their 'innocence' to their insurance companies advantage. So yes there are grey areas  and we need to be on guard against free admissions where there might be elements of doubt. But not to the point of requiring me to institutionally lie against the plain evidence. When the sequence of events, the facts of the case, are clear to all and witnesses, when does a no comment become a lie. It is a lie if you know the true cause but choose, or are required, not to admit it.

We see time after time, exemplary investigations into corporate failings of one ilk or another, be it meat not as described, irresponsible lending to clearly insolvent clients, to plain manufacturing defects or flawed materials or staff failing to provide the level of care required, and the institution at the centre, twist and turns, shifts focus, counter claims against another party, anything other than admit they failed to act in a timely fashion. In this litigious world we now live in any slight admission will be the staring pistol for a host of damage claims, real, exaggerated to the pure fanciful. All of which would have to be defended at considerable cost even should not guilty as charged be the final outcome. Any admission, no matter how slight, inflames the counter case, hinders the assembly of a not guilty argument. No wonder companies are loath to admit. The end result, the victims, those who suffered as a consequence of bad decision made by others, are left without restitution, with the stigma of blame left in their laps, unable to overcome the mountainous costs of initiating actions against well-heeled corporates. Corporates who can afford to weather the storm of claims, knowing few can succeed against them and that time with eventually erase any suspicion's, so long as they do not concede to any failings. Despite all the clear unambiguous contrary evidence. Dissemble, misdirect, be economical with the truth, even bare faced lie rather than agree to the truth. Company policy.

Our elected representatives, appointed to promote our well-being are now schooled in the craft of avoiding answering direct questions. Anything that might give rise to concerns, or might put in doubt past decisions, that may give an opponent a free scoring point, might upset an important voting or funding cadre, anything that does not have a positive upbeat outturn is to be side-stepped. Far better to answer your own question you are comfortable in answering than answer the actual question posed that might lead you into troubled waters. Of course the baying pack of hyena media is there snapping at your heels just waiting for that  gaff. Any gaff, ill at ease posture or unfortunate turn of phrase, waiting to maximise and ridicule to their waiting audience. Never admit to any mistake, no matter how small as it will be turned into defacto incompetence of government, leadership, policy flaw, loss of voter confidence, anything that may help mud stick. When you speak as an MP the credulity of your party is on the line, so keep to safe issues which will have a favourable reception. Never mind what you actually think, did or did not do. Keeping voters loyal is far more important than esoteric concerns such as honesty or truth.

Our past choices make the Society we now live in. Nothing is immutable, we can change what we have chosen, we can choose to go in different directions from now on. Language is so clear, yet so fickle. The words I speak, or write, will resonate differently to each one of you. You will each form your own unique interpretation of my words. The words are the same, but being unique individuals with our past we bring our own different levels in meaning, experience and judgements to the self same words. What each of us does have to do is seek to choose those words which are as close to the truth, the essence, of what you want to say as you can. The more serious the subject area the more rigorous we have to be. We cannot afford the dashed off but instantly regretted Text or EMail. The recipients reaction to a careless choice of phrase cannot be brushed aside with an oophs, the damage can be lasting, tainting the relationship well into the future. We owe it to each other to be as truthful as we possibly can with each other. I don't buy the white lie, (see also my It is not important) the truth will out, eventually, meanwhile you live in a sham, concealing, obscuring your true thoughts, (see also News Propaganda). No one will ever know? Do you believe that you too are so inept at reading people that you could be fooled?

We live in a matrix society, having to deal with a wide range of peoples from all sort of alien, to us, backgrounds. If you can no longer trust anyone to speak the truth, to be honest, just how are you going to negotiate your way in this Society? Truth is the core trust that binds our Society together. Trust in the truth is what empowers us to make contracts with all those strangers we daily encounter. The next time you witness a Politician, a Company Executive evading giving a direct answer or you are required to agree to lie, pause and ask yourself, "Is this the Society I want to live in?"  
Answer truthfully.

Learn Circumspection

Once facts were immutable, cast in stone. You referred to your trusted fonts of wisdom, be it textbook, encyclopaedia, reference manual or even your grandpa. That was it, the word as it was, beyond any question. Not any more. We are the lucky generation that has been freed from the formalised, ritualised and so often discipline restricted access to precious information. Digitally we have the freedom to access all the world's knowledge almost within our ken. Except we are in overload, we are all at sea in an information morass. Dip your hand in and let all the gems of information trickle through your fingers until one of two tasty or more interesting bits stick out. Then share those bits with the wider world adding to this ever growing morass of information. Very much of this information is just that regurgitated, a few words added there, maybe a spin adjusted here and viola a new author claiming ownership of a unique piece of information.

Not all the information in this morass is bad, there are many pearls, nuggets of wisdom, insightful, understandings that you could hug to your heart they are so insightful, so relevant, so mind expanding. Trouble is these precious nuggets get so easily lost in the morass or so quickly overlaidened with dross. We, the so lucky ones to have the access to it, we now have to train ourselves about how to use this deluge of information. There are a few simple disciplines we must train ourselves to follow when dipping in our toes.

The very first question to ask when presented with any information is what is their authority to speak on the subject, be it proven experience, acknowledged authority, sanctioned spokeperson, lead researcher to gifted paraphraser? Know and understand the source of their authority and therefore their limitations to speak to the subject.

The second question is ask yourself what is not being said. We all talk to agendas, we have information to relay and do not want to sidetrack or confuse that message with stray aside issues, irrelevances that do not reinforce the central message. We all do it, some open handedly striving to be objective some deliberately setting out to obfuscate and some are so partisan they can only see down their narrow tunnelled vision agenda. So the what is not said is almost as important, possible more important than what is being said. We have to use our life skills to wrinkle out what are the corollary issues that have not been touched on.

Thirdly where is the opposition, the alternative contradictory opinion? Their arguments against the pro position are just as revealing as the pro position itself. Again it is our life skills that will enable us to weigh up in our minds the strength of their case against the information we want to trust. Our personal skills are in balancing contradictory positions and then coming to a measured view.

Then finally the weight of probability, how many other minds just like yours have bought into the information. Numbers do not make it right trustworthy information but you can build in a measure of credence. To follow a one in a thousand line of information is a lot riskier than a one in five. Does not confirm or deny but you do have a perception of how much risk is at stake so you can balance that with your reliance on it and the cost of any outcome when using it.

Hey that is all very long winded, drawn out and all I want was the date of the Inquest. Make this your discipline, your routine, have it in mind for all information presented to you whether from the government, insurance company, a comparison website to Wikipedia. The extent that you articulate, check and observe each step is only relevant when the cost of using that information begins to bite hard. Date of the inquest? I'll run with Wikipedia.
What is the cheapest car insurance? I wont be taking a comparison sites word for it, I will certainly be looking around. Which career to take up then I might explore my options spread over several days. You see we have been doing it all along but with so much more information on live stream we need to learn to be more circumspect.

 

News Propoganda

It worries me more than just a little that months after the event, having absorbed all the various media reports on an event and having formed a considered opinion about the course and substance of those events from the media reports, drip by drip a more truthful account appears. All the warty misjudgements come to light, changing entirely the summation of cause and justification. Need for secrecy or National interest or delicate negotiations could be derailed, or some such are rolled out as justification as to why the public should be mislead, misinformed at the time.

By my reckoning, to set out to mislead, misdirect, to encourage a false assumption to be arrived at, is tantamount to lying. I know by the strict definition it is not a lie. But to set out to leave a person with a wrong impression and not to take steps to limit or correct that false impression, an impression that you are fully aware will be formed from the limited and coached words you have used to convey the information, is a lie. What can be worse for a country than to be routinely lied to by their leaders? Nothing destroys trust or being prepared to over look an occasional transgression faster and more completely, than being lied to.

We are told that it is an essential and inescapable facet of modern life. Inorder to complete complicated and delicate negotiations and to arrive at a solutions which best benefits out Nation it is unavoidable. The Nation cannot be told the whole truth at the time, it might costs lives, we might lose an important deal, our competitors will gain a commercial advantage, our enemy will be forewarned as to our moves and have time to thwart them or any number of other very persuasive and compelling reasons. Except we are left with this sour taste in our mouths, we are being lied to by our leaders.

In a wheely dealy commercial world, getting one over your adversary, is the name of the game, it kind of makes sense and certainly has become the daily yardstick of judgement. Except this is not how I want to be ranked, I really do not want the esteem I am held in to be based on how clever I have been to outsmart, out bluff, out perform in some brinkmanship game, how I managed to beat a weaker opponent down by a couple of points. These are not the principles of my life and certainly not for the country I want to stand proud of and promote.

There really is an alternative manner to conduct our everyday lives. It harks back to the old professional qualities we, as English, used to be world renowned for. Honesty, integrity, men of their word who would rather stand by their word than break it just make a deal or win a profit. Being prepared to set aside robust codes of conduct for a short-term goal can only have one conclusion. Sacrificing decency inorder curry favour with an evil dictator so to bolster your position against a mutual 'enemy' can only have one inevitable conclusion. The evil dictator will only gain strength from your support and in the end you will be mired and what is even worse, your own standards will become corrupted, by association. The short-terms gains are never worth it. A sales deal stolen at the last minute from a competitor, by nefarious, means will not win long term support or loyalty of your customer, that in the long-term you need to survive. Better by far to win a contract straight on quality, delivery and service even if you 'lose' out to competitors who are prepared to cut more corners than just a discount price. In a dog eat dog world, we should all learn to eat dog? No of course not, better to live a poorer life but proud of your standards than to root in the gutter. Not a universally supported position but without doubt the only position that has any long-term prospect for trust and growth.

So lets start here and now, no more lying, no more concealing to the public on any issue by our political leaders. Tell the public and the rest of the world exactly how it is. Accept that we might lose ground to rival Nations in the short-term but our stature in the longer lasting term will be so much greater and at least we will be able to live with each other in trust and respect.