Death Wish: A fictional short-short story

On the Word, "Honesty"

Honest Obituaries, LLC: A fictional short-short story

If We All Had a Lie Detector: A thought experiment

FAKE!: Much more than news is fake

Charles Hugh Smith is a widely followed observer of society. His blog, Of Two Minds, has had 20 million views.  I was particularly stimulated by his article yesterday: It's Not Just the News That's Fake--Everything's Fake.

My Psychology Today article today lists a few examples of his plus some of my own.

A Plea for Integrity

The Case for Job Seekers Practicing Radical Honesty

There's understandable temptation for job seekers to stretch the truth in their resume and interviews. But in my PsychologyToday.com article, I argue that not only is that unethical, it's likely to backfire. HERE is the link.

An Ode to Discipline

Discipline, duty, efficiency, restraint, hard work, soberness.  

We wave away such words as puritanical anachronisms, out of touch with newer values: find your passion, do what feels good, life's short; eat dessert first! And the "progress" accelerates:

• State-sanctioned lotteries and casinos have burgeoned despite their predominantly hurting the poor, who can least afford to lose. The ultimate in regressive taxation.

• Two-thirds(!) of workers take sick days when not sick.  Twelve percent said they took sick days just to watch March Madness! That's so societally accepted that corporations aren't embarrassed to push their recreational product by telling people to take a sick day. For example, the ad below was sponsored by a consortium of Tahoe hotels and casinos, the one below it by the Weather Network.
  
  
    
  The cheat-if-you-can ethos is yet one more reason  employers hire as few people and automate as many positions as possible.

• Worst of all has been the increased use of mind- and body-damaging drugs. And now, a majority of Americans favor legalizing pot while almost no one (I'm an exception) advocates banning tobacco or even alcohol. They have long devastated humankind but adding wide use of pot, coke, heroin, meth, and party drugs I can't even name, would cause enormous additional damage to health (disease and traffic accidents,) to families, to workplaces. I have written an essay providing a mountain of evidence that legalizing "mere" pot is a nightmare for America. I challenge you to make a stronger counterargument.

We now have a half-century of experience with Stones/Dylan/Beatles/Grateful Dead-inspired libertinism, the permissive society. Are we so sure the permissive ethos has been a net good? For example, while of course, some young people have an excellent work ethic, millions of others will accept only a fine or slacker job, or make minimal effort to find any job, and instead hang out on their parents' sofa and play video games or watch soap operas, perhaps getting high. Their parents and especially their grandparents don't begin to understand such a lack of work ethic and neither can I.

The world would be far better if we all accepted that hard, honest work is not an option but a societal, even cosmic, duty--even if the job is far from ideal. True, there are no longer enough good jobs to go around but there are enough acceptable jobs for all but the weakest employees. And yes, a job as dishwasher, factory worker, sewage-treatment plant worker, or hotel cleaner is--with a reasonable employer--an acceptable job. It seems cosmically wrong for able-bodied people to reject low-level work in favor of letting a family member or the taxpayer pay them for not working.

Lest you wonder if I practice what I preach, no I never worked in a sewage-treatment plant but I was a bookkeeping clerk with a shared desk in Harlem, for two years worked the night shift as a New York City cab driver and, to this day, at almost 64 years old, work 60+ hours a week, at least half of which for no pay. For example, this is my 1,244th blog post, all carefully written and edited. I just finished editing it after midnight.

Yet some people would rather let the taxpayer support them  for 99 weeks than accept a mediocre job. I think little of such people.  

As magnificent as is Beethoven's Ode to Joy, I believe that at this stage in society's evolution, we might do better to listen to an Ode to Discipline.

Whom Should You Trust?

When should you trust someone? Is the answer more nuanced than "Trust Allah but tie your camel tight?"

In determining whom to trust and in what circumstances, you might want to keep tabs on at least the key people in your life:

• How often does that person say something not in his self-interest, even though he wouldn't be caught? For example, "Mary, this wasn't your fault. The data I gave you was incorrect." The greater the price the person pays for his inexpedient honesty, the more you can trust him the next time.
  

• How accurate have his promises been? For example, "I'll call you tomorrow," "I'll have it done by Monday," or "I'll get you a raise soon." It doesn't really matter if the person miscalculated or is lying. What counts as you decide whether to trust her next promise is: How well has she kept previous promises? How accurate have her predictions been--whether on the company's future, the quality of a product, whether she really will stay with you even if you lost your job, etc?
  

Alas, as mutual fund prospectuses always tell us, past results don't perfectly predict future performance but we can up our odds by becoming a human lie detector. Law enforcement interrogators have learned techniques to assess the veracity of a person's statements:

• Watch the eyes and forehead. Most good liars and exaggerators have long learned to control the obvious signs of lying: pursed lips, crossed arms, etc. It's harder to control the eyes and forehead. So watch a person's eyes when he's saying something that's unquestionably factual. Then, when he's saying the in-question statement, do his eyes train somewhere else? Also look for a discrepancy between the mouth and the eyes, for example, smiling but with a tense-looking forehead and eyes.

• Look for changes in a person's behavior. Beware if, when making a potentially dishonest or incorrect statement, a person's voice or body language changes. Examples: becoming more monotonic and slow-paced, losing eye contact, turning away or crossing their legs, ceasing use of hands while talking, breathing more quickly and shallowly, stiffening, starting a nervous mannerism such as foot wiggling or face touching. If you suspect someone's lying, change the conversation to something clearly factual and see if she reverts to her previous interaction style and seems glad to change the topic.

• Quick stop-start emotions. Real emotions often build and fade slowly. Phony ones often get turned on and off quickly.

• Re-ask. Later in the conversation, ask the same question. Does the person give the same answer or are some details changed?

Of course, none of this is foolproof. For example, some people don't show signs of lying because they're calm by nature, have an autistic-spectrum disorder, and/or are sociopathic. Sometimes, a person's exhibiting signs of lying merely reflect nervousness in talking about a difficult topic.

Just because you catch someone lying doesn't mean you should confront him. For example, I tend to remain silent when a face-saving lie is unlikely to cost me much now and is unlikely to encourage bigger, more costly lies in the future.

Of course, we live in a world filled with lies and inaccuracies but excessive vigilance can cost us too much: It can make us exude suspiciousness and cynicism. It may even preclude us from close relationships. Perhaps moderate trustworthiness is all we can reasonably expect.

Maybe the best balance can be struck by my father's advice: respect but suspect. I'd add, "and balance justice with mercy."