Hubbry Logo
LieLieMain
Open search
Lie
Community hub
Lie
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Lie
Lie
Lie
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

The fictional character Pinocchio is a common depiction of a liar.

A lie is an assertion that is believed to be false, typically used with the purpose of deceiving or misleading someone.[1][2][3] The practice of communicating lies is called lying. A person who communicates a lie may be termed a liar. Lies can be interpreted as deliberately false statements or misleading statements, though not all statements that are literally false are considered lies – metaphors, hyperboles, and other figurative rhetoric are not intended to mislead, while lies are explicitly meant for literal interpretation by their audience. Lies may also serve a variety of instrumental, interpersonal, or psychological functions for the individuals who use them.[4]

Generally, the term "lie" carries a negative connotation, and depending on the context a person who communicates a lie may be subject to social, legal, religious, or criminal sanctions; for instance, perjury, or the act of lying under oath, can result in criminal and civil charges being pressed against the perjurer.

Although people in many cultures believe that deception can be detected by observing nonverbal behaviors (e.g. not making eye contact, fidgeting, stuttering, smiling) research indicates that people overestimate both the significance of such cues and their ability to make accurate judgements about deception.[5][6] More generally, people's ability to make true judgments is affected by biases towards accepting incoming information and interpreting feelings as evidence of truth. People do not always check incoming assertions against their memory.[7]

Types and associated terms

[edit]
  • A barefaced, bald-faced or bold-faced lie is an impudent, brazen, shameless, flagrant, or audacious lie that is sometimes but not always undisguised and that it is even then not always obvious to those hearing it.[8]
  • A big lie is one that attempts to trick the victim into believing something major, which will likely be contradicted by some information the victim already possesses, or by their common sense. When the lie is of sufficient magnitude it may succeed, due to the victim's reluctance to believe that an untruth on such a grand scale would indeed be concocted.[9]
  • A black lie is about simple and callous selfishness. They are usually told when others gain nothing, and the sole purpose is either to get oneself out of trouble (reducing harm against oneself), or to gain something one desires (increasing benefits for oneself).[10][better source needed]
  • A blue lie is a form of lying that is told purportedly to benefit a collective or "in the name of the collective good". The origin of the term "blue lie" is possibly from cases where police officers made false statements to protect the police force, or to ensure the success of a legal case against an accused.[11]
  • An April fool is a lie or hoax told/performed on April Fools' Day.
  • To bluff is to pretend to have a capability or intention one does not possess.[9] Bluffing is an act of deception that is rarely seen as immoral when it takes place in the context of a game, such as poker, where this kind of deception is consented to in advance by the players. For instance, gamblers who deceive other players into thinking they have different cards to those they really hold, or athletes who hint that they will move left and then dodge right are not considered to be lying (also known as a feint or juke). In these situations, deception is acceptable and is commonly expected as a tactic.[citation needed]
  • Bullshit (also B.S., bullcrap, bull) does not necessarily have to be a complete fabrication. While a lie is related by a speaker who believes what is said is false, bullshit is offered by a speaker who does not care whether what is said is true because the speaker is more concerned with giving the hearer some impression. Thus, bullshit may be either true or false, but demonstrates a lack of concern for the truth that is likely to lead to falsehoods.[12]
  • A motivational poster about lying declares "An ostrich only thinks he 'covers up'"
    A cover-up may be used to deny, defend, or obfuscate a lie, errors, embarrassing actions, or lifestyle, and/or lie(s) made previously.[9] One may deny a lie made on a previous occasion, or alternatively, one may claim that a previous lie was not as egregious as it was. For example, to claim that a premeditated lie was really "only" an emergency lie, or to claim that a self-serving lie was really "only" a white lie or noble lie. This should not be confused with confirmation bias in which the deceiver is deceiving themselves.[citation needed]
  • Defamation is the communication of a false statement that harms the reputation of an individual person, business, product, group, government, religion, or nation.[9]
  • To deflect is to avoid the subject that the lie is about, not giving attention to the lie. When attention is given to the subject the lie is based around, deflectors ignore or refuse to respond. Skillful deflectors are passive-aggressive, who when confronted with the subject choose to ignore and not respond.[13]
  • Disinformation is intentionally false or misleading information that is spread in a calculated way to deceive target audiences.[9]
  • An exaggeration occurs when the most fundamental aspects of a statement are true, but only to a certain degree. It also is seen as "stretching the truth" or making something appear more powerful, meaningful, or real than it is. Saying that someone devoured most of something when they only ate half is considered an exaggeration. An exaggeration might be easily found to be a hyperbole where a person's statement (i.e. in informal speech, such as "He did this one million times already!") is meant not to be understood literally.[9]
  • Infographic How to spot fake news published by the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions
    Fake news is supposed to be a type of yellow journalism that consists of deliberate misinformation or hoaxes spread via traditional print and broadcast news media or online social media.[14] Sometimes the term is applied as a deceptive device to deflect attention from uncomfortable truths and facts.[citation needed]
  • A fib is a lie that is easy to forgive due to its subject being a trivial matter; for example, a child may tell a fib by claiming that the family dog broke a household vase, when the child was the one who broke it.[9]
  • Fraud refers to the act of inducing another person or people to believe a lie in order to secure material or financial gain for the liar. Depending on the context, fraud may subject the liar to civil or criminal penalties.[15]
  • A gray lie is told partly to help others and partly to help ourselves. It may vary in the shade of gray, depending on the balance of help and harm. Gray lies are, almost by definition, hard to clarify. For example you can lie to help a friend out of trouble but then gain the reciprocal benefit of them lying for you while those they have harmed in some way lose out.[10][better source needed]
  • A half-truth or partial truth is a deceptive statement that includes some element of truth. The statement might be partly true, the statement may be totally true, but only part of the whole truth, or it may employ some deceptive element, such as improper punctuation or double meaning, especially if the intent is to deceive, evade, blame, or misrepresent the truth.[16] Partial truths are characterized by malicious intent, and therefore, honest people should not excuse them as containing a "rational kernel."[17]
  • Confabulation (or honest lie) may be identified by verbal statements or actions that inaccurately describe the history, background, and present situations. There is generally no intent to misinform and the individual is unaware that their information is false. Because of this, it is not technically a lie at all since, by definition, there must be an intent to deceive for the statement to be considered a lie.[citation needed]
  • Jocose lies are lies meant in jest, intended to be understood as such by all present parties. Teasing and irony are examples. A more elaborate instance is seen in some storytelling traditions, where the storyteller's insistence that the story is the absolute truth, despite all evidence to the contrary (i.e., tall tale), is considered humorous. There is debate about whether these are "real" lies, and different philosophers hold different views. The Crick Crack Club in London arranges a yearly "Grand Lying Contest" with the winner being awarded the coveted "Hodja Cup" (named for the Mulla Nasreddin: "The truth is something I have never spoken."). The winner in 2010 was Hugh Lupton. In the United States, the Burlington Liars' Club awards an annual title to the "World Champion Liar."[18]
  • Lie-to-children is a phrase that describes a simplified explanation of technical or complex subjects as a teaching method for children and laypeople. While lies-to-children are useful in teaching complex subjects to people who are new to the concepts discussed, they can promote the creation of misconceptions among the people who listen to them. The phrase has been incorporated by academics within the fields of biology, evolution, bioinformatics, and the social sciences. Media use of the term has extended to publications including The Conversation and Forbes.[citation needed]
  • Lying by omission, also known as a continuing misrepresentation or quote mining, occurs when an important fact is left out in order to foster a misconception. Lying by omission includes the failure to correct pre-existing misconceptions. For example, when the seller of a car declares it has been serviced regularly, but does not mention that a fault was reported during the last service, the seller lies by omission. It may be compared to dissimulation. An omission is when a person tells most of the truth, but leaves out a few key facts that therefore, completely obscures the truth.[13]
  • Consumer protection laws often mandate the posting of notices, such as this one which appears in all automotive repair shops in California.
    Lying in trade occurs when the seller of a product or service may advertise untrue facts about the product or service in order to gain sales, especially by competitive advantage. Many countries and states have enacted consumer protection laws intended to combat such fraud.
  • A memory hole is a mechanism for the alteration or disappearance of inconvenient or embarrassing documents, photographs, transcripts, or other records, such as from a website or other archive, particularly as part of an attempt to give the impression that something never happened.[19][20]
  • Mutual deceit is a situation wherein lying is both accepted and expected[21] or that the parties mutually accept the deceit in question. This can be demonstrated in the case of a poker game wherein the strategies rely on deception and bluffing to win.[22]
  • Plato presented arguments to justify the use of noble lies in his Republic.[23]
    A noble lie, which also could be called a strategic untruth, is one that normally would cause discord if uncovered, but offers some benefit to the liar and assists in an orderly society, therefore, potentially being beneficial to others. It is often told to maintain law, order, and safety.
  • Paltering is the active use of selective truthful statements to mislead.[24]
  • Paternalistic deception is a lie told because it is believed (possibly incorrectly) that the deceived person will benefit.
  • In psychiatry, pathological lying (also called compulsive lying, pseudologia fantastica, and mythomania) is a behavior of habitual or compulsive lying.[25][26] It was first described in the medical literature in 1891 by Anton Delbrueck.[26] Although it is a controversial topic,[26] pathological lying has been defined as "falsification entirely disproportionate to any discernible end in view, may be extensive and very complicated, and may manifest over a period of years or even a lifetime".[25] The individual may be aware they are lying, or may believe they are telling the truth, being unaware that they are relating fantasies.[citation needed]
  • Perjury is the act of lying or making verifiably false statements on a material matter under oath or affirmation in court, or in any of various sworn statements in writing. Perjury is a crime, because the witness has sworn to tell the truth, and for the credibility of the court to remain intact, witness testimony must be relied on as truthful.[9]
  • A polite lie is a lie that a politeness standard requires, and that usually is known to be untrue by both parties. Whether such lies are acceptable is heavily dependent on culture. A common polite lie in international etiquette may be to decline invitations because of "scheduling difficulties", or due to "diplomatic illness". Similarly, the butler lie is a small lie that usually is sent electronically and is used to terminate conversations or to save face.[27]
  • Puffery is an exaggerated claim typically found in advertising and publicity announcements, such as "the highest quality at the lowest price", or "always votes in the best interest of all the people". Such statements are unlikely to be true – but cannot be proven false and so, do not violate trade laws, especially as the consumer is expected to be able to determine that it is not the absolute truth.[28]
  • A red lie is about spite and revenge. It is driven by the motive to harm others even at the expense of harming oneself, out of an angry desire for retribution.[10][better source needed]
  • The phrase "speaking with a forked tongue" means to deliberately say one thing and mean another or, to be hypocritical, or act in a duplicitous manner. This phrase was adopted by Americans around the time of the Revolution, and may be found in abundant references from the early nineteenth century – often reporting on American officers who sought to convince the Indigenous peoples of the Americas with whom they negotiated that they "spoke with a straight and not with a forked tongue" (as for example, President Andrew Jackson told members of the Creek Nation in 1829).[29] According to one 1859 account, the proverb that the "white man spoke with a forked tongue" originated in the 1690s, in the descriptions by the indigenous peoples of French colonials in America inviting members of the Iroquois Confederacy to attend a peace conference, but when the Iroquois arrived, the French had set an ambush and proceeded to slaughter and capture the Iroquois.[30]
  • A therapeutic fib is lying, or bending the truth, in order to avoid increased agitation from a person with dementia.[31] The intent is not to deceive the patient, but rather to help them feel safe and secure in facing an otherwise upsetting situation or fact.
  • Weasel word is an informal term[32] for words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that a specific or meaningful statement has been made, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated, enabling the specific meaning to be denied if the statement is challenged. A more formal term is equivocation.[citation needed]
  • A white lie is a harmless or trivial lie, especially one told in order to be polite or to avoid hurting someone's feelings or stopping them from being upset by the truth.[33][34][35] A white lie also is considered a lie to be used for greater good (pro-social behavior). It sometimes is used to shield someone from a hurtful or emotionally-damaging truth, especially when not knowing the truth is deemed by the liar as completely harmless. However, white lies can still be harmful as they can foster distrust when used in inappropriate situations.[36]
  • Vranyo expresses white lies or half-lies in Russian culture, told without the intention of (maliciously) deceiving, but as a fantasy, suppressing unpleasant parts of the truth.[citation needed]

Consequences

[edit]

The potential consequences of lying are manifold; some in particular are worth considering. Typically lies aim to deceive, so the hearer may acquire a false belief (or at least something that the speaker believes to be false). When deception is unsuccessful, a lie may be discovered. The discovery of a lie may discredit other statements by the same speaker, thereby staining that speaker's reputation. In some circumstances, it may also negatively affect the social or legal standing of the speaker. Lying in a court of law, for instance, is a criminal offense (perjury).[37]

Hannah Arendt spoke about extraordinary cases in which an entire society is being lied to consistently. She said that the consequences of such lying are "not that you believe the lies, but rather that nobody believes anything any longer. This is because lies, by their very nature, have to be changed, and a lying government has constantly to rewrite its own history. On the receiving end you get not only one lie – a lie which you could go on for the rest of your days – but you get a great number of lies, depending on how the political wind blows."[38]

Detection

[edit]
Main article: Lie detection

The question of whether lies can be detected reliably through nonverbal behavior has been the subject of frequent study. While people in many cultures believe that deception can be indicated by behaviors such as looking away, fidgeting, or stammering, this is not supported by research.[5][6] A 2019 review of research on deception and its detection through nonverbal behavior concludes that people tend to overestimate both the reliability of nonverbal behavior as an indicator of deception, and their ability to make accurate judgements about deception based on nonverbal behavior.[5][39]

Polygraph "lie detector" machines measure the physiological stress a subject endures in a number of measures while giving statements or answering questions. Spikes in stress indicators are purported to reveal lying. The accuracy of this method is widely disputed. In several well-known cases, application of the technique has been shown to have given incorrect results.[examples needed] Nonetheless, it remains in use in many areas, primarily as a method for eliciting confessions or employment screening. The unreliability of polygraph results is the basis of the exclusion of such evaluations as admissible evidence in many courts, and the technique is generally perceived to be an example of pseudoscience.[40]

A recent study found that composing a lie takes longer than telling the truth and thus, the time taken to answer a question may be used as a method of lie detection.[41] Instant answers with a lie may be proof of a prepared lie. A recommendation provided to resolve that contradiction is to try to surprise the subject and find a midway answer, not too quick, nor too long.[42]

Ethics

[edit]
See also: Christian views on lying
Portrait bust of Aristotle made by Lysippos

Utilitarian philosophers have supported lies that achieve good outcomes – white lies.[43] In his 2008 book, How to Make Good Decisions and Be Right All the Time, Iain King suggested a credible rule on lying was possible, and he defined it as: "Deceive only if you can change behaviour in a way worth more than the trust you would lose, were the deception discovered (whether the deception actually is exposed or not)."[44]

Stanford law professor Deborah L. Rhode articulated three rules she says ethicists generally agree distinguish "white lies" from harmful lies or cheating:[45]

  • A disinterested observer would conclude that the benefits outweigh the harms
  • There is no alternative
  • If everyone in similar circumstances acted similarly, society would be no worse off

Aristotle believed no general rule on lying was possible, because anyone who advocated lying could never be believed, he said.[46] The philosophers St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, and Immanuel Kant, condemned all lying.[43] According to all three, there are no circumstances in which, ethically, one may lie. Even if the only way to protect oneself is to lie, it is never ethically permissible to lie even in the face of murder, torture, or any other hardship. Each of these philosophers gave several arguments for the ethical basis against lying, all compatible with each other. Among the more important arguments are:

  • Lying is a perversion of the natural faculty of speech, the natural end of which is to communicate the thoughts of the speaker.
  • When one lies, one undermines trust in society.

In Lying, neuroscientist Sam Harris argues that lying is negative for the liar and the person who is being lied to. To tell lies is to deny others access to reality, and the harm of lying often cannot be anticipated. The ones lied to may fail to solve problems they could have solved only on a basis of good information. To lie also harms oneself, making the liar distrust the person who is being lied to.[47] Liars generally feel badly about their lies and sense a loss of sincerity, authenticity, and integrity. Harris asserts that honesty allows one to have deeper relationships and to bring all dysfunction in one's life to the surface.

In Human, All Too Human, philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche suggested that those who refrain from lying may do so only because of the difficulty involved in maintaining lies. This is consistent with his general philosophy that divides (or ranks) people according to strength and ability; thus, some people tell the truth only out of weakness.[citation needed]

A study was conducted by the University of Nottingham, released in 2016, which utilized a dice roll test where participants could easily lie to get a bigger payout. The study found that in countries with high prevalence of rule breaking, dishonesty in people in their early 20s was more prevalent.[48]

Great apes and mother birds

[edit]

Possession of the capacity to lie among non-humans has been asserted during language studies with great apes. In one instance, the gorilla Koko, when asked who tore a sink from the wall, pointed to one of her handlers and then laughed.[49]

Deceptive body language, such as feints that mislead as to the intended direction of attack or flight, is observed in many species. A mother bird deceives when she pretends to have a broken wing to divert the attention of a perceived predator – including unwitting humans – from the eggs in her nest, instead to her, as she draws the predator away from the location of the nest, most notably a trait of the killdeer.[50]

Cultural references

[edit]

Psychology

[edit]

It is asserted that the capacity to lie is a talent human beings possess universally.[53]

The evolutionary theory proposed by Darwin states that only the fittest will survive and by lying, we aim to improve other's perception of our social image and status, capability, and desirability in general.[54] Studies have shown that humans begin lying at a mere age of six months, through crying and laughing, to gain attention.[55]

Scientific studies have shown differences in forms of lying across gender. Although men and women lie at equal frequencies, men are more likely to lie in order to please themselves while women are more likely to lie to please others.[56] The presumption is that humans are individuals living in a world of competition and strict social norms, where they are able to use lies and deception to enhance chances of survival and reproduction.

Stereotypically speaking, David Livingstone Smith asserts that men like to exaggerate about their sexual expertise, but shy away from topics that degrade them while women understate their sexual expertise to make themselves more respectable and loyal in the eyes of men and avoid being labelled as a 'scarlet woman'.[56]

Those with Parkinson's disease show difficulties in deceiving others, difficulties that link to prefrontal hypometabolism. This suggests a link between the capacity for dishonesty and integrity of prefrontal functioning.[57]

Pseudologia fantastica is a term applied by psychiatrists to the behavior of habitual or compulsive lying. Mythomania is the condition where there is an excessive or abnormal propensity for lying and exaggerating.[58]

A recent study found that composing a lie takes longer than telling the truth.[42] Or, as Chief Joseph succinctly put it, "It does not require many words to speak the truth."[59]

Some people who are not convincing liars truly believe they are.[60]

Religious perspectives

[edit]

In the Bible

[edit]
A Torah scroll recovered from Glockengasse Synagogue in Cologne

The Old Testament and New Testament of the Bible both contain statements that God cannot lie and that lying is immoral (Num. 23:19,[61] Hab. 2:3,[62] Heb. 6:13–18).[63] Nevertheless, there are examples of God deliberately causing enemies to become disorientated and confused, in order to provide victory (2 Thess. 2:11;[64][65] 1 Kings 22:23;[66] Ezek. 14:9).[67]

Various passages of the Bible feature exchanges that assert lying is immoral and wrong (Prov. 6:16–19; Ps. 5:6), (Lev. 19:11; Prov. 14:5; Prov. 30:6; Zeph. 3:13), (Isa. 28:15; Dan. 11:27), most famously, in the Ten Commandments: "Thou shalt not bear false witness" (Ex. 20:2–17; Deut. 5:6–21); Ex. 23:1; Matt. 19:18; Mark 10:19; Luke 18:20 a specific reference to perjury.

Other passages feature descriptive (not prescriptive) exchanges where lying was committed in extreme circumstances involving life and death. Most Christian philosophers might argue that lying is never acceptable, but that even those who are righteous in God's eyes sin sometimes. Old Testament accounts of lying include:[68]

  • The midwives lied about their inability to kill the Israelite children. (Ex. 1:15–21).
  • Rahab lied to the king of Jericho about hiding the Hebrew spies (Josh. 2:4–5) and was not killed with those who were disobedient because of her faith (Heb. 11:31).
  • Abraham instructed his wife, Sarah, to mislead the Egyptians and say that she is his sister (Gen. 12:10). Abraham's story was strictly true – Sarah was his half sister – but intentionally misleading because it was designed to lead the Egyptians to believe that Sarah was not Abraham's wife for Abraham feared that they would kill him in order to take her, for she was very beautiful.[69]

In the New Testament, Jesus refers to the Devil as the father of lies (John 8:44) and Paul commands Christians "Do not lie to one another" (Col. 3:9; cf. Lev. 19:11). In the Day of Judgement, unrepentant liars will be punished in the lake of fire. (Rev. 21:8; 21:27).

Augustine's taxonomy

[edit]
St. Augustine by Carlo Crivelli

Augustine of Hippo wrote two books about lying: On Lying (De Mendacio) and Against Lying (Contra Mendacio).[70][71] He describes each book in his later work, Retractationes. Based on the location of De Mendacio in Retractationes, it appears to have been written about AD 395. The first work, On Lying, begins: "Magna quæstio est de Mendacio" ("There is a great question about Lying"). From his text, it can be derived that St. Augustine divided lies into eight categories, listed in order of descending severity:

  • Lies in religious teaching
  • Lies that harm others and help no one
  • Lies that harm others and help someone
  • Lies told for the pleasure of lying
  • Lies told to "please others in smooth discourse"
  • Lies that harm no one and that help someone materially
  • Lies that harm no one and that help someone spiritually
  • Lies that harm no one and that protect someone from "bodily defilement"

Despite distinguishing between lies according to their external severity, Augustine maintains in both treatises that all lies, defined precisely as the external communication of what one does not hold to be internally true, are categorically sinful and therefore, ethically impermissible.[72]

Augustine wrote that lies told in jest, or by someone who believes or opines the lie to be true are not, in fact, lies.[73]

In Buddhism

[edit]

The fourth of the five Buddhist precepts involves falsehood spoken or committed to by action.[74] Avoiding other forms of wrong speech are also considered part of this precept, consisting of malicious speech, harsh speech, and gossip.[75][76] A breach of the precept is considered more serious if the falsehood is motivated by an ulterior motive [74] (rather than, for example, "a small white lie").[77] The accompanying virtue is being honest and dependable,[78][79] and involves honesty in work, truthfulness to others, loyalty to superiors, and gratitude to benefactors.[80] In Buddhist texts, this precept is considered most important next to the first precept, because a lying person is regarded to have no shame, and therefore capable of many wrongs.[81] Lying is not only to be avoided because it harms others, but also because it goes against the Buddhist ideal of finding the truth.[77][82]

The fourth precept includes avoidance of lying and harmful speech.[83] Some modern Buddhist teachers such as Thich Nhat Hanh interpret this to include avoiding spreading false news and uncertain information.[81] Work that involves data manipulation, false advertising, or online scams can also be regarded as violations.[84] Anthropologist Barend Terwiel [de] reports that among Thai Buddhists, the fourth precept also is seen to be broken when people insinuate, exaggerate, or speak abusively or deceitfully.[85]

In Norse paganism

[edit]

In Gestaþáttr, one of the sections within the Eddaic poem Hávamál, Odin states that it is advisable, when dealing with "a false foe who lies", to tell lies also.[86]

In Zoroastrianism

[edit]
Darius I, imagined by a Greek painter, fourth century BCE

Zoroaster teaches that there are two powers in the universe; Asha, which is truth, order, and that which is real, and Druj, which is "the Lie". Later on, the Lie became personified as Angra Mainyu, a figure similar to the Christian Devil, who was portrayed as the eternal opponent of Ahura Mazda (God).

Herodotus, in his mid-fifth-century BC account of Persian residents of the Pontus, reports that Persian youths, from their fifth year to their twentieth year, were instructed in three things – "to ride a horse, to draw a bow, and to speak the Truth".[87] He further notes that:[87] "The most disgraceful thing in the world [the Persians] think, is to tell a lie; the next worst, to owe a debt: because, among other reasons, the debtor is obliged to tell lies."

In Achaemenid Persia, the lie, drauga (in Avestan: druj), is considered to be a cardinal sin and it was punishable by death in some extreme cases. Tablets discovered by archaeologists in the 1930s [88] at the site of Persepolis give us adequate evidence about the love and veneration for the culture of truth during the Achaemenian period. These tablets contain the names of ordinary Persians, mainly traders and warehouse-keepers.[89] According to Stanley Insler of Yale University, as many as 72 names of officials and petty clerks found on these tablets contain the word truth.[90] Thus, says Insler, we have Artapana, protector of truth, Artakama, lover of truth, Artamanah, truth-minded, Artafarnah, possessing splendour of truth, Artazusta, delighting in truth, Artastuna, pillar of truth, Artafrida, prospering the truth, and Artahunara, having nobility of truth.

It was Darius the Great who laid down the "ordinance of good regulations" during his reign. Darius' testimony about his constant battle against the Lie is found in the Behistun Inscription. He testifies:[91] "I was not a lie-follower, I was not a doer of wrong ... According to righteousness I conducted myself. Neither to the weak or to the powerful did I do wrong. The man who cooperated with my house, him I rewarded well; who so did injury, him I punished well."

He asks Ahuramazda, God, to protect the country from "a (hostile) army, from famine, from the Lie".[92]

Darius had his hands full dealing with large-scale rebellion which broke out throughout the empire. After fighting successfully with nine traitors in a year, Darius records his battles against them for posterity and tells us how it was the Lie that made them rebel against the empire. At the Behistun inscription, Darius says: "I smote them and took prisoner nine kings. One was Gaumata by name, a Magian; he lied; thus he said: I am Smerdis, the son of Cyrus ... One, Acina by name, an Elamite; he lied; thus he said: I am king in Elam ... One, Nidintu-Bel by name, a Babylonian; he lied; thus he said: I am Nebuchadnezzar, the son of Nabonidus. ... The Lie made them rebellious, so that these men deceived the people."[93] Then advice to his son Xerxes, who is to succeed him as the great king: "Thou who shalt be king hereafter, protect yourself vigorously from the Lie; the man who shall be a lie-follower, him do thou punish well, if thus thou shall think. May my country be secure!"[citation needed]

See also

[edit]

Citations

[edit]
  1. ^ Carson, Thomas L. (2012). Lying and deception: theory and practice. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-965480-2. OCLC 769544997.
  2. ^ Mahon, James Edwin (21 February 2008). "The Definition of Lying and Deception". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Archived from the original on 18 March 2019. Retrieved 29 December 2018.
  3. ^ Mahon, James Edwin (2008). "Two Definitions of Lying". International Journal of Applied Philosophy. 22 (2): 211–230. doi:10.5840/ijap200822216. ISSN 0739-098X.
  4. ^ Ekman, P. (2009). Telling lies: Clues to deceit in the marketplace, politics, and marriage (revised edition). WW Norton & Company.
  5. ^ a b c Vrij, Aldert; Hartwig, Maria; Granhag, Pär Anders (4 January 2019). "Reading Lies: Nonverbal Communication and Deception". Annual Review of Psychology. 70 (1): 295–317. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-103135. ISSN 0066-4308. PMID 30609913. S2CID 58562467.
  6. ^ a b Zimmerman, Laura (2016). "Deception detection". Monitor on Psychology. 47 (3). American Psychological Association: 46. Retrieved 8 December 2021.
  7. ^ Brashier, Nadia M.; Marsh, Elizabeth J. (4 January 2020). "Judging Truth". Annual Review of Psychology. 71 (1): 499–515. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010419-050807. ISSN 0066-4308. PMID 31514579. S2CID 202569061.
  8. ^ "Worldwidewords.org". Worldwidewords.org. 13 June 2009. Archived from the original on 7 October 2010. Retrieved 10 July 2013.
  9. ^ a b c d e f g h Dictionary.com Archived 21 April 2018 at the Wayback Machine. 7 December 2017.
  10. ^ a b c ChangingMinds.org Archived 2020-11-09 at the Wayback Machine. 9 November 2020.
  11. ^ Fu, Genyue; Evans, Angela D.; Wang, Lingfeng; Lee, Kang (July 2008). "Lying in the name of the collective good: a developmental study". Developmental Science. 11 (4): 495–503. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7687.2008.00695.x. PMC 2570108. PMID 18576957.
  12. ^ Frankfurt, Harry (2013) [2005]. On Bullshit. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-12294-6.
  13. ^ a b Ericsson, Stephanie (2010). Patterns for College Writing (11th ed.). St. Wartins: Bedford. p. 487. ISBN 978-0-312-60152-2.
  14. ^ AllCott, Hunt and Matthew Gentzkow. "Social Media and Fake News in the 2016 Election." Archived 18 October 2017 at the Wayback Machine Stanford University. Spring 2017. 7 December 2017.
  15. ^ Druzin, Bryan (2011). "The Criminalization of Lying: Under what Circumstances, if any, should Lies be made Criminal?". Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. 101: 548–550. Archived from the original on 5 October 2016. Retrieved 5 October 2016.
  16. ^ "Merriam Webster Definition of Half-truth, August 1, 2007". M-w.com. 31 August 2012. Archived from the original on 23 December 2007. Retrieved 10 July 2013.
  17. ^ Julius, Anthony, Trials of the Diaspora: A History of Anti-Semitism in England, Oxford, Oxford UP, 2010. p. 117.
  18. ^ Cavinder, Fred D. (1985). The Indiana Book of Records, Firsts, and Fascinating Facts. Indiana University Press. p. 104. ISBN 0-253-28320-5.
  19. ^ Murphy, Kirk, Memorial Day Memory Hole: After Israel Forgets "Exodus", White House Forgets "Shores of Tripoli". Will Obama Remember NATO? Archived 1 November 2014 at the Wayback Machine 31 May 2010 Firedoglake.com
  20. ^ Weinstein, Adam, Nevada Tea Partier's Memory Hole, 9 June 2010 Archived 31 January 2017 at the Wayback Machine. Mother Jones.
  21. ^ Minkler, Alanson (2011). Integrity and Agreement: Economics When Principles Also Matter. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. pp. 78, 128. ISBN 978-0-472-11643-0.
  22. ^ Arp, Robert (2013). Psych and Philosophy. Chicago: Open Court Publishing. p. 140. ISBN 978-0-8126-9825-1.
  23. ^ Aruffo, Madeline. "Problems with the Noble Lie." Archived 17 May 2017 at the Wayback Machine Boston University. Accessed 4 December 2017.
  24. ^ Gerdeman, Dina (5 December 2016). "How To Deceive Others With Truthful Statements (It's Called 'Paltering,' And It's Risky)". HBS Working Knowledge. Retrieved 18 November 2021.
  25. ^ a b Dike CC, Baranoski M, Griffith EE (2005). "Pathological lying revisited". The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law. 33 (3): 342–349. PMID 16186198. Archived from the original on 13 January 2013. Retrieved 6 July 2014.
  26. ^ a b c Dike, Charles C. (1 June 2008). "Pathological Lying: Symptom or Disease?". Psychiatric Times. Vol. 25, no. 7. Archived from the original on 8 March 2011. Retrieved 6 July 2014.
  27. ^ "Butler Lie term coined at Cornell University". News.cornell.edu. 20 December 2010. Archived from the original on 28 October 2012. Retrieved 10 July 2013.
  28. ^ Beatty, Jeffrey; Samuelson, Susan (2007). Cengage Advantage Books: Essentials of Business Law. Cengage Learning. p. 293. ISBN 978-0-324-53712-3.
  29. ^ Niles' Register, 13 June 1829
  30. ^ Transactions of the New York State Agricultural Society, Vol 19, 1859, p. 230.
  31. ^ "Theraputic Fibs: What they are and why they are OK". 6 February 2018. Retrieved 14 May 2024.
  32. ^ Microsoft Encarta, "weasel words Archived 4 June 2011 at the Wayback Machine"
  33. ^ "Definition of 'white lie'". Lexico. Archived from the original on 18 April 2020. Retrieved 12 March 2020.
  34. ^ "White lie". Cambridge Dictionary. Archived from the original on 5 September 2019. Retrieved 12 March 2020.
  35. ^ "Definition of 'white lie'". dictionary.com. Archived from the original on 28 October 2019. Retrieved 12 March 2020.
  36. ^ "Be honest: little white lies are more harmful than you think | Psyche Ideas". Psyche. Retrieved 14 June 2023.
  37. ^ Timasheff, Nicholas Sergeyevitch. "An Introduction to the Sociology of Law." Google Books. 7 December 2017.
  38. ^ Arendt, Hannah. "Hannah Arendt: From an Interview." Archived 1 December 2017 at the Wayback Machine The New York Review of Books. 26 October 1978 issue. 30 November 2017.
  39. ^ Seigel, Jessica (25 March 2021). "The truth about lying". Knowable Magazine. doi:10.1146/knowable-032421-1. S2CID 235563235. Retrieved 8 December 2021.
  40. ^ Conti, Alli. "Are Lie Detector Tests Complete Bullshit?" VICE. 17 November 2014. 7 December 2017.
  41. ^ Williams, Emma J.; Lewis A. Bott; John Patrick; Michael B. Lewis (3 April 2013). "Telling Lies: The Irrepressible Truth?". PLOS ONE. 8 (4) e60713. Bibcode:2013PLoSO...860713W. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0060713. PMC 3616109. PMID 23573277.
  42. ^ a b Roy Britt, "Lies Take Longer Than Truths," LiveScience.com, 26 January 2009, found at [1] Archived 3 July 2012 at the Wayback Machine. Accessed 27 November 2011.
  43. ^ a b Arjuna, T. "To lead a life of lies". Can we talk? by T. Arjuna. Sunday Observer. Archived from the original on 11 February 2012. Retrieved 10 July 2012. | Sri Lanka's Sunday Observer article on lying, Feb 2012
  44. ^ How to Make Good Decisions and Be Right All the Time, (2008), Iain King, p. 148.
  45. ^ "Why We Cheat". Think! (Podcast). KERA. 17 November 2021. (around 5:00)
  46. ^ How to Make Good Decisions and Be Right All the Time, (2008), Iain King, p. 147.
  47. ^ "Deceiver's Distrust: Denigration as a Consequence of Undiscovered Deception", (1998), Brad J. Sagarin, Kelton v. L. Rhoads, Robert B. Cialdini.
  48. ^ Gächter, S.; Schulz, J. F. (2016). "Intrinsic Honesty and the Prevalence of Rule Violations across Societies". Nature. 531 (7595): 496–499. Bibcode:2016Natur.531..496G. doi:10.1038/nature17160. PMC 4817241. PMID 26958830.
  49. ^ Hanley, Elizabeth (4 July 2004). "Listening to Koko" (PDF). Commonweal Magazine: 16. Archived (PDF) from the original on 14 July 2014. Retrieved 7 July 2014.
  50. ^ "Killdeer" Archived 28 June 2011 at the Wayback Machine. Ohio Department of Natural Resources. Retrieved 1 March 2011.
  51. ^ "Guide to Washington Post Fact Checker Rating Scale". Voices.washingtonpost.com. 29 December 2011. Archived from the original on 30 November 2011. Retrieved 3 January 2012.
  52. ^ Machiavelli, Niccolo, The Prince, Chap. 18
  53. ^ Bhattacharjee, Yudhijit. "Why We Lie: The Science Behind Our Deceptive Ways." Archived 7 December 2017 at the Wayback Machine National Geographic.
  54. ^ "What is Darwin's Theory of Evolution?". LiveScience.com. Archived from the original on 2 October 2015. Retrieved 12 October 2015.
  55. ^ "Why Do We Lie?". Psychology Today. Retrieved 12 October 2015.
  56. ^ a b Smith, David Livingstone. "Natural-Born Liars".
  57. ^ Abe, N.; Fujii, T.; Hirayama, K.; Takeda, A.; Hosokai, Y.; Ishioka, T.; Nishio, Y.; Suzuki, K.; Itoyama, Y.; Takahashi, S.; Fukuda, H.; Mori, E. (2009). "Do parkinsonian patients have trouble telling lies? The neurobiological basis of deceptive behaviour". Brain. 132 (5): 1386–1395. doi:10.1093/brain/awp052. PMC 2677797. PMID 19339257.
  58. ^ "Merriam–Webster.com". Merriam-webster.com. 31 August 2012. Archived from the original on 19 February 2010. Retrieved 10 July 2013.
  59. ^ "People.tribe.net". People.tribe.net. 19 August 2007. Archived from the original on 30 May 2013. Retrieved 10 July 2013.
  60. ^ Grieve, Rachel; Hayes, Jordana (1 January 2013). "Does perceived ability to deceive = ability to deceive? Predictive validity of the perceived ability to deceive (PATD) scale". Personality and Individual Differences. 54 (2): 311–314. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2012.09.001.
  61. ^ "Num. 23:19". Biblegateway.com. Archived from the original on 11 July 2019. Retrieved 10 July 2013.
  62. ^ "Hab. 2:3". Bible.cc. Archived from the original on 14 August 2011. Retrieved 10 July 2013.
  63. ^ "Heb 6:13–18". Soundofgrace.com. 10 November 1996. Archived from the original on 17 October 2010. Retrieved 10 July 2013.
  64. ^ "2 Thess. 2:11". Biblegateway.com. Archived from the original on 23 November 2018. Retrieved 10 July 2013.
  65. ^ "2 Thess. 2:11". Biblegateway.com. Archived from the original on 23 November 2018. Retrieved 10 July 2013.
  66. ^ "1 Kings 22:23". Bible.cc. Archived from the original on 15 May 2011. Retrieved 10 July 2013.
  67. ^ "Ezek. 14:9". Bible.cc. Archived from the original on 22 November 2011. Retrieved 10 July 2013.
  68. ^ See also: O'Neill, Barry. (2003). "A Formal System for Understanding Lies and Deceit." Archived 28 February 2008 at the Wayback Machine Revision of a talk for the Jerusalem Conference on Biblical Economics, June 2000.
  69. ^ "Genesis 12:11 – "When he was about to enter Egypt, he said to Sarai his wife, 'I know that you are a woman'"". ESVBible.org. Retrieved 10 July 2013.
  70. ^ Saint Augustine (2002). Deferrari, Roy J. (ed.). Treatises on various subjects. Translated by Mary Sarah Muldowney (1st pbk. reprint ed.). New York: Catholic University of America Press. ISBN 978-0-8132-1320-0. Archived from the original on 3 February 2017. Retrieved 3 February 2016.
  71. ^ Schaff, Philip (1887). A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church: St. Augustin: On the Holy Trinity. Doctrinal treatises. Moral treatises. The Christian Literature Company.
  72. ^ "Church Fathers: On Lying (St. Augustine)". Archived from the original on 26 September 2010. Retrieved 30 December 2016.
  73. ^ Imre, Robert; Mooney, T. Brian; Clarke, Benjamin (2008). Responding to terrorism: political, philosophical and legal perspectives ([Online-Ausg.] ed.). Aldershot, Hampshire, England: Ashgate. ISBN 978-0-7546-7277-7. Archived from the original on 3 February 2017. Retrieved 3 February 2016.
  74. ^ a b Leaman, Oliver (2000). Eastern Philosophy: Key Readings (PDF). Routledge. p. 140. ISBN 978-0-415-17357-5. Archived (PDF) from the original on 8 August 2017.
  75. ^ Segall, Seth Robert (2003). "Psychotherapy Practice as Buddhist Practice". In Segall, Seth Robert (ed.). Encountering Buddhism: Western Psychology and Buddhist Teachings. State University of New York Press. p. 169. ISBN 978-0-7914-8679-5.
  76. ^ Harvey 2000, pp. 74, 76.
  77. ^ a b Harvey 2000, p. 75.
  78. ^ Cozort, Daniel (2015). "Ethics". In Powers, John (ed.). The Buddhist World. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-317-42016-3.
  79. ^ Harvey 2000, p. 68.
  80. ^ Wai 2002, p. 3.
  81. ^ a b Harvey 2000, p. 74.
  82. ^ Wai 2002, p. 295.
  83. ^ Powers, John (2013). A Concise Encyclopedia of Buddhism. Oneworld Publications. ISBN 978-1-78074-476-6.
  84. ^ Johansen, Barry-Craig P.; Gopalakrishna, D. (21 July 2016). "A Buddhist View of Adult Learning in the Workplace". Advances in Developing Human Resources. 8 (3): 342. doi:10.1177/1523422306288426. S2CID 145131162.
  85. ^ Terwiel, Barend Jan (2012). Monks and Magic: Revisiting a Classic Study of Religious Ceremonies in Thailand (PDF). Nordic Institute of Asian Studies. p. 183. ISBN 978-87-7694-101-7. Archived (PDF) from the original on 19 August 2018.
  86. ^ "VTA.gamall-steinn.org". VTA.gamall-steinn.org. Archived from the original on 12 September 2005. Retrieved 10 July 2013.
  87. ^ a b Herodotus (2009). The Histories. Translated by George Rawlinson. Digireads.Com. pp. 43–44. ISBN 978-1-4209-3305-5.[permanent dead link]
  88. ^ Garrison, Mark B.; Root, Margaret C. (2001). Seals on the Persepolis Fortification Tablets, Volume 1. Images of Heroic Encounter (OIP 117). Chicago: Online Oriental Institute Publications. Archived from the original on 5 January 2007. Retrieved 9 January 2007.
  89. ^ Dandamayev, Muhammad (2002). "Persepolis Elamite Tablets". Encyclopedia Iranica. Archived from the original on 21 January 2012. Retrieved 1 November 2013.
  90. ^ Insler, Stanley (1975). "The Love of Truth in Ancient Iran". Archived from the original on 5 May 2007. Retrieved 9 January 2007. In Insler, Stanley; Duchesne-Guillemin, J., eds. (1975). The Gāthās of Zarathustra (Acta Iranica 8). Liege: Brill.
  91. ^ Brian Carr; Brian Carr; Indira Mahalingam (1997). Companinon Encyclopedia of Asian philosophy. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 978-0-415-03535-4.
  92. ^ DPd inscription, lines 12–24: "Darius the King says: May Ahuramazda bear me aid, with the gods of the royal house; and may Ahuramazda protect this country from a (hostile) army, from famine, from the Lie! Upon this country may there not come an army, nor famine, nor the Lie; this I pray as a boon from Ahuramazda together with the gods of the royal house. This boon may Ahuramazda together with the gods of the royal house give to me! "
  93. ^ "Darius, Behishtan (DB), Column 1". Archived from the original on 19 July 2017. Retrieved 27 July 2015. From Kent, Roland G. (1953). Old Persian: Grammar, texts, lexicon. New Haven: American Oriental Society.

General and cited sources

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Lie

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
A lie is an assertion that the speaker believes to be false, made with the to deceive the recipient into believing it to be true. This standard , articulated in philosophical and psychological , requires both of falsity and deceptive intent, distinguishing lies from mistakes, exaggerations without belief in falsity, or mere omissions. The English term "lie" originates from lyge or lige, denoting an untruth or deliberate falsehood, with roots in Proto-Germanic forms related to . Lying manifests in various forms, including direct falsehoods, half-truths, and lies of omission, though the latter are debated as true lies absent an assertive statement. Psychologically, lies often serve self-protective or manipulative purposes, such as avoiding punishment, gaining advantage, or preserving relationships, and are cognitively demanding due to the need to suppress truth while fabricating alternatives. Empirically, humans lie frequently—averaging one to two lies per day in social interactions—reflecting its role in navigating complex social dynamics, though habitual lying correlates with eroded trust and interpersonal harm. Philosophically, lying has been condemned as intrinsically immoral by figures like St. Augustine, who classified it as duplicitous speech violating divine order regardless of outcome, and , who posited truthfulness as a never permitting exceptions, even to thwart harm, as deception undermines rational autonomy and universal moral law. These absolutist views contrast with consequentialist perspectives allowing lies when benefits outweigh harms, highlighting ongoing debates over whether lying's wrongness stems from intent, effects, or violation of truth as a foundational epistemic good. Detection relies on cues like inconsistencies or nonverbal signals, but remains imperfect, underscoring lying's evolutionary utility in deception-prone environments despite its societal costs in fostering suspicion and suboptimal decisions based on distorted information.

Definition and Core Concepts

Etymology and Basic Definition

The English noun "lie," denoting a deliberate falsehood, originates from lyge, meaning an untruth or , with the corresponding verb leogan (to lie, speak falsely) attested from at least the late . This stems from Proto-Germanic lugizōną (to lie or deceive), ultimately tracing to the leugh-, associated with bending, twisting, or distorting—metaphorically reflecting the act of warping truth through words. The term's evolution highlights a conceptual link between verbal deceit and physical , distinct from the unrelated licgan (to recline), which shares no etymological connection despite in . A lie constitutes an assertion that the speaker believes to be false, uttered with the deliberate to mislead or deceive the recipient, distinguishing it from mere errors, mistakes, or unintentional misrepresentations. Philosophically and linguistically, this requires both subjective falsity (the speaker's in the statement's untruth) and assertive under norms of truthful communication, such that even accidentally true statements believed false qualify as lies, while true honestly conveyed do not. This definition underscores lying as an act of epistemic , rooted in the causal mechanism of substituting known distortion for verifiable to manipulate . A lie is traditionally defined as an assertion that the speaker believes to be false, made with the that the recipient believe it to be true, thereby deceiving them about its content. This contrasts with truth-telling, which entails sincerely communicating propositions the speaker believes accurate, aiming to inform rather than mislead. Empirical studies of folk intuitions align with this view, indicating that both in the falsity of the statement and to deceive are necessary conditions for an act to be classified as a lie by ordinary speakers. Unlike errors or honest mistakes, which involve conveying falsehoods due to or misapprehension without deceptive purpose, lies require deliberate of the statement's falsity. For instance, a providing incorrect from faulty commits no lie absent intent to deceive, as the falsehood stems from cognitive limitation rather than volition. Deception by omission, involving the intentional withholding of pertinent facts to induce false beliefs, constitutes a form of misleading but diverges from lying, which demands an affirmative false assertion rather than mere silence or selective disclosure. Philosophers such as Immanuel Kant maintained that truth-telling obligates full disclosure in contexts of inquiry, yet distinguished strict lying as the propagation of known untruths, reserving omissions for separate ethical scrutiny. Harry Frankfurt delineates bullshit from lying by the bullshitter's indifference to truth-values: the liar subverts reality by asserting known falsehoods, presupposing awareness of truth to oppose it, whereas fabricate without concern for veracity, prioritizing impression over factual constraint. This renders potentially more corrosive, as it undermines epistemic standards without engaging them. Sissela Bok specifies lying as an intentionally deceptive statement, excluding broader deceptions like —where ambiguous phrasing induces misinterpretation without direct falsity—or non-assertoric ploys such as gestures or implicatures that mislead sans explicit untruth. These related tactics deceive through or implication but fail the criterion of asserting believed falsehoods, thus not qualifying as lies proper.

Classifications and Types of Lies

Lies are classified along multiple dimensions, including their form, the deceiver's intent or beneficiary, and their perceived seriousness, based on in and . These categorizations help elucidate the mechanisms and motivations underlying in everyday interactions. One primary classification distinguishes lies by their form or method of execution:
  • Fabrication (lies of commission): Involves actively creating and uttering false information, such as fabricating events or attributes to mislead. This direct approach requires cognitive effort to construct and maintain consistency.
  • Concealment (lies of omission): Entails withholding relevant true information without asserting falsehoods, allowing the deceiver to avoid disclosure while implying accuracy through .
  • : Features ambiguous or evasive statements that neither confirm nor deny truth, such as vague responses to sidestep commitment, often used to manage impressions without outright fabrication.
These forms align with , which posits that deceivers strategically adapt their communication to minimize detection risks, drawing from empirical observations of verbal and nonverbal cues in dyadic interactions. A second dimension classifies lies by intent or beneficiary, reflecting whether deception primarily serves the liar, the target, or both:
  • Self-serving lies: Aimed at personal gain, such as avoiding , , or responsibility, or enhancing one's or status. Diary studies of 147 participants ( students and members) revealed self-serving justifications in 45% of college-reported lies and 57% of community lies, with content often involving actions, plans, or achievements.
  • Prosocial (other-oriented) lies: Intended to benefit the recipient, typically by sparing feelings or maintaining harmony, such as white lies complimenting appearance. These accounted for 26% of college lies and 24% of community lies in the same studies, more common in interactions with acquaintances than close relations.
  • Pareto lies: Benefit both the deceiver and the target, such as mutual in negotiations, though less frequently isolated in everyday empirical data.
Self-serving lies outnumbered prosocial ones across samples, with participants reporting an average of 1.96 lies per day (college) and 0.97 (community), mostly trivial but self-centered. Lies are further differentiated by , contrasting everyday with ones:
  • Trivial or everyday lies: Short, spontaneous, and low-stakes, comprising the bulk of reported (e.g., about feelings or minor plans), often repeated without guilt as they protect the liar or mildly benefit others. In one-week diaries, such lies dominated, with fewer told to intimates.
  • Serious lies: Involve high consequences, like (23% of serious college lies) or misdeeds (20-23%), requiring sustained effort and risking relational damage; these are less frequent but judged more deceptive by both parties.
These categories overlap; for instance, a falsified may be self-serving and serious. Empirical typologies emphasize that frequency and type vary by relationship closeness and personality traits like extraversion or Machiavellianism, which correlate with higher lying rates.

Psychological Foundations

Motivations and Cognitive Processes

Individuals engage in deception primarily to avoid anticipated negative outcomes, such as , judgment, or , or to secure personal advantages like material gain or social approval. Empirical diary studies indicate that adults tell lies at a rate of approximately one to two per day, with college students averaging two lies daily and community members one; these lies are often self-centered in casual interactions but shift toward other-oriented motives, such as protecting relationships, in closer ties. Motivations can be categorized into pro-self (e.g., evading personal harm or acquiring benefits) and pro-social subtypes (e.g., sparing others' feelings), though self-serving protective lies predominate in frequency. Cognitively, lying imposes greater demands than truth-telling, as it requires simultaneous inhibition of the truthful response, fabrication of a plausible falsehood, and maintenance of consistency via . This elevated manifests in prolonged response latencies and heightened activation in executive control regions, including the , during tasks comparing lies to truths. Functional MRI evidence further reveals differential neural engagement for spontaneous versus instructed deception, with spontaneous lies recruiting broader conflict-monitoring and decision-making networks to weigh reputational risks against immediate gains. Such processes underscore deception's reliance on and mental simulation, rendering it more effortful and error-prone under divided .

Developmental Aspects and Frequency in Humans

Children begin to exhibit intentional deception around 2 to 3 years of age, coinciding with the emergence of basic and executive function skills that enable them to misrepresent reality deliberately. This initial lying is often rudimentary, such as denying a transgression after witnessing it, and reflects cognitive advances rather than intent. By age 4, approximately 90% of children demonstrate the capacity for successful in experimental settings, marking a milestone in social-cognitive development where they understand others' false beliefs. Lying proficiency and frequency increase through childhood and , driven by maturing , semantic leakage control (to avoid contradictory details), and socio-moral reasoning. Preschoolers' lies are typically self-oriented and impulsive, while school-aged children (6-11 years) incorporate and prosocial elements, such as lies for . Peak lying ability occurs in young adulthood, after which it may decline with advanced age due to reduced , though empirical data on late-life patterns remain limited. Parental modeling influences trajectories; exposure to adult correlates with higher child rates in longitudinal studies. In adults, self-reported lying averages 1 to 2 instances per day, though distributions are highly skewed: most individuals (about 75%) report 0-2 lies daily, while a minority of prolific liars account for nearly 40% of total lies. This pattern holds across surveys, including a 2010 U.S. national sample where 92% admitted lying at least once in a recent period, but average frequency remained low. Approximately 18% of young adults report daily lying, associated with lower and academic performance in correlational analyses. Lies often serve prosocial functions (e.g., sparing feelings) or self-protection, comprising about 7% of daily communications. Recent replications confirm these rates, with no significant upward trend despite digital communication proliferation.

Individual and Pathological Variations

Individual differences in lying frequency and propensity are well-documented in psychological research, with the average person reporting 1 to 2 lies per day, though this varies substantially across individuals. Studies indicate that a small subset of prolific liars accounts for the majority of lies told, consistent with Truth-Default Theory, which posits that most people default to assuming truthfulness while a minority engages in disproportionate deception. For instance, approximately 18.1% of young adults report daily lying, correlating with lower grade point averages, reduced quality of life, and diminished self-esteem compared to non-daily liars. Personality traits, particularly those comprising the —narcissism, Machiavellianism, and —predict higher lying frequency and acceptance of in everyday scenarios. Empirical data show positive associations between scores and self-reported weekly lies, with exhibiting the strongest link to increased . Individuals high in these traits tend to view lying as a strategic tool for self-advancement, displaying greater ease in fabricating stories across contexts like personal gain or social manipulation. Measures such as the LYin Lying Tendency Scale further quantify variations in motivations, distinguishing selfish lies (for personal benefit), altruistic lies (to protect others), and social-acceptance lies (to maintain relationships). Pathological lying, also termed pseudologia fantastica or mythomania, represents an extreme variation characterized by persistent, pervasive, and often compulsive fabrication of elaborate falsehoods without apparent external motive or benefit. Unlike prosocial or self-serving lies, these deceptions are chronic, escalating from initial fabrications into complex narratives that impair social, occupational, or personal functioning, such as leading to professional ridicule or relational breakdowns. It is not a standalone DSM diagnosis but manifests as a symptom within disorders, including antisocial, narcissistic, or histrionic types, where liars may exhibit no distress from their yet cause significant to others. Prevalence estimates from clinical samples range from 8% to 13%, with lies often grandiose or fantastical, persisting despite confrontation. Empirical reviews support as a distinct involving compulsive escalation, neurobiological underpinnings like dysregulation, and resistance to intervention due to lack of self-recognized impairment. Treatment challenges arise from its integration with underlying disorders, with cognitive-behavioral approaches showing limited efficacy absent for change, as liars rarely perceive their conduct as problematic. In contrast to normal variations driven by situational incentives, pathological forms stem from internal dysregulations, underscoring causal distinctions in deceptive behavior.

Detection and Countermeasures

Traditional and Empirical Detection Methods

Traditional detection methods for lies have historically relied on ordeals exploiting presumed physiological responses to guilt or fear. In ancient around 1000 BCE, suspects chewed uncooked under questioning; dry rice upon spitting indicated , theorized to result from anxiety-induced inhibiting salivation. Comparable practices in medieval included trial by hot iron, where unburned flesh or rapid healing purportedly signaled truth, reflecting causal assumptions that divine intervention or bodily integrity would spare the innocent. These methods persisted into early modern eras, often intertwined with religious or superstitious rationales, but lacked empirical validation and frequently yielded arbitrary outcomes influenced by chance or suggestion. In non-ordeal traditions, detection emphasized behavioral observation during testimony or confrontation. Ancient texts, such as those from Babylon circa 3000 years ago, noted cues like toe-rubbing or downward gaze as guilt markers, while Greco-Roman interrogators probed for narrative inconsistencies or hesitations. Modern analogs include intuitive assessments of nonverbal signals—fidgeting, averted eyes, or grooming gestures—and verbal slips, such as over-elaboration or evasion, commonly taught in law enforcement training. Psychologists like Paul Ekman have formalized aspects of this through microexpression analysis, positing fleeting facial flashes reveal suppressed emotions tied to deceit. Empirical scrutiny undermines the reliability of these traditional cues. Meta-analyses of and field studies show lie detectors, including trained professionals, achieve approximately 54% accuracy overall, detecting lies at 47% and truths at 61%—marginally above chance (50%) and invariant across experience levels. Nonverbal behaviors exhibit no diagnostic specificity; gaze aversion or illustrators like shrugs occur equivalently in stressed truth-tellers and fabricators, detection due to shared arousal responses rather than deception per se. High-stakes contexts, such as criminal appeals, yield similar null results for isolated cues, with meta-analytic effect sizes near zero. Verbal-centric empirical methods offer incremental gains by analyzing content quality over demeanor. Criteria-Based Content Analysis (CBCA) scores statements on 19 criteria—e.g., logical structure, contextual ties, unusual details—deriving from superior memory encoding in experienced events versus fabricated ones. Developed for cases, CBCA discriminates truths from lies with moderate effect sizes (d ≈ 1.0–1.5) in meta-analyses of testimonies, but applications show weaker validity (d ≈ 0.5–0.8), vulnerable to or cultural variance. monitoring, a related , leverages perceptual richness (sensory/perceptual details) absent in imagined deceits, yielding small-to-moderate accuracy uplifts (5–10% over baseline) in controlled paradigms. These approaches outperform nonverbal when judges focus on substantive inconsistencies rather than , yet persist below 65% accuracy without corroborative , highlighting humans' default truth and cue overreliance.

Technological and Physiological Approaches

Polygraphs, also known as comparison question tests, measure physiological responses such as , , respiration, and to infer by comparing reactions to relevant versus control questions. Developed by John Larson in 1921, these devices assume that lying provokes greater autonomic due to emotional conflict or . Laboratory studies report accuracy rates of approximately 80-90% under controlled conditions, but field applications, particularly in screening contexts, yield lower reliability, with false positive rates up to 50% in some meta-analyses, leading the to deem them scientifically inadequate for broad evidentiary use. Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) attempts deception detection by observing brain activation patterns, positing that lying engages prefrontal and parietal regions associated with executive control and more than truth-telling. Early studies, such as those from the , claimed classification accuracies exceeding 90% in simple paradigms, but subsequent reviews highlight poor generalizability across individuals, contexts, and lie types, with reliability undermined by variability in neural responses and potential countermeasures like mental distraction. A 2010 judicial review rejected fMRI evidence for lacking sufficient scientific validation, citing inconsistent replication and ethical concerns over false convictions. Electroencephalography (EEG), particularly event-related potentials like the P300 component, detects lies by measuring responses to probe stimuli, where concealed elicits larger amplitudes due to orienting and retrieval. Systematic reviews of studies from 2017-2024 indicate accuracies of 80-95% in concealed tests, outperforming polygraphs in some paradigms by focusing on recognition rather than general , though real-world applicability remains limited by stimulus specificity and susceptibility to . Voice stress analysis (VSA) technologies analyze vocal micro-tremors and frequency shifts, theorizing that induces laryngeal tension reflecting . Field evaluations, including a 2008 study, found VSA systems detecting only about 15-50% of deceptive statements on drug use, with no consistent advantage over chance, prompting critiques of pseudoscientific claims by manufacturers. Emerging physiological methods, such as ocular-motor deception detection via eye-tracking, monitor pupil dilation, saccades, and fixations under , achieving reported accuracies over 80% in controlled trials by exploiting asymmetries in scanning truthful versus deceptive visual stimuli. These approaches, while promising for specific applications, face challenges in and integration with broader multimodal systems. Overall, physiological techniques hinge on indirect from stress or cognitive effort, inherently vulnerable to individual differences in baseline arousal and training effects, necessitating cautious interpretation.

Reliability Challenges and False Positives

Human relies heavily on behavioral cues, yet meta-analyses of empirical studies reveal average accuracy rates of approximately 54% for distinguishing lies from truths, only marginally above chance levels, with truths correctly identified at 61% and lies at 47%. This modest performance persists across professionals such as officers and laypersons, attributed to overreliance on invalid stereotypes like gaze aversion or , which do not reliably correlate with . Nonverbal indicators, including purported microexpressions, fail to provide consistent diagnostic value; systematic reviews conclude that such fleeting facial movements do not enhance detection beyond baseline and may mislead interpreters by conflating emotional leakage with deceit. Polygraph testing exemplifies pronounced reliability deficits, particularly through elevated false positive rates where truthful individuals are erroneously classified as . Independent studies outside advocacy circles report false positive rates exceeding 50%, driven by physiological responses to anxiety or unfamiliarity mimicking deception signals such as elevated or skin conductance. A comprehensive review by the National Research Council documented false positive incidences ranging from 2% to 50.7% across examinations, averaging 14.1%, with variability stemming from examiner subjectivity and test protocols that amplify innocent stress responses. These errors have real-world consequences, including wrongful accusations in screenings and interrogations, where base rates of actual deception are low, inflating the proportion of false alarms under principles. Broader challenges arise from cognitive biases and contextual factors that exacerbate false positives. Truth bias predisposes detectors to assume honesty, inadvertently boosting false negatives for lies but, in high-stakes scenarios, prompting compensatory scrutiny that flags benign nervousness as deceit. Cultural differences in expressive norms and individual variations in autonomic reactivity further undermine universality, as cues deemed deceptive in one population may reflect normative behavior elsewhere. Empirical field studies highlight how these issues compound in asymmetric base-rate environments, such as security screenings, where rare deception events yield predominantly false positives even with tools achieving 80-90% controlled accuracy. Technological aids like AI-driven analysis promise improvements but inherit similar pitfalls when trained on biased datasets, perpetuating erroneous classifications without addressing underlying causal ambiguities in deception signals.

Consequences and Impacts

Interpersonal and Psychological Effects

Lying undermines interpersonal trust, as , once detected, often severs relational bonds and fosters suspicion in subsequent interactions. Empirical studies indicate that discovering falsehoods damages trust between parties, with prosocial lies sometimes temporarily boosting but ultimately reducing long-term when revealed. In close relationships, frequent leads to relational distance, as lies accumulate and require defensive maintenance, cluttering communication and escalating conflicts. Victims of interpersonal lies commonly experience heightened anxiety, , , and feelings of abandonment, which can perpetuate cycles of avoidance and resentment. Psychologically, the act of lying imposes costs on the deceiver, including diminished and elevated negative affect, irrespective of whether the lie serves or others. Research across multiple experiments demonstrates that even recalling past lies triggers psychological distress, with habitual liars exhibiting lower overall , poorer , and reduced academic performance; for instance, young adults who lie daily report significantly worse grade point averages compared to infrequent liars. , characterized by compulsive deceit without apparent gain, correlates with impaired , though it lacks formal diagnostic status in major classifications like the , prompting calls for recognition as a distinct disorder due to its disruptive effects on the liar's functioning. For those deceived, the psychological toll manifests as , evoking intense emotions such as sadness, rage, and eroded self-worth, often initiating a prolonged grief-like process that challenges relational recovery. Individuals with prior trauma histories may face amplified effects, with lies reactivating and exacerbating conditions like complex PTSD through shattered expectations of safety. These impacts highlight deception's causal role in fostering , as victims internalize doubt about their judgment, potentially impairing future attachments.

Societal and Institutional Ramifications

Lies and deception within institutions erode public trust, fostering social fragmentation and reduced cooperation. Empirical models demonstrate that antisocial lying in social networks leads to increasingly disconnected communities, as individuals withdraw from interactions perceived as unreliable, amplifying isolation over time. This dynamic extends to broader society, where repeated institutional dishonesty correlates with declining interpersonal trust, evidenced by studies linking deception to heightened loneliness and weakened social bonds. In democratic contexts, such erosion manifests as voter disillusionment, with misinformation campaigns deliberately undermining confidence in electoral processes and governance legitimacy. In political institutions, contributes to policy failures and scandals that destabilize . For instance, political , including spread via digital platforms, accelerates the rapid dissemination of falsehoods, resulting in polarized electorates and inefficient based on fabricated premises. Historical analyses of scandals reveal patterns where officials' deceit in constituent relations leads to around , further entrenching cynicism toward . surveys indicate that of such lies—often self-admitted by politicians through inconsistent narratives—intensifies perceptions of incompetence or malice, diminishing institutional . Media institutions amplify these effects through selective reporting and failure to challenge falsehoods, perpetuating a "culture of lying" that distorts public discourse. Low trust in news outlets, which has reached historic lows since 1975 tracking began, stems partly from audiences perceiving , omission of facts, and equivalence between verifiable truths and partisan claims, as critiqued in studies. This institutional , driven by dynamics like insider deceptions and agenda-pushing, fragments information ecosystems, hindering informed civic participation. Economically, deception imposes substantial costs via and , diverting resources from productive uses. In the United States, consumer-reported losses reached $12.5 billion in 2024, a 25% increase from the prior year, encompassing scams reliant on deceitful promises. Federal estimates peg annual government-wide at $233 billion to $521 billion, reflecting systemic vulnerabilities in oversight and verification. Globally, alone exacts $78 billion yearly in market disruptions and to corporations, underscoring how institutional lies cascade into broader fiscal inefficiencies. These burdens, often underreported, equate to nearly 8-10% of revenues for affected businesses, compounding through lost and heightened defensive expenditures.

Long-Term Cultural and Economic Costs

Widespread in society contributes to diminished social trust, which empirical studies link to reduced economic and growth. Low-trust environments necessitate extensive formal contracts, legal oversight, and hierarchical structures to mitigate , elevating transaction costs and constraining the formation of efficient, large-scale enterprises beyond familial networks. In high-trust societies, such as post-war and , spontaneous cooperation enables flexible networks and , fostering prosperity; conversely, low-trust societies like those in exhibit pervasive and inefficient , perpetuating . Cross-national analyses confirm that higher generalized trust correlates with greater GDP per capita growth, as trust facilitates investments in physical and while boosting through reduced monitoring needs. Deception's erosion of trust imposes long-term economic burdens, including misallocation of resources via and , with U.S. healthcare alone estimated at up to $272 billion annually in the early , diverting funds from productive uses and inflating systemic inefficiencies. Persistent reinforces behavioral norms favoring , as individuals observing widespread lying rationalize their own deceit, creating feedback loops that hinder institutional reforms and sustain low growth trajectories. In low-trust settings, economic activity remains confined to small, insular groups, limiting and technological diffusion, as evidenced by comparative studies of familistic versus associative cultures. Culturally, chronic lying fragments social networks and undermines cohesion, as deceptive practices deviate from normative expectations, fostering isolation and over shared truths. This leads to declining and weakened , with low correlating to fragmented unable to sustain voluntary or problem-solving. Over generations, such environments prioritize short-term , eroding virtues like reciprocity and , which are foundational to cultural resilience; rebuilding trust proves arduous, as deception more readily destroys established norms than it constructs new ones. In extreme cases, systemic lies propagate ideological echo chambers, polarizing and impeding consensus on empirical realities essential for cultural progress.

Ethical and Philosophical Analysis

Moral Justifications and Prohibitions

![St. Augustine]float-right Major religious traditions impose strict prohibitions against lying, viewing it as a fundamental violation of divine command and integrity. In and , the Eighth Commandment—"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor"—explicitly forbids false testimony, extending to broader deceptions that undermine truth and . similarly condemns lying as a major , with the stating that liars will face severe punishment unless they repent, emphasizing truthfulness as a pillar of . Early Christian thinkers reinforced these bans without exception. St. Augustine, in his treatise On Lying (c. 395 AD), argued that any deliberate falsehood uttered with intent to deceive constitutes a lie, which corrupts the soul regardless of motive, as it opposes the divine nature of truth. He classified lies into categories like those harmful to others or self-deceptive but deemed all morally culpable, rejecting even lies to protect life as they violate the categorical duty to veracity. Augustine's position influenced Catholic doctrine, which upholds the Eighth Commandment as absolute, permitting no intentional deception even in dire circumstances. Deontological ethics in philosophy echoes these absolutes. , in his 1797 essay On a Supposed Right to Lie from , maintained that lying is inherently wrong because it treats others as means rather than ends, violating the to act only on maxims universalizable as rational law. Even lying to a murderer at the door to save a friend remains impermissible, as truthfulness preserves human autonomy and public trust; consequences cannot override this duty. Consequentialist frameworks, such as , offer justifications for lying when it maximizes overall welfare. Act-utilitarians permit if no better alternative exists and net utility increases, as in wartime intelligence or shielding innocents from harm, arguing that rigid prohibitions ignore context-specific harms of truth. Some religious traditions allow exceptions, like permitting lies to preserve life (), prioritizing survival over strict veracity in extremis. However, critics contend such justifications erode foundational trust, fostering a where subjective "greater goods" rationalize habitual deceit, as empirical studies show repeated lying diminishes societal cooperation and personal credibility over time.

First-Principles Reasoning on Deception

Deception entails the intentional assertion of a known to be false by the speaker, with the aim of inducing a corresponding false in the recipient. This act exploits the inherent in communication that signals reliably map to , enabling coordination among rational agents who depend on accurate information for predictive . Without this default veracity, collapses into unverifiable noise, as each reception would require exhaustive independent verification, negating the efficiency of as a causal mechanism for shared knowledge and action. From a deontological standpoint grounded in the logic of rational agency, contradicts the of truth-telling as a maxim. , in his 1797 essay "On a Supposed Right to Lie from ," contends that speech exists to convey truth, and any lie undermines this by treating the listener's rational capacity instrumentally rather than as an end in itself. Were willed as a , it would erode the trust presupposed in all communicative acts, rendering promises, inquiries, and declarations meaningless—since no assertion could be relied upon, the very framework for moral and practical reasoning dissolves. This self-defeating nature arises causally: succeeds only against a backdrop of predominant ; its generalization incentivizes perpetual , escalating cognitive and social costs without reciprocal benefit. Causally, severs the link between empirical reality and belief formation, leading agents to act on distorted models of the world. Rational choice presupposes veridical inputs; false beliefs propagate errors in subsequent inferences and behaviors, such as misallocated resources or failed in iterated interactions. In strategic settings, where outcomes depend on mutual expectations, initial deceptions may yield short-term gains but erode reputational equilibria, as Bayesian updating by recipients adjusts priors toward distrust, increasing the probability of in future exchanges. This dynamic mirrors the extended over time: truth fosters verifiable reciprocity, while deception invites retaliation or withdrawal, diminishing overall welfare through heightened uncertainty. Empirical analogs in , such as under asymmetric information, illustrate how unchecked misrepresentation collapses markets by incentivizing withdrawal of quality signals. Philosophically, the wrongness of deception stems not merely from contingent harms but from its inherent subversion of epistemic . By supplying fabricated premises, the deceiver usurps the recipient's faculty for independent judgment, akin to of reason. Classical thinkers like viewed habitual falsehood as a eroding phronesis (practical wisdom), as reliable self-knowledge and interpersonal signaling require alignment with facts. Sustained deception thus impairs the deceiver's own causal efficacy, fostering or habitual divergence from reality, which hampers adaptive responses in a world governed by objective constraints.

Debates on "Noble Lies" and Utilitarian Trade-offs

![Plato bust][float-right] In 's (circa 375 BCE), the "" (Greek: gennaion pseudos, often translated as a "magnificent ") is proposed in Book III as a foundational to instill acceptance of the ideal city's class structure. suggests telling citizens that they were born from the infused with metals— for rulers (guardians), silver for (warriors), and bronze or iron for producers (farmers and craftsmen)—with offspring inheriting parental metals to justify inherited roles and encourage vigilance against degeneration. This lie aims to foster civic unity and willing subordination, benefiting the by aligning individual duties with collective harmony, though acknowledges its implausibility and frames it as a necessary expedient for non-philosophers. The concept resonates with consequentialist frameworks, predating but paralleling utilitarian trade-offs where is permissible if it maximizes overall welfare. Utilitarians assess lies by their net outcomes: a falsehood promoting greater or stability for the many outweighs the harm of individual truth-denial. For instance, act utilitarians might endorse a leader concealing harsh realities to avert panic, as in wartime deceptions that save lives, provided the utility calculus—balancing pleasure, pain, and long-term effects—yields positive results. Proponents, drawing from , argue noble lies sustain fragile social orders, preventing chaos from unvarnished truths about inequality or human flaws that could incite revolt. Opponents, particularly deontologists, reject such trade-offs as morally corrosive, insisting truthfulness is an absolute duty irrespective of consequences. (1724–1804) maintained that lying violates the by treating others as means to an end and erodes rational autonomy, famously arguing one must not lie even to a murderer inquiring after a hidden innocent, lest universalized deceit render communication impossible. This absolutism critiques noble lies as paternalistic , risking elite corruption and public disillusionment upon exposure, which historically amplifies distrust beyond initial harms—evident in philosophical warnings that fabricated myths undermine genuine virtue and consent. Debates intensify over empirical viability: while theoretical models posit controlled for societal gain, real-world applications often falter, as sustained lies demand perpetual and invite escalation, per critics like those echoing Kant's concerns about slippery slopes to tyranny. Utilitarian responses invoke , advocating habitual truth-telling rules unless exceptions demonstrably enhance aggregate utility, but concede noble lies' rarity due to discovery risks eroding institutional legitimacy. Philosophers like (1899–1973) revived noble lies for esoteric political writing to shield truths from masses, yet this invites charges of intellectual hierarchy over egalitarian realism, highlighting tensions between short-term stability and long-term epistemic integrity.

Evolutionary and Biological Dimensions

Deception in Non-Human Animals

Deception in non-human animals encompasses a range of behaviors where individuals transmit misleading signals to exploit others, often for foraging, mating, or evasion advantages. These include passive forms like and , as well as active tactical maneuvers that suggest . Empirical observations span taxa, from using to lure prey—such as Photuris fireflies imitating the luminescent signals of conspecifics to attract and consume them—to vertebrates employing feigned signals in social contexts. In predator-prey dynamics, post-detection deception frequently involves erratic movements or injury simulation to divert pursuit, as seen in ground-nesting birds like that perform "broken-wing" displays to lead threats away from nests. Among mammals, demonstrate rudimentary tactical . A field study of free-living Algerian mice (Mus spretus) revealed flexible dodging behaviors during pursuits, where mice unpredictably altered trajectories to mislead predators, with success rates increasing when deception was employed over direct flight. This marks the first documented evidence of potential intentional tactical deception in mice, analyzed through high-speed of over 200 chases. exhibit more sophisticated instances, often involving manipulation of conspecific knowledge states. Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), for example, have been observed hiding food from dominant group members or feigning disinterest in opportunities to avoid , with behaviors varying based on the observer's visual access. Systematic catalogs of deception, such as the 1990 database by and Whiten, documented over 250 cases across 42 , including tactical concealment in wild olive baboons (Papio anubis) where subordinates hid affiliations from dominants to evade punishment. In monkeys (Theropithecus gelada), females actively conceal extra-pair copulations with subordinate males by suppressing vocalizations and repositioning during encounters with dominant males, reducing detection risk by up to 80% in observed instances from a 2013 Ethiopian highland study. These patterns suggest deception evolves where or predation pressure favors misleading signals, though distinguishing from intent remains challenging without direct mind-reading evidence. Peer-reviewed analyses emphasize that such behaviors correlate with relative in , implying cognitive underpinnings akin to precursors.

Adaptive Role in Human Evolution

Deception, encompassing deliberate lying, conferred adaptive advantages in by enabling individuals to manipulate social interactions for resource acquisition, status enhancement, and in competitive ancestral environments. In small groups, where was essential yet rife with conflicts of interest, deceivers could secure disproportionate shares of food or mates without incurring the risks of overt , thereby increasing fitness when detection probabilities were low. Evolutionary models demonstrate that lying strategies, such as self-benefiting "black lies," can invade truthful populations and stabilize at high frequencies (around 90% among senders) when payoff benefits to the liar exceed costs to the deceived, particularly as receivers evolve in response. This dynamic reflects a co-evolutionary between and detection, with favoring traits that minimize cognitive costs of lying, such as reduced nervousness or hesitation cues. Self-deception emerged as a key mechanism to bolster interpersonal , allowing individuals to internalize false beliefs and thereby deceive others more convincingly without betraying telltale signs of duplicity. By dissociating conscious attitudes from unconscious knowledge—through biased information processing, selective , or source confusion—self-deceivers project greater and authenticity, enhancing in , , or alliance formation. In ancestral settings, this facilitated overconfident displays that deterred rivals or attracted partners, with empirical links to improved immune function, reduced stress, and via . For instance, approximately 50% of daily human lies serve self-interested goals, underscoring persistent selective pressures from such adaptations. Detection rates, though generally poor (improving to 72% only in high-stakes scenarios like interrogations), further rewarded self-deceivers who avoided scrutiny. The evolution of language amplified deception's utility as a derived function, enabling abstract manipulation beyond primate-like tactical deceit, though its primary role remains social bonding with honesty to sustain trust. Prosocial lies, which mitigate conflicts or bolster group cohesion, increase developmentally (post-age 7 in children), suggesting innate modules calibrated for balanced use given deception's risks, such as reputational damage or retaliation. Overall, lying's rarity in daily life (fewer than 2 lies per day on average) indicates selection for restraint, where benefits accrue selectively in asymmetric power dynamics or when prosocial variants enhance inclusive fitness without eroding cooperative equilibria.

Genetic and Neurobiological Bases

Twin studies indicate moderate to substantial in attitudes toward everyday and moral judgments of deceptive acts. A study of over 1,000 twin pairs found that genetic factors account for approximately 30-40% of variance in disapproval of dishonest behaviors, with shared environment playing a minimal role. Similarly, broad estimates for self-reported lying tendencies, as measured by scales like the Eysenck Questionnaire's Lie subscale, range from 29% to 42% in large adult twin samples. These findings suggest that predispositions to arise partly from polygenic influences rather than single s, though environmental interactions modulate expression. For , characterized by compulsive fabrication, genetic contributions are implicated alongside neurodevelopmental factors, but no deterministic "lying " has been identified; instead, variants in genes like TPH2, involved in serotonin synthesis, correlate with dishonest choices in experimental paradigms such as the die-under-cup task, where participants underreport rolls for gain. Neuroimaging research reveals that deception engages cognitive control networks, demanding greater neural resources than truth-telling due to the dual processes of suppressing veridical information and fabricating alternatives. Functional MRI (fMRI) studies consistently show heightened activation in the prefrontal cortex, particularly the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) for working memory and executive planning, and the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) for detecting cognitive conflict between truth and lie. A meta-analysis of deception paradigms identifies a distributed network including ventrolateral prefrontal regions for response inhibition and parietal areas for attentional allocation, with no brain region reliably more active during honest disclosure than deception, underscoring lying's inherent inhibitory load. These activations are modulated by context; strategic deception in social interactions recruits additional temporoparietal junction activity for theory-of-mind inferences about others' beliefs. Pathological forms may involve prefrontal hypoactivation or white matter anomalies, reducing inhibitory control and facilitating unchecked falsehoods, as observed in pseudologia fantastica cases. Overall, these bases highlight deception as an evolutionarily conserved override of default honesty circuits, reliant on intact executive function.

Historical and Cultural Contexts

Prominent Historical Examples of Systemic Lies

The was a forged imperial decree falsely attributed to Emperor Constantine I around 315 AD, claiming he had granted supremacy over the , including vast territories and secular authority. Likely fabricated in the papal chancery between 750 and 850 AD to bolster the Church's claims amid conflicts with secular rulers like the and , the document was systematically invoked in papal bulls and for centuries to legitimize the temporal power of the . Its exposure as a linguistic and historical came in 1440 through the philological analysis of Italian humanist , who demonstrated inconsistencies such as references to non-existent titles and Latin styles absent in the . The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a fabricated antisemitic tract alleging a Jewish-Masonic for through control of finance, media, and governments, originated as a of earlier satirical works by Russian () agents around 1897-1903. First serialized in a Russian in 1903 and published as a book in 1905, it was systematically promoted by Tsarist authorities to deflect blame for pogroms and revolutionary unrest, later adopted by Henry Ford's in the U.S. (1920-1922) and Nazi , including citations in (1925), contributing to widespread persecution culminating in . Exposed as a in 1921 by of through side-by-side comparisons revealing direct lifts from Maurice Joly's 1864 anti-Napoleon and Hermann Goedsche's 1868 novel, its persistence despite debunking underscores institutional endorsement overriding evidence. Lysenkoism in the Soviet Union exemplified state-enforced , where agronomist , backed by from the mid-1930s, rejected Mendelian in favor of Lamarckian inheritance claims that environmental changes could rapidly alter heredity in crops and livestock. Promoted through purges of geneticists like (imprisoned 1940, died 1943) and official decrees, including the 1948 ban on research, Lysenko's methods—such as and close planting—were mandated nationwide, leading to agricultural failures that exacerbated famines like the 1932-1933 (5-7 million deaths) and post-WWII shortages. The doctrine's collapse began after death in 1953, with rehabilitated by 1964 under , though Lysenko retained influence until 1965; retrospective analyses attribute millions of excess deaths to yield drops of up to 50% in key crops. The Dreyfus Affair involved the French Army's 1894 framing of Jewish captain Alfred Dreyfus for treason via forged evidence and a secret dossier, despite exonerating ballistics showing Major Ferdinand Walsin Esterhazy as the bordereau's author. Systematically covered up by military intelligence under General Mercier to protect institutional honor and amid antisemitic sentiments, Dreyfus was court-martialed on October 19, 1894, degraded publicly on January 5, 1895, and exiled to Devil's Island; the conspiracy persisted through a 1899 retrial influenced by falsified documents until full exoneration on July 12, 1906, after Émile Zola's 1898 open letter J'Accuse...!. This episode, involving forgery of over 200 documents and perjury by officers like Hubert-Joseph Henry (who confessed and suicided in 1898), eroded public trust in the Third Republic and fueled Zionist movements.

Representations in Literature, Art, and Folklore

In literature, Carlo Collodi's (1883) portrays lying through the protagonist's wooden , which elongates each time he utters a falsehood, visually embodying the accumulation of deceit and its inescapability. This motif underscores the narrative's moral lesson on , as 's repeated lies lead to physical and consequential repercussions until he reforms. Aesop's fable "," dating to around the 6th century BCE, illustrates the perils of habitual lying: a shepherd boy falsely alerts villagers to a wolf attack for amusement, eroding their trust, so that when a real appears, his cries go unheeded, resulting in loss of sheep. The tale's moral, "Liars are not believed even when they speak the truth," has influenced Western proverbs and cautionary stories against . In , lying contests feature prominently, as in Type 1965 of the Aarne-Thompson-Uther folktale , where characters vie with increasingly absurd fabrications, such as a man claiming to lack eyes, legs, or arms, highlighting exaggeration as a form of competitive deceit found across European oral traditions. abounds with deceptive figures, including , whose lies to —claiming the name "Nobody"—enable escape, and gods like , who frequently employ guile, reflecting deception's role in survival and divine intrigue. Artistic representations often allegorize through mythological scenes; Diego Velázquez's 17th-century paintings, such as Joseph's Bloody Coat Brought to (c. 1630), depict biblical deceit where brothers fabricate evidence of to conceal their , using dramatic lighting to emphasize moral ambiguity. In illusionism, techniques simulate reality to deceive the eye, mirroring thematic lies in works like those of the Carracci brothers, though primarily technical rather than narrative.

Cross-Cultural Attitudes Toward Lying

Attitudes toward lying vary significantly across cultures, often aligning with broader value systems such as versus collectivism. In individualistic societies like those in the United States and , lying is generally viewed more negatively, with a stronger emphasis on personal and objective truthfulness, leading to lower acceptability ratings for most forms of . Conversely, collectivist cultures, including those in and , tend to show greater tolerance for prosocial lies that preserve social harmony, protect group interests, or avoid conflict, reflecting priorities of relational interdependence over absolute honesty. Empirical studies on children's evaluations highlight these divergences early in development. For instance, comparing Chinese and Canadian children found that while both groups disapproved of antisocial lies, Chinese participants rated prosocial lies—those intended to benefit the —as more acceptable and less morally culpable than their Canadian counterparts, attributing this to cultural norms favoring group harmony. Similarly, Korean and American children exhibited differences in judging lies versus truths in collective-oriented scenarios, with East Asian children showing leniency toward deceptions that upheld social obligations. These patterns persist into adulthood, as evidenced by a study of German and Chinese university students, where Chinese participants deemed lying in intergroup contexts more morally justifiable if it served relational or face-saving goals, whereas prioritized truth as an intrinsic ethical . Cross-cultural research on indirect further reveals nuanced attitudes. A comparison of U.S. and Russian participants indicated that Russians assigned lower "lie ratings" to indirect statements that conveyed falsehoods without explicit falsity, suggesting a cultural of implication over direct assertion in communication. In prosocial contexts, Euro-Americans rated lies motivated by as more acceptable than self-serving ones, but overall less so than , who balanced individual benefit with communal welfare in their judgments. Such findings underscore how cultural scripts—shaped by historical emphases on , reciprocity, or —influence the perceived legitimacy of , with collectivist norms often framing certain lies as adaptive rather than immoral. Anthropological evidence complements psychological data, showing that in some non-Western societies, is embedded in everyday without stigma. For example, ethnographic accounts from describe "face-saving" evasions as normative rather than deceit, prioritizing indirectness to maintain social bonds over blunt truth-telling. However, global surveys reveal potential trade-offs: stricter cultural prohibitions on in high-trust societies correlate with lower reported rates, while permissive attitudes toward "harmless" lies may erode broader civic in diverse experimental paradigms. These variations challenge universalist assumptions, emphasizing context-dependent evaluations grounded in empirical cross-national comparisons.

Religious and Theological Views

Abrahamic Traditions

In Judaism, the Ninth Commandment explicitly prohibits bearing false witness against one's neighbor, as stated in Exodus 20:16. Talmudic literature upholds a high standard of truthfulness, deeming even minor deceptions rabbinically forbidden based on prophetic verses emphasizing integrity. However, exceptions exist: lying is permitted to preserve human life, promote peace between individuals (shalom bayit), or uphold modesty, as derived from interpretations allowing deviation from strict truth when greater harm would otherwise occur. Christian theology draws from the same Decalogue prohibition while reinforcing truth as a divine attribute, with Proverbs 12:22 declaring lying lips an abomination to the Lord and :25 urging believers to eschew falsehood. Early Church Father , in his treatise On Lying (c. 395 CE), argued unequivocally against all lies, defining a lie as speech intended to deceive regardless of intent or outcome, even in cases like protecting innocents from persecutors, as truthfulness aligns with God's unchanging nature. This absolutist position influenced later thinkers like , who maintained that while evasion or silence might be preferable, deliberate falsehood remains intrinsically wrong. In Islam, the Quran commands adherence to truth in justice (4:135) and condemns liars alongside disbelievers (9:107), while Hadith collections such as Sahih Bukhari report the Prophet Muhammad stating that truthfulness leads to righteousness and paradise, whereas lying leads to wickedness and hellfire (Bukhari 6094). A hadith further identifies lying as one of three definitive signs of hypocrisy (Bukhari 33). Exceptions are narrowly circumscribed: deception is allowable in warfare ("war is deceit," Bukhari 3029), reconciliation between disputants, or spousal relations to foster harmony, though taqiyya—primarily a Shia doctrine permitting concealment of faith under persecution—remains debated and not a general license for falsehood in Sunni jurisprudence.

Eastern Philosophies and Religions

In , truthfulness () constitutes a core ethical principle within , requiring adherents to refrain from lying, betraying promises, and suppressing truth, as disrupts cosmic order and personal virtue. Scriptures classify lying as a of speech, often motivated by gain or harm, which binds the soul to negative karma and hinders spiritual progress. While emphasizes speaking what is true, kind, and necessary, it integrates with (non-violence), subordinating absolute truth to avoidance of harm in rare contexts, though outright falsehood remains condemned. Buddhism's fourth precept mandates abstaining from musavada (false speech), encompassing lies, deceit, and misleading words intended to deceive, as such actions generate harmful karma and obstruct the path to enlightenment. Right Speech (samma vaca), a component of the , prohibits not only deliberate falsehoods but also divisive, harsh, or idle talk that erodes trust and . The Buddha emphasized : speech believed true, even if erroneous, does not violate the precept absent deceitful motive, underscoring causal realism in ethical where outcomes stem from volition rather than mere words. Jainism elevates (truthfulness) as one of the five main vows for laypersons and ascetics, demanding strict avoidance of lies, half-truths, or exaggerations to uphold (non-violence), since verbal harm karmically binds the soul and perpetuates suffering across existences. This principle aligns thoughts, words, and actions, viewing deception as a form of violence that confuses the mind and invites karmic influx, with no exceptions for "white lies" as even protective silence is preferred over falsehood to minimize harm. Confucianism prioritizes xin (sincerity or trustworthiness) as a cardinal virtue, demanding alignment between inner intent and outward expression to foster social harmony and moral rectification, where habitual lying erodes personal integrity and societal order. Confucius taught that honesty in thoughts, avoidance of bias, and frank self-assessment form the basis of proper conduct, with insincerity (bu cheng) leading to self-deception and relational breakdown. However, texts like the Mencius permit deception in exceptional cases if it aligns with righteousness (yi), such as strategic misdirection for greater ethical ends, reflecting a pragmatic realism over rigid absolutism. Taoism views truth as alignment with the Tao's natural flow, discouraging contrived deception in daily life as it disrupts effortless action (wu wei) and invites disharmony, though indirectness or paradox may serve strategic contexts like warfare without moral condemnation. Lao Tzu's Tao Te Ching implies that excessive words, including false ones, obscure reality, prioritizing authentic simplicity over verbal manipulation to avoid karmic-like imbalances in the cosmic order.

Indigenous and Polytheistic Perspectives

In polytheistic traditions, deception frequently manifests as a divine tool for innovation, survival, or cosmic balance, embodied by deities whose lies challenge rigid order without universal condemnation. In mythology, Hermes exemplifies this as the inventor of lying; on the day of his birth in approximately the 8th century BCE Homeric Hymn accounts, he stole Apollo's cattle, concealed the theft with cunning tracks, and fabricated denials before inventing the from a tortoise shell as recompense, establishing his patronage over thieves and eloquent falsehoods. Likewise, Norse lore portrays as the god of mischief and deception, whose shape-shifting lies alternately rescue the gods—such as retrieving Thor's hammer through disguise—and precipitate chaos, as in the binding of where deceit ensures divine security, illustrating trickery's dual role in maintaining equilibrium. Hindu scriptures uphold (truth) as a foundational , yet permit calculated lies under exigency, reflecting causal trade-offs between veracity and harm prevention. The , composed around 400 BCE to 400 CE, specifies falsehood as allowable in five contexts: to save a life in peril, during rites, against enemies in , to preserve a secret, or for a brähmin's welfare, as articulated in Book 8, Verse 69, where such deceptions align with broader ethical utility rather than absolute prohibition. Indigenous traditions often prioritize truth for relational and ecological harmony, equating lies with self-deception or communal rupture, though archetypes pragmatically deploy deceit to expose folly or foster adaptation. Among Native American groups like the Haudenosaunee, 19th-century leaders such as in his 1805 address to U.S. officials defended indigenous truths against colonial fabrications, emphasizing honest discourse as resistance to imposed narratives. , a recurrent in tribes including the and Lakota, lies inventively for sustenance or fire acquisition in oral tales dating to pre-colonial eras, yet faces repercussions that teach boundaries, as in GVSU analyses of trickster motifs where deceit drives cultural lessons on excess. African indigenous epistemologies similarly distinguish moral lying from factual error, valorizing truth as empirically verified while acknowledging falsehood's pervasive rivalry. Yoruba philosophy defines ooto (truth) as perceptual evidence conjoined with inner testimony, rendering iro (lie) a deliberate ethical breach rather than neutral , per analyses in Barry and Sodipo's 1986 ethnographic work. In West African-derived creation myths, such as those syncretized in African-Cuban lore with roots in Yoruba or related traditions, the creator fashions mighty Truth and frail Falsehood as foes, only for Falsehood to decapitate and swap heads with Truth, symbolizing their inextricable confusion in human affairs since antiquity.

Contemporary Issues and Debunking Narratives

Deception in Politics and Media

frequently involves strategic misrepresentation to influence voter behavior and maintain power. Empirical analysis of public claims by U.S. politicians reveals patterns of false statements, with data from documenting over 2,400 claims by 444 politicians, many rated as false or misleading. Studies further indicate that politicians averse to lying exhibit lower reelection rates, implying that can yield electoral advantages by aligning with voter expectations or avoiding scrutiny. For instance, experimental shows voters struggle to detect lies in political statements, with accuracy rates often below chance, allowing deceivers to evade . Historical cases underscore systemic political deception. President Lyndon B. Johnson's administration exaggerated the Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964, fabricating details of North Vietnamese attacks to justify escalated U.S. involvement in Vietnam, a deception later declassified and confirmed by naval historians. Similarly, Richard Nixon's Watergate scandal involved coordinated lies to cover up a 1972 break-in at Democratic headquarters, leading to his 1974 resignation amid irrefutable evidence from tapes and testimony. These events, verified through official investigations, illustrate how deception sustains policy agendas despite eventual exposure. In media, ideological shapes reporting, often amplifying political narratives. Quantitative measures of U.S. media outlets, based on citation patterns of think tanks, place networks like and left of the congressional median, indicating systematic slant in story selection and framing. Such correlates with undercoverage of scandals unfavorable to aligned parties, as seen in empirical reviews of partisan coverage disparities. Mainstream outlets, influenced by institutional left-leaning tendencies, have propagated unverified claims, such as initial dismissals of the lab-leak hypothesis in 2020, later deemed plausible by intelligence assessments. Fake news propagation exacerbates media deception, spreading faster than factual reporting on platforms like , where false stories reach six times the audience of true ones due to novelty and emotional appeal. Case studies of , including reconfigured falsehoods, show 59% derived from real events but distorted for virality, eroding public trust. This dynamic enables political actors to leverage media echo chambers, where biased amplification reinforces deceptions, as evidenced by analyses of headline sentiment revealing growing polarization. Overall, these patterns highlight causal links between institutional incentives and deceptive outputs, prioritizing narrative over veracity.

Role in Ideological Conflicts and Propaganda

Lies constitute a foundational element in during ideological conflicts, enabling actors to shape narratives that advance partisan agendas by distorting reality and eroding trust in opposing viewpoints. , as a systematic effort to influence attitudes through selective truths or outright fabrications, relies on to foster group cohesion and delegitimize adversaries, often exploiting cognitive vulnerabilities like the , where repeated falsehoods gain perceived validity regardless of evidence. This tactic has been empirically linked to polarization, as high-volume dissemination overwhelms rational scrutiny, a pattern observed in both historical and modern regimes. The "big lie" technique, articulated by in Mein Kampf (1925), posits that colossal falsehoods are more credible to the masses than minor ones, as people assume no entity would risk fabricating deceptions of such scale; Hitler argued this stemmed from the public's reluctance to attribute immense audacity to authorities. , as Nazi Propaganda Minister from 1933, operationalized it through state media, repeatedly asserting the "stab-in-the-back" myth that and communists betrayed in , despite military records showing internal collapse due to resource shortages and Allied advances by November 1918. This deception mobilized support for aggressive expansionism, contributing to policies that culminated in , where framed as existential threats, deceiving the populace into accepting genocidal measures as defensive necessities. Soviet propaganda similarly weaponized lies in ideological warfare, employing a "firehose of falsehood" model characterized by rapid, voluminous dissemination across channels to drown out counter-narratives, as analyzed in post-Cold War declassifications. Notable examples include the denial of the Holodomor famine (1932–1933), which killed an estimated 3.9 million Ukrainians through engineered starvation, portrayed instead as a natural disaster or Western exaggeration to conceal Stalin's collectivization policies aimed at crushing peasant resistance to communism. In contemporary conflicts, such as Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine, state outlets propagated claims of Ukrainian "Nazification" and fabricated evidence of bioweapons labs, inverting documented Russian atrocities like the Bucha massacres (March 2022), where over 400 civilians were killed, to justify aggression under anti-fascist ideology. These patterns underscore how lies in propaganda not only sustain ideological dominance but also impede empirical accountability, with studies indicating that partisan media consumption prioritizes ideological alignment over factual accuracy, amplifying deception's reach.

Empirical Evidence Against Normalized Deceptions

Habituated , including socially accepted forms such as white lies, correlates with neural adaptations that diminish the cognitive and emotional costs of , facilitating escalation to more frequent or severe lies. studies demonstrate that repeated acts of deception reduce activation in brain regions associated with conflict monitoring, such as the and , effectively habituating individuals to moral transgression and increasing the likelihood of habitual lying. This adaptation undermines self-regulatory mechanisms, as initially depletes cognitive resources but progressively becomes less effortful, leading to patterns of compulsive or observed in clinical populations. Interpersonal relationships suffer measurable erosion from normalized deceptions, with even minor falsehoods fostering and emotional disconnection. Experimental and survey indicate that white lies, intended to avoid discomfort, often generate suspicion upon detection, compounding over time to impair relational intimacy and stability. In romantic partnerships, —regardless of scale—destroys foundational trust, with qualitative analyses revealing patterns where small deceptions evolve into cycles of avoidance and , ultimately heightening conflict and dissolution risk. Longitudinal observations of parent-child dynamics further show that routine parental lying predicts poorer emotional adjustment and increased deceptive tendencies in offspring, perpetuating intergenerational harm. At the societal level, pervasive correlates with diminished social cohesion and trust metrics, as empirical network analyses reveal that undetected lies fragment structures by inducing generalized suspicion among deceivers and targets alike. Studies on deception frequency demonstrate reduced perceived , with participants engaging in lies reporting heightened interpersonal , which scales to broader fragmentation. This effect manifests in quantifiable outcomes, such as lower rates in experimental games where prior deception exposure lowers reciprocity, mirroring real-world declines in institutional trust amid normalized . Overall, these findings underscore that normalizing deceptions incurs cumulative costs to psychological integrity, relational bonds, and collective welfare, contravening assumptions of harmlessness.

References

  1. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/lying-definition/
  2. https://dictionary.apa.org/lie
  3. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-nature-of-deception/201905/what-is-a-lie
  4. https://www.etymonline.com/word/lie
  5. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B9780128012505000021
  6. https://commons.und.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1082&context=psych-stu
  7. https://psytherapy.co.uk/why-do-we-lie/
  8. https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/etd/1720/
  9. https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/kant-2023-2043/html?lang=en
  10. https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/93642/how-did-to-lie-i-e-lie-about-something-and-to-lie-i-e-lie-down-end-up-b
  11. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1601034
  12. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0010027715000165
  13. https://neelburton.com/2019/09/24/the-philosophy-of-lying/
  14. https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1607
  15. https://philarchive.org/archive/GASLBE-3
  16. https://www.u.[arizona](/page/Arizona).edu/~arico/docs/LDL&S.pdf
  17. http://www.u.[arizona](/page/Arizona).edu/~arico/docs/LDL&S.pdf
  18. https://academic.oup.com/analysis/advance-article/doi/10.1093/analys/anae031/7900325
  19. https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/40996/is-there-any-situation-where-lying-by-omission-would-be-considered-ethical
  20. https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/k2s4r2/what_is_kants_view_of_lies_of_omission/
  21. https://philosophynow.org/issues/53/On_Bullshit_by_Harry_Frankfurt
  22. https://reasonandmeaning.com/2020/10/29/lying-vs-bullshit/
  23. https://reeswrites.com/posts/lying/
  24. https://journals.publishing.umich.edu/ergo/article/id/2251/
  25. https://smg.media.mit.edu/library/DePaulo.ManyFacesOfLies.pdf
  26. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/229622567_Interpersonal_Deception_Theory
  27. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886918302605
  28. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/238336405_Serious_Lies
  29. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/finding-a-new-home/202207/research-reveals-the-most-common-reasons-people-lie
  30. https://smg.media.mit.edu/library/DePauloEtAl.LyingEverydayLife.pdf
  31. http://article.sapub.org/10.5923.j.ijpbs.20130303.02.html
  32. https://mindlabneuroscience.com/lying-exploring-the-neuroscience-behind-it/
  33. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5390719/
  34. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0278262615300397
  35. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5042136/
  36. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3788848/
  37. https://srcd.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/cdep.12023
  38. https://www.bbc.com/news/10119297
  39. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273229724000492
  40. https://www.apa.org/news/podcasts/speaking-of-psychology/why-kids-lie
  41. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352250X22000938
  42. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0225566
  43. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6542652/
  44. https://www.uwlax.edu/currents/how-often-do-people-lie/
  45. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/people-lie-1-08-times-a-day/
  46. https://www.magnetaba.com/blog/lying-statistics-facts
  47. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0249815
  48. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10510974.2025.2507669
  49. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5037731
  50. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2024-86721-001
  51. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK606104/
  52. https://www.psychiatrictimes.com/view/pathological-lying-symptom-or-disease
  53. https://psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/appi.psychotherapy.20210006
  54. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9176035/
  55. https://www.apa.org/news/podcasts/speaking-of-psychology/pathological-lying
  56. https://theconversation.com/lie-detection-tests-have-worked-the-same-way-for-3-000-years-and-theyre-still-hopelessly-inaccurate-200741
  57. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4873061/
  58. https://www.caseiq.com/resources/ebook-how-to-detect-deception-in-investigation-interviews-history-of-detecting-deception/
  59. https://www.paulekman.com/deception/deception-detection/
  60. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1207/s15327957pspr1003_2
  61. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7767987/
  62. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2352250X15001086
  63. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1068316X.2024.2335971
  64. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1697260016000041
  65. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36552104/
  66. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/acp.3950
  67. https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/10420/chapter/8
  68. https://www.polygraph.org/docs/meta_analytic_review_polygraph_404.pdf
  69. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30284848/
  70. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3680134/
  71. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19092066/
  72. https://law.stanford.edu/2010/06/01/fmri-lie-detection-fails-its-first-hearing-on-reliability/
  73. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12110709/
  74. https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/voice-stress-analysis-only-15-percent-lies-about-drug-use-detected-field-test
  75. https://source.washu.edu/2004/02/research-casts-doubt-on-voicestress-lie-detection-technology/
  76. https://eyecanknow.com/blogs/truthconnect%25E2%2584%25A2/voice-stress-analysis-vs-ocular-motor-deception-detection-a-comparison-of-lie-detection-technologies
  77. https://eyecanknow.com/blogs/truthconnect%25E2%2584%25A2/the-science-behind-lie-detection-exploring-various-techniques
  78. https://www.apa.org/topics/cognitive-neuroscience/polygraph
  79. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16859438/
  80. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21707129/
  81. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6158306/
  82. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6654171/
  83. https://sgp.fas.org/othergov/polygraph/ota/conc.html
  84. https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/10420/chapter/20
  85. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001691820305746
  86. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211368119301597
  87. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364661324000810
  88. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11041808/
  89. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/toxic-relationships/201801/how-secrets-and-lies-destroy-relationships
  90. https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjso.12711
  91. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/fulfillment-at-any-age/201209/why-being-lied-to-hurts-us-so-much
  92. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/beyond-mental-health/202404/why-lies-are-triggering-for-many-with-childhood-trauma
  93. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4123708/
  94. https://www.nature.com/articles/s44271-023-00021-0
  95. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/misinformation-is-eroding-the-publics-confidence-in-democracy/
  96. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/deception-dishonesty-politics-need-truth-professor-allan-britton-nbq8e
  97. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1045235425000322
  98. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-024-03503-6
  99. https://hbr.org/1995/05/why-the-news-is-not-the-truth
  100. https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/our-research/bias-bullshit-and-lies-audience-perspectives-low-trust-media
  101. https://jmp.princeton.edu/events/2025/institutional-corruption-news-media-causes-consequences-and-remedies
  102. https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2025/08/ftc-data-show-more-four-fold-increase-reports-impersonation-scammers-stealing-tens-even-hundreds
  103. https://www.gao.gov/fraud-improper-payments
  104. https://www.weforum.org/stories/2025/07/financial-impact-of-disinformation-on-corporations/
  105. https://newsroom.transunion.com/h2-2025-global-fraud-report/
  106. https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/seminar/1999/reforms/fukuyama.htm
  107. https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/34638/chapter/295120005
  108. https://www.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/topics/economy/connecting-trust-and-economic-growth.html
  109. https://www.raymondduch.com/files/The-moral-cost-of-lying_April-2020.pdf
  110. https://www.minneapolisfed.org/article/1995/trust-the-social-virtues-and-the-creation-of-prosperity
  111. https://www.persuasion.community/p/the-crisis-of-trust
  112. https://apologeticspress.org/defending-the-biblical-position-against-lying-2843/
  113. https://www.reviewofreligions.org/29508/world-faiths-lying-deceit/
  114. https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1312.htm
  115. https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/the-lowdown-on-lying
  116. https://www.scu.edu/ethics/ethics-resources/ethical-decision-making/lying/
  117. http://justiceharvard.org/lecture-13-a-lesson-in-lying/
  118. https://academic.oup.com/book/5430/chapter/148274603
  119. https://press.rebus.community/intro-to-phil-ethics/chapter/kantian-deontology/
  120. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262457237_Kant_and_the_right_to_lie_reviewed_essay_On_a_supposed_right_to_lie_from_philanthropy_by_Inmanuel_Kant_1797
  121. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1810.00752
  122. https://academicworks.cuny.edu/le_pubs/415/
  123. https://greatbooksguy.com/2017/10/23/platos-republic-book-iii-the-noble-lie/
  124. https://voegelinview.com/the-truth-about-platos-noble-lie/
  125. https://kenyonreview.org/2007/02/what-is-a-noble-lie/
  126. https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/article_1549jsp/
  127. https://roytsao.nyc/2016/05/27/misremembering-platos-noble-lie/
  128. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/deception-in-the-animal-kingdom/
  129. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10292197/
  130. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.231692
  131. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0163638316301825
  132. https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/100E1747829535A834C21FB6D361D00C/S0140525X00049682a.pdf/tactical-deception-in-primates.pdf
  133. https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms2468
  134. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27865584/
  135. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsif.2019.0211
  136. https://labs.la.utexas.edu/swann/files/2016/03/brooks-17-18.pdf
  137. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5037177/
  138. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S016726811300125X
  139. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236863780_The_Heritability_of_Moral_Standards_for_Everyday_Dishonesty
  140. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4852200/
  141. https://liedetectortest.com/psychology/is-pathological-lying-a-genetic-disorder
  142. https://academic.oup.com/cercor/article/13/8/830/328813
  143. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2412881121
  144. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-67721-z
  145. https://christianhistoryinstitute.org/magazine/article/donation-of-constantine
  146. https://www.historyskills.com/classroom/ancient-history/donation-of-constantine/
  147. https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/protocols-of-the-elders-of-zion
  148. https://www.ajc.org/translatehate/Protocols-of-the-Elders-of-Zion
  149. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6499510/
  150. https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/12/trofim-lysenko-soviet-union-russia/548786/
  151. https://exhibitions.wienerholocaustlibrary.org/fighting-antisemitism/exhibition/fighting-for-france-the-dreyfus-affair/
  152. https://lithub.com/is-the-original-pinocchio-actually-about-lying-and-very-long-noses/
  153. https://www.gradesaver.com/the-adventures-of-pinocchio/study-guide/symbols-allegory-motifs
  154. https://read.gov/aesop/043.html
  155. https://sites.pitt.edu/~dash/type1965.html
  156. https://classroom.synonym.com/famous-liars-greek-mythology-21981.html
  157. https://iai.tv/articles/lying-to-survive-auid-540
  158. http://artvent-artventures.blogspot.com/2013/10/velazquezs-allegories-of-deception.html
  159. https://openpublishing.psu.edu/ahd/content/beautiful-painted-lies-deception-and-illusionistic-painting-seventeenth-century
  160. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0147176707000405
  161. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2581463/
  162. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/communication/articles/10.3389/fcomm.2019.00038/full
  163. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022096523000413
  164. https://essay.utwente.nl/65738/
  165. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13164-021-00587-w
  166. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305381317_Acceptance_of_lying_from_a_cross-cultural_perspective_Beyond_collectivism_and_individualism
  167. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/378365948_Cross-cultural_studies_on_concepts_of_lying_methodological_approaches_and_their_findings
  168. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2120138119
  169. https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/1049008/jewish/Telling-the-Truth-and-When-It-Is-Permissible-to-Be-Less-Than-Honest.htm
  170. https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/truth-and-lies-in-the-jewish-tradition/
  171. https://seekingvirtueandwisdom.com/st-augustine-on-lying/
  172. https://www.whyislam.org/taqiyya-and-islam/
  173. https://www.himalayanacademy.com/media/books/code-of-conduct_ei/code-of-conduct_ei.pdf
  174. https://www.australiancouncilofhinduclergy.com/uploads/5/5/4/9/5549439/principlesofhinduethics.pdf
  175. http://www.srimatham.com/uploads/5/5/4/9/5549439/hindu_concept_of_sin.pdf
  176. https://www.hinduamerican.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Dharma2.0_1.pdf
  177. https://www.insightmeditationcenter.org/right-speech-samma-vaca/
  178. https://www.existentialbuddhist.com/2011/01/the-fourth-precept/
  179. https://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/jainism/living/layjaincode.shtml
  180. https://beyogi.com/satya-live-truth/
  181. https://www.yogateket.com/blog/the-principle-of-satya-aligning-thoughts-words-and-actions-with-truth
  182. http://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/e516/23b10702a079edc58188ac8822adfed77e41.pdf
  183. https://www.shortform.com/blog/why-is-it-important-to-be-honest/
  184. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40636-015-0017-y
  185. https://www.thecollector.com/taoism-confucianism-chinese-warfare/
  186. https://www.taoistic.com/taoteching-laotzu/taoteching-20.htm
  187. https://www.theoi.com/Olympios/HermesMyths2.html
  188. https://www.artofmanliness.com/character/manly-lessons/viking-mythology-loki/
  189. https://vedkabhed.com/index.php/2014/05/14/lying-in-hinduism/
  190. https://www.dartmouth.edu/library/rauner/exhibits/truth-and-lies.html
  191. https://faculty.gvsu.edu/websterm/Tricksters.htm
  192. https://medwinpublishers.com/PhIJ/the-notion-of-truth-among-the-yorubas.pdf
  193. https://exploringafrica.matrix.msu.edu/african-creation-stories/
  194. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1090944317302788
  195. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2008144117
  196. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8378529/
  197. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/the-history-of-lies-on-the-campaign-trail
  198. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/richard-nixon-deceitful-politicians/story?id=24853846
  199. https://sites.stat.columbia.edu/gelman/stuff_for_blog/Media.Bias.pdf
  200. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283320880_Empirical_Studies_of_Media_Bias
  201. https://www.politifact.com/article/2024/dec/17/a-history-of-politifacts-lies-of-the-year-from-200/
  202. https://news.mit.edu/2018/study-twitter-false-news-travels-faster-true-stories-0308
  203. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9548403/
  204. https://www.rochester.edu/newscenter/study-of-headlines-shows-media-bias-growing-563502/
  205. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/psych-unseen/202001/illusory-truth-lies-and-political-propaganda
  206. https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PE198.html
  207. https://www.populismstudies.org/Vocabulary/big-lie/
  208. https://history.howstuffworks.com/history-vs-myth/10-biggest-lies-in-history.htm
  209. https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/joseph-goebbels-on-the-quot-big-lie-quot
  210. https://www.quora.com/What-were-the-biggest-lies-of-Soviet-propaganda
  211. https://www.international.gc.ca/world-monde/issues_development-enjeux_developpement/response_conflict-reponse_conflits/crisis-crises/ukraine-fact-fait.aspx?lang=eng
  212. https://news.stanford.edu/stories/2024/10/new-study-shows-that-partisanship-trumps-truth
  213. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5238933/
  214. https://ethicalleadership.nd.edu/thought-leadership/what-dishonesty-does-to-your-brain-why-lying-becomes-easier-and-easier
  215. https://psyche.co/ideas/be-honest-little-white-lies-are-more-harmful-than-you-think
  216. https://www.goodtherapy.org/blog/little-white-lies-how-dishonesty-affects-intimate-relationships-0720174
  217. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/pere.70028?af=R
  218. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S002209651830540X
  219. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/373937521_Deception_is_associated_with_reduced_social_connection
  220. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103125001040
  221. https://spsp.org/news-center/character-context-blog/consequences-dishonesty
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.