Lying Or Problem-Solving
The issue is less about what one thinks but how one thinks
A central theme to my world view is that problem-solving only exists when pragmatism is part of the process. The effort to seek truth directly determines the quality and effectiveness of the mitigation and resolution of issues. The content, scope and details of issues vary from one problem to the next, but the process to fixing them is consistent. The absence of intellectual honesty, of information and of rationality makes actual problem-solving impossible.
It’s one thing to have differing views on how problem resolution might look given a realistic assessment of the same facts and data, but quite another to simply lie about reality because it doesn’t fit a set of ideals or beliefs. It doesn’t happen much in business because the results of making it up are financially negative, with undesirable consequences that can’t denied. But in politics, truth often simply ceases to exist, and lying is so common that it is the root cause of dysfunctional governance — the magnitude of which is eroding fundamental aspects of this country.
The problem is less about what one thinks but how one thinks. It’s about denying the realities of immigration, taxation, education, science and the secularization of society because one doesn’t like or tolerate the results…real or imagined. Telling like-minded people what they want to hear doesn’t actually have any meaning if reality is something quite different. Insisting that one is going to deport 11 million immigrants is lying. Asserting that cutting taxes for the wealthy increases prosperity is lying. Declaring that climate change is bad science is lying. Claiming to support womens’ rights while denying them those rights is lying. Insisting the tax code can be reduced to three pages is totally lying.
One could wonder if actually believing what isn’t true makes a difference. Which is to say, is it not lying but simply another point of view? That would depend entirely on if it was simply ignorance of facts or willful ignorance despite facts. Believing facts are not true because they contradict other beliefs is lying…to one’s self and to others. It might not be good manners to say so, but pretending lying is another point of view is itself intellectual dishonesty. Just making it up really is just making it up.
When problems remain unresolved or become even worse, the rational assumption is that doing nothing isn’t working. But doing something has to be more than ideology, dogma, prejudice and/or fear and anxiety. Inventing answers to questions to satisfy these feelings is highly unlikely to actually be the same solutions that are derived from rational, information-based processes. What isn’t true, by definition, has to be untrue — making a persistent untrue assertion, by definition, is lying.
Some of you may remember posts in which I’ve argued that not being totally honest is justifiable, which is to say that lying — by omission or denial — is reasonable and acceptable to avoid hurting someone’s feelings or protecting someone from information that would result in painful or negative consequences not justified by honesty. None of that has changed. Lying about information and facts simply to avoid reality that’s in conflict with ideology or dogma does not meet the same test for avoiding total honesty.
Inconsistency is not an issue of honesty nor a character flaw or shortcoming, but rather acknowledgement that one’s beliefs and opinions do not have to be based on the consistency of ideology or dogma. This is why I can be liberal on many issues but not when it comes to political correctness that conflicts with free speech. Indeed, the ability to have coexisting points of view that are inconsistent with ideology or dogma is a reliable indicator of intelligence. Another way of putting this is that people who are open-minded can have varying points of view and change their mind regarding some of them as context also changes.
Those who rate and rank U.S. presidents on the quality of their time in office note that those individuals who can and do change their minds are more effective. What some might regard as nothing more than flip-flopping can really be considered enlightenment. This is nothing like lying, because new information or reconsideration of existing knowledge results in a revised or even reversed point of view, whereas lying to meant to avoid and deny new or existing facts and data. Changing one’s mind is intellectually honest, lying is the antithesis of this.
Denial of research results, compiled data, documented information and statistical analysis is lying. Differing opinions on the basis of these and other forms of knowledge is one thing, but simply pretending the knowledge doesn’t exist, is incomplete or cannot be trusted is lying because it is dishonest. Intellectually and pragmatically, it is exasperating to me that those who lie about reality are allowed to do so because of the pretense of balance. There is no balance between truth (not simply opinion) and lying (just denying or making it up).
The lack of integrity that passes for political discourse in this country is the source of most of what has gone so wrong with it. Lying, combined with pointless ideological purity, means nothing will change for the better. To quote George Bernard Shaw: “Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.”
