Types of lies from Pinocchio to Modern Times
September 14th 2007 09:25
Types of lies from Pinocchio to Modern Times
"How do you know I am lying?"
"Lies, my boy, are known in a moment. There are two kinds of lies, lies with short legs and lies with long noses. Yours, just now, happen to have long noses."
Pinocchio, not knowing where to hide his shame, tried to escape from the room, but his nose had become so long that he could not get it out of the door.
(from Adventures of Pinocchio)
The implication is that when a lie is obvious it will trap you in a web of your own making until even the liar knows that they cannot escape them. Everyone can see the lie and the liar knows that everyone can see the lie. In Pinocchio’s case he was trapped in the classroom unable to escape until he admitted what everyone else knew.
The Lies with short legs was never explained properly in the book but most likely comes from the German idiom, “Lies have Short Legs.” This can be interpreted as saying that eventually every lie will run its course and the truth will always come out. Or, if you lie you will soon be caught out. In an empirical sense this is probably true if lies can be easily checked against the evidence.
“Do you swear to tell the truth; the whole truth and nothing but the truth?” This reminds us that lies can be multifaceted and include deceptions, omissions, exaggerations and distortions. The people who wrote this oath knew the way that half truths could be twisted about make any set of events appear to be something else. And because the courts had set themselves up as the instrument of the truth it must also dispel what it cannot tolerate.
People tell lies of various sizes and for different motives. Some lie to gain some social status, others to avoid disgrace and others to further their desire for power or control over people. Wrapped in any other terms people lie because they wish the truth not to be known inorder to gain an advantage.
L Ron Hubbard wrote in his paper on Brainwashing that the most reliable way of controlling someone it to lie to them. Later he writes that in order to have control or power over people you ‘must’ lie to them. This is an example of putting lies in the area of power struggles where lies are just another tactic. The end justifies the means.
Lies have various perpetrators of various origins and ambitions. Yet since Lies themselves are questionable what does that say about the people who frequently use them? Does the weight of evidence point towards someone trying to control someone else for their own dark purpose?
If every lie had an easily seen long nose then there would little issue with outing the liar. Yet the art of deception is not hard to master and some people will happily spend their time using ploys and half truths to distort information to favour them. You can find various techniques for examining behaviour and gestures for lies yet few are ever certain. A person who blinks a lot may be just a person who blinks a lot and a person may touch their nose because it is itchy. Even Lie Detectors are not admissible in court due to the fact that some people are wrongly detected as liars and others trick the machine. The bottom of any technique of lie detecting can only be taken as an indication, not proof.
Indications sometimes do prove to be correct. So the question of suspicion should be tested. In a public forum there may be little space for someone to test for all the physical indicators of lies. Bill Clinton convinced many with his statement that he did not have sexual relations with ‘that woman’. Professional training can be given to overcome and counter these physical indicators of lying. Yet the empirical evidence of a semen stained dress could not so easily be denied. Pinocchio was trapped in the classroom because his nose had become so long.
Evasive answers are often an indicator of someone unwilling to commit fully to scrutiny. Why would someone with totally honest motives wish to hide or avoid answering simple factual questions? Are they trying to hide something? Or are they less informed than they claim to be? Perhaps they want us to accept opinion as fact?
Emotional tirades can easily be infused with false accusations. Are the lies suddenly less so because a person appeals to heart rather than the head? Just because someone cries does it mean that everything that they say is true? Some people have been caught robbing thousands of dollars in funds of from their own sports clubs even after months of tearful denials. Others may become angry and indignant that you may wish to verify what they claim. Imagine believing every used car sales person because they have a nice smile. This is wishful thinking and leaves you open to be controlled by someone else’s lies. Do you really the salesman or do you want a mechanic to verify the claim? Do you really want to buy any snake oil being sold through the emotional blackmail of tears?
The consequences of lies can be far reaching, particularly when told to people who let their heart rule their hot heads.
There is a point of view that I would like to propose which is: if you doubt something you have every right to ask for the evidence. If the person refuses to give a satisfactory answer then you do not have to believe them. This goes for any person from a politician, to a university professor, and me. Often you may find that an evasive answer will tell more truths about the lie someone is trying to spread than a straight answer ever would.
"How do you know I am lying?"
"Lies, my boy, are known in a moment. There are two kinds of lies, lies with short legs and lies with long noses. Yours, just now, happen to have long noses."
Pinocchio, not knowing where to hide his shame, tried to escape from the room, but his nose had become so long that he could not get it out of the door.
(from Adventures of Pinocchio)
It is up to you
The Lies with short legs was never explained properly in the book but most likely comes from the German idiom, “Lies have Short Legs.” This can be interpreted as saying that eventually every lie will run its course and the truth will always come out. Or, if you lie you will soon be caught out. In an empirical sense this is probably true if lies can be easily checked against the evidence.
“Do you swear to tell the truth; the whole truth and nothing but the truth?” This reminds us that lies can be multifaceted and include deceptions, omissions, exaggerations and distortions. The people who wrote this oath knew the way that half truths could be twisted about make any set of events appear to be something else. And because the courts had set themselves up as the instrument of the truth it must also dispel what it cannot tolerate.
People tell lies of various sizes and for different motives. Some lie to gain some social status, others to avoid disgrace and others to further their desire for power or control over people. Wrapped in any other terms people lie because they wish the truth not to be known inorder to gain an advantage.
L Ron Hubbard wrote in his paper on Brainwashing that the most reliable way of controlling someone it to lie to them. Later he writes that in order to have control or power over people you ‘must’ lie to them. This is an example of putting lies in the area of power struggles where lies are just another tactic. The end justifies the means.
Lies have various perpetrators of various origins and ambitions. Yet since Lies themselves are questionable what does that say about the people who frequently use them? Does the weight of evidence point towards someone trying to control someone else for their own dark purpose?
If every lie had an easily seen long nose then there would little issue with outing the liar. Yet the art of deception is not hard to master and some people will happily spend their time using ploys and half truths to distort information to favour them. You can find various techniques for examining behaviour and gestures for lies yet few are ever certain. A person who blinks a lot may be just a person who blinks a lot and a person may touch their nose because it is itchy. Even Lie Detectors are not admissible in court due to the fact that some people are wrongly detected as liars and others trick the machine. The bottom of any technique of lie detecting can only be taken as an indication, not proof.
Indications sometimes do prove to be correct. So the question of suspicion should be tested. In a public forum there may be little space for someone to test for all the physical indicators of lies. Bill Clinton convinced many with his statement that he did not have sexual relations with ‘that woman’. Professional training can be given to overcome and counter these physical indicators of lying. Yet the empirical evidence of a semen stained dress could not so easily be denied. Pinocchio was trapped in the classroom because his nose had become so long.
Evasive answers are often an indicator of someone unwilling to commit fully to scrutiny. Why would someone with totally honest motives wish to hide or avoid answering simple factual questions? Are they trying to hide something? Or are they less informed than they claim to be? Perhaps they want us to accept opinion as fact?
Emotional tirades can easily be infused with false accusations. Are the lies suddenly less so because a person appeals to heart rather than the head? Just because someone cries does it mean that everything that they say is true? Some people have been caught robbing thousands of dollars in funds of from their own sports clubs even after months of tearful denials. Others may become angry and indignant that you may wish to verify what they claim. Imagine believing every used car sales person because they have a nice smile. This is wishful thinking and leaves you open to be controlled by someone else’s lies. Do you really the salesman or do you want a mechanic to verify the claim? Do you really want to buy any snake oil being sold through the emotional blackmail of tears?
The consequences of lies can be far reaching, particularly when told to people who let their heart rule their hot heads.
There is a point of view that I would like to propose which is: if you doubt something you have every right to ask for the evidence. If the person refuses to give a satisfactory answer then you do not have to believe them. This goes for any person from a politician, to a university professor, and me. Often you may find that an evasive answer will tell more truths about the lie someone is trying to spread than a straight answer ever would.
| 55 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by D. Armenta
The Florida Keys and Everglades
The Black Sheep Chronicles
What constitutes bad manners?
The male mystique
Debate Fan
L.A.M.P.
"Take no one's word as gospel. Check everything."
That was our credo in (naval) air traffic control.
Know when I lie to people? When they are asking personal questions that are none of their business. If I'd been in Clinton's place, I would have responded thus: "None of your business. This has nothing to do with affairs of state, no pun intended. So f*** off."
Otherwise, I'm happy to cite references and other proof that my statements are true. Can't stand when people use that passive-aggressive technique of lying because they "didn't want to cause an unpleasant scene" or "hurt someone's feelings".
I really really hate that.
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
You make me laugh.
Do you know when I am lying?
You don't because you haven't checked it out.
Poor old Clinton. Hand in the cookie jar and his nation catches him. Yet telling Mrs Clinton would be far worse.
Just like Kevin Rudd at the strip joint. Some say wow you're bad, others say mate you are a legend.
Yes the passive agressive liar I know them well. May the stew in peace.
Comment by D. Armenta
The Florida Keys and Everglades
The Black Sheep Chronicles
What constitutes bad manners?
The male mystique
Debate Fan
L.A.M.P.
Comment by D. Armenta
The Florida Keys and Everglades
The Black Sheep Chronicles
What constitutes bad manners?
The male mystique
Debate Fan
L.A.M.P.
Sorry, just couldn't keep a straight face...
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
by Tsu Damo