Tuesday, April 15, 2008

Fib


Shakespeare said a rose by any other name would still smell as sweet. This is about whether something is a lie. I wrote fib. Remember when you couldn't say lie as a youngster?

Is there such a thing as a lie of omission? A colleague and I disagreed on the point. I said if you choose to leave something out, that’s not a lie. It is an omission but not a lie. To me telling a lie is an active thing. Failing to mention something is more passive. I concede that it might be deceitful, but it, in my opinion is not the same thing as willfully telling a lie. Basically, I had to do an interview about my supervisor. I said some things in the interview that could be considered a stretch. I didn’t tell any lies, but I certainly didn’t show my principal in a bad light either. Although there are things that I don’t agree with sometimes, I chose not to let that be the focus of the dialogue between the interviewer and I.

The interviewer is working on an advanced degree and needed to interview people on the qualities of an effective principal. Anyway, like I said I just chose to focus on the positives. Think of it as journalistic spin. However, my colleague maintained that in not telling about the negatives, which I really don’t have a whole lot of problems with my supervisor, that I was lying. What upset me most is that I absolutely do not like anyone attacking my character. Your good name is all that you have. Plus another one of my mantras is, “If I can’t believe everything you say, then I can’t believe nothing you say.” I truly believe that. What bothered me most is in knowing that I believe the aforementioned, then that gives her cause to disbelieve anything else that comes out of my mouth. It’s not so much that I need her validation. As a matter of fact, nothing could be further from the truth. It’s just that for many people perception becomes reality, hence the phrase perception is reality. I don’t want her or anyone else’s perception of me to change. I absolutely cannot be associated with lying. I’m a lot of things; a liar is not one of them.

Merriam-Webster defines a lie as: a: an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker to be untrue with intent to deceive b: an untrue or inaccurate statement that may or may not be believed true by the speaker

Based on the definition, failing to include information is not a lie. It is, as I have admitted deceitful. Merriam-Webster defines deceit as: to cause to accept as true or valid what is false or invalid.

Some people may argue that this is semantics. There is however, I think, a difference between a not revealing everything or holding something back and telling an out and out lie. Plus I had a vested interest in doing what I did. It is not appropriate to tell bad stuff about your supervisor. I’m the type of person that I like to handle things in house. So, if I have a problem with you, I’ll step to you and let you know so that we can work it out. More likely than not, I would never put you on blast in front of “company.”

Thoughts?

16 comments:

MP said...

In my opinion lying and being deceitful is indeed an issue of semantics. Either way you are leading somebody to believe what is not true- be it passively or assertively.

Your situation with your supervisor doesn't sound to me to be a situation in which you were trying to be deceitful. You were providing information appropriate to the purpose of the interview. If somebody is looking for the qualities of an effective principal you saying the bad things is simply irrelevant.

I agree with your mantra, “If I can’t believe everything you say, then I can’t believe nothing you say.”, and for me that would, beyond a shadow of a doubt, apply to those who omit pertinent information leading me to believe something that is not the truth. I would guess it can't technically qualify as a lie but it is still deceitful and in the end what's really the difference? Different methods but the outcome is still the same. Good Post.

Jazzy said...

Given the situation, I would have handled this exactly as you did.

Just because you did not reveal everything does not make a liar out of you.

Actually I admire you for setting your personal opinion of the Principal aside and being professional enough to stick to the positive rather than dwelling on the negative. Definitely says a lot about your character.

If the interviewer asked you specific enough questions, would your answers have been different though?

Brittany said...

I would have done the same thing unless there were some things you really did not like. Some people like putting people on blast.

cherry's kid said...

I totally agree with you, omission is not a lie....If that were the case then I would be a liar everyday...I investigate people for a living and I can't tell them all the evidence I have stacked against them but I may say, I have some things that I have looked into and some things are credible. Now would I be lying if I said that instead of saying I have the blood and semen samples already?

I think you did the right thing...putting the principal on blast would have been inappropriate and put the interviewer in an awkward position.

Omission is not a lie, it's just keeping a little something to yourself.

JayBee said...

@mp: what i left out is i was asked also about things that the principal does that are not good. i shared some--the ones that i could put the most positive spin on. my colleague feels that because i didn't say all the bad stuff that i was being untruthful. so i see you side with my colleague. duly noted.

@diva: i thought i handled it the best way. glad for that confirmation. character is so important to me. if the questions got very specific then i'd have no choice but to answer them. i would still do my best to spin them in a way so that it doesn't seem bad or that i'm bad mouthing my supervisor. (gotta pay these bills. i've gotten accustomed to hot water and electricity).

@brittany: exactly. and what would i gain by putting her on blast? just catching hell on my job for no reason is all that i would get.

@cherry: i don't think it's a lie based on how you phrased it. i agree that the interviewer would have been in an awkward position too now that you mention it. i hadn't even thought about that before. that's the beauty of blogging. others can help you see things from different ways so that you get a better idea of the bigger picture.

Anonymous said...

Thank you for shedding a new light on the lie v. omission ordeal. Up until I read your blog, I felt an omission was a lie. Legally speaking, it can be considered as such if your omission leads you to a false conclusion that would not have arisen but for the failure to give all information. (Law school speak, lol)

I've got a different light on things now though, so thank you!

One Man’s Opinion said...

Okay, I have to say that I have always believed that a half truth is a lie, but you are right. Leaving something out isn't official a lie, only deceitful. This one is really hard for me. I can't stand to be lied to and if I find out that a person held back the truth from me, I'd consider them a liar. I have broken off at least two relationships because I was not told the full truth. Like you said, A rose by any other name would still stink.

JayBee said...

@iesha: *singing*you're the girl that i never had and i want to get to know you betta..*end singing* where else do you get serenaded when you show up? thanks for stopping by. if i have a potential lawyer on my side then i know i'm okay!

@one_man: i don't think anyone likes to be lied to. for the most part i think people lie or deceive others to protect feelings. that doesn't make it right, but i think that's one of the major reasons why. just like the two relationships you ended. the persons probably were trying to protect your feelings or keep something from you so that you'd still like them.

Mizrepresent said...

I don't think you were lying or being deceitful, you were just carefully deciding what to share. If an individual chooses not to disclose information for whatever reason is not deceit. It is our right to disclose at will what we want. You have more important reasons not to publicly bash your super. It is most important to feel comfortable with your decisions, despite what others think.

Don said...

There is however, I think, a difference between a not revealing everything or holding something back and telling an out and out lie.

i think there is a difference as well. i am not a big fan of people who can look me in my eye and lie to me about things i ask the truth of.

i now understand and realize how people will come with the lies (of omission). that has become the norm it seems, so i live it.

but the straight up lies...

makes me never believe that person says ever again.

Jameil said...

"an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker to be untrue with intent to deceive." how is omission not a lie when you admit it is deceptive? leaving things out is done with the intent to deceive. it is not truthful and therefore a lie. if i'm asked a question esp. for research purposes and to help a student, i'm not going to delicately carve my answers to satisfy semantics. no one is perfect and i would want my answers to reflect that while the principal is essentially a good leader, he/she is not without flaws.

Chris said...

"I’m the type of person that I like to handle things in house. So, if I have a problem with you, I’ll step to you and let you know so that we can work it out. More likely than not, I would never put you on blast in front of “company.”"

I've always found that this indeed is the best way to handle things. I used to be the one who would put someone on blast just to clear my sinuses, but it resonates better if you pull someone aside and let them know what your gripe is with them.

JayBee said...

@miz: thanks for the reassurance. i like what you said: It is our right to disclose at will what we want. i'll keep that tidbit in mind.

@don: a straight up lie is inexcusable. omitting a [negative] detail so as not to commit career suicide is something all together different.

@jameil: for the reasons outlined in the post. if you read the definition carefully it says an assertion--in other words, you must say it, know that is is false, and the only reason you would say it is to intentionally deceive another. my answers didn't reflect that she was without flaws; i shared some. i just chose not to get deep with it.

@chris: me too, but doing it this way is just a testament to growth and maturity.

Jameil said...

again, semantics. and if you have to do all that to prove you're not lying and merely being "deceitful" what is the point? you're being honest or omitting and being deceitful. when you start on that route what's to stop you on the slippery slope to straight lying? be hot or cold. lukewarm gets you spit out.

JayBee said...

@jameil: you took it straight to church. i admit they are definitely close cousins, but cousins nonetheless.

cadence said...

Well, J, I'm gonna have to take it back to high school math logic on this one. First, let me say that I personally believe that an omission is the same as a lie, and both are deceitful. I believe this simply because it makes sense, logically speaking.

Since we both agree that both a lie and an omission are deceitful, we can say:

If OMISSION = DECEIT
And DECEIT = LIE
Then (my friend) OMISSION = LIE

Simple as that.

Now, the question is...does this make you a 'liar'? The answer is 'no'.

You only mentioned that which was relevant to the excersize. Your 'personal' issues with this individual had nothing to do with the assignment, and therefore, did not have to be discussed.

You may refer to the following site: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conditional_proof