Which one would you rather have: The harsh truth or comforting lies?

[iHeartCats]

Me, myself, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Anytime.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

Truth

 

[senza tema]

Would anyone consciously pick lies?

I mean, admitting that you would is, in and of itself, an implicitly declared preference for harsh truths ...

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

I think even more telling would be the question, "Would you tell a lie to go easy on someone?"

 

[prplchknz]

people say they want the truth but ime they often want what they think is the truth. I'm sure I'm guilty of this as well. But so many times I've been truthful but called a liar, even though there's no evidence of me lying and as soon as I say what they think is the truth they thank me for being honest I dunno humans shouldn't always be allowed to make decisions

 

[iHeartCats]

But so many times I've been truthful but called a liar, even though there's no evidence of me lying and as soon as I say what they think is the truth they thank me for being honest I dunno humans shouldn't always be allowed to make decisions

Some people don't like having their beliefs or their own image of themselves challenged, so if you say the opposite of what they think is the truth, especially if it's something they overidentify with, they might get pissed and call you a liar.... Some sort of defense mechanism, I guess.

Ego can be an ugly thing.

 

[á´…eparted]

Neither.

 

[HongDou]

Would anyone consciously pick lies?

I mean, admitting that you would is, in and of itself, an implicitly declared preference for harsh truths ...

This for sure. The question is so broad that almost everyone would pick truth naturally.

Things like this can definitely be situational, like love for example. If we were going in scientific terms, I'd rather hear romanticized and meaningful views of love rather than the straight objective facts about its existence. On the other hand, if someone was saying something bad about me behind my back I'd rather hear it from someone who overheard it rather than have that person lie and say nothing bad was said.

For a long time I had created a world for myself surrounded by lies I told on the fly. It was easy but made me uncomfortable in my own skin. But for a long time I preferred the lies that made life easier, but now I'm working on facing reality and working towards the truth becoming more clear in my life. So in that sense I'm trying to prefer the harsh truth over comforting lies. But it still depends on the situation.

 

[MyCupOfTea]

Well. If I chose the lies I wouldn't know when I'm lied to, would I? Or if I knew, then I would also find out the truth. So this is basically the way things are already.

If I chose the truth, would it make my life more miserable? I must admit, I wouldn't have the courage to choose the truth for good. And what is truth actually? Would it be my subjective truth or someone else's? So who's truth is the one that would be told? Or would the truth only concern issues which are scientifically proven and universally accepted? And if that's so I could find out the truth myself. Which brings me to the point where the scientific truth is changing as our knowledge is expanding.

So, it's impossible for me to answer the question...

 

[indra]

Points to matrix steak scene

 

[Raffaella]

Decepti-on: Apply to the affected area on alternative hours when the pain is severe.

 

[Chthonic]

Ooh! I've played this game before. Turns out the harsh truth was better. Comforting lies are still lies and rob you of the opportunity to make an informed decision. Someone trying to save me from reality isn't care, it's negligence.

I've got my big-girl pants on, I can take it.

 

[ceecee]

Hash truth. That's what I'm giving people over comforting lies so I expect the same in return.

 

[johnnyyukon]

Meh, this question isn't so simple.

"Hey did you like my christmas gift? I just love decorative mouse pads."

 

[chickpea]

the truth? i can't handle the truth!

 

[Rail Tracer]

The blue pill or the red pill, lol.

Can one handle the whole truth? That is the question.

WILL the other person give the whole truth? That is another question.

If the other person can handle telling the whole truth, and I can handle the truth, sure.

 

[FemMecha]

Here's some honesty from me…
I think that the harsh truth is extremely lazy. When communicating there are two sides to the process: there is the intent of the person speaking and the perception of the listener. It is conscientious to at least try to comprehend the manner in which your words will impact another person because even if your intent is completely correct, if you know the other person will not perceive it as you intended, then communication has not taken place and the truth has not been told.

The "truth" is just as much about personal authenticity as is it about conveying accurately what you intend. Too much harshness is confusing to people and can deliberately distort their perception by triggering instincts and fear. Not one of us is enough of an objective robot to never be thrown off by the packaging of the "truth". It can seem almost arrogant to me when people proclaim "truth" without a thought of the manner of their communication. Also, so much data in reality is subjective and so no person can even know the objective truth. We all do well to be a bit more humble about hearing and speaking our so-called "truths".

 

[Coriolis]

Here's some honesty from me…
I think that the harsh truth is extremely lazy. When communicating there are two sides to the process: there is the intent of the person speaking and the perception of the listener. It is conscientious to at least try to comprehend the manner in which your words will impact another person because even if your intent is completely correct, if you know the other person will not perceive it as you intended, then communication has not taken place and the truth has not been told.

The "truth" is just as much about personal authenticity as is it about conveying accurately what you intend. Too much harshness is confusing to people and can deliberately distort their perception by triggering instincts and fear. Not one of us is enough of an objective robot to never be thrown off by the packaging of the "truth". It can seem almost arrogant to me when people proclaim "truth" without a thought of the manner of their communication. Also, so much data in reality is subjective and so no person can even know the objective truth. We all do well to be a bit more humble about hearing and speaking our so-called "truths".

About the highlighted: First, some of us do poorly at trying to predict other people's perceptions of what we say. Guessing wrong can be worse than not trying to guess at all. When I am on the receving end of this, it makes the other person appear disrespectful or even manipulative. Don't assume what my reaction will be; make your case, then listen for the real thing. Second, I disagree that the other person's perception must match my intention for communication to have occurred. I may give someone what I think is a compliment, but if they don't value that quality, they may receive it neutrally or even negatively. I have still communicated that I think they possess that quality.

I should back up here and ask what exactly is "harsh truth". What about it makes it harsh: disrespectful or aggressive presentation, excessive brevity, or simply lack of sugar-coating? I have no patience with namecalling or shouting, but almost as little with the often formulaic packaging some people insist on or recommend when rendering criticisms or other truths that may be difficult to hear. At the same time, a brief, bare statement without elaboration or supporting evidence is not much use. So, strip away the sugarcoating and the vitriol and replace them with enough information that the other person can actually use the information, if he/she is so inclined.

 

[Chthonic]

I should back up here and ask what exactly is "harsh truth". What about it makes it harsh: disrespectful or aggressive presentation, excessive brevity, or simply lack of sugar-coating? So, strip away the sugarcoating and the vitriol and replace them with enough information that the other person can actually use the information, if he/she is so inclined.

On this point. The harsh truth I was speaking about is basically the revelation of the true nature of things. That isn't always communicated person to person. In fact it often is communicated by circumstance, when the deception that has been playing out is suddenly revealed. In that context the nature of the lies covering the truth are far more harsh than anything someone might have told me. I don't advocate the harsh truth as a way to justify my lack of diplomacy. I advocate revealing the true nature of things which are often harsh simply by their mere existence.

 

[ancalagon]

I have no patience with namecalling or shouting, but almost as little with the often formulaic packaging some people insist on or recommend when rendering criticisms or other truths that may be difficult to hear.

This reminds me of an old joke.

A father calls his son. "Hi, son, how are things?"
"Hi dad. Your cat's dead."
"What? Son, you've got to have more tact. You can't just say things like that straight out. You have to lead up to it slowly."
"What do you mean, dad?"
"Well, you could tell me that the cat got up on the roof and won't come down. And then you could call me later and say that it had fallen off and was at the vet. And then later let me know the poor kitty had passed on."
"Ok, dad, I think I understand. So, what did you call about?"
"Oh, I just wanted to see how your grandmother is doing."
"Well, dad, grandma climbed up on the roof, and she won't come down..."