
Humans are Liars - tckr
https://coderbyheart.com/humans-are-liars/
======
chongli
This piece is interesting but it misses the elephant in the room: Work is
transactional at its heart. When somebody is your boss and you depend on them
to pay your bills and feed your family then they are not your friend no matter
how pleasant your interactions may be. This is why people work so hard to
protect themselves. You ultimately can't ask people to be vulnerable and
honest about their true opinions without some kind of consideration to offset
the risk. This is why tenure is so coveted in academia.

~~~
ianamartin
Agreed. Friendships happen after work. Either after hours or (more rarely)
after you no longer work together.

I've got a handful of close friends that I used to work with. Including a
couple of former managers. But that friendship and trust didn't really start
until after we parted ways.

It works the other way too. I recruited one of those friends for my team at my
last job. I've known this guy seems like forever. I was at his wedding 12
years ago and took care of his dog during his honeymoon. Threw his divorce
party. Started a business with him. Let him stay with me when he was feeling
down about the divorce. Celebrated his new wedding with him and play with
their daughter while we watch football and eat pizza. We've loaned each other
cash when we were having rough times.

But when he walked in the door on my team a few months ago, nothing needed to
be said. Total professionalism. Just people trying to solve problems. We hang
out and be friends on our own time. And work is just work.

But the risk is still there in non-tenured situations. There was a situation
at the company we started together when things were not going super well. And
he had to let me go. I wouldn't want to do that anymore than he did at the
time, but if I had to for <reasons> it's a thing that could be done without
destroying the friendship.

I'm also hoping to go back to a company I used to work for with a manager I
really liked. We've stayed friends since I worked there before, and I'm
excited to go back for a number of reasons. But the bottom line is that once I
sign that piece of paper that says "at will employee", I have to treat it the
same as any other job that has no guarantees. And I can't rely on any past
friendship with that person.

Work is work. In a culture that awards tenure only to a certain select group
of people, work is always--as you put it--transactional. Trust really doesn't
enter the equation.

------
jhiska
Humans are liars; systems are dehumanizing.

More precisely, humans are interested in preserving themselves, including
their ego and social standing. One example of this is when we say "humans are
liars" we are not thinking of ourselves, but projecting it to Others. And when
I say "we" I'm distancing myself from the Others as well, because otherwise
there would be negative focus on me. And when you read "I" you are being
distanced from your own guilt, because I'm an Other to you. I don't benefit
from calling myself a liar (which isn't always true, anyway, for anyone), and
neither does anyone else profit from calling themselves liars. It's rational
to preserve yourself given the circumstances.

Should we change humanity or change the systems? Which side you consider the
problem is political.

>Transparency enables to uncover defects, if information and data is available
without restriction, there is no use in lying about it or covering it up.

This sounds like it should be true, but it's not. People can not accept
certain revelations, and "increased transparency" about people's flaws just
makes everyone dislike, hate or despise each other. This, too, is a human
flaw.

------
vletrmx
In several instances being honest has cost me socially. There doesn't seem to
be a solution that doesn't ultimately result in rejection. Unless ofcourse
you're willing to lie.

~~~
jondubois
Recently I tried to help someone who I had known for a few years and who I
respected then as soon as I did this, they turned on me and put me in a really
difficult position.

The irony is that this is someone who claims to pride themselves on their
higher moral values.

From now on, I'm going to be extremely cautious with people who present
themselves as idealistic. Maybe it's also the sign of a manipulative
psychopath.

Our society is littered with psychopaths these days. So much so that even
those who aren't psychopaths are forced to pretend to be psychopaths just so
that they can fit in.

For example in elite colleges/fraternities, they have some pretty twisted
initiation rites... This is essentially institutionalized psychopathy. You
have to prove yourself to be devoid of moral fibre just to fit in.

~~~
j9461701
During WW2, the Captain of U-boat 156 sunk a passenger liner. He then
immediately set about rescuing survivors, and began broadcasting his position
and the humanitarian nature of his mission on all available channels. An
American B-24 in the area began to attack, despite the Captain's pleas they
were killing their own men and the U-boat was trying to save lives. Afterward,
U-boats were explicitly ordered to never render humanitarian aid under any
circumstances (the Laconia order). The B-24 pilots were given medals for
bravery.

In 1757, the British admiral John Byng was executed for failing to sail his
ships into a storm. The enemy was besieging a fort, and although Byng engage
the enemy fleet he didn't pursue and annihilate them - heedless of the danger
- and thereby the relief troops were unable to reach the fort before it fell.
This was considered a capital offensive despite being sound strategy (the loss
of the fort was bad, the loss of Byng's fleet would've been crippling) -
making the right call got a man shot by firing squad.

These two incidents are always in my head when people discuss morality or
honor or any such topics. The truth is "moral" for most people means nothing
so much as "Did a thing I like" and immoral means "Did a thing I didn't like".
That B-24 crew attacks the enemy, which is good and therefore moral - that it
was a supremely cowardly and bloodthirsty thing is irrelevant.

It's just how people are, I suppose. Well, most people. Some are genuinely
good eggs, and those are the ones to befriend.

~~~
dozzie
> That B-24 crew attacks the enemy, which is good and therefore moral - that
> it was a supremely cowardly and bloodthirsty thing is irrelevant.

Note that they were _ordered_ to attack despite that they reported survivors
on board. Attribute the cowardice and bloodthirst appropriately in the command
chain.

~~~
j9461701
"I was just following orders" was not a valid excuse for the Nazis, and it
isn't a valid excuse for our own men.

~~~
coddingtonbear
Given that they received medals, I'm not sure that's true in any practical
sense.

~~~
barrkel
OP is arguing the moral principle in reply to someone trying to justify a
moral wrong, but OP's original point is that the practicalities observably
trump morals, despite this being wrong. I don't think it's helpful for you to
switch tack back to practicalities again on this branch.

------
ianamartin
I struggled with this a lot when I was younger and growing up in the South. I
got really frustrated by things that just seemed so completely dishonest. Even
the basic ritual greeting, "Hi. How are you?" is fundamentally dishonest. It's
not a real question because the asker doesn't want an honest answer. And I
felt imposed upon because the only socially acceptable response is almost
always going to be a partially dishonest, "Great, how are you?"

But as I've gotten older, I've decided that there is real value in these
rituals, particularly in the workplace. And the value is that these kinds of
interactions set a tone and a minimum viable behavior both in public and at
work.

Performing that little lie when you walk into work forces you to leave a
certain amount of your personal life at the door. And this is a good thing.
Environments I've worked in (notably, not in the South. NYC is awful about
this) that do not adhere to these little ritualistic dishonesties empower the
most negative people in the room to do the most damage to morale and
productivity. Negativity is absolutely toxic and infectious.

And I guarantee you, the person in the room who replies, "Oh, well, you know,
it's not going so great right now. My kid is having problems at school, and I
don't understand it. S/he is a great kid and really smart, but just isn't
getting along well with other kids and not doing well on tests. I just don't
get it." when you ask, "Hey, how's it going?" is going to be a problem down
the line. (Or something like that. Doesn't have to literally be about a kid.
Just anything that breaks the ritual.)

It seems innocuous at first. Because we want to care about the people we work
with. But this person is also going to gripe about the management and company
leadership and bring up politics in ways that make people either angry or
uncomfortable. And not in a healthy way in a 1:1 with the management. It will
be at lunch, in small meetings, in code reviews, planning sessions, etc.

On the coworker side, the idea of total honesty is not a good one. The people
who either consciously refuse to engage in these rituals (or are just unaware
of them) are guaranteed to cause problems for the entire team over time. If
you bring it up as a talking point in, say a 1:1, the person will just say,
"What's the problem? I'm just being honest. What do you want me to do? Lie?"

I can't think of any reasonable way to create a policy around this. Teams just
need to police themselves. When I hear someone invading the workplace with
this kind of "honest" negativity, I have two responses depending on what's
going on. If it's personal life stuff or politics, I'll offer to take them out
for a bite to eat or a drink or something and listen to everything. If it's
griping about management or leadership, I'll just say that they really need to
have a conversation with <manager> about that because we really can't
accomplish anything by brooding over it. And I'll do this even if I 100% agree
with what the person is saying about management or politics. Because I
guarantee you someone within a hundred feet of us doesn't agree about it.

On the management side, I'd argue that total honesty is also a terrible idea.
In my experience, the people in management roles who advocate for total
honesty/total transparency come in two flavors: the first is the person who
says he promotes these ideas but lies constantly anyway. The second is an
absolute jackass who uses honesty as an excuse to act like a bag of dicks to
people.

It is possible do deliver hard criticisms without being a jerk. It just takes
a little bit of time and a little bit of effort. Telling someone, "This sucks.
You've got to stop being so terrible at your job." is not only lazy and
asinine, but also completely unproductive. If someone on your team is
performing that badly, it is your job to invest time in that person. Whether
it's some coaching earlier in the dev process or extra time in code reviews or
providing some educational material or designing a pip, that's your job. Being
harshly critical because "honesty" is garbage. Grow up. And take the time to
actually do your job.

I don't need to say much about the "total honesty" liar category. They are
either sociopaths or utterly incompetent (often both, but competent sociopaths
are the worst) and can only get by through manipulating people and playing
political games.

The two best managers I've ever had as an individual contributor are what I
would call transparently dishonest. Yes, sometimes they had to either be
silent about a situation or whitewash certain organizational details, but they
also let you know when that was happening. Their criticism was direct and
effective, but not cruel. They focused on three key things: providing clearly
defined tasks, guarding our time, and protecting the team from organizational
politics. They were sometimes (often?) less than totally honest about what was
going on, but we knew it and trusted them to know that it was okay to not
know.

My best manager as a manager is . . . well, I haven't had a good one yet. So
I'll let you know when that happens.

So, I'm going to go out and say it. A certain amount of dishonesty is a good
thing. Social structures depend on it to function in a healthy and productive
way. Go too far in the honesty direction, and you end up with a culture like
NYC, which, as much as I like many things about the city here, it's only a
barely functional society. Go too far on the dishonest side, and everyone is
stilted and uncomfortable, and no one feels like they can say anything to
anyone because we're all Stepford Wives at work, and it's all pretty on the
outside but awful on the inside. Like in much of the South and Texas in
particular.

It's a balancing act. The Dilbert strip in the article is good because it's
useful for us to remember that we are actually selfish and dishonest. But
solving that isn't the real problem, and being totally unselfish and honest
isn't the solution. That's like reading an article about how bad waterfall is
and then moving to a 1-day sprint Agile system. (You laugh, but I've seen it.
Seriously. 1-day sprints with 5 standups a day. Sprint planning in the
morning, scrum coding sessions in the afternoon, retro just before end of day.
You can guess what happened: every day every task ended up blocked. This went
on for over a year. Literally nothing got done. But, wow, that team looked
busy.)

Apologies if I've offended anyone who is perfectly honest all the time, a
coworker, a manager, an Agile practitioner, a Waterfall advocate, a sociopath,
an incompetent, a New Yorker, a Texan, or even human. I'm just being . . .
totally honest.

~~~
GavinMcG
I think you might find _An Everyone Culture_ , by Robert Kegan and Lisa Laskow
Lahey a worthwhile read. It challenges what you say, on some level, and
reinforces it in other ways.

Like you said, it's a balancing act. But one aspect you left out – and one of
the things I took away from their research – is that honesty has big benefits
_if_ everyone is on the same page about it. If one person is being "honest",
and the rest of the team isn't on board, there's going to be the sort of
friction you describe. Or if the honesty is only negative, rather than
constructive, that's obviously not healthy. On the other hand, if the whole
team is on board about honesty – including being critical – and if there are
structures in place that make sure the honesty/transparency/criticism is a
constructive force, then it can pay big dividends.

~~~
ianamartin
I'll definitely give this a read. I think I'm going to disagree with it. But I
will give it a chance.

Frankly, I think that honesty/transparency are buzzwords that have little to
no meaning. So the authors will have to convince me.

But the whole approach seems cynically disingenuous in most of the places
where it's applied.

I also think that criticism doesn't deserve a place in the
honesty/transparency group. Criticism is an inevitable fact of life that will
happen to you at some point, and you will have to deliver it at some point, if
you are a functional adult. Honesty and transparency are entirely optional.
They are not in the same category at all, in my opinion.

I encountered different types of criticism and management when I was around 10
years old at one of these things people call music festivals. They are
practice gulags. You practice for 10 hours a day, and you work with a bunch of
different teachers. It's every 11-year-old's definition of "festival."

But one of the nice things is that you get to work with a lot of different
teachers. I remember working very hard on a particular bow stroke called
Martele. The hammer stroke. I was really bad at it. And one of my teachers was
quite honest with me about how much I sucked at it. And to be fair, I did suck
at it. It didn't work. At all. So he told me that it sucked, and that I wasn't
trying hard enough and I should practice more, and he was going to spend his
lesson smoking a cigarette while I tried to perform 100 martele strokes in a
row on the same pitch.

You can call that honesty. But you can also call that a number of other
things. I had a different teacher a few weeks later who listened to me trying
to do this, and his response was, "Well, this really isn't working out very
well for us, now is it? What should we do when things aren't working out well
no matter how hard we try? Well, we need to try something different, don't we?
Let's try something different."

The reason I'm bringing that up as an example is because this is actually not
uncommon in the tech world.

The first guy was being honest. Totally honest. I sounded like garbage. No
doubt about that. The second guy was slightly dishonest, but he was more to
the point of solving the problem. And, in fact, I got a lot better at that
particular stroke of the bow rather quickly.

I'll have to read the book, and I definitely will. And I don't like to leave
unread books around. Especially ones backed by research. I hope I was clear to
qualify my statements by being based on my own personal experience, rather
than pretending that I've done any scientific studies.

I would also argue that there's no such thing as constructive "honesty".
Construction inside a team setting is always assumed to be honest. No one goes
around telling people they did a great job when they sucked at it. Unless that
person is a really bad manager. But teammates don't do this in reality. So I
can't see how this really makes sense.

Like I said, I'll read it. But I think it's questionable on the face of it.

Maybe we are living in some sort of crazy place where
honesty/transparency/criticism and just a healthy trusting relationship with
your boss are all the same thing. But I don't think so, and pushing things in
that direction is bad for all of us.

On the other hand, I'm willing to be wrong.

~~~
lgas
How was the second guy dishonest in any way? I don't see it.

~~~
ianamartin
You can make the case that the second guy was dishonest because he wasn't
telling me how bad I was at playing that one note in that one way. The he was
doing me a disservice by shielding me from the harsh reality of how rough the
music world can be on young performers. That if you suck that badly at that
one note in that one way, there are probably tons of other things that you
don't even know about that you also suck at.

There is a lot of truth in what the first guy was saying in the sense that
this is how a lot of the music world works. And there was honesty in treating
me that way because that's how people get treated. Even little kids. Some
people will argue that this is important for people to understand right from
the beginning. And that shielding people from that is dishonest.

All of these things are true, to a certain extent. And all of them are things
that need to be talked about. I've struggled with this as a teacher with my
own students. People in teacher roles do need to talk about hard truths.
Pretending that every student is going to be amazing and going to have a great
career is a lie.

For better or worse, I've decided that context matters, and I don't bring big
picture _truth_ into lessons that are focused on execution. I set up regular
sessions with my students that are totally separate from an actual lesson
about the violin or even music. We just sit down and talk for a while about
what the student wants and expects, what it's like to work in the field
professionally, and what the expectations are going to be from other people.

I don't know for a fact that this is superior to the hard-ass jerk approach,
but it's the approach that I think is the right mix of honesty and kindness
and productivity. You can't only take the second approach and focus on what is
or isn't working with someone and completely shield them from the reality of
the world. That's being dishonest about the world.

But what you can do is separate the issues and deal with them
straightforwardly. You don't want to hammer a kid with, "HOW THE FUCK DO YOU
THINK YOU'RE GOING TO COMPETE IN THIS WORLD WHEN YOU PLAY LIKE THAT!" while
they are actually trying to play something. That's unproductive garbage. But
not having a serious conversation about their expectations vs. the reality of
the business and the life is also dishonest.

I operate the same way when I'm managing/mentoring people in technology. There
is absolutely a time, place, and sometimes a need for tough criticism and hard
talks about the way the world works re: their current capabilities. But that
time isn't when we are trying to get a release out the door and their code
doesn't work. Because, frankly, if someone is so bad that it's affecting
release deadlines, that's on me as a manager. I'm the person who should be
getting yelled at.

And if I'm communicating effectively with my team and having the right kinds
of 1:1s, these conversations happen naturally as a part of the progression
plan for each person on the team. The 1:1 is actually one thing I've taken
from my technology experience back into my music world. It's a great idea if
it's done well.

Anyway, long story short, it's possible to lie by omitting information. And
people can and do argue that not being a complete dickhead is a lie of
omission. Like almost all of this conversation, I think it's mostly a grey
area. But also like almost all of this conversation, reasonable people can
disagree.

The radically honest school of thought has produced some amazing technology,
technologists, and musicians. I'm just not convinced it's worth the price, and
that there might be a better way. But my argument is humanist, anecdotal, and
weak.

All the data we have suggests that the "Be a total prick" method of teaching
and management produces the best results. I just happen to think that life is
long enough to try something different and see if it works.

------
ourmandave
There's always Ray Dalio's of Bridgewater school of Radical Transparency.

[https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/12/bridgewaters-ray-dalio-
the-l...](https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/12/bridgewaters-ray-dalio-the-
leadership-strategy-behind-my-success.html)

If you enjoy crying at your desk anyway.

~~~
sowbug
Building on the idea of more transparency in the workplace than we're normally
comfortable with, there's also Kim Scott's _Radical Candor_. The missing
ingredient this book brings to the discussion is that transparency generally
works only if the messenger also personally cares about the recipient. Without
caring, the messenger (often the boss) is simply a jerk, regardless of the
validity of the message.

[https://www.radicalcandor.com](https://www.radicalcandor.com)

~~~
devmunchies
She was on the board for my last company and I was so sick of hearing about
"radical candor". Almost everyone had a copy on their desk.

------
ravenstine
I recognized the fact that humans are the lying species a long time ago, and
I've tried to counteract that in the workplace. I find opportunities where I
can naturally push the boundary a bit, which isn't too hard for a young male
with nothing to lose. I do it both for myself and to create room for others to
rightfully express themselves and be able to get away with it.

It works a little bit. People are still very protective of their position, but
I'd like to think people on my team are a little more open about things than
when I started. I don't have a way to measure that, though. I can say for sure
that we're much more trust-based than when I joined.

The truth is a funny thing, literally. I'm not a naturally funny person, and
the jokes that I make are often one that only I seem to understand. But it's
when I'm honest about things that I get the most laughs. I remember one time
when the conversation I was having lead me to say "Some of Charles Manson's
music is pretty good" to this one woman, and she laughed at that but I don't
think she realized that I meant what I said.

------
jimnotgym
I went to work at a long serving SME that had a lot of staff with very long
service and was given the job of moving some things forward.

> It should be safe to be vulnerable

The number one cause of stress for me is that management did not protect me
enough. When I changed something, it would have some minor knock on impact
that upset someone (sometimes someone very junior), who would go and see a
director, who would go and see the MD and then I would get career threatening
back room deals going on that I was not party to. If you are going to get
someone to come and push the company forward at sub-boardroom level, make sure
your directors are 100% committed to the changes.'You can't make an omelet
without breaking eggs', make sure you are ready to accept broken eggs. Make
sure when petty stuff is brought to senior people they divert it straight back
to the project sponsor (or whoever). Make sure individual managers know this
change is happening, and it is their job to allow it and make their staff
happy with it.

There is nothing worse than when you are in the heart of a technical change,
than to find out you are in trouble with the boss because a secretary in
another dept is sad that you changed their UI.

Worse still when you are passed over for a promotion because the MD is
concerned that you upset a few people, _when it wasn 't your job to manage the
people side in the first place_.

Transparency is part of the answer, but in the situation I describe it
actually becomes a matter of giving people far too much info, so they can't
claim they were not consulted! This is counter-productive too.

Senior managers need to take a very firm line with passive-aggressive behavior
that is trying to stop change, or not start the change off to begin with.

~~~
tckr
Thanks for sharing this, Jim!

------
Spooky23
You can be honest with your spouse, priest and lawyer. Everyone else is a
shade of grey.

~~~
antisthenes
I'd remove spouse and priest from that list.

The lawyer is the only one motivated to keep secrets because they have skin in
the game.

------
unabst
You will find dishonesty between managers and workers. This is because workers
try to get away with things, and managers are paid to catch them.

You will find dishonesty between executives and shareholders. This is because
executives are paid to lie about performance, and share holders exist to
punish them.

But this is just as systematic as it is human.

Dishonesty is rarer among workers. Their gossip is honest, and hence
cathartic.

Dishonesty is also rarer among the executive team. For running a company can
only be done with facts, and in almost all cases of corporate scams, the
executives were all in on it. And even the whistle blower would have had to
known the truth.

------
pdkl95
> Humans are Liars

Lying may be common, but it isn't universal. I never understood why you would
want to make a habit of having to waste memory and mental effort to remember
the map of what lies have been told to which people. It's hard enough to
remember one version of reality.

Regarding social consequences: I'm not sure. I was already a socially awkward
nerd, which makes makes it very hard to isolate any lying/not-lying
consequences. Politely declining to answer when a lie is socially expected
(or, when possible, finding a way to respond that doesn't require lying) has
worked out reasonably well so far.

~~~
klibertp
> what lies have been told to which people

In practice, this is not a problem. People who lie very much, in my
experience, have a couple of strong narratives they build their lies on.
Because they follow some vague set of rules (which is easier to remember,
especially if you use them repeatedly), it's possible for them to re-invent
the same lie for the same situation, every time. On top of that, they are
prepared to cover any minor differences that can occur one way or another -
mostly by diverting the attention of others to something else. As long as they
stay consistent with their lies and manage to stay within the bounds of what
others consider plausible, it's very hard to recognize their lies. It's even
harder, in practice, because what we consider probable is greatly affected by
the flow of conversation and what's happening around it, so with a proper
preparation, it's possible to sell almost any bullshit to almost anyone.

Well, that's the deep end of conmen and people who use lies - one way or
another - for work. However, many people are able to lie easily and they are
almost never challenged, at least if they don't exaggerate too much. Our
brains are great at filling the holes in the narratives, which has both a good
side - art - and dark side - lies.

------
tckr
OP here, thanks for all the great comments and anecdotes.

While nobody disagrees that this kind of culture would be worth striving for,
the majority's opinion seems to be that it is impossible to achieve.

But we all share the desire for living/working in an environment like this and
this gives me hope! Anybody who start the discussion in their team or company
about the way they interact, will quickly and most certainly find allies and
can grow a team of change agents from that.

 _Everyone culture_ was already mentioned and I would also recommend books
like _Unboss_ [https://coderbyheart.com/unboss-a-compendium-for-future-
orga...](https://coderbyheart.com/unboss-a-compendium-for-future-
organizations/) or _Joy, Inc._ [https://coderbyheart.com/joy-
inc/](https://coderbyheart.com/joy-inc/)

------
Synaesthesia
I think people are for the most part honest and good, I think it’s overlooked
how much goodness is inherent to our nature.

------
sulam
> It should be free of incentives that promote individualized results

I love to complain about sales people, but good luck getting the really good
ones to work at a company like this without the usual compensation structure.

------
phkahler
I may be guilty of some defensive tactics at times, but I don't lie. By lie I
mean making statements that are false. I have rarely seen overt lies, but...
In one case a PhD in my group claimed a certain level of system performance
(which he could not meet) was mathematically impossible. Our boss could not
refute it, but I quietly went back to the lab and achieved the goal. I filed a
note about that man's integrity under my hat.

------
erikpukinskis
I suspect on some level, Scott Adams likes the idea that _all_ humans are
“dirty, rotten liars” because it eases his fear that he might be more of a
liar than some of his adversaries.

~~~
kelukelugames
haha, Scott Adams cracks me up. Adams blogged about persuasions and writing
techniques for years. I learned a lot from reading those posts.

Then he uses the same techniques to promote Trump. Which is fine. People can
support whichever candidate. But Adams adamantly denied his support.

~~~
olivermarks
I think the idea that Scott Adams is 'promoting trump' isn't helpful on a
number of levels. He is very, very perceptive about humans and their failings,
and brilliant at lampooning corporate and bureaucratic group cultures and rat
races.

I've learnt a lot reading his articles about the way the current crop of
republican politicians are operating. He is one of the few people making sense
and understanding the zeitgeist of half the American people. I'm not a trump
fan fwiw, you can take this more in the Sun Zu sense:

“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a
hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory
gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor
yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”

~~~
wavefunction
>the zeitgeist of half the American people

I'd like to point out that this is wildly overstated.

~59.7% of eligible voters voters cast a ballot in 2016.[0]

Of those votes cast, Donald Trump received ~46.1% of those votes or 62,979,879
votes.[1] So Donald Trump represents at the least the zeitgeist of ~27.5% of
eligible voters.

It's hard to determine how he represents the zeitgeist of non-voting-eligible
inhabitants of the US but when you compare his popular vote total to the total
population of the country, or ~323,100,000 in 2016, one can claim with
certainty that Trump represents the zeitgeist of at least ~19.5% of the
country.

I point this out because it is often said that Donald Trump represents half
the country, likely because he was the candidate of one of the two major
political parties in this country and 1/2 is 50%.

However repeating this falsehood of Trump representing the beliefs of half the
country lends legitimacy to Trump and his agenda that is unearned and provides
cover to people who would like to believe that the beliefs they share with
Donald Trump enjoy some sort of popularity that is more widespread than can be
justified.

The same is true of course for Hillary Clinton and those Americans that cast
their ballot for her, though of course the breakdown would be very slightly
larger in her favor given her winning of the popular vote by some ~3,000,000
votes.

[0][http://www.electproject.org/2016g](http://www.electproject.org/2016g)

[1][http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/21/politics/donald-trump-
hillary-...](http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/21/politics/donald-trump-hillary-
clinton-popular-vote-final-count/index.html)

------
billsimms
I was surprised by sections in "Lying" by Sam Harris where he wrote "Why don't
we agree that you won't ask me that so I won't have to tell you the truth." A
much more extreme position is Brad Blanton's "Practicing Radical Honesty" and
other books by him. He admits in one of his books the huge personal cost he
has seen people suffer when people tell everyone all the truth all the time,
but he still thinks it is worth it.

~~~
Spooky23
Truth isn’t black and white and is based on your perception and knowledge. You
can’t offer radical honesty as a solution if you hold information back.

Radical truth tellers forget about the sin of omission, and happily lean back
and watch others bang themselves.

