Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑June 7th, 2022, 5:01 am
Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑June 6th, 2022, 6:52 am
Why would we base our linguistic communications on deception instead of clarity?
LuckyR wrote: ↑June 6th, 2022, 2:37 pm
I see you have no future in politics.
In general, autistic people do not make the best diplomats!
Slightly more seriously, I know that here I am making points that are commonplace to autists, but rather less so for others. We often have a preference for honesty, even down to the finest detail, that exceeds the appetites of others. But ... I think (hope) the points I have been making are
universally applicable, even if my arguments are more obvious, and more familiar, to autists.
Why do we give lying and deception such an intimate, important, and central role in our linguistic communications?
Given that it is probably immoral, and definitely inefficient, why do we continue to do it?
And why do we defend doing it with such vehemence and emotional commitment?
If anyone has answers to these questions, I would value reading them...
I'll try to give it a go. As I see it:
In the realm of communication there are many potential variables along many (related and unrelated) axes. The most obvious and superficial would be the content of the language from the speaker to the one being spoken to. Everyone understands this. This content can be accurate or inaccurate (along one axis), it can also be deceptive or truthful (along a separate, but partially related axis). Others could be complete or incomplete, serious or sarcastic and so on. Ultimately the receiver of the content understands or doesn't fully understand what the speaker is trying to get across.
Now there are numerous other variables in communication such as messaging for those beyond the one being spoken to, there are unspoken communications beyond the transcript of what is being said as easy examples.
Notice that deception vs truthfulness is only one axis. It is thus too small of a goal to declare "lies are evil and should be avoided". A skilled orator can convince an audience that A is better than B, while the transcript of his coversation points out several problems with A and various benefits of B. The information already exists, separate from the speaker and the listener, the speaker has the HUGE advantage of packaging the information in his own particular way to (potentially) change the understanding of the information, without technically changing the information itself.
The entire marketing, sales and advertising industries (among others) are built on this reality.
Lets say that there are three cars. Cheap, average and expensive. If a car company says the expensive car is cheap, that's false advertising (a lie). No one does this. If the company says yes the expensive car costs a lot up front, but it is so well made that it will last twice as long as the cheap car and thus costs less per year of ownership, that's advertising. If the company says the star striker on your local football club attracted his hot Hollywood wife by driving the expensive car, that's marketing. Or it can point out that the difference between the cost of the expensive car and the average one amounts to a cup of coffee at Starbucks per day.
Is the advertising going to work? Depends on the audience. Everyone has things they find important and less important. If a car is unimportant to you, it's only transportation, then you might be moved by the cost per year ad, but you won't by the footballer ad. However, you might find couture clothing important. You'll follow the ads in Vogue, whereas the car guy might shop for clothes at Walmart.
"As usual... it depends."