Question about People Who Think Others Are Liars
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Damaeus - 14 Apr 2009 07:21 GMT I need a word. I'm having a tangential discussion on talk.origins about liars. There's someone who thinks 90% of the people in the world are liars, and he throws me into that pack, and I was highly offended because I always strive not only to be truthful, but to go into extra information if I think something I say or write might somehow be interpreted as a lie.
So... Here's a definition. I just need a word to go with it:
_________ - a person who believes most people are liars.
I want to refer to this person with the word that would go in that blank.
Some might put "liar" in the blank since it's been said that people who lie think everyone else is a liar, but I need something better.
Thanks for any input, Damaeus
Pat Durkin - 14 Apr 2009 15:00 GMT > I need a word. I'm having a tangential discussion on talk.origins > about liars. There's someone who thinks 90% of the people in the [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Some might put "liar" in the blank since it's been said that people > who lie think everyone else is a liar, but I need something better. I would say that a person who tends to doubt much of what he hears from most people is a skeptic (BrE-sceptic). That doesn't mean the skeptic challenges what he hears or reads, but that he looks for reliable sources, or verifies the information through other, objective people. In addition, he is slow to pass the information on to others, especially if he knows them to be less skeptical than he.
(Some people are only skeptical in certain environments.)
M-W Online (pruned by me):
Main Entry: skep·tic Function: noun Etymology: Latin or Greek; Latin scepticus, from Greek skeptikos, from skeptikos thoughtful, from skeptesthai to look, consider Date: 1587 1 : an adherent or advocate of skepticism 2 : a person disposed to skepticism especially regarding religion or religious principles sceptic: (same source) Main Entry: scep·tic, scep·ti·cal, scep·ti·cism chiefly British variant of skeptic , skeptical , skepticism
Cambridge International Dictionary of English noun a person who doubts the truth or value of an idea or belief: People say it can cure colds, but I'm a bit of a sceptic.
Jonathan - 14 Apr 2009 15:43 GMT > > I need a word. I'm having a tangential discussion on talk.origins > > about liars. There's someone who thinks 90% of the people in the [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > a person who doubts the truth or value of an idea or belief: > People say it can cure colds, but I'm a bit of a sceptic. How about "a cynic"?
Jonathan - 14 Apr 2009 15:51 GMT > > "Damaeus" <no-m...@damaeus.yahoo.invalid> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > > How about "a cynic"? From Wiki: By the 19th century, emphasis on the negative aspects of Cynic philosophy led to a new and very different understanding of cynicism to mean an attitude of jaded negativity, and a general distrust of the integrity or professed motives of other people. Modern cynicism, as a product of mass society, is a distrust toward ethical and social values, especially when there are high expectations concerning society, institutions and authorities which are unfulfilled. Cynicism can manifest itself by frustration, disillusionment and distrust in regard to organizations, authorities and other aspects of society, and can result from a negative evaluation of past experiences.
Pat Durkin - 14 Apr 2009 17:33 GMT On Apr 14, 10:00 pm, "Pat Durkin" <durk...@sbc.com> wrote:
> "Damaeus" <no-m...@damaeus.yahoo.invalid> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > especially > if he knows them to be less skeptical than he. How about "a cynic"?
"Cynic" is OK, If you like, but, as John and Jonathan define it, I would have to say that I find that word to describe an all-pervading attitude toward life and society. When I feel like that, I ask myself why I don't just go out and cut my throat. (I am mildly bipolar. I wouldn't be here if I were severely so.)
Damaeus - 15 Apr 2009 10:17 GMT I'm breaking protocol on this message by overquoting and crossposting the reply to talk.origins because of the content, reasoning, logic and illustration of my views on lying, telling the truth, human psychology and how it relates to evolution in the past, now and in the future.
To anonymize the messages or not? I left them as is since anybody can check the References headers:
Reading from news:alt.english.usage, "Pat Durkin" <durk183@sbc.com> posted:
> On Apr 14, 10:00 pm, "Pat Durkin" <durk...@sbc.com> wrote: > > "Damaeus" <no-m...@damaeus.yahoo.invalid> wrote in message [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > have to say that I find that word to describe an all-pervading attitude > toward life and society. "Cynic" interested me enough to check the definition in the dictionary. I found what could be the perfect word for it in the list of synonyms:
misanthrope a person who hates or distrusts all people: also misanthropist
But the only problem there is the Wikipedia article that categorizes people beyond the dictionary definition:
qqq: Wikipedia - Misanthropy - Misanthropy is a general dislike, distrust, or hatred of the human species or a disposition to dislike and/or distrust other people's silent consensus about reality. The word comes from the Greek words (misos, "hatred") and ( anthro-pos, "man, human being"). A misanthrope is a person who dislikes or distrusts humanity as a general rule. #
In talk.origins, the general debate I've been in over the last week is about evolution of the past, the present time, and future evolution. My contention is that eventually, our minds will become so great that we will be able to recognize the sensations in our bodies as evolutionary forces at work, as we live our lives, manifested through our ability to analyze our own feelings and decide how we next want to feel about our situations. Note that sometimes feelings seem like they're out of control when extraordinary things happen, or when an idea comes to mind that suddenly makes you realize how "the way it is" is not the way it has to be, and things can change to make things fairer in the world for everyone. The flood of emotions, feelings, reorganizations of thoughts as we try to figure out what's going on in the world exercises the brain and mind to the point that you see the entire world as a whole, and you see how the actions of one group of people clashes in so many ways with the struggles of other groups of people trying to survive under a canopy of rules, regulations, expectations, demands that require debt to have just one modest house to live in, and threats of punishment by destitution and homelessness if you don't comply. "Resistance is futile," saith the Borg.
Eventually this would come to such a state of awareness about our situation that nobody could be fooled by the smoke and mirrors of politics and money, and we would have to come to some agreement about how society should proceed. If we can find some way to make everyone happy in a way that no one feels cheated or left out, then we /can/ make a happy world in which we can constantly build instead of constantly rebuilding what has been destroyed. The removal of stimulus that cause painful feelings would mean that our minds and brains would be free of the stresses caused by these negative societal factors. Being free of such stresses, the body could relax more instead of being uptight.
My contention is built on the fact that I was forced by my mental state to quit playing the game of life as we know it since I was a consistent failure at it. I went home and stayed there. I have good reasoning and logic for it in the digression about what happened with my attempt to dig myself out of a hole with a late-in-life online college education, but the choice to read it is yours. I've indented it if you don't want to hear about it.
Digression I had followed the rule of work hard, bust your a.s, and you'll make it, but I was sinking financially more and more each year. It finally got to the point where I was working until I was in outright depression just getting up to go to work each day. After a conversation about it all with my roommate, he said if I wanted to quit, I could. He said there was no point in working if all it was doing was driving me further into debt. (Pizza delivery is expensive. That's why we need the tips, but we understand the hard times, too. I'm 38.9, by the way.) So as my bills fell further and further behind, no matter how much I forced myself to go back in each day, I finally just gave up. I quit, went home, stopped making money, had no way to pay bills, and so they've been unpaid ever since. Why struggle against the impossible? Even the online college I signed up with for a last-ditch effort to save myself with a degree in graphic design turned out to be a "woowoo(?)" outfit. I had done my research on their accreditation before enrolling, and called the school to inquire about it since I really couldn't find many internet forum postings about them; it was such a new school (Anthem College, division of High-Tech Institute, if you're interested, for your protection and theirs). During my phone call, I recollect that he told me that the school was on probation because their job placement program had fallen below the standards set by the accrediting agency, and to be taken off probation, the school must fix the problem. That didn't sound too bad, but since none of the other schools I checked looked all that great, I went ahead and enrolled for about $30,000, considering PELL and loans. The school was quite odd. The lesson plans at first were fairly creative, but once getting into the later software and 3D animation and modeling software we had to learn, it was less about creativity and more about paint-by-number. They told you step-by-step, how to complete each project in such a way that you're not really learning anything creative, but just copying variables from the book to the computer and...it was just a mess. I had no more clue about 3DStudioMax after the course than I did when I started. It was the same for software used in earlier classes, but thought I had no clue after some of that software, I still made 100s just because I parroted perfectly the instructions in the test. Photoshop, InDesign, QuarkXPress and Dreamweaver I was fairly good at because I was so familiar with years of use of Paint Shop Pro and Dreamweaver as a hobbyist. 3D animation is where it fell apart. I had maintained a 4.0 GPA all the way up to the animation point and that was also the time that I was losing faith in hard work to support me. About that time, the Anthem College president was forced by their accreditation agency to put a video message of the school's situation on the student login page. The school president said that Anthem College was on probation again and not allowed to enroll any more students until the curriculum requirements were addressed. You might be able to imagine how that set with me at the time. I had taken on a huge debt that my friend had also cosigned for to go to this school, and all this was tied in with Sallie Mae, federal PELL grants, Stafford loans and the Department of Education of the U.S. Government, and I was essentially going to end up with a diploma not worth the paper it was written on. During my active time enrolled, I had run across some new forum postings from former employees of the college with accounts of the school receiving letters from employers saying they were not happy with the work of their graduates. I could believe it. I had seen some of the examples posted by the school for us to study to see what others had done, and to give us ideas. I wasn't impressed with very many of them at all. They all looked like something done by any 12-year-old of the 1990s with that time's computer technology. My years of work with Paint Shop Pro, however, gave me such an advantage over others that I aced all the courses and got nothing but praise and adulations from the instructors. Each week, the grades were updated and I could see how my grades were compared to the class average. I was always up between 95 and 100, even on the academic courses (psychology, sociology, algebra, critical thinking, and humanities) while the rest of the class was usually down between 50 and 65, sometimes between 65 and 75, but rarely did I see anyone get beyond 80%. Sometime grades were in the 30s and 40s on average. The problem with that observation, though, is that some students enrolled and didn't participate at all, so their zeroes dragged the entire class average down. Some assignments were just not completed, some may have been poorly done. But there was rarely ever any forum for us to compare our work, so I had no idea how to gauge how I was really doing. The teacher may have been praising me by e-mail (one time I was even told my work was professional grade), while laughing at me back at the school. I could look at my own work and see for myself that it was professional-grade in some cases, and some I knew were not the greatest..sometimes because they restricted what we were allowed to do and I couldn't work within their boundaries. But the ones I felt *were* good were the ones I loved, while the ones I felt restricted on were the ones I didn't like, but got high grades on, anyway. Sometimes teachers were pigheaded, quite frankly. In one assignment, I had to design a book cover. The front of the book cover had no border, but the back of the cover had a sizeable black border around it. Many books have only a picture of the author on the back cover, so that's all I put, was a picture of a geek caricaturizing himself, while on the front cover is a creepy picture of a tiny trailer in the woods with a light on inside. I meant for it to be a strange kind of irony that someone who looks like that could write a story so creepy. But the teacher just didn't get it. He not only marked off for my choice of picture, but then told me that the spline image was off-center. He was even too stupid to see that it would naturally appear to be off-center if the front cover has no border, but the back cover does. I wrote him an e-mail about it, explaining my side. I can't remember what he said, exactly, but he didn't budge from his position. He left my grade as it was. I think I got an 80 on it or something. I knew then my teacher was an idiot and no idea what he was doing.
I uploaded the project to my webspace on Earthlink so people could see my point: http://home.earthlink.net/~matthaeus/images/book-cover.jpg Since other designs had shown that I knew how to use color, I decided to do something different with that one, which is why its use of color isn't that...' '\\ splashy //``. To at least show some comparison to my other projects, I uploaded a few more: http://home.earthlink.net/~matthaeus/images/culinary01.jpg http://home.earthlink.net/~matthaeus/images/cd-cover.jpg http://home.earthlink.net/~matthaeus/images/movie-poster.jpg http://home.earthlink.net/~matthaeus/images/museum-invite.jpg I have some other stuff in PDF format if anybody is interested. LOL
Anyway, with the quirkiness of the grade comparison charts, my skepticism about the lessons and the accrediting problems, and the idea that you "need that degree" to even get your foot in the door, I just lost faith in the idea that you "must" keep trying at all costs to succeed at a game that, the way I was beginning to see it, should be purely optional. And it is. Some people choose not to work and are homeless. I decided to stop working with the permission of someone I've been friends with for 20 years who doesn't mind if I live with him without working. And he likes having me around because of his health problems. I'm someone to be here if he needs someone to help him get to a hospital. I still struggle with the perception of myself as an unwitting moocher, but I watch the news daily hoping to see signs of change.
After losing faith in hard work, education, getting up and trying again, after my discussion and permission to quit, I put my faith in uncertainty. I decided to just go home and see what happens.
Having more time to sit back, think about all that's happened, think about how money works, how one must take on so much debt just to get started in life, it made me think that if we had just thought to play the game of Life just like the board game, and give each baby a million dollars in a trust fund to draw 5% interest for 18 years on a certificate of deposit, they could get a house, buy a car, go to college and start a family without even having to go into debt for a single penny.
So I decided to wait. And as Archie Bunker would say watching the news, "Look at this..."
Is it time for tea?
::CRASH:: "That must be the tea." (Caddyshack)
I think what is going on now is going to take us into the next huge leap forward in evolution. The reasoning and logic follow in the rest of the story:
Now there's no point even trying to fool myself into thinking just scraping together a graphic design portfolio is going to get me a job. I bet nobody is thinking of leaving the job they already have, so that makes any new employment highly unlikely. And my feeling about it all is such that I can't even think of starting Photoshop without puking in my mouth a little. If the politicians and bankers are too stupid to see the reality of the situation of what's going to be happening to everyone, then I dunno... Somebody needs a head examination.
The way I see it, this tiptoeing charade through smoke and mirrors has become a Christmas parade down Broadway and nobody in the parade realizes their flies are open and their penises are waving proudly in the air, dripping with semen at every idea that gives them political pleasure.
Don't think I just sit back and laugh with hedonistic pleasure as I take as many hot showers a say as I can stand without fainting with reprieve. I do revel in that mindset in single moments from time to time as I think of where mankind must be headed if a wave of happiness spreads around the globe when a way is finally found for everything to be fair. That would result in more pleasure, and less pain in life.
The chemicals released by washing your body in pleasure is good for it. I think it's going to lead to a society in which people can work very little and get a lot of lifestyle. I think of how many people are wasted, and how many "primitive cultures" are overlooked simply because they're being saved to bring in some form of capitalism to make a few people richer and richer. But think of what we could build with true quality instead of exploitative cheapness for profit margins?
It'll be a world where 7 billion people work 5 hours a week, instead of having however many work now do it all for 40-60 hours a week while draggind a mountain of debt behind them all their lives. The "I feel so cheated" chemicals go away and are replaced with "wow this is fantastic and fair for everyone" chemicals, and the whole situation of lack and wanting greener pastures would be gone. The whole world would be a green pasture and everywhere you go, there would be beauty, art, music and dancing. People building things because they love what they're building, and what they're building it for, making them want to live there, participate, and spend a lifetime on the project that makes a difference in the world, not just a living for some old coot who is forgotten by all but a few. That's not to bring in some egotistical sense of self-importance, but to just set up a system that allows EVERY person a way to do what they dream of doing instead of settling for what you can get a degree for, or get paid to do.
Now think of how sick people are now under our current system with the cancer and heart disease. What would happen if we repolarized society to be not about money, but about building what we love and participating in building it ourselves. I just see that as like taking on life as a hobby, and not a career. Like some love gardening, but they don't want to run a gardening business because they don't want to to spoil their hobby. Hunger could be helped by planting fruit and nut trees instead of foodless shade trees. Why cities and towns haven't figured this yet out is beyond me, though I guess produce growers probably wouldn't want produce growing all over the planet...only on their property so they can make money off of it. People can plant fruit trees at home, but people move and it's hard to get a tree to grow enough to provide food before you're moving again for a job transfer or just getting a better house. So cities and towns should just plant fruit trees all over the place and grocery stores can alter their stock and reduce produce sections as necessary and provide other items not available growing all over creation.
That kind of world would have to have a profound impact on human psychology as they see the folly of the ways of the past and move forward into a future that ends all violence and gives us all the time to live in bodies without fear of death, and in doing so, find ways through a peaceful life to immortalize our bodies and make them live forever.
Damaeus
Pat Durkin - 15 Apr 2009 16:04 GMT > I'm breaking protocol on this message by overquoting and crossposting > the reply to talk.origins because of the content, reasoning, logic and [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > > a person who hates or distrusts all people: also misanthropist Damaeus: I have snipped much of your explanation, since it gives your reasons for choosing "misanthrope", I think.
From your point of view, you may be right to think of that word as a synonym for cynic, and therefore a word to use to describe others as liars.
But you know, the question didn't deal with ones moods, or outlook on life. You skipped a part of my view on cynic that I think does apply to you, as it applies to me:
"(I am mildly bipolar. I wouldn't be here if I were severely so.)" What I meant, (and mean) is, that I feel my temprorary mood of depression and rejection might cause me to be a cynic, rather than simply a skeptic.
At times I have been accused of being "negative" and "morbidly pessimistic", and that is a true discussion of my mood at the time. But I soon get over it, and return to my normal equable frame of mind, while never subscribing to Reagan's "trust, but verify". I only trust _after_ I verify. But I don't get religious and excoriate the ones whom I do not really _trust_. It may be that the people I really mistrust, have not been in a reasonable frame of mind themselves, or have not been free to say why they act or feel or believe the way they do. (You got trapped in a bureaucratic mess. Sorry about that. But that's life.)
When I have to act on the word of others (usually it is a matter of timing), I sometimes have had to close my eyes, take a deep breath, hold my nose, throw caution to the winds, and take that blind leap of commitment. But I accept that it is a choice that I make. If it doesn't work out as I expect, well, I have learned again that skepticism and my own instincts are to be honored. And I probably will never get myself into such a bind again, at least with those "advisers".
Good luck.
prigator@aol.com - 15 Apr 2009 16:37 GMT Damaeus discovers:
> "Cynic" interested me enough to check the definition in the dictionary. �I > found what could be the perfect word for it in the list of synonyms: If you need a dictionary to follow the discussion......
Try this: look up one word, select two or more words in the definition and look those up, then look up each of those, etc. After an hour or two you can go from "cynic" to "buttermilk" or "lunar eclipse."
There are no perfect synonyms. Each noun is slightly different in nuance. Crossposting your victorious feat is only broadcasting ignorance.
Doug Chandler
Damaeus - 16 Apr 2009 20:22 GMT Reading from news:talk.origins, prigator@aol.com posted:
> Damaeus discovers: > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > nuance. Crossposting your victorious feat is only broadcasting > ignorance. No. It's broadcasting a willingness to learn something. That /is/ what this is about.
Damaeus
J.J. O'Shea - 17 Apr 2009 13:19 GMT > Damaeus discovers: >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Doug Chandler He has long since demonstrated that 'Damaeus' is a near-perfect synonym for 'brain-damaged blowhard'.
 Signature email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
Damaeus - 17 Apr 2009 18:31 GMT Reading from news:talk.origins, "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not.to@but.see.sig> posted:
> He has long since demonstrated that 'Damaeus' is a near-perfect synonym for > 'brain-damaged blowhard'. I decided to destroy my own brain. Part of my experimentation has been to do just that -- to see how far I can push it and still function as a human.
Damaeus
J.J. O'Shea - 17 Apr 2009 18:52 GMT > Reading from news:talk.origins, > "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not.to@but.see.sig> posted: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I decided to destroy my own brain. You succeeded in this.
> Part of my experimentation has been to > do just that -- to see how far I can push it and still function as a > human. You failed in this.
> Damaeus
 Signature email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
Andre Lieven - 17 Apr 2009 19:31 GMT > Reading from news:talk.origins, > "J.J. O'Shea" <try.not...@but.see.sig> posted: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > do just that -- to see how far I can push it and still function as a > human. Since you no longer function as a human, at least as far as being able to learn and THINK is concerned, you can end your "experiment".
Andre
Damaeus - 19 May 2009 21:24 GMT Reading from news:alt.english.usage, prigator@aol.com posted:
> Damaeus discovers: > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > nuance. Crossposting your victorious feat is only broadcasting > ignorance. I don't care.
Damaeus
John Varela - 14 Apr 2009 16:16 GMT > There's someone who thinks 90% of the people in the world are > liars, and he throws me into that pack, and I was highly offended because > I always strive not only to be truthful, but to go into extra information > if I think something I say or write might somehow be interpreted as a lie. It depends on the context, but that 90% number is low for at least some definitions of "liar". Do you tell the truth about Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy to small children? If not...
That aside, Jonathan's suggestion of "cynic" is probably the word you want.
 Signature John Varela Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email
Hatunen - 14 Apr 2009 18:24 GMT >> There's someone who thinks 90% of the people in the world are >> liars, and he throws me into that pack, and I was highly offended because [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >That aside, Jonathan's suggestion of "cynic" is probably the word >you want. There are those who accuse anyone else of being a liar if that the other person says anything that doesn't conform to his/her belief system. I don't think we can call them "cynics". There are also some who confuse "being wrong" with "lying" (the two groups hae an intersection).
 Signature ************* DAVE HATUNEN (hatunen@cox.net) ************* * Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow * * My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Pete - 15 Apr 2009 00:26 GMT Did you check for "Mythophobia"?
>I need a word. I'm having a tangential discussion on talk.origins about > liars. There's someone who thinks 90% of the people in the world are [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Thanks for any input, > Damaeus Mark Wallace - 18 Apr 2009 08:25 GMT People who are quick to accuse others of lying are normally inveterate liars themselves. It's part of being human to assume that others think like oneself.
A more fun example can be seen in how conspiracy theorists always suggest getting together in secret to plan a course of action to fight the conspirators -- only those who wish to be part of a conspiracy see conspiracies everywhere, just like those who only hear lies only speak them.
Your blank, therefore, can be replaced by "Liar".
aquachimp - 19 Apr 2009 09:52 GMT > I need a word. I'm having a tangential discussion on talk.origins about > liars. There's someone who thinks 90% of the people in the world are [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Thanks for any input, > Damaeus I'm thinking he's a bit mixed-up. In the telly series House, Dr House claims that everybody lies. I don't assume House means everybody lies all the time. Telling porkies more than just once or twice qualifies someone as having lied (and therefore a liar?) and I would have thought that surely more than 90% of us have lied from time to time. If what that other person is getting at is the right to brand someone a liar because of the occasional fib, then perhaps a definitive explanation of liar is required. If your counterpart is arguing that everyone fibs, albeit from time to time, then perhaps the word you're looking for is a "realist" If, instead, he has mixed things up, then he is either confused or misinformed, which begs the question, can he be a "delusional"?
|
|
|