As we approach the Presidential debates and I reflect on the futility of the debate that occurs here on TERB, I had a fleeting hopeful thought that perhaps some of the irreconcilability of positions turns on the failure to recognize that there are different kinds of untruthfulness, and that some forms of untruthfulness should matter more than others. Of course, there is still the possibility that we will agree on this concept, and still disagree on which categories are more meaningful, but I thought it might be interesting to explore.
1. Hyperbole
The truth of these statements are not provably true or false, because they extend beyond provable fact. Example - "Mexico is not sending their best. The people they are sending include, rapists, criminals, and some good people, I don't know." This statement is neither provably true or false. Is Mexico purposefully sending citizens over the border? Are they indirectly encouraging it, or turning a blind eye to it? No one knows for sure except top Mexican government officials, and they are not admitting it. Is it partially true? It does appear that Mexico is taking next to no steps to prevent illegal immigration into the US. Are there some criminals among those who have breached the border? Probably, yes (so probably it's at least partially true). Are there so many that it is proper to characterize the entire group of illegal aliens this way? No one can know based on available data. As a result, this statement is not a provable untruth (as it is at least partially true), but can't be proved to be entirely accurate either.
2. Bravado
These are statements of prediction, or of desired perception, but are not provably true. Example - "Mexico will pay for the wall". No one can know this to be true or false until Mexico is asked to pay for a wall and says yes or no. It is a prediction or a desired outcome, not a fact.
3. Conjecture
These are statements based on a theory that mixes some motivation assumptions with some facts. Example - Robby Mook - "The Russians are attempting to help Trump in this election". This is not provably true. It lacks sufficient factual basis, and its motivational underpinnings are debateable. Only Putin and his closest aides knows whether this is true, and they are neither confirming it, nor allowing sufficient evidence to be uncovered to reveal it to be so. Another common name for insufficiently supported conjecture is conspiracy theory.
4. Lies
These are statements that are provably false and provably known to be false by the speaker. Example - Clinton - "We landed the plane under sniper fire".
This is to be distinguished from so-called media "fact-checking", which is usually ultimately an opinion about the likely correctness of a statement, mixing a consideration of facts, motivations and other matters of opinion.
5. Inaccuracies
These are statements that are provably false, but not provably known to be false by the speaker. Example - Trump "We spend more money per student than any other country in the world". Such statements might be based on what the speaker believes, or has been told, but can still be provably false.
In my view, all of these types of untruths raise concerns, but not the same concerns. Inaccuracies are undesirable, and may speak to the laziness or competence of a candidate, but not to their integrity. Conjecture potentially speaks to the both the competence and integrity of a candidate. Lies go straight to the issue of integrity. Hyperbole is certainly a competence issue, but might not indicate laziness. Instead it is a style of communication that is not optimally effective (if your objective is clarity in communication). Bravado is indicative of a risk taking disposition - people who make bold predictions expose themselves to ridicule if they are proven wrong, and are hailed as sages if proven right.
All of these issues go to the character of the candidate, and only bear on their policy positions to the extent that they undermine confidence that the candidate will actually do what they claim they will do. In my opinion, integrity is the most important character consideration. Countries can survive leaders who are not personally competent, particularly since they are invariably surrounded with advisors who are. However, what a leader must do is convince the people that he believes in the correctness of the policies that are implemented, and that he is implementing those policies based on what he believes are the best interests of the people. This is why, in this race of admittedly flawed candidates, I continue to prefer Trump.
1. Hyperbole
The truth of these statements are not provably true or false, because they extend beyond provable fact. Example - "Mexico is not sending their best. The people they are sending include, rapists, criminals, and some good people, I don't know." This statement is neither provably true or false. Is Mexico purposefully sending citizens over the border? Are they indirectly encouraging it, or turning a blind eye to it? No one knows for sure except top Mexican government officials, and they are not admitting it. Is it partially true? It does appear that Mexico is taking next to no steps to prevent illegal immigration into the US. Are there some criminals among those who have breached the border? Probably, yes (so probably it's at least partially true). Are there so many that it is proper to characterize the entire group of illegal aliens this way? No one can know based on available data. As a result, this statement is not a provable untruth (as it is at least partially true), but can't be proved to be entirely accurate either.
2. Bravado
These are statements of prediction, or of desired perception, but are not provably true. Example - "Mexico will pay for the wall". No one can know this to be true or false until Mexico is asked to pay for a wall and says yes or no. It is a prediction or a desired outcome, not a fact.
3. Conjecture
These are statements based on a theory that mixes some motivation assumptions with some facts. Example - Robby Mook - "The Russians are attempting to help Trump in this election". This is not provably true. It lacks sufficient factual basis, and its motivational underpinnings are debateable. Only Putin and his closest aides knows whether this is true, and they are neither confirming it, nor allowing sufficient evidence to be uncovered to reveal it to be so. Another common name for insufficiently supported conjecture is conspiracy theory.
4. Lies
These are statements that are provably false and provably known to be false by the speaker. Example - Clinton - "We landed the plane under sniper fire".
This is to be distinguished from so-called media "fact-checking", which is usually ultimately an opinion about the likely correctness of a statement, mixing a consideration of facts, motivations and other matters of opinion.
5. Inaccuracies
These are statements that are provably false, but not provably known to be false by the speaker. Example - Trump "We spend more money per student than any other country in the world". Such statements might be based on what the speaker believes, or has been told, but can still be provably false.
In my view, all of these types of untruths raise concerns, but not the same concerns. Inaccuracies are undesirable, and may speak to the laziness or competence of a candidate, but not to their integrity. Conjecture potentially speaks to the both the competence and integrity of a candidate. Lies go straight to the issue of integrity. Hyperbole is certainly a competence issue, but might not indicate laziness. Instead it is a style of communication that is not optimally effective (if your objective is clarity in communication). Bravado is indicative of a risk taking disposition - people who make bold predictions expose themselves to ridicule if they are proven wrong, and are hailed as sages if proven right.
All of these issues go to the character of the candidate, and only bear on their policy positions to the extent that they undermine confidence that the candidate will actually do what they claim they will do. In my opinion, integrity is the most important character consideration. Countries can survive leaders who are not personally competent, particularly since they are invariably surrounded with advisors who are. However, what a leader must do is convince the people that he believes in the correctness of the policies that are implemented, and that he is implementing those policies based on what he believes are the best interests of the people. This is why, in this race of admittedly flawed candidates, I continue to prefer Trump.
