I finally said, “Stop Lying to me! Enough lies. Is everything a lie?”
And then there was quiet. And then there were more experiences.
And then I said, “Ah, but I am also a liar.”
And then there was quiet, and some more experiences.
And then I thought to myself, “Well, aren’t we all liars then?”
I looked at my friend, and it became apparent that he was lying to me. And then at my other friend, and he was lying to himself. And then I looked at my third friend, and he told me about he lied, and at a fourth friend, who told me that he hated liars.
And then I quietly smiled and stopped talking to them.
I started a dialogue with myself.
“How do we lie? How do we deceive? Why do we do it? Is it possible to identify lies, to know an honest answer from a deceitful one, to know the real intentions of others? Is it possible to recognize when we deceive ourselves? Or perhaps I am thinking about all this the wrong way. Perhaps we are meant to lie. Perhaps lying is a necessary part of life, and instead of trying to study it, I should experience it – the beauty and ugliness of it, to embrace all of its sides…”
In The Republic, there is a passage that describes what qualities a judge should be endowed with. The conversation takes place with Socrates.
Socrates: ‘The best way for a doctor to acquire skill is to have, in addition to his knowledge of medical science, as wide and as an early acquaintance as possible with serious illness; in addition he should have experienced all kinds of disease in his own person and not be of an altogether healthy constitution. For doctors don’t use their bodies to cure other people’s bodies – if so, they cannot allow their health to be or become bad – they use their minds; and if their mental powers are or become bad their treatment can’t be good.’
‘But with a judge it’s a matter of mind controlling mind. And the mind should not be brought up from its youth to associate with wickedness, or to run a whole range of crimes in order to get first-hand experience on which to be able to judge them quickly in other people, as the doctor does with diseases of the body: on the contrary, the mind must, while it is still young, remain quite without experience of or contact with bad characters, if its condition is to be truly good and judgments just. That is why people of good character seem simple when they are young, and are easily taken in by dishonesty – because they have nothing corresponding in themselves to give them a sympathetic understanding of wickedness.’
The point that is being made here is that a mind that is not corrupt should remain so to be able to be a good judge, since early exposure to wickedness would disrupt its proper functioning and interfere with it.
When you are young, you are yet to be impressed upon by the world. Your assumptions about people are good. It is only when you get older that you see the maliciousness in others, and even in yourself.
But this innocence that Plato talks about, the good person who in their youth seems simple, is not something that is washed away by the transition from childhood to adulthood. There are many people who maintain this innocence of character despite their encounters with malice. They are either not exposed to an extreme enough event, or they are working hard to preserve their mental model of the world.
They prefer to remain where they are, trapped inside a simplistic understanding of people, for such an understanding allows them to trust, to take risks, and to form relationships. There is no good that can be gained from extreme skepticism – even if merited.
You should not distrust people, and avoid them at all costs – it is not pragmatic. You should instead understand them. And once you have acquired a sophisticated understanding of human nature, it is then time to integrate this knowledge into your belief system. To reconcile your cognitive dissonance, to accept that each individual is both virtuous and sinister. That each individual aims for the good, but is selfish and has destructive motivations.
The problem in politics can be summarized as follows: each side refuses to acknowledge their own dark sides. They frame the other side as evil, while thinking of themselves as good. And it is the same in social life. You have those who presume their own innocence indirectly when they cast aspersions on others. Social shaming induces guilt which can lead to reform, so it cannot be said that casting aspersions is altogether fruitless, but when it is done pathologically, without properly considering the situation in its entirety, without holding one’s own self culpable, without taking stock of one’s own lack of self-control and lack of virtue, then there can only be net negative consequence.
The simple, innocent youth who grows up to be an adult does not remain young, nor innocent, but in their minds, they often do. And it is this mismatch between reality (what is) and what is perceived that results in both internal tension and external hostility.
It seems like cliched advice to always look at oneself before criticizing others, but it is necessary to do so, to avoid self-deception. The person you should fear most is yourself, not others who you may or may not encounter. You are permanently attached to yourself, you cannot escape your own mind or body, and so it is important to know what you are, and what you are not.
If you have ever experienced regret after an encounter with someone, where you may have said too much then you understand how easily your emotions can get the better of you. The truth is that no matter how rational you think you are, your emotions are much more powerful. When a certain screw has been twisted, you will enter into a frenzied state, where all calmness and rationality has left you.
In fact, losing your cool is such a common phenomenon that people have happily exploited it for ages. If you personally want to find out what someone else is hiding from you, driving them to their emotional breaking point is a very effective way of doing so. Assume that this person harbors hidden feelings of resentment towards you, assume this person is someone you consider a close friend. Because of your history, you will not normally suspect any malicious thoughts from their side and behave accordingly, never provoking them or pressing them. But if one day, you have an argument, and you push them towards the edge, their true emotions will shine through. It is almost impossible for them to remain in control of their words. The more room you give them to maneuver, the more rope you are giving them to hang themselves with.
If you suspect your girlfriend or boyfriend is cheating on you, do not stupidly accuse them of anything explicitly, but patiently prod them until they make an error. They will give you contradictory responses. Women are excellent at doing this, it is almost a natural tendency for them. It is the indirect pursuit of truth, and for the simple minded and naive, it is an inconceivable tactic, yet it is the most effective.
You must train yourself to never say more than necessary. There’s a saying in arabic that translates to: “Say less words, make fewer mistakes.” If you are unpracticed in the art of concealing knowledge and you are the type of person who doesn’t know how to meticulously craft the right words for every occasion, then the best defensive tactic you can use is to keep quiet.
Train yourself to listen. It is a truly underrated skill to be silent.
“Shape clay into a vessel; It is the space within that makes it useful. Cut doors and windows for a room; it is the holes which make it useful. Therefore benefit comes from what is there; usefulness from what is not there.” – Lao Tzu
In the same way, think of a conversation as a physical object like a vessel. How useful and fruitful a conversation is depends on the pauses of silence that both parties are charitable enough to give each other. You do not only want to train yourself to listen so that you can extract hidden truths from the other person but because you want to know what they really think. You want to know what they really think because if lies persist into the future, then resentment will build up, and you will experience much more damaging manifestations of their built up resentment in surprising and undesirable ways.
The remedy is simple: silence. Pay attention to what they have to say, listen to every word. Do not interrupt them. Do not continue their sentences – that is your ego getting in the way, that is just you trying to still feel relevant to the conversation. It is you saying ‘I’m here, don’t forget about me, I have opinions too’! Don’t fall for your own childish compulsions. Instead, focus on what the other person has to say and do not respond until you have formed in your mind a coherent thought. Do not rush.
The other thing you must train yourself to do is to prepare yourself mentally before the conversation. If there is someone who knows how to push your buttons and provoke you, it is only because you trust their opinion. But this is highly irrational. Why take their opinion seriously? Think about how many people there are in the world, think about how many highly intelligent and knowledgeable people fail to agree on even the most fundamental issues. If you take your friend’s opinion seriously, it is not because they are a superior judge of character, but because you have an emotional connection to them. What they think matters to you. But once you acknowledge that your trust in them is purely emotional, then you are now better prepared than before.
Whereas you used to ruminate on what words were said, now you have a more reasonable estimate of their incompetence, you can take them less seriously, and this will allow you to be more calm and rational when speaking to them.
The Prepared Mind
People often get frustrated when the other person is too clam, and this I find very amusing. The irritated and the out of control hate it when they encounter someone who can keep their emotions in check. Talleyrand, the French politician, endlessly amused himself and his colleagues by provoking Napoleon. And he eventually succeeded in getting Napoleon to self-destruct.
The frustrated and the emotional are unprepared, they are untrained. Do not make the same mistake. Alfred Hitchcock used to make sure that every single detail in the film he was shooting was studied thoroughly beforehand. He did this because he hated having to endure the endless squabbles among the people he was working with. So he quietly did his job and once he was confident in the end result, he paid no attention to the bickering and the petty fights that happened around him. He was unfazed because he was experienced enough to expect these emotional outbursts to occur, and he knew that he was getting what he wanted – his own vision implemented.
Don’t allow the Talleyrands of the world to get the better of you. Always be cooler than they are. And like Hitchcock, never leave things to chance. Do not get involved in petty politics, it will only distract you and cloud your judgement. Make the tendency to become emotional, to say more than necessary, to lose your temper a fault that you can exploit in others, rather than a personal vulnerability. This can happen through repeated exposure and a changed mindset.
A novice poker player can’t help but react to his hands. He will sit relaxed with a joyful attitude through many rounds, leaning back on his chair and stretching his legs out nonchalantly. But once two aces show up, he shoots straight up, his hands automatically fold on each other, the smile on his face is immediately replaced with a somber look, and he suddenly becomes very quiet, making as little conversation as possible. He means business!
In life, you start out as a novice poker player, revealing everything that you think and feel. Children are notorious for spilling the family secrets because they are untrained. Yet many adults are no better, and worse, the secrets they know about are more dangerous. But they cannot contain themselves, they have not practiced enough. Don’t make the same mistake.
In the game of deception, no character is more potent and deadly than the weak link. You should not only be wary of those that strut their feathers proudly, they are obvious targets and have obvious weak points. You should also be wary of are those who are quiet, disgruntled, and weak-willed. They craft a delicate facade that convinces everyone around them that they are powerless, and that they are constantly preyed upon. These Machiavellian naturals only feign weakness to fool you.
The weak link is irrational. He only acts out of selfish instinct but has convinced himself and others around him that he is not selfish – that he is in fact virtuous. Finding himself losing the power struggle, the weak link must find a chink in the armor of others, and this is often compassion. If the weak link can garner empathy from others, then he can gain in stature and political strength. He does so by appealing to principles that he neither believes in nor follows, but he knows that these principles are universally recognized. He does not have a personal philosophy, but understands which values the gullible fall for. He tries to believe in his bullshit but he fails to do so as his regular behavior does not exhibit any adherence to a philosophy of compassion. The weak link regularly spends his time pursuing selfish modes of action but he is suspiciously uncritical of his own behavior. In fact, this lack of self-awareness and personal responsibility is the reason he has become a weak link.
His master strategy is to appeal to fairness. Since it is in everyone’s best interest to play a fair game, it is difficult to reject the weak link’s call for greater fairness. And yet, even under fair conditions, the weak link refuses to play the game because he lacks competence, focus, and resolve.
The weak link is a perpetual seeker of shortcuts. By victimizing himself, by appearing to be the biggest loser of a rigged game, he garners sympathy from other big losers. You should avoid these people, do not associate with them, for if you do, they will eventually corrupt your mind. It is naive to believe that you can change people, but it is more naive to believe that you cannot be changed.
There is a character in society that has for thousands of years evoked outrage and envy – the courtier. This character is very much alive today. Who is the courtier? He is the king’s companion, the teacher’s pet, the adviser, aide, henchman.
The courtier’s strategy is extreme pragmatism. The courtier understands that the king has the power and he has learned that defying the king would only lead to negative consequences. So he implements his subtle mastery of interpersonal skills in his interactions with the king, flattering him while at the same time disclosing valuable information.
The courtier believes that it is necessary to get the king’s blessings, but knows that he is expendable. He knows that the king is powerful and has many other potential courtiers at his disposal. Thus the courtier constantly feeds the king a steady diet of information and flattery. This information needn’t convey the real interests of the courtier for he is not interested in his own entertainment, but predominantly seeks the satisfaction of the king. Likewise, he needn’t be sincere in his use for flattery, for it is used as a device of manipulation.
The courtier’s main battle is to prove that he is irreplaceable since this is counter to reality. Here is where his genius is most required, but also where his frailties are most deeply exposed. When the courtier tries to impress the king, he takes a risk by doing so. There is the possibility of failure. If the courtier does not succeed in carrying out the mission he promised, his reputation will be tarnished in the eyes of the king, and there can be nothing more debilitating and embarrassing to him than this.
But the courtier is shrewd and will not take unnecessary risks. He will constrain himself to the realm of the achievable. It is not so much the extent of what can be achieved, but rather, the fact of achievement itself that the courtier is after. Remember, he wants to build credibility with the king and this requires a consistent streak of victories. The courtier’s eternal rival is the indentured servant.
The indentured servant also exists in the king’s royal court, but he is treated badly. He is given the mundane tasks and unnecessary work. The servant despises the skilled courtier because he sees in him an unfulfilled ideal. The servant has convinced himself that by being obedient, he will gain favor with the king – that all his good works will be repaid in kind. But the servant inevitably discovers that this is not the case. As he neglects his himself further for the service of the king, he sees that the courtier is being showered with gifts, attention, and trust. Here the servant’s blood boils and he begins to seek revenge, not on the king, but on the courtier.
On the other hand, the courtier sees the servant as an unrighteous version of himself, an undeserving, lazy, and stupid imitation of his art. The courtier cajoles and plans and entertains while the scornful servant merely does what he is told and expects the same benefits.
In your own court, whether at work or in your relationships with people, take note of who the king, servant, and courtier are. They are the archetypal characters of the power hierarchy. Whenever there have been kings, there have always been courtiers and servants.