A Nice or Truthful Person

[Flower]

I'mma just jump in here right now and give a little heads up about this thread - discussion is fine, but metaphysical, philological wrangling and sniping at one another will result in the thread being closed.

Am not accusing anyone of doing anything, mind you, just wanted to head things off at the pass as a "just in case". ^^

[Triple_R]

Just about everybody lies sometimes. But most people will default to the truth if not given a good reason to lie (i.e. not wanting to offend another person, not wanting to get in trouble). It's a rare person who'll consistently suck it up and tell the truth even when doing so is probably disadvantageous. It's also a rare person who's a pathological lier who frequently lies when there's no good reason to.

So, when it comes to truthfulness, I think a solid majority of people are more or less on the same page - defaults to the truth, usually is truthful, only lies when its advantageous to do so. There is some variation here (i.e. some are more open to sharing controversial opinions than others are), but I think its not huge.


Niceness, in my experience, is much more variable. There's a lot of nasty, snarky people in the world, and truly caring and nice people are rarer than some may suspect, I think. So on the whole, I probably aim for niceness a bit moreso than truthfulness, since I think it's possible to have more of a positive impact that way.

[monster]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

Then how do you know you are telling the truth? Perspective matters; even a fact can become opinion depending on views and endorsement.

That is why I highlighted cognitive dissonance - some people can convince themselves they are telling the truth. Especially people who have images to uphold, like religious leaders, stars, lawyers, politicians, etc.

They use the term "economical with truth". In their eyes, it contains truth, therefore it is true. I call it "bull minus shit" because with some "live-and-let-go", it can be taken as low-quality beef instead of bovine faeces. Though personal limit still stands; the speaker of such is one step closer to a 1x-good-one.

The way I see it, if being truthful means to not have the intent to mislead anyone with (mis)information, then it really has to do with what you know about the truth.

You can make an attempt at being truthful and still utter falsehood. It's called being wrong. That would include anyone who somehow managed to convince themselves that a particular information is the truth, whether or not it is the truth.

On the other hand, you can say the truth and still not be truthful if you knowingly withheld information that would cause someone to be mislead by what you say.

[NoemiChan]

Just to clear things up regarding the poll, I want to choose which would be better among the two, not that one is absolutely correct and the other isn't.

What important is how you defend it in your own way.

[careph]

Spoiler for philosophical rambling:

@Flower: I realize you have just expressly forbidden what you may feel I am about to do. I think differently, though. Clearing up some basic points will make communication more efficient among members. It's OK if 5 different people have five different ideas of what constitutes "truthfulness", but unless their views are made explicit, one may never know what the other really thinks.

Originally Posted by Nightbat®

I would like a definition of what constitutes "the truth"

A few theories are to be found here: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth/

But I don't see how the topic of what truth is has anything to do with whether a person is truthful. To me, being truthful and saying the truth are two entirely separate things. Being truthful means that a person expresses what they believe to be true. There are many things people believe that may not be true, and there are many true things that people do not believe (parts of reality about which we don't yet know anything, for instance). It is also possible to say something that is true, but at the same time not believed by the person. If, for instance, I say, "the number of stars in the universe is an even number", that may actually be true, but I have not formed a belief as to whether the number of stars is even or odd (in this case because I have no conclusive grounds to believe either claim).

Even if you swear in court to, "say the truth and nothing but the truth", then all people expect you to do is to report what you have witnessed to the best of your ability: not leaving anything out, not making anything up. In short: being truthful. We all know that human perception and reasoning are fallible (monster has mentioned it), that our perspective is limited and thus the information given will be weighted and evaluated accordingly.

I realize I have presupposed a correspondence theory of truth in some parts of my post, but you may just as well replace it with an epistemic view. Nothing fundamental would change. Minimalist view? That would just eliminate the truth question altogether.

In short, I don't see the relevance of clearing up the question of what truth is in a thread about truthfulness (and being nice). If you wish to discuss this further, my PM folder is hungrily waiting to be fed.

Personally, I place no importance in being truthful. Saying what I really believe and feel often caused disbelief and repulsion in others. As a result of being truthful, I was seen as an untrustworthy liar at best. Thus, and in order to induce a more favourable reaction, I turned to politeness and deceit. Ever since then, I am frequently complimented for being a straightforward, authentic and reliable person. So, "nice" it is.

[Jinto]

Originally Posted by Flower

I'mma just jump in here right now and give a little heads up about this thread - discussion is fine, but metaphysical, philological wrangling and sniping at one another will result in the thread being closed.

Am not accusing anyone of doing anything, mind you, just wanted to head things off at the pass as a "just in case". ^^

You certainly try to be nice here

[Archon_Wing]

A nice person.

Because people always shoot down the messenger; too many are too weak to handle the truth anyways, thus it's wasted on them.

Also, because I'm an asshole.

[Flower]

Originally Posted by careph

Spoiler for philosophical rambling:

@Flower: I realize you have just expressly forbidden what you may feel I am about to do. I think differently, though. Clearing up some basic points will make communication more efficient among members. It's OK if 5 different people have five different ideas of what constitutes "truthfulness", but unless their views are made explicit, one may never know what the other really thinks.

A few theories are to be found here: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth/

But I don't see how the topic of what truth is has anything to do with whether a person is truthful. To me, being truthful and saying the truth are two entirely separate things. Being truthful means that a person expresses what they believe to be true. There are many things people believe that may not be true, and there are many true things that people do not believe (parts of reality about which we don't yet know anything, for instance). It is also possible to say something that is true, but at the same time not believed by the person. If, for instance, I say, "the number of stars in the universe is an even number", that may actually be true, but I have not formed a belief as to whether the number of stars is even or odd (in this case because I have no conclusive grounds to believe either claim).

Even if you swear in court to, "say the truth and nothing but the truth", then all people expect you to do is to report what you have witnessed to the best of your ability: not leaving anything out, not making anything up. In short: being truthful. We all know that human perception and reasoning are fallible (monster has mentioned it), that our perspective is limited and thus the information given will be weighted and evaluated accordingly.

I realize I have presupposed a correspondence theory of truth in some parts of my post, but you may just as well replace it with an epistemic view. Nothing fundamental would change. Minimalist view? That would just eliminate the truth question altogether.

In short, I don't see the relevance of clearing up the question of what truth is in a thread about truthfulness (and being nice). If you wish to discuss this further, my PM folder is hungrily waiting to be fed.

Personally, I place no importance in being truthful. Saying what I really believe and feel often caused disbelief and repulsion in others. As a result of being truthful, I was seen as an untrustworthy liar at best. Thus, and in order to induce a more favourable reaction, I turned to politeness and deceit. Ever since then, I am frequently complimented for being a straightforward, authentic and reliable person. So, "nice" it is.

I am more worried about the wrangling and sniping part, mind you. It is (generally) how you state the ideas, not the ideas themselves that I am keeping an eye on. Discussion is fine. Donning the cape of your super alter ego "Attitude Lad" or whatever and posting away like a rhino in a china shop is not. ^^

Originally Posted by Jinto

You certainly try to be nice here

I was also being truthful in what I said, for the record.

[monsta666]

In my experience a person is who is more truthful than most is normally better than the one who appears nicer than most. Quite often if a person appears overly nice it is a sham or their is an ulterior motive behind the niceness. At least with honest people you know where you stand so that makes life less stressful. You do get some who use the truth as an excuse to be an ass but all things considered I think truthful people are the ones you want to associate with. They are the better option.

With that said it has got be recognised that you will not find a person who is 100% nice all the time nor will you find someone who is truthful all the time so a little leeway must be applied when answering this sort of question. What is the reason for asking this question if you don't mind me asking?

[NoemiChan]

Originally Posted by monsta666

What is the reason for asking this question if you don't mind me asking?

To know one will choose and the reason behind it.

It's easy to claim that you can be truthful and at the same time nice, and being nice while being truthful as well. If that's the case, there is no point in asking this, coz you are either playing it safe or just avoiding the question cause you can't defend either which you have picked.

I was just wondering if you are asked to choose between the two and which you think is BETTER FOR YOU IYHO ( Imagine yourself in a beauty contest).

PS. You are not bad person which ever you choose.

[weaponX]

I would choose to be a nice person...

I feel it just isn't practical to be truthful all the time.

If your girl asks you "Do I look fat in this outfit?" would you really want to answer that question? Jokes aside, life is full of such conundrums. There are many situations in which it is not advantageous nor desirable to say the truth. Be honest with yourself here.

And, there are times when times when it is better not to tell the truth to some people. Some people deserve better (Dark Knight reference).

The world would be a much better place if everyone was nice to each other. However, the world would not necessarily be a better place if everyone told the truth. In fact, it could get downright ugly.

Do not worry about the truth, the truth tends to itself...

[Fireminer]

Frankly, a subtle man would never speak out the whole truth. For example, my mother when she was asked about an song, she answered:

"Oh, the silence part is so great! It woke me up immidiately!"

... And the truth, it suck. The most important is To be Honest with yourself. Or, as one of my grandfathers who is a Monk said: "Let's your eyes open before the moving world, but don't judge."

[Nightbat®]

Originally Posted by weaponX

If your girl asks you "Do I look fat in this outfit?" would you really want to answer that question? Jokes aside, life is full of such conundrums. There are many situations in which it is not advantageous nor desirable to say the truth. Be honest with yourself here.

So that's what's getting me into hot water every time?


Careph has the most realistic point though
Your opinion will never be valued if you tell the truth, only if you say what people want to hear

[monsta666]

Originally Posted by NoemiChan

PS. You are not bad person which ever you choose.

Perhaps I wasn't very clear in my last post but my choice would be to pick the truthful person. The reason I would pick truthful people is because on the whole I feel dealing with such people makes your life more easy. If they like you great but if not then you know where you stand. Things are out in the open and there would be no bad talking in the background whilst putting on a "nice" appearance.

[Akito Kinomoto]

If niceness is excluded from truthfulness, I'd rather be truthful because I can still be respectful. Besides, how do you manage to be abrasive with a truthfully positive statement?

[Nightbat®]

Originally Posted by Akito Kinomoto

Besides, how do you manage to be abrasive with a truthfully positive statement?

Because being truthfull doesn't work one-way, withholding the negative truth means you're not telling the truth
Then you are actually disrespectfull by not telling the entire truth
( Facebook would have a hell of a lot more integrity if it also sported an "I dislike this" button, but apparently,
people don't like being told that their actions or words are not recieved positively)

and more often then not, the 'abrasive' part is felt by the reciever, not the one stating it, how positive it may be

[Akito Kinomoto]

Originally Posted by Nightbat®

Because being truthfull doesn't work one-way, withholding the negative truth means you're not telling the truth
Then you are actually disrespectfull by not telling the entire truth
( Facebook would have a hell of a lot more integrity if it also sported an "I dislike this" button, but apparently,
people don't like being told that their actions or words are not recieved positively)

and more often then not, the 'abrasive' part is felt by the reciever, not the one stating it, how positive it may be

If I'm praising someone on a well-done essay, speech, project, gameplay, ect., the overall sentiment is positive. If I had to be (overall) negative, I try not to be abrasive.

[Nightbat®]

Oh well, still doesn't change the fact that being truthfull includes the negatives


And on that note I voted for option #2
I have no problem being the bastard coated bastard with bastard filling
..it enables me to keep looking in my eyes in front of the mirror

[SaintessHeart]

The second option should be "honest" instead of "truthful". It is speaking about what you feel, not highly proven perspectives because you may not know wholly about it.

[monster]

On that note, I don't think being truthful/honest negates the need for tact.