As you’ve already expressly disowned your original argument, I see no point in any further discussion.

you seem rather desparate to disagree with me at length despite having no time to go into any specific examples. We really disagree much less than you think. I too for instance use the words ’self-appointed elites’ to make clear that there’s no inherent reason why elites would always be benevolent. That elites would shape the agenda behind closed doors is surely someone calling himself Trotsky would not disagree with? Or have you forgotten that Trotsky organised the Red Army in order to do the bidding of a rather small set of Bolshewicks who violently appointed themselves at the head of the Russian state?

Sure, I dichotomise in my blog but only after giving extensive lists of examples and background information such that the reader knows what empirical regularities are being reduced to their bare essentials. How else would you want to argue any point?
By the way, I take it as a compliment when you say “First, observational and empirical evidence isn’t susceptible to “disproofâ€?.” Its the nicest thing you’ve said so far.

As fine a “Nah, I never said that, never!” as I’ve read in my life. Perhaps you’d care to explain the esoteric meaning of this part of your post - all I got was the exoteric meaning “It’s good for countries to have elites that lie to their populations while they implement the public good in private” (especially since that you went on, with apparent approbation, to cite several examples):

Behind closed doors an elite would try to shape sensible policies and would then try to manipulate the open discussion their way, using whatever lies are needed to persuade the public. And in a sense, a country is lucky if it has such a well-meaning elite that’s prepared to lie to its population. That situation is more or less how I perceive these things go in every Western country I know.

I have no interest in “disproving” your chosen Australian examples. First, observational and empirical evidence isn’t susceptible to “disproof”. Second, your besetting sin in argument, is to reduce everything to the most stark dichotomy you possibly can, then pick a “right” side.

Finally, there’s no straw man here - if you read over this post again you’ll find that the key piece of evidence for your argument - the study you cite to support the assertion that everybody lies has been used to completely discredit your conclusion:

Can it be done differently? Probably not. Yes, its depressing to think that we need to deceive the general public and that an academic in public hence has to pretend an adherence to whatever the popular belief of the day is.

Oh yes - I think we need some explanation of the esoteric meaning of that bit too - once again all I get is the exoteric meaning. But I digress - applying reason and logic, I tried to demostrate that your premises were in contradiction with your conclusion. You obviously disagree - but as usual, it’s up to the readers whose side they take on that point.

If you want to argue the point seriously that one CAN have truthful politicians and truthful media, you are going to have to disprove my chosen Australian examples (merit pay, advertising, global warming, welfare policy) or come up with an historical example of successful politicians who never told a lie and yet were able to tackle the sensitive issues of their time.

I’m not sure we’d have too many disagreements over what you’ve just said.

Thanks for the timely bounce

Of all the people who self report their frequency of lying,how can you believe a word they say?

Well, that’s another issue again, Dany, but I didn’t want to resort to the easy option of invoking the Cretan paradox. The short answer is that you can believe them if they have nothing to lose by telling you the truth.

One interesting possibility is that the higher rate of self-reported lying among the college students was that they were in awe of the researchers and took very seriously the idea that this was valuable scientific research, while the general community members didn’t give a shit, basically. Which points to another interesting lost nuance - that people exercise discretion over which matters they will lie about and those where lying is completely unacceptable to them.

David,

True. Everybody expects you to pump your resume, treat smart-arse HRM questions seriously, instead of laughing your head off and refrain from telling them how you’re really doing. All areas where we expect to be misled and any other response is socially inappropriate.

Maybe it’s just coincidence, but it all sounds a little Straussian.

I’m starting to think we should drop the acronym “MSM” and start using “FTF” instead. It’s a nicely turned phrase and I hate Paul Fritjers for thinking of it before I did. Begrudging credit where begrudging credit is due and all that.

Because the fairy-tale factory always ends up in the hands of a self-serving elite, labouring away at producing private truths and public lies under the self-deluding conceit that they are benevolent.

So true.

Nice post, Gummo.