Job Discussion Forums

[johnslat]

Dear kymerhit,

Oh - I thought it was this:

"Anderson Cooper's greatest strength is his smugness. He sometimes takes on other networks and anchors who he believes are not fullfilling their duties as news journalists, and he is dead on."

Regards,
John

[80daze]

[RollingStone]

John,

You seem to view honesty as a technical issue which, ironically, tends to be the way truth gets most corrupted. For a broad example, in many court cases, miscarriage of justice occurs when the judge simply refers to the technical definition (the letter of the law) rather than the intent or other surrounding factors (the spirit of the law).

Back to our discussion*. It seems all you read into an implication of "a little padding" is "a little lying". This seems to me to be a rather superficial and non-engaging approach that prefers a less complicated technical definition to the process of discerning whether the "lying" actually better reflects reality.

The parameters of what may be reasonable I have already mentioned in previous posts. To recap, that which would most reasonably succeed is that which a person knows they can already do but do not have specific work experience in (and it is airtight when they have the cooperation of former employers, because then the former employers also know they can do whatever).

And it questions what the intent is in all this: for another broad example, are you trying to find the best fit for a position, or are you merely trying, like a brutally primitive software program, checking for inconsistencies in dates, descriptions and other data?

And, on another level, I should believe that if you thought your wife's/girlfriend's butt was looking unusually fat recently that, when she asked if those jeans made her look fat, you would be completely forthcoming with the truth, since it is a sin to lie!

[johnslat]

Dear Rplling Stone,

Seldom have I seen such a high level of sophistry. Impressive.

"This seems to me to be a rather superficial and non-engaging approach that prefers a less complicated technical definition to the process of discerning whether the "lying" actually better reflects reality."

Some matters are not as complicated as you seem to think.

"What is a lie?

Lying is a form of deception, but not all forms of deception are lies.

Lying is giving some information while believing it to be untrue, intending to deceive by doing so.

A lie has three essential features:

A lie communicates some information
The liar intends to deceive or mislead
The liar believes that what they are 'saying' is not true
There are some features that people think are part of lying but aren't actually necessary:

A lie does not have to give false information
A lies does not have to be told with a bad (malicious) intention - white lies are an example of lies told with a good intention
This definition says that what makes a lie a lie is that the liar intends to deceive (or at least to mislead) the person they are lying to. It says nothing about whether the information given is true or false.

This definition covers ordinary cases of lying and these two odd cases as well:

the case where someone inadvertently gives true information while believing that they're telling a lie
I want the last helping of pie for myself, so I lie to you that there is a worm in it. When I later eat that piece of pie I discover that there really is a worm in it
the case where nobody is deceived by me because they know that I always tell lies
Lying and statements

Some philosophers believe that lying requires a statement of some sort; they say that the liar must actually speak or write or gesture.

Sisella Bok, author of a major philosophical book on the subject of lying, defines a lie as:

an intentionally deceptive message in the form of a statement
Others stretch the definition to include doing nothing in response to a question, knowing that this will deceive the questioner.

Others include 'living a lie'; those cases where someone behaves in a way that misleads the rest of us as to their true nature.

When is it OK to lie?

The philosopher Sissela Bok put forward a process for testing whether a lie could be justified. She calls it the test of publicity:

The test of publicity asks which lies, if any, would survive the appeal for justification to reasonable persons.
Sissela Bok, Lying: Moral Choice in Public and Private Life, 1978
If we were to apply this test as a thought experiment we would bring together a panel of everyone affected by a particular lie - the liar, those lied to and everyone who might be affected by the lie.

We would then put forward all our arguments for telling a particular lie and then ask that 'jury' of relevant and reasonable persons if telling this lie was justified.

But what could we do in the real world?

First inspect our own conscience and ask whether the lie is justified
Second, ask friends or colleagues, or people with special ethical knowledge what they think about the particular case
Thirdly, consult some independent persons about it
This sort of test is most useful when considering what we might call 'public' lying - when an institution is considering just how much truth to tell about a project - perhaps a medical experiment, or a proposed war, or an environmental development.

One executive observed to this writer that a useful test for the justifiability of an action that he was uncertain about was to imagine what the press would write afterwards if they discovered what he had done and compared it to what he had said in advance.

In most cases of personal small scale lying there is no opportunity to do anything more than consult our own conscience - but we should remember that our conscience is usually rather biased in our favour.

A good way of helping our conscience is to ask how we would feel if we were on the receiving end of the lie. It's certainly not foolproof, but it may be helpful.

Bok sets out some factors that should be considered when contemplating a lie:

Are there some truthful alternatives to using a lie to deal with the particular problem?
What moral justifications are there for telling this lie - and what counter-arguments can be raised against those justifications?
What would a public jury of reasonable persons say about this lie?"


For more -

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/lying/lying_1.shtml

Hey, if you don't think it's a lie to "embellish" your or another's CV, that's fine by me. I'd be interested, tough, in where you think the line should be drawn between "embellishing" and "lying."

[johnslat]

Dear Rplling Stone,

Seldom have I seen such a high level of sophistry. Impressive.

"This seems to me to be a rather superficial and non-engaging approach that prefers a less complicated technical definition to the process of discerning whether the "lying" actually better reflects reality."

Some matters are not as complicated as you seem to think.

"What is a lie?

Lying is a form of deception, but not all forms of deception are lies.

Lying is giving some information while believing it to be untrue, intending to deceive by doing so.

A lie has three essential features:

A lie communicates some information
The liar intends to deceive or mislead
The liar believes that what they are 'saying' is not true
There are some features that people think are part of lying but aren't actually necessary:

A lie does not have to give false information
A lies does not have to be told with a bad (malicious) intention - white lies are an example of lies told with a good intention
This definition says that what makes a lie a lie is that the liar intends to deceive (or at least to mislead) the person they are lying to. It says nothing about whether the information given is true or false.

This definition covers ordinary cases of lying and these two odd cases as well:

the case where someone inadvertently gives true information while believing that they're telling a lie
I want the last helping of pie for myself, so I lie to you that there is a worm in it. When I later eat that piece of pie I discover that there really is a worm in it
the case where nobody is deceived by me because they know that I always tell lies
Lying and statements

Some philosophers believe that lying requires a statement of some sort; they say that the liar must actually speak or write or gesture.

Sisella Bok, author of a major philosophical book on the subject of lying, defines a lie as:

an intentionally deceptive message in the form of a statement
Others stretch the definition to include doing nothing in response to a question, knowing that this will deceive the questioner.

Others include 'living a lie'; those cases where someone behaves in a way that misleads the rest of us as to their true nature.

When is it OK to lie?

The philosopher Sissela Bok put forward a process for testing whether a lie could be justified. She calls it the test of publicity:

The test of publicity asks which lies, if any, would survive the appeal for justification to reasonable persons.
Sissela Bok, Lying: Moral Choice in Public and Private Life, 1978
If we were to apply this test as a thought experiment we would bring together a panel of everyone affected by a particular lie - the liar, those lied to and everyone who might be affected by the lie.

We would then put forward all our arguments for telling a particular lie and then ask that 'jury' of relevant and reasonable persons if telling this lie was justified.

But what could we do in the real world?

First inspect our own conscience and ask whether the lie is justified
Second, ask friends or colleagues, or people with special ethical knowledge what they think about the particular case
Thirdly, consult some independent persons about it
This sort of test is most useful when considering what we might call 'public' lying - when an institution is considering just how much truth to tell about a project - perhaps a medical experiment, or a proposed war, or an environmental development.

One executive observed to this writer that a useful test for the justifiability of an action that he was uncertain about was to imagine what the press would write afterwards if they discovered what he had done and compared it to what he had said in advance.

In most cases of personal small scale lying there is no opportunity to do anything more than consult our own conscience - but we should remember that our conscience is usually rather biased in our favour.

A good way of helping our conscience is to ask how we would feel if we were on the receiving end of the lie. It's certainly not foolproof, but it may be helpful.

Bok sets out some factors that should be considered when contemplating a lie:

Are there some truthful alternatives to using a lie to deal with the particular problem?
What moral justifications are there for telling this lie - and what counter-arguments can be raised against those justifications?
What would a public jury of reasonable persons say about this lie?"


For more -

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/lying/lying_1.shtml

Hey, if you don't think it's a lie to "embellish" your or another's CV, that's fine by me. I'd be interested, tough, in where you think the line should be drawn between "embellishing" and "lying."

Regards,
John

[Sashadroogie]

[RollingStone]

John,

It seems we are posting in real time here, which can get quite confusing and muddled. Havent had a chance to read your response, but here is something I added as an edit, but will move here for sake of continuity.

For a specific example, if you worked 3 years at a language school, with adults, but your goal was to take another position that wanted someone with experience in k-8, but you do not have direct experience as a job title in k-8, but: you have volunteer activity that involves working with that age group and you know you have the soft skills; you have, on your own time, seriously studied, discussed and debated teaching techniques for that age group; your employer knows you could do the position but, for whatever reasons, he cannot hire you for that at his school, though you have actually assisted with those classes occasionally. But the position you are trying for explicitly states that at least 1-2 years of work experience is essential. What do you do?

[RollingStone]

[johnslat]

Dear RollingStone,

"But the position you are trying for explicitly states that at least 1-2 years of work experience is essential. What do you do?"

Keep looking.

Regards,
John

[Sashadroogie]

I don't think an employer isn't interested in anyone's soul. I feel pity for someone who imagines they have great ability (without having any reason for assuming so), yet feels the need to lie in order to secure a job. Maybe their subconscious is prompting them to lie because they know deep down they do not in fact have any ability worth talking about?

[RollingStone]

John,

"The test of publicity asks which lies, if any, would survive the appeal for justification to reasonable persons." - Bok

Here, we switch from a merely technical understanding to a nuanced and engaged understanding - much like the judge in my previous example, we go from letter to intent. At least here there is room for discussion, and the person that steals to feed a family is not given the same treatment as one whom steals to avoid work.

However, I would argue that Bok is working from an assumption that the broader playing field is composed of objective truths and reasonable assumptions, that the "lie" in her definition distorted that which was objectively true. Again, I have to question what the goal is: to merely uncover inconsistencies in data, or to find the right fit for a position.

And to answer your question as to what the line is between embellishign and lying, I would say that if the embellishing is so great as to be discoverable, then it was likely a lie. And no, this is not a defense of "its only wrong if you get caught". It is rather based on seriously assessing your skills and experiences, though they may not include for example, a specific job title in your history.

[Sashadroogie]

[RollingStone]

[JZer]

[Sashadroogie]

Dear JZer

Have you conducted any job interviews? It is not as difficult as it may seem to at least weed out the no-hopers from the candidates who stand a good chance of holding down the job. A hyped-up CV is usually the first suss sign.

S