Liar Drill
I'm a guy, and a female friend asked me to objectively rate her looks on a scale of 1 to 10. She has a very high opinion of her looks, but she insisted she wanted the truth, so I told her I'd put her at a 5.5 or 6. Afterward, she sent me a text about boundaries and said she's cutting me out of her life -- for being honest like she asked me to!
--Burned
If there were a class in "how to be a heterosexual man," lesson one would be how to answer a woman's questions about her appearance. She'll insist you give an honest answer to the classic gotcha question: "Do I look fat in this dress?" Always lie. Well, unless you are held at gunpoint or threatened with disemboweling with a steak knife or rusty pliers. In which case, also lie.
Admittedly, this advice is at odds with the black-and-white notions of honesty and deception drilled into us from an early age: Honesty, good! Lying, evil! If we lie, terrible things will happen to us -- such as cancer of the nose (as seen in that lie-arrhea-prone puppet, Pinocchio) or pants that spontaneously explode into flame.
"For centuries, philosophers and ethicists have railed against deception," note business school professors and researchers Joseph Gaspar and Maurice Schweitzer. The belief that deception is always evil and harmful was preached by the Christian bishop St. Augustine, "who claimed that 'every lie is a sin.'" Philosopher Immanuel Kant "argued that 'The greatest violation . . . is lying.'" These beliefs are baked into our culture and "permeate modern thinking."
Gaspar and Schweitzer define deception as "the transmission of information that intentionally misleads others." That sounds pretty awful. However, they suggest, "Think about what you should do when your grandmother asks if you enjoyed her meatloaf" or "your friend asks if you enjoyed her wedding reception." In situations like these, lying "might be the exactly right thing to do" (tempting as it might be to tell your friend you wish you'd been given a choice: attending the reception or or being repeatedly electrocuted via a car battery attached to your nipples).
These feelings-preserving falsehoods are "prosocial lies." "Prosocial" is psych professor-ese for "intended to help other people." Prosocial lies mislead but also benefit the person we're lying to, explain Gaspar and Schweitzer. It's basically benevolent deception: deception in service of kindness and even respect. For example, when a friend fails to show up at your party, "they might (respectfully) cite an illness" instead of admitting that they stayed home to binge-watch season seven of "Bosch."
Reflecting on the merits of prosocial lying, they argue that "deception has been unfairly disparaged" because "scholars have conflated deception with the pursuit of self-interest." Schweitzer, in "Friend & Foe" (co-authored with fellow B-school professor Adam Galinsky), advocates that the truth be judiciously told -- or withheld. The bottom line: "Is it ethical to tell prosocial lies? Our answer is yes. And we'd even take this claim a step further." Instead of telling our kids never to lie, "we should teach them the guiding principle of benevolence" and advise them to make "careful -- and deliberate -- choices when they face a conflict between telling the truth and being kind."
"For tasks that really matter for future success, honesty may be the best route to take," advise Schweitzer and Galinsky. For example, taking a junior colleague aside and being gently but painfully honest -- telling them how their performance fell short -- can be prosocial, helping them in the long run by alerting them to corrections they need to make. "But when a task really doesn't make much difference -- like your grandmother's meatloaf -- prosocial lies can be just the right thing."
The same goes for situations that no amount of honesty can change. Take your friend asking you where she lands on the 1-to-10 hotitude scale. She probably believed she was seeking an honest review, and it's reasonable that you took her at her word. However, she was probably fishing not for the truth but for reassurance that she's pretty.
Judicious honesty is the right amount of honesty at the right time. For a personal example, I'm pretty slim, but there is no pair of skinny jeans in which I do not look like a redhead stuffed into a sausage casing. There's a time to gently hint that I might put a pair of skinny jeans out to pasture, and it's not moments after I strut into a party all Alkonwursty but in the cold light of several days afterward. You'll be doing your sworn job as my friend, looking after my interests, but in a way that allows me to enjoy myself at the party instead of hiding under a parked car with the cat till it's over.
For pages and pages of "science-help" from me, buy my latest book, "Unf*ckology: A Field Guide to Living with Guts and Confidence." It lays out the PROCESS of transforming to live w/confidence.








Amy, your first comment said it all. “Always lie.“
Jay at October 27, 2021 4:05 AM
Rather than lie, you could refuse to answer.
Fraulein Gretel at November 5, 2021 11:14 AM
"I strut into a party all Alkonwursty "
Like some sort of ... brat?
I'll let myself out.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at November 10, 2021 8:45 AM
A 5 or 6? For all women? Think about all the women you know... she's a 5 or 6? Really? Even compared to grandma?
Dumbass.
NicoleK at November 11, 2021 12:27 PM
“…she insisted she wanted the truth, so I told her I'd put her at a 5.5 or 6.”
I’d put your common sense at a .5 or 1.
JD at November 11, 2021 4:30 PM
Nicole, others may differ but I think the rating-people thing doesn’t include all men or all women in the group used for comparison. I think the group is those in your general age range.
And, given that, it’s not at all unreasonable that this woman is a 5 or 6. After all, those are in the middle of the range and most people are average.
But I certainly agree with you that he was dumb for telling this woman what he thought.
JD at November 12, 2021 1:54 PM
I think we can all agree she was an idiot to ask the question and he was a bigger one to answer it but . . . can we have a moment here about the numerical scale? I mean I suppose some people are so ethereally beautiful that we can all agree they're a 10 (Timothy Chalomee, David Bowie, young Johnny Depp . . . and I'm guessing very few are ranking Harvey Weinstein as much above a 1, say.) But really . . . Helen Mirren is a 10 for me every day of the week. Alan Cummings for sure. Neal DeGrasse Tyson. Does that mean they are the universal gold standard and if you don't resemble one of them, you're hideous? Well, no, it means I like what I like. The idea that there is one immutable scale that we all agree on is just . . . weird.
But she shouldn't have asked and he shouldn't have answered.
Mariah Bear at November 17, 2021 2:39 PM
Anyone who insists upon an answer they don't really want deserves what they get. LW is better off without them.
Treadwell at November 21, 2021 4:47 PM
Leave a comment