does non-disclosure feel like lying?

Post Reply New Topic

i have this problem where if in a conversation, a topic comes up that i know something about but the other person is uninformed (an example could be: i know a co-worker was lying when they called in sick) i feel compelled to correct the other person, and find myself disclosing things i wish i had not. i will reveal personal information about someone else, or about myself that i would rather have kept private, but at the time, i can't help saying it because it feels like i'm lying if i don't say it.

does anyone else do this?

Yes totally, but I can stop myself if I stay on my Concerta, and sometimes even if I'm not on. It still feels wrong.

I try to stop people when they say, "don't tell anyone this, but . . ."
Sometimes I'm quick enough to stop them, sometimes not.

Once my mom told me a story about my therapist and a vacuum cleaner (my mom's a psychologist so she was friends with all my therapists growng up because they'd had classes together.) Then, afterward, she told me not to tell him! Argh! I fully intended not to tell him but the next time I saw him, the first thing that came out of my mouth was, "my mom said . . ." Guh!

Another phrase I try to stop people on is, "if I ask you something, will you be honest with me?" I learned the hard way that this phrase is ALWAYS a social trap! I NEVER answer a question that starts with this. Now, when someone says, "if I ask you something, will you be honest with me?" I say, "no." It's socially awkward but LOTS better than if I let them go and answered whatever dangerous question they were about to ask.

It does, to me.

I do that too. It's one of those compulsions that usually leads to embarrassment. Unpleasant. It usually happens before I even realize what I've said.

I end up saying as much "bad" about myself as I do about others though, so at least it balances out, in my mind.

Yes, all the time.

i don't think anyone has ever asked me that question!

the answer must be obvious.

Only if it's something I feel really bad about, or if i'm keeping something from someone and it's obvious...I just tell them because it affects the way I act, most of the time.

I really have no trouble with White Lies or keeping secrets for most people,, and my definition of a White Lie may actually encompass more dishonesty than most people's, but it really just depends on who I'm lying to. I hate lying to people I care about and I won't do it unless I really have to.

They ask that because the answer is "sure" or "yes" or "of course".

Then they ask a question that they *know* the honest answer will be hurtful.

Then the other person is put in the position of either having to lie ("no, I'm sure no one noticed when you got so drunk you vomited in Aunt Matilda's fish tank and then called grandma a wh*re. Why do you ask?") or tell the truth and then get hated or verbally attacked by the other person for saying something so awful and hurtful.

Once I figured out how that game goes, I decided I didn't want to play it anymore because it's a sucky game so when someone says, "If I ask you something, will you be honest with me?" I say "no, I won't." because it's the only way I know to stop the game.

I also answer, "can you keep a secret?" with "no."

This is an NT thing, too.

It's good to know that nondisclosure might be lying. Don't lose that.

I get really anxious if someone says something factually wrong, because I feel compelled to correct it, even when I know I shouldn't. Sometimes I can stop myself, then I'll keep obsessing about it afterward. Or I won't stop myself, and then I'll keep obsessing about how I should have kept my mouth shut!

It's especially hard for me when it comes to political topics. I can't stand it when people believe terrible lies that are perpetrated to support a political position, especially when they are hurtful to the welfare of other human beings. I know intellectually that to a lot of people politics is just a game, that it's like rooting for the home team, so they will take offense if you point out actual facts that contradict their point of view, because it's like you're dissing their team. But when their beliefs cause them to support policies that hurt people, it's very hard for me to just accept them in silence.

And for those who don't "play at" politics as if it were a game, it can still lead to a debate or even an argument since there is no such thing as a policy that doesn't hurt someone.

I'm not sure what you mean. While there is always some degree of compromise, so no policy is perfect even at its best, there are plenty of government policies that have been beneficial, like the civil rights legislation, for instance, and the occasional environmental protections that have actually worked, or social services that are inadequate but are still beneficial in the small ways that they exist, and so on.

I promise you that all those highly beneficial pieces of legislation also hurt some people. There is no perfect policy and that's why people will argue and debate politics because it's not a case of "what will hurt no one" but "what level and type of hurt is most acceptible? And what will benefit the most people?"

I'm working on a doctorate in poli sci now and if I had to say one thing that was most beneficial that I learned in my poli sci undergrad years it was that people rarely put forth legislation designed to *intentionally* hurt others. The vast majority of policy-makers believe they are doing something good and helpful, whether it's for their constituents, their financial backers, their country as a whole, or what-have-you. And if one is open to examining all sides of a policy debate, one can find strong arguments for most, if not all, choices being presented.

Some of the people who get upset when you talk politics may actually be getting upset at an "I know the real truth and all the rest of you are pawns and deluded by evil powers" attitude. I'm not saying you have that attitude, but from how you worded your comment, it's a possible position you hold or are viewed by others as holding.

I know that I get really turned off by that attitude and the further I go in political science academia, the less I want to talk politics with people outside my field because things get so black and white and so "I'm right and everyone else is wrong and stupid" out in the general world.

But within my academic field, there is a different sort of debate that admits that we might all be a little right and a little wrong and a lot more flexibility and openness to a diversity of ideas and possibilities. I just don't encounter that sort of divergent problem solving in the world outside my academic field where so many people seem to approach politics as if it represented problems with convergent solutions rather than the divergent solutions we actually see in the political realm.

Wow, that sounds like a large dollop of moral relativism, which is not surprising coming from a student of political science, since the field of poli-sci is essentially concerned with studying how power relationships work in politics, rather than taking notice of the actual human lives that are affected by the policies enacted by governments.

Yes, of course you could make the abstract argument that, for instance, progressive taxation or social welfare programs "hurt" the rich by taking some of their money and redistributing it to those who need it more, but that is morally a highly troubling argument to make, and one that is essentially pointless in the real world, except as an abstract debate. Personally I'm much more interested in human suffering and how it can and should be relieved than worrying about whether someone who is doing very well and doesn't need help is somehow getting "hurt" by having some small benefit that they can easily do without taken away from him/her.

Focusing on the strategy aspect of politics rather than being concerned about what is right and what can actually help the most, in a meaningful rather than an abstract or argumentative way, is what national news programs are reduced to. Instead of talking about actual issues, pundits only talk about whether or not supporting a given position will hurt or benefit a politician in his/her bid for reelection, while the actual issues that affect real humans are left to stagnate in silence, out of the public eye.

And if you honestly believe that politicians are almost always trying to do the right thing, then how do you explain why they almost invariably fail so badly at accomplishing needed reforms? You mention that perhaps they are only trying to do the right thing for their financial backers, so yes, in that sense they are generally succeeding very well, but in the real world that is almost never the right thing for the public.

It is morally repugnant to suggest that all policies, like Jim Crow laws for example, might be "a little right." There are many instances in which political decisions are self-serving or aimed at appeasing a powerful constituency whose interests are at odds with the interests of the general public. Those policies are not "a little right" for humanity, though they may be "a lot right" for the few who stand to benefit.

Please don't "promise" me that you know something that I don't, and don't condescend to me. I know quite a bit about politics, but my interest is not in political strategizing or abstract debates, it's in human beings and their suffering.

It's not. I have my own political beliefs and I hold them strongly. The same for my colleagues. But years of daily discussion of politics and policy have trained us in a style of discussion and debate that is highly respectful of opposing views and very open to attempting to understand why others have different beliefs rather than simply lecturing to them that they're all wrong because they hold different opinions.