Reviews
Part of Informational influence for people who want the details
Informational influence ethics: what a listener is owed either way
Informational influence ethics: the four things you owe a listener, the three ways a true statement still misleads, and what the listener owes back.
If you know something the other person does not, you have a hand on their decision. The ethics of informational influence is the ethics of that hand: what you owe a person who is going to act on what you tell them.
What to take away
- The duty is not just to avoid lying. It is to leave the listener able to check, to weigh, and to know how sure you are.
- The three quiet failures are omission, technically-true misdirection, and selection. None of them involves a false sentence, and each fails the disclosure test.
- The listener has duties too, mainly to ask, and not to punish a source for admitting uncertainty.
Four things you owe the listener
Provenance. Say where it came from. Seen, told, read, or inferred: these are four different kinds of knowing, and a listener who does not know which one you have will treat all of them as the first.
Four things you owe the listener
- Provenancesay where it came from
- Confidencesay how sure you are
- Interestsay what you gain
- Counter-casesay what would change your mind
Confidence. Say how sure you are, in words that mean something. "Probably" and "I would bet on it" and "I am guessing" are different claims, and collapsing them into a confident tone is a small dishonesty that compounds across every person who repeats you.
Interest. Say what you gain if they believe you. Not because interest disqualifies you, but because the listener cannot weigh a conflict they do not know about. A conflict of interest declared is a fact the listener can use; one concealed is the mechanism working on them.
The counter-case. Say what would change your mind, and whether anything you know points that way. An account with no counter-case is either about something very simple or has had the counter-case removed.
Each of these survives disclosure by construction, because each one is disclosure. That is what makes them the honest form: the listener who learns exactly what you did learns only that you told them where you stood.
Three ways to mislead without lying
The interesting ethical territory is not the lie. Lies are rare, risky and easy to condemn. The territory is the true statement arranged to produce a false belief.
Three ways a true statement misleads
Omission
- What is said
- all accurate
- What is withheld
- the changing fact
- Listener reaction
- embarrassment test
- How visible
- depends on expectation
Paltering
- What is said
- true sentence
- What is withheld
- the misread answer
- Listener reaction
- feels lied to
- How visible
- hidden until discovery
Selection
- What is said
- real items only
- What is withheld
- the rest of evidence
- Listener reaction
- sees only chosen
- How visible
- hardest to notice
Omission. Everything said is accurate; the fact that would have changed the answer is not said. Whether silence counts as deceit depends on whether the listener reasonably expected the topic to be covered, and the lie of omission is the name for the case where they did. The test is simple: would you be embarrassed if they later found out you knew?
Misdirection by true statement. Answering a question with a true sentence chosen because it will be misread. Asked whether the car has had problems, saying "it passed its inspection last month" when it broke down last week. This has a name, paltering, and people who do it generally feel they have not lied. The listener, on discovering it, does not agree, and the gap between the two reactions is the whole ethical point.
Selection. Presenting the evidence that supports the conclusion and leaving the rest in the drawer. Every individual item is real. The impression they add up to is not. Selection is the hardest of the three to notice from outside, because the listener sees only what was chosen and has no way to know the drawer exists. Selection is one of the informational influence mistakes that a two-minute check catches before the drawer stays closed.
| What you said | What they now believe | What is true | Survives disclosure? |
|---|---|---|---|
| "Most of our customers renew" | It is a good product | Most who did not leave, renewed | No |
| "It passed inspection" | It is reliable | It failed last week | No |
| "Three experts endorse it" | Experts endorse it | Three of thirty did | No |
| "Most renew; a third leave in year one" | A mixed picture | A mixed picture | Yes |
| "I think so, but I have not seen it myself" | Weak evidence, honestly labeled | Weak evidence | Yes |
The right-hand column is the site's test doing its job. Every entry in the first three rows collapses the moment the listener learns the rest; the last two rows lose nothing, because there is nothing left to learn.
What the listener owes
The ethics run in both directions, and a listener who wants honest sources has to make honesty affordable.
- Ask where it came from, every time, as routine rather than challenge. A source who is never asked has no reason to keep track.
- Reward "I do not know". A source punished for uncertainty learns to hide it, and you will have trained the confident tone you then complain about.
- Do not demand a number. Pressing for precision that the source does not have produces invented precision, which is worse than an honest range.
- Check the claims that matter and say that you did. A source who knows they will be checked stays careful. That is how expertise is kept honest, and the mechanism is described under authority.
Declining to share is not deceiving
You are not obliged to tell everyone everything. Confidentiality, privacy and simple tact are all legitimate reasons to say nothing, and saying nothing is compatible with honesty as long as it is visible. "I cannot tell you that" leaves the listener knowing there is something they do not know, which is a true picture of their situation.
The shaped version is not legitimate: a partial account offered as complete. A listener told "I cannot say" can weigh that. A listener given half the picture, with no sign it is half, cannot weigh it.
The difference between the two is the difference between privacy and manipulation. The general framework for all of this is in social influence basics, and the channel's own mechanism in informational influence.
Common questions
Is it wrong to present my case in its best light?
No, provided the best light does not require the listener to miss something. Emphasis is honest; concealment is not. The test is whether you would mind them seeing the rest.
What if the full picture is too complicated to give?
Then say that it is, give the summary, and say what the summary leaves out. "This is the short version; the long one has some caveats I can walk you through" is complete in the way that matters.
Do I have to volunteer bad news nobody asked about?
If it would change their decision, yes. The test for omission is not whether they asked; it is whether they would feel deceived on finding out you knew.
Is a small exaggeration really a problem?
On its own, rarely. Repeated by every person who passes it on, yes. Informational chains amplify, and the honest move is to hand on the claim at the confidence you received it, or lower.
