• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.

Aslan Card deck

Well, Tobias, I will disagree on the chldren thing. Lying doesn't require any speech abilites, whatsoever. My boy, when he was 10 months (!) or so, set out to decieve me in order to play with something he knew he was not supposed to touch. It involved 1/2 hour or so of trying to decieve me as to his intentions, constantly looking over his shoulder, etc. Of course, he wasn't nearly well-learned enough to actually carry it off. And, he wasn't yet old enough to walk, let alone verbalize.
 
Well, I should have said "communicating" instead of "speaking". The daycare children here often try to deceive adults when they have done something bad. But these, while their speech ability is fairly limited, are already deeply socially immersed (children begin rudimentary understanding much earlier than speaking themselves).
Still, lying in the conventional sense requires speech.

Regards,

Tobias
 
I would think zhodani games would be similar to terran games as far as those played by the huge portion of zhodani society that does not have psionic ability.

Being human it would only be natural that there would be a competitive nature in zhodani. it is an animal instinct<sp>

lastly zhodani are evolved from basic terran stock, while the solamani basically havent evolved much throughout thier history the zhodani were forced to evolve by thier new environment and thier ancient teachers.
 
Not evolved much? The Ancients were like 300,000 years ago. The best our shiny planet could muster in the "intelligent life" department at that time was the mysterious Homo Heidelbergensis. Still 100,000 years to go until the first "true" Homo Sapiens.
Hence my remark that we share but distant ancestors with the Zhodani.

Regards,

Tobias
 
"Being human it would only be natural that there would be a competitive nature in zhodani."

Certainly. But they wouldn't dream of cheating.
 
Very unlikely. Lying means intentionally communicating false information. Since communicating any information (=speech) is learned behaviour, not genetic disposition, it is scarcely feasible to assume that certain nuances of this behaviour are genetically wired into human beings.
I cannot think of a single animal that does not lie. Predators intentionally send out messages that "this place is safe, no danger here." Prey freezes and sends the message "nothing to find here, move along."

A quick example, fawns learn to walk minutes after birth and know instantly how to freeze and send out the "I am not here" message.

Not only is it feasible, it is probably highly likely. The fact that Solmani and Zhodani share distant ancestors - pretty much guarantees that this is hardwired into them.
 
And anyone trained to deal with 'nulls' (or whatever term you apply to the psi-incapable) should understand lying and understand why it is practiced. Lord knows, SORAG operatives lie like sidewalks (as does any undercover Zho op). So, yes, general Zhos are more honest, but cheating could be present when they *know* they are operating against the non-psionic.
 
Actually I think that lying really does necessarily involve communication and an environment in which trust is assumed. That is an angler is not lying, nor is a fiction writer; but someone who signs a contract without intending to ante up is. Falsehood is not the same as lying anymore than war is the same as murder.
Admittedly this requires more debate.
Asside from that I think Zhodani are constitutionally wired to be uncomfortable with deception, in any form: perhaps even with fiction stories which are not deception, but are untrue(so they might not like Role Playing Games after all).
While all Humaniti may have an instinctive desire to deceive, breeding and upbringing can counter that creating an instinct not to decieve. Just as even though humaniti has an instinct toward violence a lot of hunters find it hard to pull the trigger for the first time, because the instinct to kill is countered by an instinct not to kill.
Thus while it is implausible that a Zhodani is incapable of lying, it is not implausible for him to find it hard to lie.
I know this is true because I would find it very hard to directly lie(under the definition given). I have been well-trained and/or blessed of God. That doesn't mean I am saintly. It simply means I do not have that particular vice(my vice is probably one I don't know about yet, but it has nothing to do with the subject at hand). I bring it up to point out how such things develop. I have been trained from childhood not to lie until it is a habit. A Zho would take that far more than I would: for instance I still enjoy playing Diplomacy and reading spy stories, while I am pretty sure a Zho wouldn't like spy stories. A Vilani might.
The human mind is a very complex thing, probably far more complex even than psychologists realize. It is not infinitely malleable. But it is somewhat malleable. Even assuming every part of the human mind can be traced to some animal orgin(which is begging the question), it would have changed at least slightly to meet the needs of surviving within a given environment. And that would include developing an instinct NOT to lie-which could take an extreme form in the Zhos.
 
Zhos might enjoy a version of poker. They would not bluff the way other humaniti do because they would not enjoy that aspect for the reasons given. They might however enjoy trying to read each others minds and see what each others hands are.
 
Lying to my mind is commiting yourself to an intentionally deceptive stance. Be it saying you'll do something, then doing something else, or be it projecting an image of yourself that isn't the case. We lie to ourselves all the time.

I will concede Zhodani may, on average, have more of a reticence to lie than other humans. For the average Zhodani prole. I think this is less true of the upper echelons. It is even less true of those who deal around the fringes of Zho space and know that others lie to them. They may not lie much, but they'll be aware of it and have to develop a certain comfort with it. And for Zho agents and such, they are probably conditioned *into* being utterly believable liars.

The upper level Zhos are cereberal. They probably appreciate 'the great game of nations' and the kind of tactics they use to stall the encroachments of the 3I have a *lot* to do with lying, bluffing, fighting a war for one reason while letting on it is for another, saying one thing and doing another.

The kinds of Zhos you are likely to meet are those who live near humans or have fought them. They'll have more of an understanding and comfort level with lying than other Zhos further into the Consulate.

Note: I dislike lying a lot. In 90% of scenarios, it just makes things worse. However, sometimes, it is actually a kindness and results in harm reduction. The trick of maturity is to know exactly when this is the case and temper each use of this tool with careful thought. Generally, the truth is the best policy. Sometimes, it is an incredibly damaging policy to no good end.

I don't see anything about Zhodani history that suggests they do not enjoy bluffing. Or at least, that they are incapable of it. Their military planners certainly did and their intelligence and diplomatic corps sure did. Unless, of course, we think all the Zhos in the consulate would have been really peeved to find out how the war was fought on their behalf?

I don't think Zhos are white knights who have no vices. I believe they do have an inherently less deceptive culture and cultural conditioning to make that so. At the same time, the Thought Police and others engage in what amounts to a lot of lying regulary. So not all Zhos operate on that wavelength of honesty.

Their kind of games may involve minor plays of telekinesis. Some sort of 'tussle' for the outcome of a rolling ball (sort of like roulette, but with psionic zhos pushing the ball around). Of course, for proles, games would probably involve straightforward competitions like dice. They might not like cards due to the dishonesty, but dice are just odds and probability and luck. Nothing dishonest there.
 
Not to get to into a debate on human evolution and what not but I do seem to remember thier being found a few skeletons dating back to around half a million years or so.. If i remember correctly one was found in the USA and carbon dated at around one million years old. both were almost identical to modern man.

the Zhodani homeworld is only 0.85 earth gravity and has much less protection from uv radiation, thus the zho being taller 2.0m average and swarthier. also they have the unique ability to digest proteins other humans cant and only possess 28 teeth. seletive breeding or random mutation could be the cause.
 
The upper level Zhos are cereberal. They probably appreciate 'the great game of nations' and the kind of tactics they use to stall the encroachments of the 3I have a *lot* to do with lying, bluffing, fighting a war for one reason while letting on it is for another, saying one thing and doing another.
------------------------
Than maybe they would make good Dippies. In fact very good ones. I wonder if one will take over Turkey-he was late for his orders deadline and got cut out.
Actually I define lie the way I do because to me the word implies a moral judgment. I don't think a puffer fish is telling a "lie"-because it is not a sophant(OK I suppose I have no rational way of proveing that but Japanese restaurants can worry about that problem) and hence cannot be other than what it is. Likewise an angler is not lying because he is in an environment where deception is part of the unspoken "rules"-and the fish is not a sophant.
A better example is poker. Everyone by joining the game assumes the other player might try to decieve him and as long as the deceptions commited are within the guidlines accepted by all, it is not a lie. That is you are not cheating to bluff, but you are when you use a marked deck. If I sound ambiguous that is because I am not sure where exactly to draw the line myself. Some things are obvious though. I suppose where you aren't sure you should treat others as you would consider it fair for them to treat you. I don't mind my fellow dippies deceiving me for that is part of the game; I probably would be cautious about it myself(I would rather make noncommital replies-and I am not taking a risk in releasing this as you don't know my game-name) for fear that it would be a bad habit to get into, but not out of moral objections. At least not rational ones. More like an instinct like the Zhos.
In any case you are probably right. Zho's may well enjoy the Great Game. They are certainly good at it. And despite their anti-lying instinct they are rather "spooky" people. Which I suppose leads one to believe that every culture has paradoxes.
 
And despite their anti-lying instinct ....
what instinct? like all totalitarians everywhere they don't want proles lying to _them_. they, being better people and having only everyone's best interest in mind, are quite free to tell as many lies as they like - for the proles' own good, of course.
 
what instinct? like all totalitarians everywhere they don't want proles lying to _them_. they, being better people and having only everyone's best interest in mind, are quite free to tell as many lies as they like - for the proles' own good, of course.
--------------------------------------
Instinct...
1. (an)inborn desire to behave in a way characteristic of a species; natural, unaquired mode of response to stimuli; as suckling is an instinct in mammals. 2. a natural or aquired tendancy, aptitude or talent; bent; knack; gift: as , she had the instinct for doing the right thing...
Websters New World Dictionary
----------------------------------------
will that suffice? the proles certainly have a natural or aquired "tendancy" to avoid lying whther or not it was at the behest of some evil conspiracy of the upper classes.
And all the Zhodani upper classes were decended from proles.
 
Citizen: SOC-12
CID # 4833

Icon 1 posted April 14, 2005 10:48 PMApril 14, 2005 10:48 PM Profile for Jamus Send New Private Message Edit/Delete Post Reply With Quote Not to get to into a debate on human evolution and what not but I do seem to remember thier being found a few skeletons dating back to around half a million years or so.. If i remember correctly one was found in the USA and carbon dated at around one million years old. both were almost identical to modern man.
----------------------------
Note the word "around". Carbon dating loses reliability the farther back it goes. For that matter everything loses reliability the farther back it goes. That is a cliche response to answer a cliche argument though. I will say that I am more a historian than a natural scientist and I do know that there have been plenty of theories each in turn disproven. The fact that science is searching does not lead to the conclusion that it has found. Were people that believed that flies were born out of corpses(or whatever)that foolish? First observation would lead one to believe that they are right. Their error was found by looking deeper and it is probable that more error will be found by looking still deeper. The assumption that current theory must be right, because it is current is a type of snobbery and scientists are not immune, and dabblers are very vulnerable.
Moreover though scientists say that they deal in facts, not metaphysics, that is a metaphysical statement in itself. Trying to find the source of life necessarily impinges on metaphysics. Not to mention that if a metaphysical statement is true it is, well, a fact. Just like a scientific statement.
All that is beside the point: as I said I am not a scientist. I can however say that evoulutionists have not yet attained "beyond reasonable doubt" and for them to as is their unfortunate habit mock the intelligence of those who doubt that they have the ability to interpret the orgin of life by nothing more than their combined human reasoning power(no doubt infinitely greater than that of say...CIA analysts)smacks of hubris. I am not saying you do so, I am saying that some do.
And if I base my worldview on assumptions so oes everyone. Logic is about corralaries; axioms must be found by other means. I am skeptical about the latest theories mainly because I assume in favor of my own beliefs. And sometimes because they strike me as implausible. But also because science is about questioning. If science stops questioning itself-or listening to questions from outsiders than it has become a form of witch-doctorism keeping it's position by making others ooh! and ah!
I do not wish to argue further either for we are hear to discuss Traveller and it will annoy people. However I do wish to make clear that though it is a cliche Evoulution IS a theory, and the absense of a contending theory that a large number of scientists accept does not change that. Science should not be accepted uncritically anymore than any other discipline.
This is more a philosophical arguement than a scientific argument. It still has merit.
 
Again this wasn't necessarily a response to you Jamus so much as to others-some of whom are not even scientists.
 
Questioning science is perhaps the only way to really push it forward. Thats the way it always worked in history.
Besides looking at science history especially the anthropologist often represented a group of people strongly related to fairy tale writers

(I own some "old" (1950) scientific books about anthropologistic theories, and those are really funny).

But it was about lying.
I agree, that the use of "active lying" could be strongly decreased by education.
Well, whats always left then is the statement, which is not completely recognized by the individual itself as a lie.
Funny thing is, that many sociologists believe that the "little lie" is necessary to keep a society running
 
But it was about lying.
I agree, that the use of "active lying" could be strongly decreased by education.
Well, whats always left then is the statement, which is not completely recognized by the individual itself as a lie.
Funny thing is, that many sociologists believe that the "little lie" is necessary to keep a society running [Smile]
-----------------------------
yes it was about lying. i wanted to respond because A. I am sensitive about my intellectual credibility and am thus annoyed when my side is sneered at-not by jamus but by others on his side. Not admirable for it stems from pride-but human
B. I preferred not to leave the argument unresponded
C. I am a debate junkie and it was like a shark smelling blood

Back to lying

The closest I have ever heard about the little lie was an essay I read describing what Socrates called a "noble lie": feigned kinship as a basis for community. While I naturally respect the Founder of Logic, I would say that what he was describing is better called a "myth". A myth is not necessarily made to deceive. It is not even necessarily untrue in the material world(a skilled-maybe even mediocre writer could make a traffic jam on the I-5 sound like Homer or Beowulf if he was fammiliar with the style). However it is written in a certain way and designed to appeal to certain emotions. For instance when Leonard Tortensson wrote Fraendenir(Kinsmen) he wasn't implying in the title that all Swordies were related by ancestry(except perhaps in some prehistoric past which had nothing to do with the subject at hand. Rather he was saying that all Swordies had something in common and using a metaphor that would appeal to all humans but would especially appeal to Swordies with their strong emphasis on family loyalty("keeping the Hearthfire").
I don't think an individual can make a lie and not recognize it to be so. If he doesn't recognize it as such it is an error-he may be morally culpable if his error was the result of sloth or something simmilar. But he is not a liar, though he may be unwittingly carrying on a lie, he is not himself culpable-just as a virus is not the fault of the owner of a computer, even if his computer may carry that virus without his knowlege.
It is true that the urge to lie can be decreased by education, especially in a society where the potential power of one person over another is so great as with the Zho's. I would not exactly call the Zho's "totalitarian" in the vernacular sense of "tyranical"-they are not normally genocidal and intrigue and cruelty are at least confined to those areas of society where it is almost impossible to remove them(I.E. foreign policy, etc). However they are totalitarian in the sense of having total control and I would agree with the Impies in my horror at having to live under their rule. The subjects are happy because they are programed to be so and their minds are not their own. It is more like Brave New World then 1984. I suppose that state of life could be called cruelty but the Zhos subjects don't know it as such. For that matter neither do the Zho nobles-they have always lived that way. But I no it as cruelty because I am an outsider. At the very least it would be cruel to subject ME to such a way of life.
However every society must educate people to modify their behavior in certain ways both because it helps them to fit in and helps society to accept them; but also because it helps them to "follow the right path" (which statement begs a lot of other questions of course-but logic is not the whole of wisdom, just a tool in finding it). It must be remembered that if we followed nothing but our inclinations we would turn to "jelly"-be pulled this way and that until we our barely more than animals. So we have to encourage some inclinations and discourage others. A swamp is less "imprisoned " by it's banks than a river, but a river is more attractive.
What the Zhos do though is not just teaching, but programing. While their are attractions to a society where no one lies(can you imagine how much that would reduce the hassle of beareucracy for one thing),it makes one wonder. Are people who have absoulutly no choice about whether or not to lie really honest? They are not merely taught that it is naughty to lie, they don't merely have a disinclination to lie. The lower classes literally can't lie. Is it virtue to refrain from an evil you have no temptation toward? That is a hard one.
And what happens when the "programming" starts to break down? With that gone would a Zho crack and become a "psychopathic liar"(someone tell me the psychological term for this state by the way)?

As a side note, it is not impossible for Zhos to play the Great Game without giving up their "anti-lie" instinct. Remember a lot of them are not telling lies with their own mouth, merely ordering others to do so. The moral distinction may be meaningless, but the psychological one is not.
 
My, this has progressed quite some way.
First of all, I agree with the point that deceptive behaviour by animals is not "lying".
Second, even Zhodani nobles (who would in theory have a much easier time lying because they are not subject to telepathic surveillance) won't lie to other Zhodani in their normal life - honesty is one of the cornerstones of Zhodani daily life. However, as was correctly pointed out, they can lie if the interests of that society are at stake.
I imagine a Zhodani noble as being similar to a "normal" 21st century human being with very strong moral principles and a great loyalty to their society. They are capable of lying, but their convictions normally prevent them from doing so.
Proles, OTOH, and to a lesser degree Intendants, I see as being psychologically conditioned to be honest in a way that is unimaginable to us.

Regards,

Tobias
 
Back
Top