Dealing with Liars

"Lying is not exceptional; it is normal, and more often spontaneous and unconcious than cynical and coldly analytical. Our minds and bodies secrete deceit." 

- D. L. Smith, 

Why We Lie: The Evolutionary Roots of Deception and the Unconscious Mind 

Although it is illegal and mostly unethical when bargaining, many people do this. It doesn't necessarily mean giving the wrong, completely misleading information. Puffing, bluffing, partially true statements; it all is a lie. The thing is - we almost don't care about that.

As Charles B. Craver says, negotiator may lie without being dishonest. This is called "misrepresenting" - the "ability" we are almost born with. It is a kind of behavior that starts early - typically at age three or four. 

Studies prove that the older we are, the better liars we become. In fact, our bodies and minds are prepared for that, which explains that it's easier to lie than to detect the lie. 

But what's the point? Does it mean we should or shouldn't lie (or misrepresent the information)? 

Following G. Richard Shell, there are three schools of thought: Poker School, Idealist School, and Pragmatic School.

The Poker School of ethics sees negotiation as a "game". There are rules defined by the law. If you agree with that, you will lie to gain. You won't care about relationship, thus your real concern will be the outcome.

The Idealist School is the opposite, as it treats bargaining not as a game, but rather as an aspect of social life. Lying is wrong in most circumstances, but it doesn't mean you can't lie at all. There are situations when you can lie, like a danger of death (you may lie to save someone's life). Of course, that means you won't ever lie for your personal interest.

The Pragmatic School is somewhere in between. To put that short - they lie sometimes, but only if a misled information won't affect the long-term relationship. For most people this one might be the best - it is somehow rational, it is natural and has the most possibilities. 

Even though these three schools seem to fill all the gaps, some people might disagree and find themselves somewhere in between. Moreover, not every human is stable. We learn our entire life how to behave, which basically means adapting to the situations we face. The question is, was our change intentional, or forced by the environment? 

At the very beginning of our course, we had a simple, yet intense survey. It contained several questions about our reactions and moves we would perform in negotiations. All in all, the results are impressive.

This is the collected data with explained columns.

The results compared to other surveyed universities. The Shippensburg University is red.

As most people tend to answer questions in similar manner, I find it a big lie! Despite the fact, this is an experiment which implied our honesty... It definitely won't be true to the majority of humans that we are almost not misrepresenting facts, attacking opponent's network or giving false premises. That is just not true, especially if we assume that it's in our roots to lie. 

On the other hand, students are in a constant progress of developing their own style of negotiating. With every class we have, the way we think changes, our reactions are more polished and less predictable. Digging deeper, I have personally faced many situations when I acted differently, sometimes completely denying my regular code of conduct. Reasons? I was curious, bored, wanted to experiment, to take advantage of something, to use the opportunity, to learn...

As a conclusion I would suggest re-doing the same, or similar survey at the end of the course. This will probably show the development and the inner changes of every single student.

What are your thoughts? What do you think about lying? Do you agree with the results of the survey? Is it true for you? How many lies have you found in this blog note?