![]() There is even recognition for such (mis)use of our language. In short, doublespeak is language that deliberately obscures, disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words. How often have you heard a term like “negative cash flow” instead of “spending more than you make” or “pre-emptive strike” instead of “unprovoked attack” or “between projects” in place of “unemployed”? Or even “nonperforming assets” to describe financial losses? Companies might put out press releases broadcasting their intent of “reducing costs” or “improving productivity” which generally means layoffs, pay cuts and a loss of benefits for its workers.ĭeception and euphemisms are a temptation for all of us. You might think of politicians as guilty of doublespeak and self-serving exaggerations, and they are, but so are advertisers. In short, try to confirm that any given medicine does more good than harm. Several drugs can lead to blue or green urine. Amnesia or forgetfulness, vertigo, mood disorders and weight gain are common side effects. One popular over-the-counter (OTC) drug warns about “Redness, swelling, loss of fingerprints, and pain”. We are something like “friends” or family members” of those warehouse stores or agencies.Īnybody who has ever seen a drug advertisement on television or discussed the pros and cons of a medicine with a doctor can be forgiven for being confused.įiguring out which drug fits which condition is difficult enough – but have you listened to the rushed side effects at the end of most adds? How many organizations, for example, from warehouse stores to fitness places to non-profits or political parties plead with us to become “members”? A “member” literally means something attached, something that belongs. As a recorded message, it is inherently misleading and false, but the bottom line is that the business or agency does in fact rely on our support and our “call” is, to some degree crucial to that organizations’s existence. The common phrase “your call is very important to us” is a perfect example. The whole idea of “doublespeak” is that two statements – often entirely contradictory – and made at once.One, of course, stands, even if unspoken, as true. In other words, those who, in previous generations had seen themselves as guardians of “ultimate truth claims,” in the 2020s saw themselves as the “ultimate” questioners, not only of facts, but of “truth” itself. In the 2020s, however, even the seemingly relativistic Nietzsche was upstaged by the embracing (by conservatives, especially those with a religious leaning) of ‘alternative facts’ in every area from crowd sizes to election results to the size, nature and rotation of the earth. When Nietzsche made that statement, it was a radical notion, one that conservatives, especially those with a religious leaning, objected to and publicly mocked and mercilessly attacked. ![]() There are no facts, only interpretations. Whether it is “I’m fine” to “we appreciate your work and we value your effort, but we will have to get by without you for a few months” or “yes, that looks good on you” or “your call is very important to us”, we encounter, or repeat, something like lies all the time. ![]() Maybe it has always been more complicated than I knew, but in the 2020s honesty, truth and trust seem like concepts, or even sets of assumptions from a far more innocent – or at least naive – age. ![]() I’ve always associated truth with reality and falseness with fiction or unreality. Our results cast doubt on the presumption that rational agents can pierce through persistent extreme lies in the long run and highlight the deleterious effects of such lies for receiver welfare.You’d think that the line between honesty and deception would be solid and clear. Equilibrium fact-checking by receivers does not induce more truth-telling among sender types but reputational concerns can. Receivers only partially learn the true state in the long run irrespective of the true sender type, resulting in long-run disagreement and ex post incorrect actions by some receivers. We characterize the conditions for "doublespeak" equilibria where one sender type repeatedly reveals each private signal truthfully but another sender type repeatedly fabricates false values of her private signals. Why does misinformation persist, and how does it distort the long-run beliefs and actions of rational agents? Suppose receivers see an infinite stream of messages from a sender of unknown type who observes private signals about an unknown state of the world. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |