Note: Blog entries before 1 September 2010 have been archived.
A long time ago on what now seems like a different planet, the Beach Boys sang, “Be True to Your School.” The themes focused on aspects of life in high school, especially football and cruising from back in the days when street rods were “king.” Being true to your “school,” whether high school, college, or other organization is one kind of integrity. It isn’t, however, personal integrity, and sometimes you have to choose between loyalty to an organization and personal integrity.
Regular readers of this blog probably already know that this is another blog entry inspired by my observations of the political process as we enter the pre-election advertising extravaganza. On more than one occasion, I have wondered about the degree to which various politicians actually believed what they were saying. What was being said verbally was not matched by—was not congruent with—the nonverbal message. That’s usually a clue that a least “part” of the person disagrees with what he or she is saying. The most telling nonverbal cues (at least in my opinion) are the following:
- The mouth says “yes,” while the head shake says “no.” Although one instance of this kind of incongruence isn’t proof of mendacity, it is an important clue. A number of years ago, a TV ad for a well-known sports magazine was offering a free “sneaker phone” with a subscription. Toward the end of the commercial, the actor is holding the sneaker phone and saying, “Wow. This is really great….” while shaking his head “no.” That’s a good reason to suspect that he may have been thinking that the phone wasn’t so great, but he might also have been thinking something to the effect of, “This is so good I can’t believe it.” The main thing is that viewers, including you, need to be aware of such lapses in congruence and at least ask the question, “Is it true.”
- The eyes blink way too much. Rapid eye-blinking is almost always a sign of nervousness. Unless the speaker is in a dust- or sandstorm, rapid eye blinking indicates nervousness. It may be that the individual is a novice when it comes to TV interviews or is simply an exceedingly nervous person, but rapid eye-blinking most often indicates that the person is hiding something or is afraid of seeing something. The next time you see a politician or political analyst blinking as though he or she is in a major sandstorm, you may want to ask which of the possibilities is most likely to apply.
- The eyes don’t blink at all. The no-blink stare is a sign of aggression. It’s a challenge. You may not know what the challenge is, but you can be sure that the no-blinker is challenging you to something. It may be, “Prove me wrong,” which could be a sign of confidence in his or her statements, or it could be a sign of what’s often called a bald-faced lie. Research has shown that liars typically make more eye-contact than truth-tellers. The next time you see the no-blink look, ask yourself whether the individual is saying something that is so obviously true that there should be no question, or whether he or she is in the middle of a bald-faced lie.
Those of you who have read Jonathan Swift’s Gulliver’s Travels probably recall that the Houyhnhnms were shocked to discover that Gulliver had “said the thing that was not true.” Lying and deception were simply not part of Houyhnhnm culture. While Gulliver had actually spoken the truth, what he had said was simply outside the Houyhnhnm world view. This is basically the same situation Galileo encountered when he started telling people that the world was round. Yet Galileo had the evidence, and his personal integrity required that he tell the truth of what he knew regardless of personal consequences. It took courage for Galileo to resist the temptation to lie for political purpose. In general, people lie because they fear the consequences of telling the truth.
It is, of course, perfectly fine to have a hierarchy as part of your personal integrity. One of the politicians in the news lately said that she would “never” lie. The example she used was that if Anne Frank were hiding in her attic and the Nazis came to call, she would tell the truth. In my opinion, a “lie” in such circumstances requires a higher degree of personal integrity than telling the “truth.” Telling the Nazis that Anne Frank was in your attic would subject you to the same fate Anne eventually encountered. Values have a hierarchy, and understanding both your hierarchy and the reasons for it help you maintain your personal integrity when faced with difficult choices. If you vote in ways you believe will enhance your “personal pocketbook,” you may or may not be in personal integrity. Only you will know for sure.
We’ve lately seen a spate of “Ponzi schemes” in which financial instruments are set up and sold for the purpose of defrauding investors. This is basically the financial equivalent of selling swampland in Florida as “valuable real estate” or the presentation of political policies as being either better or worse than they actually are. We tend to expect that kind of presentation in automobile sales, but automobiles leave a readily observable record of performance, which makes it possible for consumers to check the “bill of goods” being presented. Political “stuff,” however, is not so easy to check.
Because checking on political “stuff” requires effort, many people simply accept their favorite “talking points” delivered by their favorite politicians (or political party) as either “true,” “mostly true,” or “more true” than what is being said by the other side. It is, however, worth checking in the same way it is worth checking Consumer Reports or some other relatively neutral source for information before buying a toaster, TV, or automobile. The information is “there” (available on the Internet), but you have to look with a degree of determination.
The principal problem is that politics is considered a “winner take all” proposition. Just as cell phone and cable service providers hire people to provide bad reviews of competing products and services, the political parties hire people to promote their “narrative” and to disparage the narrative offered by the other side. Who is paying for what message isn’t always clear, so you need to look at records that can’t be fudged. What, for example, does the historical record say about the influence of tax rates on the economy as a whole? What were the tax rates at the times of economic collapse, and what were they at the times of greatest prosperity and economic growth. It’s worth looking before you decide based on your own tax situation or on your desire to “soak the rich.”
In the 1980s, I was fortunate to be able to attend a lecture by W. Edwards (Bill) Deming of the rightly-famous “Deming Management Method” when he spoke in Kalamazoo to about 300 business people and academics. One of his principal topics was treating others—your spouse or significant other, your employees, your suppliers, your customers—fairly. His point was that you will gain more in the long run than if you turn relationships into a contest with a winner and a bunch of losers. He asked the questions, “Do you want your spouse to be a loser? Do you want your customers to be losers?” At the time, the common business philosophy was to drive hard bargains and to maximize your own return on investment. It was basically the “Greed-is-good” philosophy of Gordon Gekko, the protagonist of the “Wall Street” movies. The reaction of the crowd was disbelief. Most thought that Deming, who was (I think) 94 at the time, had slipped into some form of age-related dementia.
People will, of course, have different vested interests. Most often, however, their interests will have more in common than they might suspect. Rather than focusing on the struggle producing winners and losers, we would do well to remember the fundamental truth of Deming’s philosophy: we can truly win only when we all win. It is not so much a matter of who will get the larger slice of the pie as it is a matter of figuring out how to make the pie bigger. Making the pie bigger requires both the personal integrity to acknowledge vested interests and cooperation in the process of helping others satisfy their own vested interests.
Perhaps we’ll see more of that in an upcoming election cycle soon now….
