Thus, if we admit at all to being a liar, then we are likely to say that the outside world “made me do it!” (situational lying). At worse this is somehow built into my bones (characterological lying). We are much less likely to access an intermediate view that lying has become habitual (characterological) having often been engaged in a world we inhabit that encourages and rewards lying. Thus, we find ourselves with a hybrid version of lying as being initially situational and later characterological (habitual).
Techniques used in lying
The term “Machiavellian” is often used to describe people – often politicians and other rulers – who use deceit and manipulative techniques to convince others and achieve their evil goals. Niccolò Machiavelli was an Italian diplomat, author, philosopher and historian who lived during the Renaissance period. He is best known for his political treatise “The Prince” published in 1532. He has often been called the father of modern political philosophy and political science. In “Prince”, Machiavelli describes a range of manipulative techniques and methods for politicians and other leaders to achieve their goals through deceit, manipulation and lies.
Dannagal Young, a professor of communication and political science at the University of Delaware notes that “Misinformation succeeds, in layman’s terms, because it makes people feel good. People believe stories that reinforce or reward the way that they see the world. They share stories that boost their ego or make them feel like part of a team.” (Young, 2022) Even when the messages are in direct conflict with fact based scientific information from experts, many in-group members will reject it. Individuals and in-groups (that match this profile) NEED to believe these messages from Machiavellian leaders in the sense that – true or not, the dialogue against “enemies” preserves their beliefs, sense-of-self and supports their thinking that their way of life is right. When counter arguments, even when fully fact-based, undermine their modus vivendi, they will tend to vociferously resist. Fact-based attempts at persuasion against this profile of individual and groups can be difficult.
Danesi concurs that, under certain circumstances, “we are all prey to the master liar because he (or she) is skilled at manipulating our minds through language that generates obfuscation, ambiguity, and doubt, as well as evoking hidden fears, hatreds, and resentments, in his (her) ingenious scheme to gain trust, support, and backing”, as well as to undermine trust in experts and leaders amongst the outgroup “enemies”.
It is more effective here to utilize a specific example of Machiavellian-like lying and language. Frequent comparisons have been made to Hitler and Stalin along with other autocratic world leaders, but a more recent example is more powerful. Former President of the US Donald Trump is a useful example; however, it should be re-emphasized that the authors have no political affiliation in these references and this example is used entirely for practical purposes. Certainly, Trump was highly effective at attacking and vilifying his opponents and enemies, as well as undermining leaders and experts that gave opposing or critical messages.
In ending our presentation of this first perspective regarding our personal production of lies and misinformation, we wish to focus again on our main reasons for examining the dynamics of lying. While we all tend to lie as a way of holding up our own sense of self-esteem, and while there are many profiles of people who lie or exaggerate information for various reasons, we are focusing on those who lie to manipulate others for their own benefit, and in particular use misinformation to undermine out-group leaders and experts to undermine their opposition.
