It's not that I think that the other person is necessarily dishonest, or even fascinating - but that it's so hard to be aware to external aspects of a personal experience, that I can't judge solely on that.

Is it clearer now?

So what you're saying is that you DO think some (not all, or maybe even many, but SOME) people are being dishonest when recounting their personal lived experiences? And so you need outside corroboration before you can decide if they're being dishonest?

I just want to make sure I'm reading you right before I reply.

So what you're saying is that you DO think some (not all, or maybe even many, but SOME) people are being dishonest when recounting their personal lived experiences? And so you need outside corroboration before you can decide if they're being dishonest?

Difficult question. Not all, not most, and the ones who do are probably salesmen of this-and-that. But I think that some can be dishonest - not on purpose, but because we're all humans. Like, I know I'm colorblind (actually, color-shade blind, since of what I know, women can't be color blind. Sorry, too lazy to come up right now with the term in English, but that's the sorta-translation from Hebrew). So if a person will ask me what I think of a color, I'd say my opinion but will also mention that I'm color shade blind - which is something which I couldn't possibly know without an external perspective, and not because I was trying to deceive anyone.

Do I question if their description is how they really felt about something? No. In that way, they are telling the truth. Do I question their description will fit into my own personal experience and perspective? Yes. So I ask around.

It's not that I think that (most) people are dishonest on purpose - they're being people. And that's why it's my responsibility to make sure I'm getting the full details and perspective.

Do I question if their description is how they really felt about something? No. In that way, they are telling the truth.

I don't understand, then, how the word "dishonest" (or "suspicious") applies. Ever.

Do I question their description will fit into my own personal experience and perspective? Yes.

That doesn't mean that they're being dishonest. It means you don't have a frame of reference for it. Those aren't even remotely the same.

I just continue to have a problem with the idea of assessing someone's own personal experience as dishonest. Like, "This dessert tastes like shit." "What? You are a liar, because *I* love it!" The first person isn't being dishonest; their experience simply doesn't match up with the second person's experience.

I understand wanting to know more if you don't have a frame of reference for something (i.e., I've never given birth, what is it like?), but I don't understand thinking they might be dishonest because you don't have a frame of reference to compare it against (i.e., You say giving birth was beautiful, but since I haven't experienced that, I'll have to ask other people if their experience was also beautiful before I can believe that you really truly meant what you said.)

I don't understand, then, how the word "dishonest" (or "suspicious") applies. Ever.

Yes, as you wrote - "suspicious" from my-inspiring-to-be-as-wholesome-as-possible-perspective. Not theirs.

their experience simply doesn't match up with the second person's experience.

In my world, most of the first persons are trying over and over to convince the second persons that the dessert, in fact, tastes like shit. I never said people (or my thinking) are easy.

I don't understand thinking they might be dishonest because you don't have a frame of reference to compare it against (i.e., You say giving birth was beautiful, but since I haven't experienced that, I'll have to ask other people if their experience was also beautiful before I can believe that you really truly meant what you said.)

Please, please, please take "believe" out of it. "Understand" is the verb. Because I do, in fact, believe that their description is how they felt about it. But I'd understand people and their experiences better given a frame of reference. So the experience only doesn't count much on my "belief-o-meter", so to speak. Not because they're lying or trying to trick me - but because I could relate to them so much better, as human beings, given something more than just a personal experience. Otherwise, it's just thin description (to my perspective).

What do you know. I guess it's really all. about. me. (in the end).

for Hil's officemate: [link]

Happy Belated Birthday, Erin!!

In general, I agree with this, now if they were talking Medicaid that would be a different story.

Bwahaha - I didn't catch that, but um, yeah.

Please, please, please take "believe" out of it. "Understand" is the verb.

In this case, "suspicious" is not the word you want to be using. Because "I'm suspicious of what you just said" is synonymous with "I don't believe you."

"I'm suspicious of what you just said" is synonymous with "I don't believe you."

This is my take as well.

I'm skeptical may seem the same, but in my brain, it translates into "I'm not sold, but I'd like to be. Tell me more."

Is that closer to what you meant Shir?

Because "I'm suspicious of what you just said" is synonymous with "I don't believe you."

This. And "dishonest" is saying that the person is being deliberately deceptive. Not at all the same as "speaking from a limited perspective" or "from a perspective that doesn't mesh with mine" or even "a perspective that is contradicted by the facts."

These are some very loaded terms in English, Shir.

FYI, Shir, women can indeed be color-blind, it's just far less common among women than men. My BFF's mother is red-green color-blind.