|WikiProject Sociology||(Rated C-class, High-importance)|
|WikiProject Psychology||(Rated C-class, High-importance)|
Examples of Disguise appearence
User:Dissembly removed the example "Depict a war as a peace mission", arguing that "this is not a politics forum". Instead I think that this is a perfectly appropriate example, that it's not infering any political POV since it's not referring to any specific war, and that its useful to have some non trivial examples.--BMF81 00:15, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
- I believed it to be biased because "disguise" refers to concealing the identity of a physical object, the example "depicting war as peace" is far more abstract than that, and i don't see how it'd help anyone seeking information on 'disguise' (The reason i argue that it's political bias is that wether or not something is a "peace mission" is subjective judgement, whereas the example given treated it as an objective entity. In the current political climate, this seems politically charged, at the least). If disguise does, in fact, have some more abstract technical definition that i'm ignorant of, a little extra information clarifying this might be appropriate.
- After thinking about it, i do agree that it's a form of deception, and that non-trivial, politically charged examples can be appropriate in some contexts. I don't think it belongs under 'disguise' (once again, this judgement depends on wether there's some technical definition i'm missing, as i said above...), however a section on propaganda/media&political bias/misleading debating tactics is relevant to the subject of "Deception", and perhaps this is where the example belongs.
- Edited to add: I have modified the article in line with this idea. Is this a fair compromise?
Deception and intention
I propose that deception occurs only if both of two conditions occur: (1) that there was an intention to deceive, and that (2) the target was successfully deceived. I mention this because if I accidentally tell a lie (for example, I might have misunderstood something and be sharing my incorrect opinion in good faith), I would not consider myself to be a deceiver. The second condition is required because I cannot be said to have deceived someone if they were not actually deceived - for them to be deceived takes place on their cognitive turf. Here are the combinations of intention and belief, only one is (I believe) deception...
- If I accidentally lie, and the target believes me, it is not deception. - If I tell a lie on purpose and the target believes me, it is deception. - If I accidentally lie and the target does not believe me, it is not deception. - If I tell a lie on purpose and the target does not believe me, it is not deception.
Opinions? Jas 01:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- What if there is no intention at all? What about signals sent my mimetic weeds that resemble crops? A definition should be based on a reliable source, not the reasoning of the article's contributors. Richard001 05:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that weeds send signals. If some of them happen to look more like crops (by some accident of genetic variation), then they might survive better, and this characteristic would help the genetic deviants to survive, but it's not deception any more than a poodle is deceptive by not being spotted in long grass. On your second point, what's unreliable about reason? :) Jas 00:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
In hopes of exposing this type of deception (original research) hoepfully someone can find a similar reference to it..
Cult-feminists, used flawed generalized logic to manipualte the models of abuse...
Most victims of violence are female,(in a family setting) (one form of abuse) (not all violence is abuse) therefor all victims are female, and we must develop programs to stop violence against women, by men.
There may be more than one type of manipualtion here...
--Caesar J. B. Squitti : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 03:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
--Caesar J. B. Squitti : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 17:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Should "Specious" redirect here?
Obviously, there are things that can be said about "deception" which are beyond a simple dictionary definition (which would not merit an actual Wikipedia article.) However, a quick look at the article and the talk page suggests that a great deal of the article is devoted to dictionary definition, and that it has been abused by POV-pushers all adding "examples", in the text and (by implication) in the See Also section. Ideally this article should probably be little more than a disambiguation page, doing the minimum to distinguish between the different forms of deception and then linking to other articles which explain that form. For instance, the section "Deception in Psychological Experimentation" (if it is not a copyright violation) should probably be spun off into an article of its own.
The problem is that the entire subject of "deception" is so huge that focusing on anything besides the very largest divisions of it is showing inappropriate focus. -- 220.127.116.11 (talk) 15:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
'five main types of deception'
the article states catagorically that the five main types of deception are (lying etc.), but incorrectly i think. for example, number 5, understatement, is self-evidently a less common and less egregious form of deceit than making statements which are deliberately misleading (without lying nor etc.). the fact that this practice seems to lack a handy nominal form (i.e. something terser than "making deliberately misleading statements"--what am i missing here?) doesn't mean it shouldn't take it's rightful place on a short list of main "types" of deceptive speech. (which leads to another even more important point, namely that most deception isn't of an overtly verbal nature, obviously: deception isn't just, nor even primarily, a linguistic phenomenon). ----(no tildes to be seen on this keyboard) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rflacco (talk • contribs) 17:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Deception in sports
Deception is a very important part of sports strategy (e.g., football and baseball). Would that fit in here? There don't seem to be any other articles on this, at least none that I can find. Genesis 1:3 (talk) 22:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
This article is serving two purposes: it is a general discussion of deception (camouflage, etc.) as well as an extended discussion of deception in human relationships. It should be split accordingly into two articles and cross-referenced. Jaywilson (talk) 14:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm surprised that this article does not cover matters such as investigative detection (e.g. surveillance), or technological methods of revealing evidence, such as wiretaps. I would propose the addition of this. Is there a reason that this is not included in the article? 18.104.22.168 (talk) 20:59, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
- How are those forms of deception? Based on the title of this section, perhaps you're in the wrong place. This article isn't about detection. Incidentally, that redirected to sensor, which is strange. I've restored it, although it's a pretty rough article. Perhaps you could add some of that information yourself. --BDD (talk) 05:29, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Aldert Vrij 1981?
Something by "Aldert Vrij" from 1981 is referred to twice in the text, but the footnote provides no significant bibliographic citation, and nothing is listed in References or See Also. Can this please be addressed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 13:53, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Tactical deception was my sole reason for coming here, due to its essential role in developing the Theory of Mind (ToM) in any mindful creature. Mind you, I think it deceptive that this article makes no reference to either concept, though I don't think the omission was intensional. --Pawyilee (talk) 17:18, 26 June 2014 (UTC)