When the truth is more misleading than a lie

Sometimes it’s less misleading to lie, than to tell the truth.

Example 1: when I’m outside the US, I tell people I’m from NYC.

  • I’m not - I actually live in New Jersey, across the river from NYC.
  • But “New Jersey” means very little to most non-Americans.
    • One person thought I worked on a farm (the “Garden State”!)
  • By contrast, saying I’m from “NYC” accurately conveys that I:
    • Live in a dense urban environment
    • Work in a tall skyscraper
    • Take public transportation to work
    • Have strong views on bagels

Example 2: when a non-lawyer asks “what kind of lawyer were you”, I say I was a “Wall Street lawyer”.

  • I was not - my firm and most of our clients were in Midtown, not Wall Street.
    • Worse, to another lawyer, “Wall Street lawyer” inaccurately implies I was a transactional lawyer, when in fact I was exactly the opposite - a litigator.
  • But “litigator” usually means nothing to non-lawyers.
    • One person thought it meant I fought traffic tickets.
  • By contrast, “Wall Street lawyer”, to most non-lawyers, conveys a fairly accurate image of my former job:
    • Primarily representing giant corporations and banks
    • Working in a tall skyscraper
    • A high-intensity, high-paying work environment
    • Like Suits, without the fun parts

This phenomenon highlights the distinction between being inaccurate and being misleading. My lies above are certainly inaccurate (because they are objectively false statements), but they are less misleading (because they create a more subjectively accurate impression in this particular listener).1

A corollary to this is that a statement can be objectively inaccurate, but cannot be objectively misleading, because it’s the context and listener that determine whether a statement is misleading, and not the statement itself. Accordingly, being accurate is still usually preferable: it’s a good proxy for not being misleading, particularly when you aren’t familiar with your listeners' knowledge, or expect your statements to be further forwarded. (It’s also sometimes required by law.2)

But effective communication requires understanding your listener and how they are interpreting your words. And that means, sometimes, finding a false statement that is paradoxically more honest to your listeners than the true statement.


  1. A philosopher could probably make the case that there is no such thing as objective accuracy, and just ever-broadening agreement on what is and isn’t subjectively misleading. Insisting on that point would have been an example of ineffective communication. ↩︎

  2. One tragedy of modern libel law is that truth is an absolute defense, and modern media is very good at writing objectively true headlines and articles that can nevertheless be deeply misleading. ↩︎