Why we lie: The evolutionary roots of deception and the unconscious mind By David Livingstone Smith St.

Martin's Press, 2004. Reviewed by Tamar Frankel, Professor of Law, Michaels Faculty Research Scholar, Boston University School of Law, US ! Why We Lie [ ! is a "as#inating $oo% a$o&t a "as#inating s&$'e#t. ()o re*ated genera* themes r&n thro&gho&t the $oo%. (he "irst theme is that *ying is dee+*y em$edded in o&r s&$#ons#io&s as a res&*t o" evo*&tion. Most o" the $oo%'s stories are *in%ed to this theme. ,vo*&tion means sim+*y that those )ho s&rvive $y *ying +ossess among their ta*ents the a$i*ity or the "eat&res that de#eive +redators )ho #o&*d harm them, as )e** as the a$i*ity or the "eat&res that de#eive vi#tims )hom they may harm. (he *iving things that did not have the %na#% to de#eive or that had *ess a$i*ity to *ie died o" starvation or $y $eing eaten. (hey did not s&rvive to re+rod&#e, more than those )ho +ossessed the -&a*ity to *ie and had a $etter #han#e o" m&*ti+*ying. (h&s, evo*&tion +rod&#ed the $est *iars. (he $oo% o+ens )ith the dis#&ssion o" *iving things, $oth +redators sear#hing "or "ood, and their vi#tims sear#hing "or an es#a+e. Predators and vi#tims have *ied $y deve*o+ing me#hanisms and "eat&res that he*+ed hide the "eat&res that are *i%e*y to te** the tr&th a$o&t themse*ves, and "eign "eat&res that they do not have. .or e/am+*e, +redators sh&n a s+e#ies o" $&tter"*ies that have a $itter taste. 0nother s+e#ies o" $&tter"*ies have a s)eet taste. 1o)ever, +redators avoid the $&tter"*ies o" the s)eet tasting s+e#ies, that *oo% *i%e the $itter tasting ones. (hose s)eet tasting $&t *oo%2a*i%e $itter tasting $&tter"*ies m&*ti+*y. (here deve*o+s a s+e#ies o" s)eet2tasting $&tter"*ies that *ie a$o&t ho) they taste $y the )ay they *oo%. 0 simi*ar evo*&tion o##&rs in $oth +redators and their vi#tims. (hose )ho $*end into the $a#%gro&nd s&rvive more readi*y than those )ho stand o&t. (he *eo+ard evo*ves as )e** as #ertain ty+es o" ante*o+es. Lying he*+s them get "ood or avoid $eing eaten. 3n "a#t, +redators may a*so $e the vi#tims o" other $etter2*ying +redators and vi#tims may a*so $e the +redators o" *ess *ying and more tr&th"&* s+e#ies. (here"ore, ea#h might *ie in )ays that res&*t in $etter #han#es "or s&rviva*. (he se#ond theme that is inevita$*y re*ated to the "irst theme is sometimes stated in the $oo% $&t most*y demonstrated. 3n the evo*&tionary #onte/t, *iving things that *ie do not intend to *ie, mis*ead or de#eive. 3n "a#t, they might not even intend to s&rvive $y means o" de#e+tion. (hey sim+*y do. (h&s, evo*&tion #*eanses *ying o" its +e'orative sense. (he reason )hy $eings *ie does not re*ate to these $eings' intent or #hoi#e. 3t re*ates to their innate a$i*ities and the res&*tant s&rviva* $y greater +ro#reation. (he essentia* $&i*ding $*o#% in Dr. Smith's theory is &nintentiona*, $*ind evo*&tion. (he &nintentiona* and inevita$*e averting o" harm 4o" starvation or $eing eaten5 $y mis*eading +redators and +rey. 0 n&m$er o" iss&es arise "rom this thesis. .irst, the term *ying, )hi#h is &sed in the $oo%, is some)hat in#ongr&o&s. We &se the )ord *ying to denote an intentiona* a#tion designed to mis*ead others. (hat is )hy *ying #arries a +e'orative sense. 3t is synonymo&s )ith de#eit, do&$*e2"a#ed $eing, dishonest and insin#ere a#tion, and a*i%e. (he )ord #arries )ith it a so#ia* '&dgment o" an anti2so#ia* $ehavior. (he )ord im+*ies not mere*y im+a#t on others, $&t a degree o" intent. 6nintentiona* $ehavior does not #arry )ith it that degree o" disa++rova*.

(h&s, the d&a* themes o" the $oo% +ose a +arado/. (he $oo% #om$ines the )ord *ying 4$ad $ehavior5 )ith inevita$i*ity. 3m+*i#it*y, the #om$ination removes the a&ra o" $ad $ehavior "rom *ying. When the a&thor in-&ires into the nat&re o" de#e+tion his thesis is that *ying is a res&*t o" evo*&tion and s&$#ons#io&s $ehavior rather than intentiona* $ehavior. 1e "o#&ses on the "&n#tion o" *ying. 1e notes, "or e/am+*e, that )hat )e #a** *ying de+ends on its +&r+ose. Lying in )ar 2 avoiding $eing eaten 22 is not 4$ad5 *ying. Lying to he*+*ess +arties 2 eating others 22 is 4$ad5 *ying. B&t i" h&mans *ie )itho&t intent and )hen the *ying is inevita$*e, they #annot $e +ersona**y res+onsi$*e. (he $adness and goodness o" *ying is then re*egated to the high s+here o" +hi*oso+hi#a* #ontem+*ation $&t )ith no im+*i#ation on a#t&a* inevita$*e non2vo*itiona* $ehavior. 7ne #an then say that the inevita$*e $ehavior )as $ad or good in the a$stra#t, $&t the $ehavior is &n#hangea$*e. (he se#ond iss&e raised in the $oo% is that mis*eading others ass&res the s&##ess o" the s+e#ies. 3t res&*ts in the *iars' s&rviva* and +ro*i"eration. (he #on#*&sion o" this theory is that $y *ying $oth +redators and their vi#tims #an m&*ti+*y. ,vo*&tion shar+ens and re"ines their a$i*ity to *ie a$o&t themse*ves. 0nd yet, at the same time, i" $oth +redators and vi#tims in#reasing*y m&*ti+*y, an e-&i*i$ri&m is maintained, )hi#h a**o)s $oth to s&rvive. Whi*e the $a*an#e $et)een +redators and vi#tims #an remain the same, the *iars in ea#h gro&+ are the )inners $y evo*&tion. (his #on#*&sion may not $e a*)ays #orre#t. Most $eings do not *ive a*one. (heir s&rviva* de+ends on the s&++ort o" others. Sometimes their s&rviva* de+ends not on*y on the s&++ort o" their o)n s+e#ies $&t the s&++ort o" other s+e#ies. 3" and )hen *ying harms so#iety, )hether o" *iving things or h&mans, then so#iety, #om+osed o" the non2*iars might rise &+ against the *iars and re#i+ro#ate $y terminating them. (h&s, at most, evo*&tion may s&++ort s+e#ies o" *iars against other s+e#ies o" non2*iars, $&t not *iars )ithin the s+e#ies or their #o*onies. (he $oo% does not te** &s m&#h a$o&t the e-&i*i$ri&m $et)een +redator de#eivers and "*eeing +rey de#eivers. 8either does it te** &s m&#h a$o&t the r&*es that the so#iety o" h&mans im+oses to maintain an e-&i*i$ri&m and even over#ome the geneti# s&$#ons#io&s tenden#y to *ie, )hen it is strong. 3 )o&*d have *i%ed to %no) more a$o&t the a&thor's e/+*anation o" so#ia* +ress&res not to *ie and the evo*&tion o" so#ieties and +eo+*e )ho #hanged their )ays and s&##eeded, and there"ore +rod&#ed more o""2s+rings *i%e themse*ves. (he $oo% "o#&ses main*y on the a#t o" *ying itse*" and the theory o" its so&r#e. 3t does not "o#&s as m&#h on the #onse-&en#es o" *ying. .or e/am+*e, i" the other +arty is a)are o" the *ie and $e*ieves that the *ie )as intentiona*, the e""e#t may $e to &ndermine the tr&st among the +arties, and that may have re+er#&ssion to $oth +arties. 3n #ontrast, some *ying is so#ia**y desira$*e and a++roved o", as "or e/am+*e, &ntr&e #om+*iments.[2! (hird, i" evo*&tion is the "o&ndation o" *ying, then it #annot $e entire*y re*ationa*. 3t in#*&des the rea#tion o" *iving $eings to a hosti*e environment. 0##ording to an overa** evo*&tionary de"inition, *ying )i** o##&r even tho&gh it #o&*d not de#eive anyone. 3" anima*s deve*o+ "&r in a #o*d #*imate, evo*&tion he*+ed +rote#t them "rom "ree9ing. 1o) #an the gro)th o" "&rs $e *ying: (he "&r is gro)n in the o+en; it does not de#eive. .&rther, this ad'&stment is not rea#tive and re*ationa*. (he anima*s' $ehavior )i** not #onvert "ree9ing )eather into a )armer one. (o $e s&re, $y $*ending into their sno)y )hite environment the anima*s may hide their +resen#e, and &se this trait to either hide "rom +redators or "ind their vi#tims. Dr. Smith's de"inition )o&*d in#*&de s&#h ad'&stment

to the environment )ithin his de"inition o" *ying. 0nd yet, his stories and e/am+*es s&ggest that his de"inition means de#eiving others #a&sing them to #hange their $ehavior. Lying )hi#h does not de#eive stret#hes the meaning o" the )ord "ar $eyond a##e+ta$*e $o&ndaries. 3n my &nderstanding *ying is re*ationa*.[<! 3t sho&*d $e aimed at someone or something that #o&*d rea#t to the *ie. 0 s&##ess"&* *ie de+ends on the other +arty to )hom the *ie is addressed. 3" that +arty is a)are o" the tr&th, it is not de#eived and the *ie is sti** a *ie, $&t is not e""e#tive. B&t one #annot *ie to a stone. .o&rth, 8ot)ithstanding the evo*&tionary $asis, the $oo%'s $asi# tenet is that *ying is a re*ationa* +henomenon, invo*ving at *east t)o +arties. (he a&thor $i"&r#ates h&man $eings. 1&mans are not one $&t t)o. (hey #ontain t)o se+arate entities= the #ons#io&s and the &n#ons#io&s. 3" h&mans are t)o, they #an de#eive themse*ves. (he a&thor arg&es that se*"2de#e+tion is +reva*ent in h&mans and is driven $y the "or#e o" evo*&tion. Peo+*e not on*y *ie to themse*ves. Li%e other *iving things they *ie a&tomati#a**y, )itho&t intention, #ognition or a)areness. When a++*ied to h&mans, ho)ever, the evo*&tionary theory is more #om+*i#ated and atten&ated. We do not %no) )hether +*ants and other *iving things intend to *ie. 1o)ever, there are st&dies that demonstrate intentiona* *ying $y h&mans and +rimates. .or e/am+*e gori**as and #him+an9ees have $een o$served to de#eive their o)n %ind in order to gain "ood or attra#t mates. (here"ore, even i" *ying is evo*&tionary, it does not mean that it is a*)ays &nintentiona*, a&tomati#, inevita$*e, and &n#ontro**a$*e. 7n#e intention is re#ogni9ed as +art o" *ying, *ying is on*y +art*y evo*&tionary. 7ne #an *ie to one2se*" $&t one #an a*so #ontro* one2se*" and one's se*"2de#eit. Whi*e Why We Lie starts )ith evo*&tion, it is most*y devoted to the interesting mani+&*ative tenden#ies o" h&mans. (here"ore, intention m&st $e added to the evo*&tionary e""e#t. 0rg&a$*y, mis*eading a#tions are not so*e*y the +rod&#t o" evo*&tion $&t a*so the +rod&#t o" #hoi#e. 8ot so, says Dr Smith. Li%e in non2h&mans, *ying $y h&mans is rooted in the s&$#ons#io&s. Perha+s evo*&tion is sti** at )or%, *eaving "e)er h&mans )ho do not *ie e""e#tive*y, and %ee+ing a*ive and +ros+ero&s more h&mans that #an *ie e""e#tive*y. Whi*e Dr. Smith disting&ishes $et)een the *ies o" *iving things that res&*t "rom nat&ra* evo*&tion, and mani+&*ative *ies $y higher2*eve* mamma*s and h&mans, he *in%s the t)o together $y their #ommon so&r#e 22 evo*&tion. Why We Lie is ri#h )ith stories, ane#dotes, and +sy#ho*ogi#a* as )e** as so#io*ogi#a* ana*yses. 3t sho)s the ri#h variety o" methods and signa*s in )hi#h h&mans #omm&ni#ate, )ith their m&*ti2*ayered meanings. 0** seem to $e the +rod&#ts o" evo*&tion. (he s&##ess o" the mani+&*ative *iar *ies in the )ea%er a$i*ity o" others to dis#over and &n#over the *ies, '&st as the s&##ess o" the tiger *ies in its a$i*ity to r&n "aster and $e stronger than the "*eeing doe. 1&man de#oding *ies re-&ires "o#&s and e/tensive e/+erien#e. 3t re-&ires +ie#ing the vei* o" the )ords, )hi#h many +eo+*e do not +ra#ti#e. (here"ore more +eo+*e are +*aying +o%er in the dar%. (he are *ied to and do not even %no) it. (hey *ie and do not %no) it. Pres&ma$*y, the +rototy+e o" the )ea%er *iars is more *i%e*y to disa++ear $e#a&se their a$i*ity to s&##eed in *i"e is more *imited. Dr. Smith vie)s *ying as the too* $y )hi#h +eo+*e attem+t to a""e#t and even #reate and #ontro*, their rea*ity. (hat in#*&des not on*y their re*ationshi+ )ith others, $&t a*so the re*ationshi+ )ith themse*ves= their se*"2+er#e+tion. (h&s, to the se*"2se*e#tion o" those )ith tenden#ies to get "ood and avoid $e#oming the "ood o" others is added the

tenden#y to intentiona**y or instin#tive*y $etter their re*ationshi+s )ith their environment and )ith themse*ves. Se*"2de#e+tion, ho)ever, does not a*)ays $ring s&##ess. 3t may res&*t in "ai*&re against those )ho see more #*ear*y and dis+assionate*y. .&rthermore, not on*y intention is s&$s&med in the +ro#ess o" evo*&tion $&t a*so *ogi# and reason. 3" this theory is tr&e, then the h&man ra#e is geneti#a**y evo*ving into a ra#e that is in#reasing*y de#e+tive, $oth to gain "rom ea#h other, and to avoid *oss "rom ea#h other. Whether the e-&i*i$ri&m among e/+ert and *ess e/+ert *iars is maintained or #hanged, the a$i*ity to *ie m&st rise geneti#a**y )ith ea#h generation as the *iars )in over the non2*iars, *ive *onger, and end )ith more o""2s+rings to #arry "&rther and re"ine their *ying a$i*ities. (here is eviden#e o" innate h&man tenden#ies to mani+&*ate others. >on artists mani+&*ate investors into investing in their )orth*ess notes. (he #ons &se tr&e and "a*se statements; honest and "a%e signa*s. (hese are &sed to mane&ver investors into doing )hat they might other)ise not do, and divert them "rom &sing their '&dgment. Who does not mani+&*ate others on#e in a )hi*e: We smi*e ind&*gent*y )hen a #hi*d mani+&*ates her +arents into $&ying a toy. Pretending is a gi"t that h&mans +ossess at a very ear*y age. 0 #hi*d may +&t a $anana to her ear as a te*e+hone, even $e"ore she &nderstands "&**y the "a*sity o" the sit&ation or disting&ishes among mista%es and $et)een +retense and "a*se $e*ie"s. 8ot on*y h&mans, $&t a*so +rimates mani+&*ate $y de#e+tion. >him+s and other anima*s are ?art"&* *iars.?[4!. 0 gori**a hid "r&it that she "o&nd and )a*%ed non#ha*ant*y a)ay on*y to ret&rn three ho&rs *ater to retrieve the "r&it )hen no other gori**a )as aro&nd. 0 #him+ )hose mother re'e#ted his attem+t to s&#%*e +estered a ma*e &nti* the ma*e *eaned in e/as+eration; the in"ant shrie%ed and the mother ran over and o""ered him her ni++*e. (he sign *ang&age2&ser #him+an9ee, L&#y, o""ered another #him+ a +*asti# "*o)er, )hi#h he &nderstood as a gest&re o" "riendshi+, on*y to $ite him )hen he rea#hed "or the "*o)er. 0 +air o" $a$oons a#ted +re#ise*y *i%e #onniving #on artists in #oo+erating to de#eive a third.[@! Mani+&*ation and g&i*e, "or good and evi*, go $a#% tho&sands o" years, as the stories o" the 7*d (estament te** &s. Both 0$raham and 3saa# +resented their $ea&ti"&* )ives their sisters "or "ear that the *o#a* residents )o&*d #ovet them.[A! Be$e##a tri#%ed her $*ind h&s$and, 3saa#, into $*essing her "avorite yo&nger son, Ca#o$.[D! Eing David "e** in *ove )ith Bathshe$a, the mother o" the great Eing Sa*omon, as she too% her $ath on the roo", )here he #o&*d see her. When he )anted to marry her, he sent her h&s$and 6ria to $e %i**ed in )ar.[F! (hese a#ts )ere driven $y men's "ear, $y a mother's *ove, a man's *&st and a )oman's am$ition. Modern man, *i%e +re2histori# man, seems to have innate tenden#ies to mani+&*ate. 3t has $een s&ggested that 'genes "or *ying +*ay a #r&#ia* ro*e in +ro+agating this s+e#ies.' 0$i*ity to *ie is rooted in o&r D80 'Some +eo+*e e/#e* at "a*sehood. (hese nat&ra* *iars are &s&a**y -&ite a)are o" their ta*ent, sin#e they have de*&ded +arents and tea#hers to es#a+e +&nishment sin#e ear*y yo&th. (hey are #on"ident and "ee* no "ear or g&i*t a$o&t getting #a&ght. Get they are not so#io+aths; they don't &se their s%i**s to h&rt other +eo+*e. 3n "a#t, they s#ore the same as other +eo+*e on +sy#ho*ogi#a* +ro"i*es. B&t they seem to do $etter in #ertain #areers, *i%e sa*es, di+*oma#y, +o*iti#s, a#ting, and negotiating.'[H! .&rther, mani+&*ation is not ne#essari*y e""e#ted $y dire#t *ies. '1&man #omm&ni#ation is not '&st a trans"er o" in"ormation *i%e t)o "a/ ma#hines #onne#ted $y a )ire; it is a series o" a*ternating dis+*ays o" $ehavior $y sensitive, s#heming, se#ond2

g&essing so#ia* anima*s.' Ien&ine #omm&ni#ation )here sym$o*s, )ords or vo#a*i9ations have a meaning on*y o##&rs )hen the s+ea%er intends *isteners to &nderstand the meaning o" the )ord as the s+ea%er &nderstands it.'[ 0! B&t even then, mista%en re#e+tions may o##&r, es+e#ia**y )hen the s+ea%er does not )ant the *isteners to mis&nderstand the tr&e meaning o" the )ords as he &nderstands them. What emerges "rom the reading o" Why We Lie is a sense that as s+e#ies $e#ome more advan#ed they a&tomati#a**y and inevita$*y $e#ome $etter and more so+histi#ated *iars and the dis#overers o" *ying. (he dis#overers *ag $ehind and the s&rvivors s+ira* to higher *eve*s o" *ying. 8either so#iety nor individ&a*s #an sto+ this evo*&tionary +ro#ess. .or me, this is not a #om"orta$*e and #onvin#ing #on#*&sion. .rom $oth so#ia* and +ersona* +oint o" vie), *ying is ine""i#ient. 3t re-&ires others to invest time and attention in "erreting o&t the tr&th. 3t re-&ires the *iars to remem$er their *ies and to invent ne) ones. Lies $reed s&s+i#ion, inse#&rity, and re#i+ro#ity. Most o" a**, 3 do&$t )hether *ying is inevita$*e. 3 am not s&re )hether evo*&tion is so dominant as to over#ome #ognitive a#tion. Why We Lie ends in the di""i#&*t and intrig&ing -&estion o" ho) m&#h +roo" sho&*d s&++ort the theory )hi#h the $oo% +ro+oses. (he $oo% s&ggests n&mero&s e/+*anations and hy+othesis #on#erning *ying. Dr. Smith anti#i+ates the #riti#ism that the $oo%'s assertions are not +roven s#ienti"i#a**y and that his s&ggestions are not s#ienti"i# in the sense o" +&re s#ien#e as o++osed to the h&manities. Dr. Smith +assionate*y re'e#ts these o$'e#tions and #riti#isms. 1e asserts that there is va*&e, and s#ienti"i# va*&e at that, in o""ering hy+otheses, even )itho&t so*id +roo", and even i" they are sho)n to $e )rong *ater. (he s&ggestions and ideas raise interest, he arg&es. (hey enti#e more resear#h, )hether to +rove or dis+rove the +ro+osed hy+otheses that he ma%es. 3n raising the ideas, he "inds his mission and the '&sti"i#ation "or )riting the $oo% and vie)ing it as s#ienti"i#. 3 "ind this #ontroversia* +art o" the $oo% most intrig&ing "or a n&m$er o" reasons. .irst, it demonstrates the di""erent vie)s o" di""erent dis#i+*ines )ith res+e#t to tr&th and rea*ity and the method $y )hi#h they are +roved. .or e/am+*e, e#onomists have "or many years vie)ed themse*ves as so#io*ogists, and even tho&gh they &sed n&m$ers, the n&m$ers )ere not the de#isive +roo" o" their theories &nti* a$o&t H@0. 3t )as then that the re-&irement "or -&anti"ia$*e +roo" emerged, and )as "&rther deve*o+ed )ith the aid o" #om+&ters. Some e#onomists, ho)ever, denied the hegemony o" -&antities and n&m$ers, in#*&ding 8o$*e Pri9e )inner Ieorge Stig*er.[ ! .&rther, attem+ts to sho) #a&sation in the so#ia* #onte/t )i** &s&a**y "ai*, )hether or not s&++orted $y n&m$ers. ,""e#ts o" events and the intera#tion o" &nits )ithin #haoti# systems s&#h as so#ieties #annot $e meaning"&**y and a##&rate*y e/+*ained. .&rther, even a sing*e h&man is a*so high*y #om+*e/. 0 h&man a""e#ts and is a""e#ted $y others, $y the environment, $y the "ood he eats and the #*oths he )ears. 1&mans ma%e horrendo&s mista%es. Some h&mans *earn "rom mista%es; some '&sti"y and re+eat them. 1&mans &se int&ition and e/+erien#e. (he +ride o" a resear#her in sho)ing a #o&nter2int&itive "inding may $e short2*ived. 3nt&ition $ased on e/+erien#e and +erha+s on the mar%s o" the evo*&tionary +ro#ess may end the )inner, as Dr. Smith s&ggests. 3n these #ir#&mstan#es #a&sation is near im+ossi$*e to +rove. 3" Dr. Smith attem+ts to #onvin#e the s#ientists that he is a s#ientist too, 3 )o&*d ass&re him that there is no need to #onvin#e. With d&e res+e#t to those )ho demand more

+re#ise +roo" 3 side )ith him. (here is great va*&e in hy+otheses that might ma%e sense, or even +artia* sense, give "ood "or tho&ght, and *ead to "&rther e/+eriments. .or e/am+*e, 3 $e*ieve that those )ho are #onvin#ed a$o&t something are a*so more #onvin#ing to others. 3 have no +roo" o" this assertion, and #o&*d s+end time setting &+ an e/+eriment to +rove it. 3 a*so re#ogni9e that this statement is not entire*y a##&rate. Some +eo+*e may $e t&rned2o"" $y a +erson )ho is too #onvin#ed. Some +eo+*e have their o)n strong #onvi#tions and are not s)ayed $y those o" others. 0nd some +eo+*e re#ogni9e that the meas&res o" #onvin#ing and $eing #onvin#ed may di""er, de+ending on the #onte/t. >onvi#tion may$e strong, medi&m or )ea%. (he ans)er de+ends on a** these varia$*es and more. So )hat )o&*d 3 do: 3 )o&*d ma%e the statement and distri$&te it as )ide*y as 3 #an. 3 #hoose to *eave the idea to others and invite others, )ho are more e/+ert than 3, to e/+eriment. (hey may de#ide )hether this *ine o" in-&iry is interesting or im+ortant. Whether my )or% on this +oint is #ited $y others may $e one indi#ation o" a "o**o)ing. 0nother indi#ation may $e )hether 3 am as%ed to s+ea% a$o&t a s&$'e#t that invo*ves this statement. 3n other )ords, 3 may get some "ee* o" the #onsens&s o" others and nothing more. ,ven )itho&t "o**o)ers, a** others may $e )rong and the tr&th might not $e "o**o)ed. (his does not mean that my statement is *ess tr&th"&*, at *east some o" the time. What did Dr. Smith do: 1e )rote a $oo%. (hat may $e the most s#ienti"i# )ay. Baise the idea and see )hat ha++ens. 3 en'oyed reading Dr. Smith's $oo%. 3 ho+e he )rites a more genera*i9ed theoreti#a* +ie#e that arti#&*ates his disagreement )ith #o**eag&es on this iss&e 2 the iss&e o" +roving one's s&++ositions and ideas. 8otes . David Livingston Smith, Why We Lie, (he ,vo*&tionary Boots o" De#e+tion and the 6n#ons#io&s Mind, St. Martin's Press. 8e) Gor% 420045. (he $oo% seems to $e re*ated to a +revio&s $oo% $y the a&thor on this s&$'e#t, $earing a some)hat di""erent name. 2. (r&st and 1onesty, 0meri#a's B&siness >&*t&re 0t a >rossroad, >h. .o&r 4200@5 47/"ord 6niversity Press, ))).o&+.#omJ&s5 <. 3d. 4. 3ain Pears, 0n 3nstan#e o" the .inger+ost 244 4 HHF5. @. 3d. at D , D2 . A. Ienesis KK 4?0nd 0$raham said o" Sarah his )i"e, She is my sister= and 0vime*e#h %ing o" Irar sent, and too% Sarah?5. (he #harade did not he*+, as the Eing too% her any)ay, on*y to her ret&rn *ater, )hen Iod +&nished him. D. Ienesis KKL33. F. Sam&e* >ha+ter, K3, K33 4the #hi*d Barshe$a #on#eived )hi*e married died. 0"ter she married David, she $ore Sa*omon, )ho $e#ame one o" the greatest %ings5. H. Pears, 0n 3nstan#e o" the .inger+ost at 24@ 4 HHF5. 0. 3d., at A. (he materia* in -&otes is an &n+&$*ished e/#er+t "rom a man&s#ri+t $y (amar .ran%e*, >on 0rtists and (heir Li#tims 4on "i*e )ith the a&thor5. . Ieorge C. Stig*er, ,#onomi#s2(he 3m+eria* S#ien#e: S#andinavian Co&rna* o" ,#onomi#s FA 48o. <, HF45= < 4#oining this $ran#h o" e#onomi#s= 3m+eria* ,#onomi#s5.