In order to measure a field of truthfulness, we are talking about fidelity, clarity of the uncorrupted signal and a readable message. My writings generally err on the side of sensible caution. No tricks, routines or surprizes. Accurately tactful reporting is the only way to check with someone, about who we are quoting, and where and why we get that signal in the first place. Signals should have viable meaning. But because most lies have an ancestry, we must wade in with courage and sensible patience. Weighting for the densest of lies is easier than finding where a truth got corrupted. Even history, logic and statistics can be faked. I never presume to show someone honesty unless I know of what I speak and from where it came.
Providing accurate documentation for the human software of lie detection is only one of many critical resources. But because the observational analysis of behavior has a long tradition, compleat with cultural languages and logic, we must be as gentle and thorough as tree roots. These practices are rarely enough to help someone determine what is truthful, much less honestly reported. Never depend on self limiting algorithms, there is always someone designing their own pet social engineering. How can we know if we're being honest with ourselves, or others. How do I prove I'm not just another robot if I'm endlessly repeating programs. This endless monkey telephone of shared idioms plays the dominant role in most top priority decision making in a culture of the damned. {Sorry, Harsh social criticism I know.} Yes, I know. Nobody likes hearing that no one's driving the bus.
But, now for the really great news. Tactical empathy? What? Am I kidding? Actually no, it's clean. I GET LOTS OF TRAFFIC FROM WELL FILTERED INTERNATIONAL PLATFORMS. People can read me. A little diplomatic immunity often needs tact. Most people often appreciate truthfulness, even when it's difficult.
