1) Cultural contingency — What’s “pretty” or “ugly” depends on culture and history; any “ugly truth” can be voiced about an out‑group in some context, so valence isn’t intrinsic.
2) Form vs. function — “Sex work is work” looks factual but functions as a moral/political signal demanding rights and respect; vague language often masks this gap.
3) Reframing and dignity — Many of Bryan’s “ugly truths” are obvious, but speech also preserves status: claims like “some kids are stupid” are commonly reframed (“doesn’t like school,” “better at hands‑on work”) to avoid dehumanizing people and to give them other paths to respect.
Bottom line: the Pretty/True 2x2 is a useful heuristic, but it should account for cultural context, the pragmatic function of statements, and the social role of reframing.
All great points. "Words don't mean what they say" is a related consideration (re #2). "Black lives matter" and "All lives matter", worked out to their literal linguistic meaning, are "pretty truths" in Caplan's framework and are mutually compatible with one another as logical statements. But what someone _means_ when they say one or the other of those slogans is far more loaded than its naive truth value.
In what I would call Caplan's Three Pillars of Education Signaling: Intelligence, Conscientiousness, and Conformism, I have always proudly been low in conformism. Alas, I know this has held me back in career success as people value pleasantry over honesty on the margin. SDB is the culprit, obviously. My compromise (if not solution) is pleasant honesty. Again, alas, this only goes so far. Partially this is because people are shallow (How's that for an ugly truth?).
I would suggest that the matrix is indeed helpful: Despite the spectrum of Pretty-Ugly, people tend to see things as black and white here. And people want to label so as to either accept or dismiss.
Spout Ugly Truths and expect to be shut out from polite (shallow) society.
Claim Pretty Lies and expect to be seen (rightfully) as naive yet still be widely accepted.
Say Pretty Truths and expect meaningless acquiescence--and lots of company.
Make Ugly Lies and expect total rejection (again, rightfully).
Being honest/insightful/non-trite is a tough ask as it pushes one into the lower left of Ugly Truth where no one wants to go.
I saw an ad once in Wechat for online art education for young children.
I found it very heartwarming that the ad's major selling point for their school, targeted at the parents, was 孩子更喜欢 ("children like it more" [than a higher-pressure, in-person school]).
One worry I have had about your emphasis on social desirability bias is that taking your concerns seriously could lead to a type of "social undesirability bias." That is, your goal is for people to understand and take into account ugly truths. However, on topics where we are ignorant of the truth of the matter, an awareness of social desirability bias could lead to a reaction like "That person is saying something that sounds ugly, therefore they're a brave truth teller standing up to social desirability bias." Your 2×2 matrix is useful for recognizing errors that come from social desirability bias, as well as this opposite error that I have been concerned about.
As a former management consultant with an MBA, can we do a 4 by 4? Can we discount future virtual signaling to obtain a net present value of a given behavioral change? Ahh the warm glow of uselessnes..., uh, I mean STRATEGY, yeah, the warm glow of strategy.
Because truth is singular and easier to remember, while lies are unlimited, hard to remember accurately, and impossible to reconcile, so they must be continuously updated and changed.
Because we're gutting gifted and talented programs left and right to double down on "special needs" when if you actually cared about the future, innovation, technological advancement, or the economy, all of which apply to everyone (including special needs kids), you'd reverse that, because essentially all economic and technological progress is driven by the <10%.
Because we're so bad / dumb at math that we literally spend 6 times more than the average worker pays in taxes every year on a per capita US citizen basis in federal spending. The gap is really that big.
Because for example, instead of paying politicians a realistic enough salary that we can attract actual talent into the roles, like SIngapore, our current method exclusively puts sociopaths-optimized-for-lying into office, AND legalizes insider trading for all of them, so not only do we get terrible liars as our "leaders," they all get to insider trade against the very legislation they're crafting.
And there's too many more of these to count / relate.
Basically, "ugly lies" leads to terrible leadership, bad policies, and mortgaging the future.
Maybe one doesn't care about catering to the ill-founded desires of most people. If one seeks stable relationships that are based upon values derived from reality-based desires (i.e. values that aren't susceptible to cognitive dissonance), one will prefer the company of the honest minority and take pleasure in skewering the pretensions of those whose power, wealth, and status are hostage to a fickle public opinion.
> The main problem with the matrix, granted, is that True/False is binary, while Pretty/Ugly is a continuum.
As applied to human speech, you'll find that true/false is also a continuum.
Asimov's Relativity of Wrong springs to mind: our planet is neither flat nor spherical, but spherical is truer.
The matrix misses key realities.
1) Cultural contingency — What’s “pretty” or “ugly” depends on culture and history; any “ugly truth” can be voiced about an out‑group in some context, so valence isn’t intrinsic.
2) Form vs. function — “Sex work is work” looks factual but functions as a moral/political signal demanding rights and respect; vague language often masks this gap.
3) Reframing and dignity — Many of Bryan’s “ugly truths” are obvious, but speech also preserves status: claims like “some kids are stupid” are commonly reframed (“doesn’t like school,” “better at hands‑on work”) to avoid dehumanizing people and to give them other paths to respect.
Bottom line: the Pretty/True 2x2 is a useful heuristic, but it should account for cultural context, the pragmatic function of statements, and the social role of reframing.
All great points. "Words don't mean what they say" is a related consideration (re #2). "Black lives matter" and "All lives matter", worked out to their literal linguistic meaning, are "pretty truths" in Caplan's framework and are mutually compatible with one another as logical statements. But what someone _means_ when they say one or the other of those slogans is far more loaded than its naive truth value.
Zvi's simulacra levels are relevant here:
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/hLzwNuPyEvR4mfAce/simulacra-levels-summary
In what I would call Caplan's Three Pillars of Education Signaling: Intelligence, Conscientiousness, and Conformism, I have always proudly been low in conformism. Alas, I know this has held me back in career success as people value pleasantry over honesty on the margin. SDB is the culprit, obviously. My compromise (if not solution) is pleasant honesty. Again, alas, this only goes so far. Partially this is because people are shallow (How's that for an ugly truth?).
I would suggest that the matrix is indeed helpful: Despite the spectrum of Pretty-Ugly, people tend to see things as black and white here. And people want to label so as to either accept or dismiss.
Spout Ugly Truths and expect to be shut out from polite (shallow) society.
Claim Pretty Lies and expect to be seen (rightfully) as naive yet still be widely accepted.
Say Pretty Truths and expect meaningless acquiescence--and lots of company.
Make Ugly Lies and expect total rejection (again, rightfully).
Being honest/insightful/non-trite is a tough ask as it pushes one into the lower left of Ugly Truth where no one wants to go.
Humor's there, if you can pull it off. I can reliably say true things that *I* think are funny; appealing to the group's sense of humor is harder.
> Most human beings are unwilling to die for their countries.
Is this a bad thing? People are less and less willing to die as quality of life improves, and this makes wars harder to wage.
Some statements have a truth value but cannot be easily placed in either true or false. Here is an example: life only exists on Earth.
I saw an ad once in Wechat for online art education for young children.
I found it very heartwarming that the ad's major selling point for their school, targeted at the parents, was 孩子更喜欢 ("children like it more" [than a higher-pressure, in-person school]).
One worry I have had about your emphasis on social desirability bias is that taking your concerns seriously could lead to a type of "social undesirability bias." That is, your goal is for people to understand and take into account ugly truths. However, on topics where we are ignorant of the truth of the matter, an awareness of social desirability bias could lead to a reaction like "That person is saying something that sounds ugly, therefore they're a brave truth teller standing up to social desirability bias." Your 2×2 matrix is useful for recognizing errors that come from social desirability bias, as well as this opposite error that I have been concerned about.
As a former management consultant with an MBA, can we do a 4 by 4? Can we discount future virtual signaling to obtain a net present value of a given behavioral change? Ahh the warm glow of uselessnes..., uh, I mean STRATEGY, yeah, the warm glow of strategy.
Seems most humans are hard wired to emphasize the negative and take for granted the positive.
I hate strangers. I don’t think that’s false.
The Cold? Losing color vision to red and black? Manifesting cancer in them with your focused gaze? How bad?
Playing devil's advocate: If most people desire Pretty Lies, why not give it to them? Why value Ugly Truths over them?
Lies lead to false beliefs. False belief leads to bad policy, bad decisions, harm.
Because truth is singular and easier to remember, while lies are unlimited, hard to remember accurately, and impossible to reconcile, so they must be continuously updated and changed.
> Playing devil's advocate: If most people desire Pretty Lies, why not give it to them? Why value Ugly Truths over them?
To Dave92f1's point, some specific bad policy decisions:
Because for example, we spend ridiculous amounts per student, growing every year, for completely flat test scores:
https://imgur.com/2xy0jtk
Because we're gutting gifted and talented programs left and right to double down on "special needs" when if you actually cared about the future, innovation, technological advancement, or the economy, all of which apply to everyone (including special needs kids), you'd reverse that, because essentially all economic and technological progress is driven by the <10%.
Because we're so bad / dumb at math that we literally spend 6 times more than the average worker pays in taxes every year on a per capita US citizen basis in federal spending. The gap is really that big.
Because for example, instead of paying politicians a realistic enough salary that we can attract actual talent into the roles, like SIngapore, our current method exclusively puts sociopaths-optimized-for-lying into office, AND legalizes insider trading for all of them, so not only do we get terrible liars as our "leaders," they all get to insider trade against the very legislation they're crafting.
And there's too many more of these to count / relate.
Basically, "ugly lies" leads to terrible leadership, bad policies, and mortgaging the future.
Yeah, Trump's tariff pump looked like a manufactured insider trading opportunity.
Maybe one doesn't care about catering to the ill-founded desires of most people. If one seeks stable relationships that are based upon values derived from reality-based desires (i.e. values that aren't susceptible to cognitive dissonance), one will prefer the company of the honest minority and take pleasure in skewering the pretensions of those whose power, wealth, and status are hostage to a fickle public opinion.
Boolean logic: 1 > 0. ;-)
Is "most people prefer pretty lies" an ugly truth? Or an ugly lie?
Truth, as long as the lies are flatteringly composed.