Recent research into the topic of lying suggests that every person lies, on average, 10 times daily. Many of these lies are what we consider to be “white lies”, in and of them harmless and often consciously unintentional. These include things like making excuses for not being able to meet a friend for lunch or not being able to attend a function. On the other hand, some lies are intentional, deliberately devious and occasionally malicious with ulterior motive as their basis.
Meanwhile, we often find lying to be a misnomer or simply a partial truth based upon the intended outcome of convincing another individual that their product or service is superior to another or provides benefits that are either fabricated or exaggerated. This is most commonly seen in the field of marketing where the partial truth of seemingly legitimate research is far outweighed by the actual results provided by the underlying research touted as the entire authority in support of a comprehensive solution or resolution to some widely experienced challenge or problem.
Unfortunately there is another form of lying that is not lying at all but simply an enthusiastic expression of a belief based upon past experience and commonplace knowledge or information which arises as a by-product of a legitimate attempt to create a “new known” from a previously “unknown”.
These misconceptions are frequently the harmless outcome of valid endeavors to seek out a truth associated with enhancements and benefits previously unidentified. Their goal is not to deceive but to enlighten and their manifestation is typically an unintended misconception.
As a Forensic Examiner I frequently giggled beneath my breath when asked if I swore to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I was even often attempted to suggest that the request be amended with the words, “as you know it to be”.
Meanwhile, I voice this conundrum, not to incite humanity as an inherently lying machine, but merely to suggest that we often base opinions, judgments and interpretations upon the information available to us at any given time. This is typically the hallmark of real research, valid science and productive attempts to refine our existing understanding of a previously adopted model for assessing, interpreting and evaluating the symptoms presented by an individual experiencing a health challenge.
In the process of my own journey to develop an effective model for turning symptoms into solutions I often found myself immersed in the continuum of moving from established, albeit unintentional, lying to a perceived and ultimate truth.
In doing so I found myself moving from the primitive beliefs of simple, in office, tests and evaluations to more elaborate investigations and refined understanding as I began to seek out the answer to the fundamental question of “Why” to an even more elegant process of looking at things nobody else was looking at, in ways that nobody else was looking at them.
At each stage in this process, more elements of truth became an inherent part of my efforts, beginning with some reasonably obvious endeavors involving answers to the question “Why”. That “why” was simply an attempt to understand why two people with virtually identical histories and symptoms responded almost entirely the opposite to the same standard of care interventions.
Gradually, this leads me to a basic model of three primary influences, those being the structure, the biochemistry and the psycho-emotional and spiritual aspects of the human experience.
Subsequently integrating a history of each which included many, if not most, lifestyle choices, in term of exercise, diet, beliefs, self-appraisal and recurrent thoughts, I developed some guide lines, I called caveats, to assist in a refined understanding of the above. This is when I wrote my book “Beyond Medicine, Exploring a New Way of Thinking.” In this book I talk about what the caveats are and how they are used in the MAP process.