Attitude to what is happening distorts the facts. Distortion and falsification of history

Manipulations with the information flow - there are many ways to manipulate information to create a false model of the surrounding reality in a person. We will consider some of these techniques separately.

Silence (concealment) is the transmission of incomplete true information, as a result, the victim makes a mistake. A person hides some information, while not saying anything that does not correspond to reality. Not everyone believes that silence and lies are the same thing, therefore, if there is a choice of how to lie, people more often prefer to remain silent about something, not to speak, rather than openly distort the facts. Hiding has many benefits. First, it is easier to hide than to manipulate the facts. Nothing needs to be invented. There is no risk of getting caught because the whole "legend" is not worked out in advance. Concealment is also preferable because it is passive and seems less reprehensible than falsification. It can also be much easier to cover up later if it is exposed. Man does not go too far. There are many excuses: ignorance, wanting to talk about it later, bad memory, etc. By simulating a memory lapse, the misrepresenting person avoids having to remember the "legend": all that needs to be remembered is the bad memory claim. But memory loss can only be invoked if it is about minor things or about something that happened some time ago, otherwise it will be implausible.

Selection is a selective pass to the victim of only information that is beneficial to the deceiver.

In competition with a business partner, it is also much easier to hide information from him than to dispute it in polemics. The ability to competently hide something from your opponent is the most important component of the art of diplomacy. The professionalism of the polemist lies in skillfully moving away from the truth without resorting to outright lies.

Distortion is a way of presenting information, when attention is drawn only to the facts that are most beneficial for the source of information, it is a conscious underlining of only one side of the phenomenon that is beneficial to the deceiver. This also includes the creation of an appropriate design that presents the issue from a certain angle.

Distortion is an understatement, exaggeration, or out of proportion. A typical example of aspect ratio distortion transmitted information reports from battlefields. The American psychologist F. Butler proposed a simple variant of outwardly objective two-sided argumentation: he advised bringing the strongest, most convincing arguments in favor of "one's" position, and the weakest ones in favor of the "other" side. So you can show the failure of any opponent. You can also compare obviously unequal categories. Non-experts won't even notice.

Flipping - swapping, replacing "black" with "white". Another Polish writer-humorist E. Lec wrote: "Never change the truth! Change the truth!" This can be a substitution of goals: when your interest is presented as the interest of another person. Remember how Tom Sawyer painted the fence ("Painting the fence is cool").

Falsification (rigging) is the transfer of deliberately false information on the merits of the issue under consideration. This may be perjury, false statements and denials, fabrication of facts, documents, etc. (1)

It has to be resorted to when one default is not enough. When falsifying, a person takes the next step: not only conceals truthful information, but also presents false information as true. The real state of affairs is hidden and deliberately false information is conveyed to the partner, which can be presented in the form of false documents, references to non-existent sources, experiments, etc.

In some cases, an untrue message from the very beginning requires manipulation, hiding alone is not enough. For example, if you need to distort information about previous work experience in order to get a good place when applying for a job. It is necessary not only to hide inexperience, but also to come up with a suitable work biography. Fraud is also inevitable if one wants to disguise what a person needs to hide. This is especially necessary when it comes to hiding emotions. It is easy to hide an already experienced emotion, and much more difficult this moment especially if it's a strong feeling. Horror is harder to hide than anxiety, rage - than irritation.

Most often, a person fails because some sign of a hidden emotion leaks out. The stronger the emotion, the more likely it is that some sign of it will leak out despite all attempts to hide it. The imitation of another, non-experienced emotion can help mask the hidden experience. By falsifying emotion, one can cover up the leakage of signs of a secret experience. It is much easier to put on a mask, slow down or extinguish by a number of other actions those that express the emotion experienced. When the hands begin to tremble, it is much easier to do something with them - clench into fists or squeeze them - than to make them lie still. The best mask is a false emotion. Most often, a smile is used as a mask. It is the opposite of all negative emotions: fear, anger, suffering, disgust, etc. Another reason for the popularity of the smile as a mask is that it is the easiest expression of all facial expressions to voluntarily reproduce. For most people, it is harder to fake negative emotions. But not every situation allows you to mask the experienced emotion. In some cases, much more needs to be addressed difficult task: how to hide an emotion without falsifying another.

False explanation - a person may also not hide his feelings, especially if he fails to do this, but lie about their reason. By truthfully recognizing the emotion experienced, he misleads as to the cause of its occurrence.

Disorientation is the transmission of irrelevant true or false information in order to distract from the essence of the issue at hand. Anything is reported, but not about the essence of the matter. Such types of disorientation as flattery and slander are widely used. This technique is especially widely used by political leaders.

A half-truth is a mixture of significant true information with significant false information, a mixture of lies and reliable information; one-sided coverage of facts; inaccurate and vague wording of the provisions under discussion; references to sources with a disclaimer like: "I don't remember who said..."; distortion of a reliable statement with the help of value judgments, etc. The method of "half-truth" is most often used when it is necessary to get away from an undesirable turn of the dispute, when there are no reliable arguments, but it is imperative to challenge the opponent when necessary, contrary to common sense to persuade someone to a certain conclusion. The truth is told, but only partially.

Throwing False Evidence - People have been known to put much more trust in the ideas they have in their own heads than in the thoughts that come from another person. Therefore, experienced deceivers always try to avoid direct pressure on the victim, preferring an indirect, unobtrusive effect on his way of thinking. To do this, they seemingly accidentally throw him certain information, the conclusions of which he must draw himself. With a competent presentation of certain facts, a person himself must draw exactly the conclusions that the deceiver is counting on. At the same time, it is important that the principle is observed: evidence should be planted seemingly by chance, indirectly, only then they do not arouse suspicion. This suggests the conclusion: having received evidence of someone's guilt, think about whether there are people for whom such a development of events is favorable. It is possible that this information came to you not by chance.

Creation of a "non-existent reality" - with the help of small, but expressive details, a corner of a false space is created around the victim, which should give the words and actions of the scammers a special persuasiveness.

Masking (2) - represents an attempt to hide some essential information with the help of some non-essential information. There are four main masking options:

Disguising essential lies with non-essential lies.

Disguise of essential truth with non-essential lies.

Disguising an essential lie with a non-essential truth.

Masking Essential Truth with Non-Essential Truth.

False conclusion is another trick to avoid speaking lies. It consists in allowing the interlocutor to draw a conclusion from what was said himself, but at the same time lead him to ensure that this conclusion is false.

False interpretation - at the logical level, it is associated with the ability to introduce some false premises into consciousness. For their implementation, techniques such as the "presumption of normality" are used: the message a large number true and verifiable judgments, among which only one judgment is false. Because of this, it is rather difficult to detect an untrue judgment.

Change of context - a case from life is given, which was in reality. But this case is transferred to another context. This makes it possible to retain in memory many small details related to this case, which creates the illusion of the veracity of the story. There is no need to compose and specifically remember something.

False expectation effect: successful misrepresentation is based on it. The person who is deceived, given the received truthful information, predicts the development of events in the most probable direction, and the person who distorts the information acts in a way that violates his expectations. The purpose of the false message is to direct the interlocutor's thinking along the path of actualization of frequently encountered familiar situations. The deceived is always an unwitting accomplice of deception: he is a victim of his own inadequate ideas about reality. Also, deceivers can use true information, provoking the interlocutor to erroneous conclusions from it.

Deception "from the contrary" - the wolf caught the hare. And the hare asks him: "Do whatever you want with me, even eat me, just don't throw me into the thorn bush." “If he is so afraid of this,” the wolf thought, “then I will throw him there.” So the smart hare deceived the stupid wolf.

Telling the truth under the guise of deceit is another related method - telling the truth, but with overexposure, so that the victim does not believe it, i.e. telling the truth lies. Otto von Bismarck said: "If you want to fool the world, tell him the truth." Deceit with the truth is a rare form of swindle. It works very well. The main thing is that people, as a rule, do not expect such impudence. True, here it is necessary either to be able to control oneself well, or to be a good artist.

They deceive those who want to be deceived. In many cases, the victim of the deception misses the mistakes of the misrepresenter, giving his ambiguous behavior the most favorable interpretation. This is done to avoid the dire consequences that exposure may entail. Often the victim both wins and loses from false information or exposure, but these results are not necessarily balanced.

Deception by rearrangement - when a potential victim is forced to try on the role of a deceiver. As a result of various psychological manipulations, it begins to seem to the victim that he is deceiving others, while real scammers diligently maintain this illusion up to a certain point. And only in the final everything falls into place.

In any case, the key point in the analysis of whether this message is true or not is to determine the motives of the subject, to establish the reasons why he considers it necessary to keep silent about some facts known to him.

Perhaps one of the most important points in understanding a person by a person and recognizing a possible deception on his part is the definition of his motives. Consider: is there any reason or any interest in this specific person keep silent about any facts or even change them. No wonder the police in solving crimes always ask the question: who benefits from this? If you are going to conclude some kind of trade deal with a partner, it may be worth reading the text of the agreement more carefully, especially what is written in it in small print. And it is even better to write the text yourself so that there are no misunderstandings.

Willful, material misrepresentation; fraud is the second most common reason for a ban on entry by consular officers and is one of the most difficult areas of immigration law. This violation is punishable by draconian measures - a lifetime ban on entry into the United States. Therefore, consuls are warned to make such decisions with great caution, as they are subject to "rigorous scrutiny" and must be supported by a "significant evidence base."

The requirements of this section of the Immigration and Nationality Act (Section 212(a)(6)(C)(i)) have three elements. You need to set that:

1. the visa applicant misrepresented the facts;
2. he did it on purpose;
3. the misrepresentation is material.

Misrepresentation is the representation of information that is not true, made by the visa applicant either personally or by a representative on his behalf. It must be either an oral statement or a document presented, and only silence is not considered misrepresentation. Thus, if a travel agency or a visa consultant incorrectly filled out your visa application, this will not save you from liability. Similarly, the applicant will not be helped by the fact that he does not own English language and misunderstood the question. Any incorrect information provided by you will be considered a misrepresentation of facts.

However, one can try to challenge the rendered conclusion by proving that the distortion of facts was made unintentionally. A deliberate presentation is made with deliberate intent and awareness of its falsity. The analysis of how deliberately a person distorted the facts comes down to subjectivism. One cannot simply accuse someone that he should have known that he was lying: this is not enough to reach such a conclusion.

It is also difficult to determine how significant a misrepresentation of facts is. In general, the concept of “substantial” implies the distortion of some information that otherwise could give the consular officer a basis for refusing to issue a visa. In the context of a B visa application, examples of such misrepresentation include: concealing the existence of a relative living in the United States; false statement about the state of marriage; denial of having visited the United States in the past; concealment of a conviction for an immoral crime. But: if the consular officer is able to easily verify such information against his database, then such a misrepresentation cannot be the basis for a section 6C opinion. Also, in cases based on petitions filed with the Immigration Service, the consular officer can only issue a recommendation to the Department of Homeland Security that a finding of fraudulent material misrepresentation is possible, but the final decision rests with the Department. If the Department does not act on the above recommendation (for example, due to the expiration of the petition), this cannot be the basis for a formal decision under section 6C.

In some cases, where the decision is not contested, it is possible to obtain a removal of the entry ban. Applicants affected by such decisions are eligible for a non-immigrant travel ban waiver. Spouses, fiancees, and children of US citizens or permanent residents are eligible for an immigration waiver (parents are not included in this category of relatives).

It is clear from the above that, due to the complexity of making such decisions, they can and should be challenged in the absence of factual or legal grounds. The Client Cases section of our website provides examples of how we have helped so many people overcome the misconceptions of material misrepresentation and fraud. According to State Department statistics, about a third of such detentions are either canceled or result in the applicant being granted a waiver. Contact us and find out how we can help you too.

• General review
• 212(a)(4)(A) Public charge
• 212(a)(9)(B) Unlawful presence in the United States
• 212(a)(6)(C)(i) Material misrepresentation/fraud
• 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(1) Crime of moral turpitude
• 212(a)(6)(E) Alien smuggling
• 212(a)(2)(A)(i)(II) Drug offenses
• 212(a)(2)(C) Distribution of drugs
• expedited removal
• Humanitarian password

Client Cases

Most of the time of the two-year validity of her visa, citizen P. spent in the United States with her minor daughter, who is studying at one of the famous ballet schools. When P returned to her home country and tried to renew her visa, she was denied Section 214(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The consular officer accused her of working illegally in the United States and spending too much time in the country. He presented these claims to her despite the fact that two years earlier, when applying for a visa, she honestly notified the Embassy that she planned to stay with her daughter for two years and submitted bank statements confirming the availability of funds sufficient to live in the United States . In the next two years, the Embassy denied her a visa three times. After that, she contacted our firm, and we were able to find out information on her refusals, provide evidence to refute the statements of consular workers and help her in obtaining a new multiple-entry B-1 / B-2 visa.

Distortion of facts

As the founder of a new psychological science, Wilhelm Wundt is one of the most prominent figures in this field. Starting to study the history of psychology, more than one generation of students got acquainted with the traditional version of Wundt's scientific approach. And only a hundred years after Wundt founded psychology, new data were discovered, and the old facts "sounded" differently, which forced psychologists to admit that the generally accepted idea of ​​Wundt's system was erroneous. And after all, this fate befell Wundt, who was always afraid of being “misunderstood or misunderstood”! (Baldwin. 1980. P. 301)

In the 1970s and 1980s, this theme was picked up in many publications that said that the prevailing view of Wundt's psychology misinterpreted his position, attributing to him beliefs that were fundamentally at odds with his ideas (see ... e.g., Blumenthal 1975, 1979; Leahey 1981).

How could such a misunderstanding happen to a figure of this magnitude? Wundt wrote many books and articles in which he clearly stated his view of psychology. By referring to them, anyone could understand his position - anyone who reads German and has enough time to study a phenomenal amount of his work.

Come on, why bother yourself like that? Most psychologists consider it superfluous to read Wundt in the original, since his main ideas and results of scientific research are presented in English by his student E. B. Titchener, an English psychologist who worked almost all his life at Cornell University in New York. Titchener declared himself to be a devoted follower of Wundt and an authentic translator of his works. And it so happened that Titchener's method, which he called structuralism, was taken as a reflection of the system of his teacher, Wundt. It was believed that studying the Titchener method automatically means turning to Wundt.

Later, researchers who studied the works of Wundt questioned the legitimacy of such a formulation of the question. Titchener did not accurately present Wundt's position. It is quite obvious that he translated only those extracts from his works that serve as confirmation of his own constructions. Apparently, he could somewhat modify Wundt's ideas so that they were consistent with his own, which would make them more weighty, since these ideas were supported by the founder of psychology himself.

Titchener's inaccurate and incomplete version of Wundt's system was adopted by several generations, not only because of the position that Titchener occupied in American psychology, but also because the latter's student, J. Boring, was at one time the leading historian of psychology. According to Boring, Titchener was the successor of the Leipzig school of Wundt. And although Boring himself is credited with saying that Titchener's work "differed from [the school of] Wundt" (Boring. 1950, p. 419), many psychologists who studied the history of their subject in Boring's A History of Exiperimental Psychology) of 1929 and 1950 editions identified the systems of Titchener and Wundt.

So, the view of Wundt's psychology, which had been offered to American students for a long time, turned out to be a myth rather than a fact, a legend rather than the truth. Beginning with the formal emergence of psychology. For almost a hundred years, teachers of the history of psychology have been making mistakes themselves and misleading others. This also applies to psychology textbooks (including previous editions of the book you are holding in your hands). This is yet another example of how distorted historical data can affect our understanding of past events. As we said in Chapter 1, history is not a frozen science; new discoveries change views on seemingly well-known facts.