What is a half-truth? Isn’t it just a lie? Well, I must say I would agree with you, but follow me as I take you down a path of understanding. Of understanding how we are often told half-truths … and more importantly, how we do not notice.
To start, let us use a straightforward example.
Half-Truth –
She said – He told me he would help me move.
He did not show up to help me move.
First – are both statements true? Let’s say both those statements are independently true. Without question.
As presented, the implication is negative toward him. He lied, deceived, etc. He said one thing and did another … or did not follow through. Regardless, the implication is negative.
Even though both statements are completely true, what if there were another true statement between them that was left out? What might that be and what would it change?
Well, let’s restate it with the ‘middle of the sandwich’ this time … with all the truths included.
Whole Truth –
She said – He told me he would help me move.
I did not tell him when I was moving.
He did not show up to help me move.
Did that change things? Completely. Whereas the first implied that he did not keep his word, the second (the whole truth) indicates something completely different. Actually, it could mean a few different things. It can be said as simple fact – just showing what occurred with no emotion involved. Or… it can be used to justify/defend why he did not show up to help with the move. If you take it further you might say in the first (half-truth), the middle part was purposefully left out to ‘make her case’; whereas in the second (whole truth) all truths were included – providing a complete and accurate picture.
Half-Truths are called half-truths not because they are true but because truth is included; but not all truth is included. My father used to call similar statements ‘lying with statistics’. Meaning that if you set the situation up correctly you are able to make statistics describe/support almost anything. There are those that might do the same with a bible – pick a passage to justify what they want but conveniently leave out those passages (which they are aware of) that nullify their position.
The definition of half-truth is: a statement that conveys only part of the truth, especially one used deliberately in order to deceive someone. Oxford Languages dictionary.
Why would people do this and what does it have to do with bikes? Hang with me for another example – I am getting closer.
Many years ago, I was in Graduate School, and we were talking about research and how it should be used accurately but how it could be distorted. This is a true example. Yes, I will be vague as not to bash since it is older research. A lady showed us research results that stated that if you agitated product A on your body part that it would remove unwanted substances that were unhealthy whereas if you did not, those unhealthy substances left behind could (would was implied) lead to negative health consequences. There was a research project to prove that. She cited it. This was their marketing campaign. Was that truth or half-truth? It sounds true. It sounds logical. It is a product that has long been used in this manner. Remember, she gave me the name of the research. The only way to know for certain is to read the actual research. I will save you that time. It was half-truth. How? Did they reveal the complete research findings or only the parts that helped them sell their product? The truth is the research project had 3 groups. 1 – no treatment, 2 – treatment with Product A and 3 – treatment with water (called a control). Usually research has a control – to control for exactly what happened here. In medicine it can be a placebo – a pill that does nothing – but the person does not know, so it eliminates any bias.
In the research case above, the treatment with Product A and the treatment with water produced the same result. So, when their marketing campaign told you that treating with Product A eliminated XXX and is healthier than not treating … they were telling you a half-truth. It is accurate and true. BUT – they were leaving out that if you used water to treat, you would have the same result as using product A. Of course, they are not selling water, so they did not tell you. Is that lying? Well, you can play semantics all you want but it is certainly deceiving. It was the agitation of liquid on the body part that eliminated the unhealthy substances not Product A. Agitation with Product A or agitation with water = same result. But they told you that agitating with Product A worked. Half-Truth. If you are ‘all about’ the health of people you would tell them the whole truth but if your goal is simply to sell a product – you do not. You go with a half-truth.
How many times have you seen an ad where the research was listed and you went and read the research? You just trusted the people selling the product, didn’t you? The people that benefit from getting your $$$. It is worse because what they just said (above) without saying it is, “pay us so you can use a product full of chemicals on your body that will help you no more than plain water.” No long-term research regarding the effect of those chemicals on your body. No care that those (and other) chemicals, as well as other natural resources are being used and put in our environment to make Product A; which is no more effective than water. Hmmmmm.
I frequently hear ads that say something like, “in tests against the leading brand, ours was more effective”. First, they are not saying it was the most effective product in that industry, just better than the leading brand (which they never name). You mean the one with the best marketing department not the best research department? Or, did they find their product was not as good as another ‘less popular’ brand? So they were unable to say their product was the best, so instead said their product was better than the leading brand … leaving out other brands that were better than all. If their brand was better than all they could have said, “of all products tested including the leading brand ours was best.” They left that part out. Even that statement ‘of all products tested’ leaves holes. They only speak of their product against the leading brand … and only in one component of product use. Hmmm. It makes me think they are not telling me the whole truth. What about you?
Makes you think.Hopefully.
Have you seen the movie called ‘Pain Hustlers”? Watch it. It is a good movie and describes what I am saying quite well.
Ok, I hear you – you are being patient but still have not connected it to cycling. Thank you for being patient. It is coming.
Products. Guess who usually pays for the research? Yes – the company that wants to sell you that product. This is true most of the time but not always. Why? Because that is who stands to gain. Regardless, it should make you stop for a moment to think about what they are saying.
Examples?
Tires. Bicycle tires have long been tested on steel drums for speed etc. A steel drum is completely different than the road and the variables that make a tire faster on a steel drum are different than the variables that make a tire faster on the road (in real life/conditions). Are they telling you that? Or just saying, “in laboratory tests XX tire is faster/ saves ## watts than YY tire.” You think this is past? I read an article today rating tire speed using what method? You guessed it – a steel drum.
Ergogenic Aids (performance enhancing products – spray, drink, food, etc). XXX substance increased endurance in YY research project. Stop. Did you read the research? Or just trust the ad from product ZZZ? Or did you trust the celebrity spokesperson who is getting paid to tell you to buy it? Let’s say you did read the research, and it is accurate. You say great – I will try ZZZ product that has XXX substance in there. Wait, the company did not tell you ZZZ product has less than the amount of XXX substance than needed to produce that effect in the research. Nor did they tell you it will make you stop to pee – thus wasting more time than saved. Hmmmm. Additionally, did you notice that the research was in a controlled environment that does not really match the real world? Hmmmmm.
Bottom brackets/bearings. True story: about a decade ago a well-known and well-respected maker of cranks/bottom brackets told me that I would need to check/service my bottom bracket every 3-6 months … more often if I rode in wet or dusty conditions. Really? I really did make him say that again; and told him how ridiculous that was. I did not doubt the truth of it, just how ridiculous it was to make a product that poorly. It came on the bike I bought, but that crank/bottom bracket was promoted as “more advanced, more effective and faster”. Well, it might be faster the first 3 months, but once it got a few bits of dust in there, it was actually slower … and took more time to maintain. To a professional racer that can have that part changed out for each race – maybe worth it? To the general public – I would say it is not worth it. The watt savings are minuscule when it is new and fall off so fast it becomes slower than the ‘old style’ within months. Hmmm. I have bottom brackets from the 80’s that still roll smooth … and ‘current’ standard bottom brackets I own fail in short time. Maybe it is priorities. But in the ads, they never say it needs service every 3-6 months. Why? Because that is a deal breaker. So, they focus on everything except longevity. I think it is why bottom bracket standards have finally made a move back toward something more reasonable.
Remember, when someone is trying to sell you something they are telling you what they believe will sell that product and they are also leaving out what will not. After all they have only so much time/space in an ad and want to tell you what will convince you to purchase. This car gets great gas mileage – think of the money you will save (while leaving out the amount of money it takes for basic repairs that more than offsets any money saved). The bike is more aero and thus saves you watts … but the position not being one you can hold thus you are negating all aero savings with your body position and end up slower in the end.
The bike is stiff, wheels are softer, tires have more grip, tires resist road debris, chain has less resistance, rims are easier to make consistent. An advantage always has a disadvantage. You just need to be aware which advantages are important to you. They might not be talking about variables that are important to you, so you do not know that they compromised what was most important to you to get something that was not as important to you. Critical thinking. Critical listening.
Sometimes they are required to tell you the ‘side effects.’ This is the case with medicine. You have heard it in ads – the speech is much faster as they tell you the required ‘negatives.’ They have even made fun of it now in ads as they transition to the fast-talking side effects and made you laugh about it instead of listening to it. I am not saying they are dumb. Or in a print ad – that is in fine print at the bottom of the page… it is why it is called the fine print. They are certainly not encouraging you to be informed by hiding the fine print … but they can tell you that you were informed and they publicly published the information. Ahhh – humans.
I am not trying to cast a shadow over the marketing/sales worlds. I am trying to open everyone’s eyes to the reality. Listen to what is said; in interpersonal conversations, in business conversations, and in sales venues. The statement of, ”sell the sizzle not the steak” sure rings true. Selling an emotion works – so they work on your emotions and are vague with the facts. Or limit the sharing of only the facts that guide you where they want you to go – which is often to put money in their pocket.
Half-Truths, they are everywhere. They are, at best, a waste of time. They can destroy a reputation, waste your money, waste your time, frustrate you or just generally confuse you. It is sad that it is a ‘go to’ method. We cannot control what others say or do, but you can be more critical in your thinking and in your questions. I sound pretty cynical, don’t I?
Sorry to bust anyone’s bubble. I know this is not a new concept or information. I hope it has put it in our mind so we are able to be wise in how we listen and more specific in how we question, so we do not get taken advantage of by those that would use half-truths to deceive/manipulate.
A half-truth is made of true statements but lacks the whole truth; sometimes a small, albeit significant, truth. This is where it gets its name. The result though is that at best it is an attempt at misleading/deceiving … which I would categorize as a lie. A whole lie.
Remember the definition of half-truth is: a statement that conveys only part of the truth, especially one used deliberately in order to deceive someone. Oxford Languages dictionary.
Some people have said it more creatively – here are a few:
“½ truth + ½ truth = whole lie”, Author unknown.
“Beware of the half-truth. You may have gotten hold of the wrong half.” Author unknown.
“Half-truths are like half a brick – they can be thrown farther.” Hyman Rickover
Or, as Mark Twain said, “All half-truth is the most cowardly of lies.”
Ok – you endured until the end, so lets end this with some humor. Many years ago I saw a comic strip in a health publication. First scene shows an ad for a product and in big letters says FAT FREE. In the second scene the company is saying to the FDA. “But it is true. The fat is free. We are only charging for the other ingredients.”
