Talk:Pathological lying

Psychology Low‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Information from this article appears on Portal:Medicine in the Did you know section.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Victor Morton (2016-10-30). "Hillary Clinton photo illustrates Google results for 'pathological lying'". The Washington Times. Retrieved 2016-11-02.

Using the DSM 3?

From the way I read that portion, it sounds like the DSM III is up to date. It's not. Neither compulsive lying or pathological lying is in the most recent version (DSM V). If DSM III is mentioned, it should probably also be mentioned that pathological lying is not recognized by the most up to date version. (This is my first edit to a talk page, so if I messed something up I'm sorry) Micheladitmore (talk) 22:31, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pathological lying as a name?

The article refers in several places to "pathological lying" as though it were the topic of the article, and indeed pathological liar redirects here, but this name is not listed among the bold topic names at the top of the article, and is used before it is ever explained. It appears that User:Mattisse removed it in this revision. The article should either mention it as a name, explain why it's not a valid name, or a new article should be created for pathological lying, if it's a distinct concept. I'm also confused by the introduction's treatment of it as a legal concept, whereas other parts of the article treat it as a psychological concept. Consistency is needed. Dcoetzee 08:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed by undoing a revision that made a number of apparently unhelpful changes. 204.167.92.26 (talk) 20:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tusk Bilasimo (talk • contribs) 23:38, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference citations all depend on Charles C. Dike

This is too much from a single source. There should be other authorities to cite besides Charles C. Dike. Regards, —mattisse (Talk) 19:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A simplified example

Basically ,i think this article could do with some examples, since the behavior is quite aberrant compared to usual actions. So, I was thinking something like this imagined conversation:

"I was diagnosed as a pathological liar." "Really?" "No."

I think it shows just how drastically odd even simple matters can become with such conditions. But someone should probably come up with something that doesnt sound like the end of a bad joke; its the idea thats important. 74.132.249.206 (talk) 21:07, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In writing it is always going to look like a bad joke - but I know exactly what you mean: the PL just makes various bizarre, jarring, unnecessarily untrue statements during a conversation, all the while impassively (or perhaps with a rictus smile) scanning your face to gauge how you are going to react.

The awkwardness is not a bug but a feature, as a normal person will become increasingly desperate to be shot of the chat.

How? That depends. When they are trying to get you to believe they are best mates with a celeb, you can just pretend to believe them (you have to be convincingly gushing, though, otherwise they will be going for bigger and bigger improbabilities to get a rise out of you). But if they want money or a commitment, you have to extricate yourself quickly while making a vague promise along the lines of "let me think about it and I'll get back to you." Do not lend them money; they will not pay you back but use the outstanding loan as a pretext to trap you in further conversations. 2A01:CB0C:1704:9A00:619E:80E9:E30A:BB60 (talk) 10:04, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why the link to Faulty Towers?

Probably a dig.. 76.106.14.56 (talk) 19:33, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fawtly Towser?

Perfect! Each episode is a story about a lie, and the lies to cover up the damage, in spite of the consequences. Brilliant example! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.43.43.66 (talk) 09:14, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But the lies are always told to escape the consequences of telling the truth, which are set up by a situation that has crept up on Basil outside of his volition. This general type of lie is explicitly ruled out by the criteria outlined in the article. It is true that there is often an element of self-aggrandisement in Basil's lies, but again, this mostly happens when he is put on the spot by the Polly or Sybil who are out to demean him: "I thought you said you spoke Spanish?" -"Well, yes, er, classical Spanish, not the dialect he [Manuel] seems to have picked up somewhere." 2A01:CB0C:1704:9A00:619E:80E9:E30A:BB60 (talk) 09:30, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Foster the People Single

There's a new single by Foster the People that came out today titled "Psuedologia Fantastica". Just figured I'd leave a note here if the traffic suddenly raises. --Nicereddy (talk) 05:03, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 22 June 2014

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move per request as the common name--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:25, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudologia fantastica → Pathological lying – Out of the 10 refs in the article, 8 refer to "pathological lying" and only 2 to "pseudologia fantastica" which is an exotic obscure phrase. --Relisted. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:36, 29 June 2014 (UTC) – Penbat (talk) 20:50, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:08, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Better discuss it. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:08, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move per WP:COMMONNAME. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:11, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Dicklyon (talk) 03:40, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

compulsive lying vs pathological lying

In the first line of this article, pathological lying and compulsive lying are stated as one in the same. However there are many articles that seem to suggest the two are different e.g http://www.truthaboutdeception.com/lying-and-deception/confronting-a-partner/compulsive-lying/types-of-liars.html http://www.stuffyoushouldknow.com/podcasts/lying-liars-how-lying-works-liar/

Possibly some sites are incorrectly using the term or pathological lying is not a universal term. This article should really do more to address these inconstancies.

Pathological lying is not the only form of lying, links should be made in the other forms of lying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.164.228 (talk) 14:39, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 3 November 2016

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

For lack of a better place to inquire, I am wondering whether any research will be done to find out what wikipedia member edited this page to associate a photo of Hillary Clinton. Obviously, this is not an edit request. Bkernan (talk) 00:01, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done @Bkernan: You explicitly stated that this isn't an edit request, and thus shouldn't have used the edit request template. I think that WikiBlame will tell you what you want. Ppp ery 00:10, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sentence structure

Under the characteristics heading, could this sentence be split into 2-3 sentences? "Some psychiatrists distinguish compulsive from pathological lying, while others consider them equivalent; yet others deny the existence of compulsive lying altogether; this remains an area of considerable controversy.[4]" LEVcapustudent (talk) 08:51, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Diagnostics proof

Under diagnostics it reads "It has been shown through lie detector tests that PF (pseudologia fantastica) patients exhibit arousal, stress, and guilt from their deception". Where has it been shown? Who has shown it? LEVcapustudent (talk) 08:59, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Section on Diagnosis

The first paragraph is well written.

The second paragraph only has a single source (which is the same as the last source in the preceding paragraph and doesn't support the paragraph's claims about lie detectors), is written in a rambling, informal style, inconsistently switches between the terms Pathological lying/Pseudologia fantastica and was largely added in a single edit.

The third paragraph is worse, and contains no references, and again was added largely in a single edit.

I think both paragraphs should be removed. Thoughts? GrumpyMammoth (talk) 12:06, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Literature

List: https://archivalia.hypotheses.org/100130 --Historiograf (talk) 16:18, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Haltlose personality disorder

The article referes to Haltlose personality disorder as being in ICD-10, but ICD-10 has been replaced by ICD-11 which eliminated Haltlose personality disorder. I think this passage in the article gives the impression that Haltlose personality disorder is still considered a valid mental illness classification. --Westwind273 (talk) 05:24, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The trouble is that the primary literature reference is to a study from an era when the terminology was still in use. It seems obvious that Haltlose ("inhibitionless one") overlaps with what we might now describe as a reckless psychopath. Haltlose stood in contrast to the empathy-free psychopath, but of course psychopaths can combine narcissism, recklessness, and lack of empathy in pretty much any sort of mixture. Moreover, some sort lack of inhibitions can also occur in many other syndromes (ranging from autism to bipolarity) and hence Haltlose is not very useful as a descriptive term. 2A01:CB0C:1704:9A00:619E:80E9:E30A:BB60 (talk) 09:46, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Addictive behaviour, Dupers' Delight

The article could discuss more explicitly the link to other compulsive behaviours, which all seem to involve limbic reward pathways and underpin various kinds of addictive behaviour. It may also point to "Duper's Delight" - a series of micro-expressions that betray how pleased the habitual (and possibly pathological) liar is with getting away with it.

On a slightly related note, the social maladaptiveness of the condition is not clear-cut. A single psycho-physiological pathology may well be shared between person A, who gets ostracised and ends up homeless, and person B, who pumps up the stock of his vapourware tech company, and awards himself a bonus greater than the GDP of a small country. 2A01:CB0C:1704:9A00:619E:80E9:E30A:BB60 (talk) 09:36, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]