Withholding Information Quotes

Withholding information is the essence of tyranny. Control of the flow of information is the tool of the dictatorship.

When you are lying, when you are keeping a secret, when you are withholding information or feelings in any moment, you are always doing that to protect something meaningless.

If there is no honesty, there is no relationship. The only degree to which there is a relationship is the degree to which you are honest. Expressing your clear desires does not make you a dictator and you telling what you think, feel, and what you want or don’t want, is just called being honest. It doesn't control him at all. You’re trying to control others by withholding information by not getting involved and by not being honest. Withholding information is a form of manipulation. It is dishonest and it’s destructive to a relationship.

You do not keep the audience's interest by giving it information, but by withholding information ....

Thou shalt not distort, delay, or withhold information.

We are not encouraged, on a daily basis, to pay careful attention to the animals we eat. On the contrary, the meat, dairy, and egg industries all actively encourage us to give thought to our own immediate interest (taste, for example, or cheap food) but not to the real suffering involved. They do so by deliberately withholding information and by cynically presenting us with idealized images of happy animals in beautiful landscapes, scenes of bucolic happiness that do not correspond to anything in the real world. The animals involved suffer agony because of our ignorance. The least we owe them is to lessen that ignorance.

Separating me from my charge and withholding information will only cause Sophie harm. Secrets hinder my ability to protect her.

The illusion of depth in a character is created simply by withholding information from an audience. A character will seem complex and intriguing only if we don't know the reasons why.

The kind of lying that is most deadly is withholding, or keeping back information from someone we think would be affected by it.

Power, today, comes from sharing information, not withholding it.

But did it count as deception if it was done in the name of self-protection? Withholding vulnerable information was a habit born of survival. I’d been lulled into letting my guard down before, only to later regret it, the admissions used against me as I bore her wrath.

A first kiss is the demarcation line: the same information that a moment ago felt private, all of a suddens seems unfair to withhold. And with that exchange came more.

If you have trouble withholding personal information from nosy questioners, you need to get over this. This is how abusers take advantage of you in relationships and in life.

The lines between his brows smooth. “I need you to know that no matter what information I hold, you trust me, love me enough to realize I’d never let it hurt you. I’m not the easiest person to know, but I’ve learned my lesson, believe me. Even if it’s classified, I won’t withhold any information that affects your agency.” He swallows, then balances his weight on one arm and runs the back of his hand down the side of my cheek. “I need to know you won’t run, that you know you’ll never have to.

is critical for that relationship to be consensual. You must give your partner the opportunity to make an informed decision to be in a relationship with you. If you lie or withhold critical information, you remove your partner's ability to consent to be in the relationship.

I had long ago learned that withholding information from Rosie was unwise. The reduction in her stress levels was more than offset by the increase when she detected deceit.

I’m through allowing myself to be confined to so-called ‘women’s work.’ I’m also through with patronizing men giving me half-truths and withholding information. That will end here and now.

A physician violates his duty to his patient and subjects himself to liability if he withholds any facts which are necessary to form the basis of an intelligent consent by the patient to the proposed treatment.” He wrote that there needed to be “full disclosure of facts necessary to an informed consent.

But withholding information about vulnerabilities in US systems so that they can be exploited in foreign ones creates a schism in the government that pits agencies that hoard and exploit zero days against those, like the Department of Homeland Security, that are supposed to help secure and protect US critical infrastructure and government systems.

... those selling abortion don't want them to have [the facts]," Virginia said heatedly. "Besides the Supreme Court doesn't agree with you. They judges seem to think we poor women would fall apart if we knew the facts, so they decided women don't have the right to know the full truth." She shook her head. "They've made it legal to withhold vital information, even when a woman requests it, for heaven's sake!

The things that are “freely given to us by God” (1 Corinthians 2:12) are the only things we need to know now. A lot of the reason we grow so upset and disturbed about not hearing specifically from God is that we want what isn’t “freely given.” When we pray, “Lord, show me Your will,” we’re often asking for things that He knows are not pertinent for another twenty years. We want God to paint the whole picture right away, but He wisely withholds certain truths and information from us until we need it, when we can actually do something with it besides just mess it up.

You do not keep the audience’s interest by giving it information, but by withholding information,

Withholding information makes my imagination flourish. Just tell me the Truth so I do not have to fabricate monstrous conclusions.

For my twenty-first birthday gift, he therefore punched me in the kidneys, kicked me as I lay on the floor until I passed out and then gave me a black eye when I came round, for “withholding information

Lilith watched them enviously. They didn’t lie often to humans because their sensory language had left them with no habit of lying—only of withholding information, refusing contact. Humans, on the other hand, lied easily and often. They could not trust one another. They could not trust one of their own who seemed too close to aliens, who stripped off her clothing and lay down on the ground to help her jailer.

While dragging herself up she had to hang onto the rail. Her twisted progress was that of a cripple. Once on the open deck she felt the solid impact of the black night, and the mobility of the accidental home she was about to leave. Although Lucette had never died before—no, dived before, Violet—from such a height, in such a disorder of shadows and snaking reflections, she went with hardly a splash through the wave that humped to welcome her. That perfect end was spoiled by her instinctively surfacing in an immediate sweep — instead of surrendering under water to her drugged lassitude as she had planned to do on her last night ashore if it ever did come to this. The silly girl had not rehearsed the technique of suicide as, say, free-fall parachutists do every day in the element of another chapter. Owing to the tumultuous swell and her not being sure which way to peer through the spray and the darkness and her own tentaclinging hair—t,a,c,l—she could not make out the lights of the liner, an easily imagined many-eyed bulk mightily receding in heartless triumph. Now I’ve lost my next note. Got it. The sky was also heartless and dark, and her body, her head,and particularly those damned thirsty trousers, felt clogged with Oceanus Nox, n,o,x. At every slap and splash of cold wild salt, she heaved with anise-flavored nausea and there was an increasing number, okay, or numbness, in her neck and arms. As she began losing track of herself, she thought it proper to inform a series of receding Lucettes—telling them to pass it on and on in a trick-crystal regression—that what death amounted to was only a more complete assortment of the infinite fractions of solitude. She did not see her whole life flash before her as we all were afraid she might have done; the red rubber of a favorite doll remained safely decomposed among the myosotes of an un-analyzable brook; but she did see a few odds and ends as she swam like a dilettante Tobakoff in a circle of brief panic and merciful torpor. She saw a pair of new vairfurred bedroom slippers, which Brigitte had forgotten to pack; she saw Van wiping his mouth before answering, and then, still withholding the answer, throwing his napkin on the table as they both got up; and she saw a girl with long black hair quickly bend in passing to clap her hands over a dackel in a half-tom wreath. A brilliantly illumined motorboat was launched from the not-too-distant ship with Van and the swimming coach and the oilskin-hooded Toby among the would-be saviors; but by that time a lot of sea had rolled by and Lucette was too tired to wait. Then the night was filled with the rattle of an old but still strong helicopter. Its diligent beam could spot only the dark head of Van, who, having been propelled out of the boat when it shied from its own sudden shadow, kept bobbing and bawling the drowned girl’s name in the black, foam-veined, complicated waters.

The people of England have been led in Mesopotamia into a trap from which it will be hard to escape with dignity and honour. They have been tricked into it by a steady withholding of information. The Baghdad communiques are belated, insincere, incomplete. Things have been far worse than we have been told, our administration more bloody and inefficient than the public knows. It is a disgrace to our imperial record, and may soon be too inflamed for any ordinary cure. We are to-day not far from a disaster.

When composing a story, withhold the essential information—do not mention whatever it is that causes the characters to act as they do.

If we don't learn from each others experience, we are forced to listen to people who have economic reasons to withhold critical information from us all. The other option is to wait for the government to tell us what their financial supporters want us to know.

They always try to trick you, deliberately throwing extraneous plot lines just to confuse and misguide you, withholding important information until the last chapter, using vague and misleading descriptions so you don't notice something that should be plain as day.

Random House, in the catbird seat, since it gets to recite last, declares in 1966, “The use of like in place of as is universally condemned by teachers and editors, notwithstanding its wide currency, especially in advertising slogans. Do as I say, not as I do does not admit of like instead of as. In an occasional idiomatic phrase, it is somewhat less offensive when substituted for as if (He raced down the street like crazy), but this example is clearly colloquial and not likely to be found in any but the most informal written contexts.” I find this excellent. It even tells who will hurt you if you make a mistake, and it withholds aid and comfort from those friends of cancer and money, those greedy enemies of the language who teach our children to say after school, “Winston tastes good like a cigarette should.

Examples of passive-aggressive behavior in relationships include repeated instances of: • Lateness • Procrastination • Forgetfulness • Sullenness • Stubbornness • Refusal to comprehend • Resistance to suggestions • Intentional withholding of needed information • Talking behind someone’s back • Hostile sarcasm*

Who would believe that a teacher who withholds the information students need to pass a course merely permitted them to fail? What if that teacher said, "I didn't cause them to fail; they did it on their own"? Would anyone accept that explanation or would they accuse the teacher of not merely permitting the students to fail, but actually causing them to fail? And what if the teacher argued that he actually planned and rendered the students' failure certain for a good reason—to uphold academic standards and show what a great teacher he is by demonstrating how necessary his information is for students to pass? Would not these admissions only deepen everyone's conviction that the teacher is morally and professionally wrong?

And even if we are inscrutable, what does that make white people? Are white people ever referred to as inscrutable? No, you would say that a white person who is hard to read has a poker face, which has a positive connotation, a strategic one, suggesting a careful withholding of information, whereas we are just inscrutable because you white people believe that we always have something to hide

1. You are constantly second-guessing yourself. 2. You ask yourself, “Am I too sensitive?” a dozen times a day. 3. You often feel confused and even crazy at work. 4. You’re always apologizing to your mother, father, boyfriend, boss. 5. You wonder frequently if you are a “good enough” girlfriend/wife/employee/friend/daughter. 6. You can’t understand why, with so many apparently good things in your life, you aren’t happier. 7. You buy clothes for yourself, furnishings for your apartment, or other personal purchases with your partner in mind, thinking about what he would like instead of what would make you feel great. 8. You frequently make excuses for your partner’s behavior to friends and family. 9. You find yourself withholding information from friends and family so you don’t have to explain or make excuses. 10. You know something is terribly wrong, but you can never quite express what it is, even to yourself. 11. You start lying to avoid the put-downs and reality twists. 12. You have trouble making simple decisions. 13. You think twice before bringing up certain seemingly innocent topics of conversation. 14. Before your partner comes home, you run through a checklist in your head to anticipate anything you might have done wrong that day. 15. You have the sense that you used to be a very different person—more confident, more fun-loving, more relaxed. 16. You start speaking to your husband through his secretary so you don’t have to tell him things you’re afraid might upset him. 17. You feel as though you can’t do anything right. 18. Your kids begin trying to protect you from your partner. 19. You find yourself furious with people you’ve always gotten along with before. 20. You feel hopeless and joyless.

I need you to know that no matter what information I hold, you trust me, love me enough to realize I'd never let it hurt you. I'm not the easiest person to know, but I've learned my lesson, believe me. Even if it's classified, I won't withhold any information that affects your agency." He swallows, then balances his weight on one arm and runs the back of his hand down the side of my cheek. "I need to know you won't run, that you know you'll never have to.

Nookie.” I giggle because the word itself is funny but hearing her say it makes it even more so. “I’m going to give you some advice because you’re still a new wife—and because my son can be a little shit at times. I know; I’m his mum.” She looks around as though she’s about to reveal top-secret information. “Nookie equals power and there’s a reason he wants it from you all the time. It levels the playing field. Don’t like something he’s doing? Take the nookie away. Get the results you want. Need him to see things your way but he refuses? Withhold the nookie and he’ll make the fastest attitude adjustment you’ve ever seen. Want your husband to retire because he’s going to work himself into an early grave and miss his grandchildren growing up the way he missed his kids? Close the gates of nookie and get your husband home with you instead of burying him. That’s how you work it, darling. You use the power of the nookie to get the results you want.

We are so impressed by honesty, we have forgotten the virtues of politeness, this word defined not as a cynical withholding of important information for the sake of harm, but as a dedication to not rubbing someone else up against the true, hurtful aspects of our nature. It is ultimately no great sign of kindness to insist on showing someone our entire selves at all times. A dedication to maintaining boundaries and editing our pronouncements belongs to love as much as a capacity to show ourselves as we really are. And if one suspects (and one should, rather regularly, if the relationship is a good one) that one’s partner might be lying too (about what they are thinking about, about how they judge one’s work, about where they were last night …), it is perhaps best not to take up arms and lay into them like a sharp, relentless inquisitor, however intensely one yearns to do just that. It may be kinder, wiser and perhaps more in the true spirit of love to pretend one simply didn’t notice.

We tell the truth even if it hurts. When talking to an entrepreneur, an LP [limited partner], a partner, or each other, we strive to tell the truth. We are open and honest. We do not withhold material information or tell half truths. Even if the truth will be difficult to hear or to say, we err on the side of truth in the face of difficult consequences. We do not, however, dwell on trivial truths with the intention of hurting people’s feelings or making them look bad. We tell the truth to make people better not worse.

That much hope had brought Max to his knees. Apparently if he didn’t let himself weep like a little girl to relieve this emotional pressure building inside of him, he was in danger of hitting the ground in a dead faint. Jules crouched beside him, checking for his pulse. “Are you okay? You’re not, like, having a heart attack or a stroke, are you?” “Fuck you,” Max managed, swatting his hand away. “I’m not that old.” “If you really think heart disease is about age, then you definitely need to make an appointment with a cardiologist, like tomorrow—” “I just . . . tripped,” Max said, but when he tried to get up, he found he still hadn’t regained his equilibrium. Shit. “Or maybe you needed to get on your knees to pray,” Jules said as Max put his head down and waited for the dizziness to pass. “That excuse sounds a little more believable, if you want to know the truth. ‘Hello God? It’s me, Max. I know I’ve been lax in my attention to You over the past forty-mmph years, but if You give me a second chance, I’ll make absolutely certain this time around I’ll tell Gina just how much I love her. Because withholding that information sure as hell didn’t do either of us one bit of good, now did it?’” “I did what I—“ Max stopped himself. To hell with that. “I don’t have to explain myself to you.” “That’s right, you don’t.” Jules ignored Max’s attempt to push him away, and helped him to his feet. “But you might want to work up some kind of Forgive-Me-For-Being-a-Butthead speech for when you come face to face with Gina. Although, I’ve got to admit that the falling to the knees thing might make an impact. You’ll definitely get big points for drama.

...It wasn't that I couldn't open up; it was just that I needed to control the information. I needed to think about it in advance, I needed to look at the pages of my journal in the middle of the night and consider which ones to type. But I was disappointed. I wished I could do it over again and feel what it would have been like not to hold back. I had been given a chance to be known, and I had not taken it...Everyone else had taken a risk...and come out closer. ...for years I'd still be standing on that stage, not knowing what I wanted, to withhold or to reveal, to yield or to protect. Refusal was safer: less risk...The gestures I committed to were self-denial and containment. But was that really what I wanted? Because for years I'd still wonder what it would be like not to hold tight...what it would be like to say.

Rule by decree has conspicuous advantages for the domination of far-flung territories with heterogeneous populations and for a policy of oppression. Its efficiency is superior simply because it ignores all intermediary stages between issuance and application, and because it prevents political reasoning by the people through the withholding of information. It can easily overcome the variety of local customs and need not rely on the necessarily slow process of development of general law. It is most helpful for the establishment of a centralized administration because it overrides automatically all matters of local autonomy. If rule by good laws has sometimes been called the rule of wisdom, rule by appropriate decrees may rightly be called the rule of cleverness. For it is clever to reckon with ulterior motives and aims, and it is wise to understand and create by deduction from generally accepted principles. Government by bureaucracy has to be distinguished from the mere outgrowth and deformation of civil services which frequently accompanied the decline of the nation-state—as, notably, in France. There the administration has survived all changes in regime since the Revolution, entrenched itself like a parasite in the body politic, developed its own class interests, and become a useless organism whose only purpose appears to be chicanery and prevention of normal economic and political development. There are of course many superficial similarities between the two types of bureaucracy, especially if one pays too much attention to the striking psychological similarity of petty officials. But if the French people have made the very serious mistake of accepting their administration as a necessary evil, they have never committed the fatal error of allowing it to rule the country—even though the consequence has been that nobody rules it. The French atmosphere of government has become one of inefficiency and vexation; but it has not created and aura of pseudomysticism. And it is this pseudomysticism that is the stamp of bureaucracy when it becomes a form of government. Since the people it dominates never really know why something is happening, and a rational interpretation of laws does not exist, there remains only one thing that counts, the brutal naked event itself. What happens to one then becomes subject to an interpretation whose possibilities are endless, unlimited by reason and unhampered by knowledge. Within the framework of such endless interpretive speculation, so characteristic of all branches of Russian pre-revolutionary literature, the whole texture of life and world assume a mysterious secrecy and depth. There is a dangerous charm in this aura because of its seemingly inexhaustible richness; interpretation of suffering has a much larger range than that of action for the former goes on in the inwardness of the soul and releases all the possibilities of human imagination, whereas the latter is consistently checked, and possibly led into absurdity, by outward consequence and controllable experience.

In this world, a subordinate owes fealty principally to his immediate boss. This means that a subordinate must not overcommit his boss, lest his boss “get on the hook” for promises that cannot be kept. He must keep his boss from making mistakes, particularly public ones; he must keep his boss informed, lest his boss get “blindsided.” If one has a mistake-prone boss, there is, of course, always the temptation to let him make a fool of himself, but the wise subordinate knows that this carries two dangers—he himself may get done in by his boss’s errors, and, perhaps more important, other managers will view with the gravest sus- picion a subordinate who withholds crucial information from his boss even if they think the boss is a nincompoop. A subordinate must also not circumvent his boss nor ever give the appearance of doing so. He must never contradict his boss’s judgment in public. To violate the last admonition is thought to constitute a kind of death wish in business, and one who does so should practice what one executive calls “flexibility drills,” an exercise “where you put your head between your legs and kiss your ass good-bye.” The subordinate must extend to the boss a certain ritual deference. For instance, he must follow the boss’s lead in conversation, must not speak out of turn at meetings, must laugh at his boss’s jokes while not making jokes of his own that upstage his boss, must not rib the boss for his foibles. The shrewd subordinate learns to efface himself, so that his boss’s face might shine more clearly.

Honesty is an indispensable part of consent. Being able to share, to the best of your ability, who you are in a relationship is critical for that relationship to be consensual. You must give your partner the opportunity to make an informed decision to be in a relationship with you. If you lie or withhold critical information, you remove your partner's ability to consent to be in the relationship.

I wish I was the kind of male who could walk away from you. I wish like hell I had more honor, because despite the mark that should be enough to make me keep my distance – despite the fact that you’re withholding information that might get you killed on my watch - the only thing I can’t seem to do where you’re concerned is walk the fuck away.

The withholding of this crucial bit of information by both Mullik, the Intelligence Bureau chief, and by Palit, the DMO, on the assumption that the Chinese would not use this force to actually attack, has to be one of the most bizarre acts of omission in the entire tragedy.

No names. I didn’t know people. I grabbed whatever characteristics I could: crooked or fluorescent teeth, tattoos, accents, lipsticks, I even recognized some people by their gait. It’s not that my trailers were withholding information. I was just so stupid that I couldn’t learn table numbers and names at the same time….Everyone had been there years. There were senior servers who would never leave. Debutante-Smile, Guy-with-Clark-Kent-Glasses, Guy-with-Long-Hair-and-Bun, Overweight-Gray-Hair-Guy. Even the backwaiters had been there at least three years. There was Mean-Girl, and Russian-Pouty-Lips, and my first trailer, whom I called Sergeant because of the way he ordered me around.

There is no greater disrespect a doctor can show patients than that of withholding potentially lifesaving information based on the assumption that patients do not want to change their lifestyle.

Why did witches love their secrets so much? Perhaps most importantly, why didn’t witches see a problem with withholding information?

That’s why one of the fundamental concepts I originally introduced as part of Question Based Selling was, “Always positive is not always most productive.” To illustrate, sellers have long been conditioned to ask questions with a positive, even hopeful, tone. Therefore, typical sales questions tend to sound optimistic, like: Mr. Prospect, would next Tuesday work for a conference call? Or: Does your boss like our proposal? Sometimes sellers ask: Are we still in good shape to close this deal by the end of the month? The salesperson in these examples is obviously hoping next Tuesday will work for a conference call, or hoping the boss likes the proposal, and that the deal is still in “good shape” to close by month-end. These positively dispositioned questions do not generate more positive results. In reality, just the opposite occurs. I will talk at length later in the book about the fact that positively dispositioned questions tend to cause customers to withhold, or give less accurate information, which is counterproductive to your selling efforts.

75 percent of the constituent alphabets in the phrase "Your personal life" establish one's right to withhold, barricade, and restrict others' access to specific exclusive information, generally referred to as: A SECRET

when the price of victory was withholding information.

elements that only appear in digital storytelling, but not storytelling: ● Soundtrack ● Possible visual elements such as video, background images, or PowerPoint presentations ● Economy – purposeful withholding of specific information given in another format,

Bullies use various power tactics, such as spreading malicious gossip, excessive criticism, withholding resources or information, excluding a targeted person from the group, and other devious behaviors intended to undermine the confidence and performance of others. Bullies often take aggressive action against individuals in an effort to control and have power over them.

Withholding information is just as bad as a lie,

Indian army camp has picked up civilians of Panchayat banghia from thana mandi area & are withholding information about them. Nor are their worried family members being allowed to see them at the camp who fear for their lives because of the Topi episode where civilians were tortured to death in custody. Request @manojsinha_ji to intervene before a similar tragedy strikes these poor families.

They tell you that you aren’t remembering something right or that you’re plain out wrong when you know you are right. ○     They make you feel that your thoughts and feelings don’t matter to anyone else, either. ○     They withhold information, then act like they don’t know what you’re talking about. ○ They give you the silent treatment. ○     They make you doubt your own thoughts by questioning the validity of them. ○     They justify their actions because it’s for your own good. ○ They deny something ever happened.

By the time Citizens United’s case reached the federal court system, however, there were signs that the Supreme Court might be willing to soften its position on direct corporate expenditures. In its 2007 opinion in Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. (551 U.S. 449), the Court carved out some significant exemptions that allowed corporate funding for express advocacy. In that case, Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. (WRTL) had run afoul of the FEC for airing ads that were critical of Democratic Wisconsin Senator Russell Feingold’s voting record on abortion, even though the group did not explicitly tell voters to withhold support from him. The group’s defense was that because its ads were ostensibly informative on a policy dimension, they should not be considered “electioneering” and should be protected speech. The Court agreed, holding that in order to be banned under the BCRA electioneering rules, an ad’s only purpose must be to expressly advocate the election or defeat of a named candidate. In formulating their opinion in the case, Chief Justice John Roberts and his colleagues in the majority positioned themselves as defenders of speech rights, writing that “the First Amendment requires us to err on the side of protecting political speech rather than suppressing it.

Withholding: the narcissist may withhold information from the victim to make them powerless, such as restricting their access to important documents or financial information thus, gaining control of the individual.

Monologue – A verbal exercise that characterizes the elicitation process, designed to keep the person in short-term thinking mode, dissuade him from expressing resistance or voicing a denial, and convince him of the acceptability of disclosing the information he had intended to withhold. Negative question – A question that is phrased in a way that negates an action. This question type is to be avoided because it conveys an expectation of a response that potentially lets the person off the hook. Example: “You didn’t flirt with her, did you?” Nonanswer statement – A verbal deceptive behavior in which a person responds to a question with a statement that does not answer the question, but rather buys him time to formulate a response that he hopes will satisfy the questioner. Example: “That’s a very good question.” Nonverbal deceptive indicator – A deceptive behavior that is exhibited in response to a question and that does not involve verbal communication. Open-ended question – A question that is asked as a means of establishing the basis for a discussion or to probe an issue. Example: “What were you doing in Las Vegas when you were supposed to be visiting your mother in Tampa?” Opinion question – A question that solicits a person’s opinion as a means of assessing his likely culpability in a given situation. The “punishment question” falls into this category. Example: “What do you think should happen to a person who dines in a restaurant and leaves without paying?” Optimism bias – A cognitive bias

Elicitation – A process designed to influence or persuade an individual to reveal information that he has reason to want to conceal. This process is characterized by use of a monologue rather than a dialogue. (Used synonymously with interrogation.) Equitable distribution – A term used to describe the legal process of dividing a married couple’s assets in a divorce proceeding. Exclusion qualifier – A verbal deceptive behavior used to enable a person who wants to withhold certain information to answer a question truthfully, but without releasing that information. Examples: “basically,” “for the most part,” “fundamentally,” “probably,” “most often.” Failure to answer – A verbal deceptive behavior in which a person’s response does not answer the question that’s asked. Failure to understand a simple question – A verbal deceptive behavior in which a person’s response is an expression of confusion over an easily comprehensible question. This strategy is typically used when a person feels trapped by the wording of the question and needs to shrink its scope. Fight-or-flight response – A triggering of the autonomic nervous system that reroutes circulation to the body’s major organs and muscle groups to prepare the body to deal with a threatening situation. Forer effect – A cognitive bias named for psychologist Bertram Forer, who found that people tend to rate as highly accurate a personality analysis that is presented as being individualized, when it is actually so general in nature that it could apply to almost anyone. (Also known as Barnum statements.)

Inappropriate level of politeness – A verbal deceptive behavior in which a person interjects an overly polite or unexpectedly kind or complimentary comment directed at the questioner when responding to a question. Example: Uncharacteristic use of “sir” or “ma’am” when responding to a particular question. Inappropriate question – A verbal deceptive behavior in which a person responds with a question that doesn’t directly relate to the question that’s asked. Inconsistent statement – A verbal deceptive behavior in which a person makes a statement that is inconsistent with what he said previously, without explaining why the story has changed. Interrogation – See Elicitation. Interview – A means of establishing a dialogue with a person to collect information that he has no reason to want to withhold. Invoking religion – A verbal deceptive behavior in which a person makes a reference to God or religion as a means of “dressing up the lie” before presenting it. Example: “I swear on a stack of Bibles, I wouldn’t do anything like that.” Leading question – A question that contains the answer that the questioner is looking for. Legitimacy statement – A statement within a monologue that is designed to explain the purpose or reasoning behind what the interrogator is conveying.

Lie of commission – A lie that is conveyed by means of making a statement that is untrue. Lie of influence – A lie that is conveyed by means of attempting to manipulate perception rather than to provide truthful information. Lie of omission – A lie that is conveyed by means of withholding the truth. L-squared mode – Using one’s visual and auditory senses to look and listen simultaneously in order to observe both verbal and nonverbal deceptive behaviors as they’re exhibited in response to a question. Microexpression – A split-second movement of facial muscles that conveys an emotion such as anger, contempt, or disgust. We recommend avoiding reliance on microexpressions, due to their impracticality and the fact that there is no microexpression for deception. Mind virus – A colloquial term for the psychological discomfort a person feels when he receives information that has potentially negative consequences, causing his mind to race with hypothetical ramifications of the information. Minimization – An element within a monologue that is designed to minimize the perception of negative consequences that may be associated with sharing truthful information. Mirroring – Subtly imitating the movements or gestures of another person to enhance familiarity and liking.

Mystique can add anticipation and curiosity to any relationship, from new business pitches to social invitations, by motivating others to return for more.* There are four main ways to trigger mystique’s delicate balance: Spark curiosity. Withhold information. Build mythology. And limit access. Begin by sparking an intense behavioral motivator: curiosity.

communicating fully and openly, by not withholding or misleading. There is no doubt that our decision-making is better if we are able to draw on the collective knowledge and unvarnished opinions of the group. But as valuable as the information is

Jan, I appreciate this. I know it was difficult. But trust me, it’s not the end of the world. Let me ask you, Jan, what other times has something like this happened?” Let’s say that in response to your question, Jan, visibly upset that she’s in this predicament, summons the courage to admit that she once slipped a few Vicodin tablets into her pocket. What that tells you is that Jan had additional information that she didn’t want to share with you, so it follows that she may well have more information that she wants to withhold. To deal with that, think of the Vicodin admission as what we call a “cliff moment.” What Jan may have been thinking was, “Okay, I can tell her about the oxycodone and the Vicodin, but I can’t tell her about this and this and this, because if I told her all of that, there’s no way I’d be able to keep my job.” It’s like she’s standing on the edge of a cliff, and if she takes one more step, she’s gone. Your job is to explore what’s in the ravine on the other side of the cliff. So when Jan tells you about the Vicodin, you acknowledge it, reward her, and keep right on going as if she never even said it. The two most important words in this information collection process are “what else.” Think of each subsequent admission as having come to another cliff, and keep exploring what’s on the other side. If she exhibits deceptive behavior, you go right back into the monologue. If she admits to something else, you reward. Then you keep going until she says there is nothing else, and she shows no

During a secret gathering, to which several members of the most influential families were invited, Mayer Amschel Rothschild commented: “If we combine forces, we can rule the world.”[35] The eventual goal was to create a World Dictatorship with One World Leader at the top. The letter and meeting provided a structural plan of how to control all aspects of humanity by withholding of information and restriction of freedom. Manipulating the media and censoring the truth would allow for the puppeteering of the world. Mankind would be a mere toy controlled by a few powerful families that dominate the ultimate economic, financial and political world stage. The ultimate goal was to reduce human interest to a point where they would agree to anything, therefore setting up the stage for a One-World Leader. Nobody would care, and the few remaining opponents could easily be eliminated.

when asking someone to make a judgment call in a volatile environment, consider withholding historical information so that he or she can focus on contextual information. More data isn’t always better.

I’d like to know what time it is,” I say. “Would you,” she says. “That’s interesting.” I should have known she wouldn’t tell me. Every piece of information she receives factors into her strategy, and she won’t tell me what time it is unless she decides that providing the information is more useful than withholding it. “I’m sure my Dauntless companions are disappointed,” she says, “that you have not tried to claw my eyes out yet.” “That would be stupid.” “True. But in keeping with your ‘act first, think second’ behavioral trend.” “I’m sixteen.” I purse my lips. “I change.” “How refreshing.

Pat tells you something about Jolene. What do you hear as a listener? What information have you actually received? You've received information about Pat – not Jolene. We may walk away believing we have solid information about Jolene. But we don't. All we have are Pat's words about her. Perhaps you haven't even met Jolene. If you're wise, you'll withhold judgements about her. Nothing put into speech is ever completely reliable.

Modern Slavery is not being shipped on boats; it is encouraging welfare programs and withholding information from the people that will aid them in making informed decisions.

US Military Was Prepared to Act in Benghazi Contrary to what the Obama administration has told the American people, the US military was poised and ready to respond immediately and forcefully against terrorists in Benghazi, Libya. That’s what we learned in December 2015 from an email exchange from then–Department of Defense Chief of Staff Jeremy Bash to State Department leadership immediately offering “forces that could move to Benghazi” during the terrorist attack on Benghazi. In an email sent to top Department of State officials, at 7:19 p.m. ET, only hours after the attack had begun, Bash says, “we have identified the forces that could move to Benghazi. They are spinning up as we speak.” The Obama administration redacted the details of the military forces available, oddly citing a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) exemption that allows the withholding of “deliberative process” information. The Obama administration and Clinton officials hid this compelling Benghazi email for years. The email makes readily apparent that the military was prepared to launch immediate assistance that could have made a difference, at least at the CIA annex. The fact that the Obama Administration withheld this email for so long only worsens the scandal of Benghazi.

To Disclose or Not Disclose I just saw a poster: "Dirty laundry goes here (laundry basket) not here (Facebook logo)." Online and in person, withholding personal information is a discreet way of regulating what people learn, think, and know about you. There are times when keeping it real and keeping it honest will reveal your authenticity and trustworthiness, but there are other times, however, when things are better left unsaid or locked away. Hence the term TMI, meaning "Too Much Information!" Discretion is part of "keeping it real" in professional (and self) respect.

Just make sure you’re not withholding information, Sandeman. Your parole officer might find it annoying.” He gave me a shot to the shoulder that knocked me back a foot. “Somebody yanks my parole officer’s chain, and somebody might find out why they call me the Sandman. Maybe you want to think about that.” Not anytime soon.

Later that day, the U.S. Senate voted to confirm a secretary of defense who had a record of undermining our ally Israel, rationalizing the terrorism of Hezbollah and Hamas, expressing openness to allowing Iran to build a nuclear weapon, and affirmatively withholding information about whether he had received funding from foreign governments hostile to the United States. It was not a proud day for the Senate.

In 2013, a federal judge ruled in favor of Judicial Watch, chastising the agency for withholding documents, and he specifically ruled against DHS’s improper claim of attorney-client privilege. The documents uncovered by Judicial Watch showed that DHS officials misled Congress and the public about its implementation of a new policy that resulted in the dismissal of multiple deportation cases against illegal alien criminals convicted of violent crimes. The administration decided to halt almost all enforcement actions (on an alleged “case-by-case” basis) against any illegal alien who has not committed any other “serious” crimes. As a result, it is failing to protect citizens from the scourge of rampant illegal immigration and criminal illegal aliens. In 2014, Judicial Watch filed another FOIA lawsuit to get more information about this issue, after the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) reported that 36,000 criminal aliens who were awaiting the outcome of deportation proceedings were released by DHS in 2013.3 This group consisted of aliens convicted of hundreds of serious, often violent crimes, including homicide, sexual assault, kidnapping, and aggravated assault. The 36,000 criminal aliens had nearly 88,000 convictions, including one for willfully killing a public official with a gun. Yet this alien, and tens of thousands of other dangerous thugs, were released by DHS onto an unsuspecting American public.

I believe it is crucial to be forthright and honest with my patients and their families. Too many of my colleagues have mastered the art of verbal subterfuge and obfuscation for fear of squelching hope or in order to avoid difficult discussions, but withholding information from patients and their families prevents them from making informed decisions.

And we’re going to stop acting like a bunch of fucking idiots and talk things through. No lies, no withholding information, no nonsense. Communication.” Dex arched an eyebrow. “Yes, that goes for me too, wise guy.” “Okay.” Dex’s smile grew wide before he planted a kiss on Sloane’s lips. “Have I told you I love you?” “I wouldn’t mind hearing it again,” Sloane teased, releasing Dex’s arm and returning the kiss. “I love you.” Sloane

A game, then. A bit of information to hold against her, to keep from her until it was useful. It didn't matter if it was valuable information or not; it was the withholding, the power of it, that he loved.

During the call, Trump threatened to withhold aid to Ukraine unless Zelensky provided damaging information on Hunter Biden, the son of Vice President Joe Biden.

Officials who succeed in withholding information always celebrate by withholding something else. They continue to further block the free flow of facts until they are operating the way they like best, in secrecy.

Although fear of not being competent can be temporarily motivating, it’s motivating for all the wrong reasons. We are likely being motivated by the negative neurochemicals, which actually deteriorate our resourcefulness, health, and well-being. Fear motivates employees to sabotage others, hold the company back to keep looking as competent as possible, or withhold information and opportunities.

As we are well aware, the sensations brought about by the manifestation of the Uncanny – dread, unease, that inescapable sensation that something is not quite right – have been said to derive from that which is familiar (homely) becoming unfamiliar (unhomely). This effect can often derive from the negative spaces that inhabit a story: the absence of information, the dearth of explanation, the omission of clarification and exposition. It is human nature to seek to fill in the gaps, and when the writer withholds these nuggets that will help the reader make sense of a story, the reader’s own interpretation is often more unsettling because it will draw on their own fears, paranoias and phobias. Sometimes, the absence of something can be more unnerving than a sinister presence.

But the withholding of information from a child either frustrates him or makes him seek it for himself. And the trouble with the latter method is that it is apt to make the child feel both guilty and dishonest.

Trust must be built day by day. It calls for consistency. Some of the ways a leader can betray trust include: breaking promises, gossiping, withholding information, and being two-faced. These actions destroy the environment of trust necessary for the growth of potential leaders. And when a leader breaks trust, he must work twice as hard to regain it.

The best tycoons are like magicians; they know when to share information and when to withhold.

Giving people a lot of consumer products but not giving them information is like giving people lots of candy but withholding basic nourishment.

But why would he do this? One possibility is to allow us to bring things to his awareness through prayer that he already knows but wasn’t focusing on. In such cases, God could bring these things to his awareness at will without relying on us. After all, he knows everything. But he does not have to be aware of all he knows, and this withholding of awareness allows us to genuinely inform God of things, not in the sense that he didn’t already know them, but in the sense that he has condescended in such a way as to allow us to recall these things to his awareness. And such an act of recalling would bring with it a genuine, and not feigned, sense of fresh excitement and concern for the prayer being made.

The management teams of the Mauna Kea Observatories in Hawaii were withholding key health and safety information from workers and there was a secret culture of taking lone workers into surprise meetings where the management team would harass them for their ‘voluntary’ resignations.

You think I’m fragile. Well, you are probably right, after being stranded here for weeks, having lost my memories, being alone in an unfamiliar place… But that doesn’t give you the right to withhold information; your entire statement is a manipulative piece of

You’re confessing that you’re an accomplice who’s aiding and abetting a deserter?” “If that’s what you wish to call it.” “But it’s a crime! It’s a crime against the nation. Don’t you know that?” “No.” “It’s against the law!” “Yes.” “This is a national emergency! You have no right to any private secrets! You’re withholding vital information! I’m the President of this railroad! I’m ordering you to tell me! You can’t refuse to obey an order! It’s a penitentiary offense! Do you understand?” “Yes.” “Do you refuse?” “I do.” Years of training had made Taggart able to watch any audience around him, without appearing to do so. He saw the tight, closed faces of the staff, faces that were not his allies. All had a look of despair, except the face of Eddie Willers. The “feudal serf” of Taggart Transcontinental was the only one who seemed untouched by the disaster. He looked at Taggart with the lifelessly conscientious glance of a scholar confronted by a field of knowledge he had never wanted to study. “Do you realize that you’re a traitor?” yelled Taggart. Eddie asked quietly, “To whom?” “To the people! It’s treason to shield a deserter! It’s economic treason! Your duty to feed the people comes first, above anything else whatever! Every public authority has said so! Don’t you know it? Don’t you know what they’ll do to you?” “Don’t you see that I don’t give a damn about that?” “Oh, you don’t? I’ll quote that to the Unification Board! I have all these witnesses to prove that you said—” “Don’t bother about witnesses, Jim. Don’t put them on the spot. I’ll write down everything I said, I’ll sign it, and you can take it to the Board.” The sudden explosion of Taggart’s voice sounded as if he had been slapped: “Who are you to stand against the government? Who are you, you miserable little office rat, to judge national policies and hold opinions of your own? Do you think the country has time to bother about your opinions, your wishes or your precious little conscience? You’re going to learn a lesson—all of you!—all of you spoiled, self-indulgent, undisciplined little two-bit clerks, who strut as if that crap about your rights was serious! You’re going to learn that these are not the days of Nat Taggart!

Well, let’s elect you Minister of Withholding Information, then,

Suppression Techniques 1. Making invisible: Silencing or otherwise marginalizing people in opposition by ignoring them. 2. Ridicule: Portraying the arguments of an opponent, or the opponents themselves, in a ridiculing fashion. 3. Withholding information: Excluding a person from the decision making process, or knowingly not forwarding information so as to make the person less able to make an informed choice. 4. Double bind: Punishing or otherwise belittling the actions of an opponent, regardless of how they act. 5. Heaping blame/putting to shame: Embarrassing someone or insinuating that they themselves are to blame for their position.

It was uncertain how seriously the police would take the situation, or if I could expect much defence from the law in Spain, where my lawyer had already betrayed me for some reason due to the same coffeeshop, rather working with the mafia. Amina and Nico might have been involved with the Camorra next door, however, their affiliation was uncertain even after multiple attempts to connect their names further. I had notes back home on the table connecting the criminals and their hubs. I was writing to uncover what I knew happened. To discover what I knew. Perhaps it was a mistake to withhold any information from those two officers regarding the coffeeshop. It's possible that I should have informed them that Ruan was working for individuals who intended to use my identity to operate one of the largest, if not the largest, coffeeshops in town. The club was located in the Port of Ciutat Vella, where the Camorra had seemingly established a monopoly since 2014. I was still unsure if Adam, Sabrina, Nico, Amina, and the others had already made a deal with them or not. Yet. She had keys to my home and I had been unable to sleep for weeks already. She had my IDs. I was unsure and concerned as to why she would take them, what was her purpose? If I died somehow and I had no documents, it would be a longer process to identify me. That means more time to sell marijuana behalf my name and get rich. How can one identify a body without any IDs or with missing fingerprints? By examining dental records. Who was the individual inside the circle? The circle within the circle? The Eye within the Eye? The focal point of the wheelcart? With all the spikes pointing towards it. Who was the fictitious Robin Hood, the Boss of their nasty and drug-addicted mafia?

Varies from repetitive disputes to toxic competitions, The Clash of Channels affects the company strategic growth, so rather than growing together as a team, teams members dilute the growth journey by personalizing outputs & focusing on the wrong things, withholding information, imposing their insecurities & surely bringing down workplace moral/ culture

You can request your public police records, but it is unlikely they will give you the complete set.

In the meantime, unless you feel, or have been told, that there is a compelling reason to do so, the less you reveal about yourself the better. This can often be accomplished by explaining that the purpose of your meeting together is to help the client understand the difficulties she is struggling with. If this seems withholding, remember that the focus of concern should remain on the client’s needs and how best to meet them. One way to impart this feeling is to help the client start talking about what brought her here. This can be a straightforward question. Or, if you know something about the client’s situation from the intake information, you might want to guide her by saying something like, “I know your husband died two months ago. Can you tell me more about that?” Remember, the purpose of the interview, no matter how much you know, is to get the client to tell you her own story in her own words.

The funniest example would have to be the curious case of the informal, small collective of liberal, center-left Hollywood insiders and operators who deployed every dirty trick they could muster to ensure that Trump’s inaugural festivities were as punishingly lame as humanly possible. We are, for now, withholding the names of the members of this shadowy cabal, on the condition of our reporting certain details

My students,” a business school professor confides, understand “organizational life as a kind of ‘vanity fair,’ in which those who want to get ahead can do so by playing to the vanity of their superiors.” One plays this game, his students know, by using outright flattery and adulation. Enough sycophancy, they believe, will lead to promotions. If in the process they have to withhold, downplay, or distort important information, so be it.

War was about controlling the story as much as the territory. That made information -- its release and sometimes, if necessary, its withholding -- a weapon.