Based on your statements, I may be micro-lying if I try to answer your question. Sorry, I don't have time to read the book but I don't see how someone answering or responding based on their knowledge could be any kind of a lie. Based on what I know, this sounds like another tool in the indoctrination shed. That is for people who have lost the ability to think. My 2 cents.

The term that comes to my mind for the behavior you describe is "generalizing".

"An anti-concept is an unnecessary and rationally unusable term designed to replace and obliterate some legitimate concept. The use of anti-concepts gives the listeners a sense of approximate understanding. But in the realm of cognition, nothing is as bad as the approximate . . . .

One of today’s fashionable anti-concepts is “polarization.” Its meaning is not very clear, except that it is something bad—undesirable, socially destructive, evil—something that would split the country into irreconcilable camps and conflicts. It is used mainly in political issues and serves as a kind of “argument from intimidation”: it replaces a discussion of the merits (the truth or falsehood) of a given idea by the menacing accusation that such an idea would “polarize” the country—which is supposed to make one’s opponents retreat, protesting that they didn’t mean it. Mean—what? . . .

It is doubtful—even in the midst of today’s intellectual decadence—that one could get away with declaring explicitly: “Let us abolish all debate on fundamental principles!” (though some men have tried it). If, however, one declares; “Don’t let us polarize,” and suggests a vague image of warring camps ready to fight (with no mention of the fight’s object), one has a chance to silence the mentally weary. The use of “polarization” as a pejorative term means: the suppression of fundamental principles. Such is the pattern of the function of anti-concepts." Ayn Rand, Ayn Rand Letter, Credibility and Polarization.

What utter nonsense.

I had two intelligent boys who thought creatively. remebering my own childhood, I decided to stick exactly to the truth in all instances s far as I knew it when I didn't know it, I'd "get back to you." or, when they got older, go look it up, or what do you think. Worked pretty good. Caused a lot of challenges. As we all got older, I found myself having to change my thinking on a number of issues.

Often times the use of such phrases is stated without thinking about what it really means while trying to make a point that few if any believe that something is correct, making the opposite object incorrect by majority vote. What the majority thinks is often incorrect (most people believed the earth was flat at one time, the fact that most believed it didn't change the reality) and it seems when it comes to individual liberty the majority is seldom right about understanding how to allow people to make free market choices. Nor is the majority willing to allow free choices while they construct laws, regulations, decrees and majority will to use violence to make others behave in often irrational choices.

I understand what micro-expressions are, brief facial expressions involuntary shown on a human face that express emotion (visual). I have never heard of micro-lying. That said, according to what you stated above, making any generalization is a micro-lie. True? If so the sky is blue is a micro-lie since today the sky is overcast and more white than blue, no?

rationalizations are not the same as reasoning. Also, in the article, "intuition," "instinct" were used somewhat interchangeably. Also, I think this may be a post about inductive vs deductive reasoning. But it mostly comes off as collectivist. You ask a question but you do not offer what you think.

Sounds like your concept of "micro-lying" is exactly like that of "micro-aggression" -- complete horse hockey.

Generalizations are part of how rational thinking works. I will not stop making them just because some guy splits hairs. If it comes down to it, I'll just block that guy.

What charity or non-profit organization is that "smile" link benefiting?

I won't click on it until I know.

I think one must be careful in addressing generalizations as lies. Generalizations are used by humans to differentiate yet associate objects in the universe which are unfamiliar. "That is a blue ball" is a generalization, where "That is a racquet ball" is far more precise but also specific. Generalizations can be used quite effectively in communications to deal with large populations of objects about which we do not necessarily need to describe specifically. Where generalizations get us into trouble is when we don't switch out of "generalization" mode when speaking about a specific object - usually a person. That is when generalizations become fallacy.

We use those examples to describe the "Common Senses", our experiences and observations...the problem these days...a great many today just don't have or use these senses in common, have not the experience and have never observed; probably because they have their heads in their "Dumb Phones"!

Now that's just my observation...it's Not a micro anything!...laughing

"Lying" is deliberate deceit. Just plain old sloppy and vague talk without deceitful purposes should not be labeled "lying". Average humans are not epistemologists or logicians. They carelessly repeat what they've picked up from others in generalities. Judging from Twitterers and forum comments, people seem to crave summing up universal principles in 15 words or less. The all-or-nothing mentality wants things boiled down to slogans, clichés, tropes and sound bites. The greatest master of spouting emotion-laden brevities is Donald Trump.

Now if everyone remembered to check their premises and exercised the greatest care in identifying facts of reality, there would be no conflict of interest among rational people, neither in values nor in understandings. Absent such a perfect world, the best we can hope to do is to recognize micro and big lies inflicted on us and be neither fooled nor ruled by them.

A mistake may not be an investment into dishonesty.They may be and appear indistinguishable.It's separate to enter the topic onto the present format. Maybe dishonesty is also distinguishable from insanity and lust to get identity from fellows one is not deserving.Mistakes, dishonesty, insanity, and hiding behind incorrect identities may amount toward substituting fiction to replace non-fiction.There's also duplicity. Also the propensity to intertwine knowledge with opinion,belief.and fable.Also defeatism, resigning to no win when winning is possible.Various believe the Earth is flat and similar. They believe it's correct and the norm. Who disagrees is crazy without knowledge and normalcy.One person's ignorance may be the next person's knowledge belief.There are also the advertisements where two products are not equal in quality, nor of two presidents, but there are words each is the greatest and one's greater than the next.One may note criticisms, critiques, and ratings.Too much of numbers of results are toward obliterating what are non-fiction and definite.What knowledge is one to believe?There are also atheists and monotheists.People vote toward the greater candidate.What is so may be a fulcrum.Is what's right 100% of the time and definitely negating wrong and wrongness?Where can one read and be in the company of right,the honest, and ones with integrity? What amount of strength is the yearning to be with ones free of immorality?