This is not true. There is a complex relationship between truth and good communication. The relationship is non linear and convoluted and it depends often on the subject of what is being communicated.

There are many many cases where lies are easier to communicate than the truth.

Take tobacco for instance. For the longest time we did not know it was bad for you. It took decades of epidemiological research and statistical techniques to ascertain that it was bad.

The truth was buried in numbers and human knowledge about applied mathematics and statistics. Without centuries of human endeavor to create the concept of science unionized with the rigor of statistics the truth would have remained forever invisible.

The sheer complexity of the truth in this case makes is extremely hard to communicate. We mostly trust that smoking is bad based off of the reputation of the researchers who established that fact. But the truth was never really directly communicated to most of us as it involves diving deep into the data.

> There is a complex relationship between truth and *good* communication. [...] There are many many cases where lies are *easier to communicate* than the truth.

You're literally conflating good communication with easy communication.

Easy communication correlates highly with good communication. It is easier to do good communication on easier topics.

The truth about tobacco was known for years but ignored because 1) industry lobbying and 2) the Nazis were the ones who figured it out, and pushed anti-smoking hard, so smoking became something "our side" did, 3) tobacco was still a huge US export.

It was easy to communicate, but we were motivated to not listen.

No the deaths were buried deep in the statistical data. It’s not apparent and we did not know either way.

Yes there were people who said it’s bad but their word was as good as bullshit because until we had the statistics there is literally no way to truly know.

No, the Germans had good statistical data linking smoking (as well as asbestos and other carcinogens) to cancer by the 1930s; this was known and ignored (or actively derided) by the allies. It's one of the classic and well known examples of ad hominem.

[flagged]

You understand what I did there?

Ah you told a lie. Demonstrating how easy it is to make it look true.