What seems most critical to the pathology is the lack of control which leads to repetitive lying over a long period of time. Compared with run of the mill liars, pathological liars often seem unaware that they are lying and do so many times a day as part of their daily habit. In the same way that birds have to fly and fish have to swim, pathological liars have to lie. If pathological liars are unaware of their lies and incapable of controlling themselves, then they are not responsible for the harm they impose. They have no choice. Unbeknownst to them, their brain has been hijacked by a creative fiction writer. They are following a script, but have no sense of its author. Dike’s summary is based on a loose and eclectic set of clinical observations. Several clinicians thus debate whether habitual lying counts as pathology and thus, whether it is worthy of an entry into the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. For example, how can the clinician establish pathology given the evidence that healthy people lie about twice a day, physicians lie about 40-80% of the time to help their patients gain better health care, and lying within an experimental context increases as subjects generate more lies? My own sense is that despite the difficulty of defining the pathology with precision, clinicians have identified individuals that lie with every breath and often identify psychopaths by their calculated conning. These observations sharpen our approach to understanding the seeds of deceit and self-deception in the non-pathological condition. For example, does excessive and sustained lying stem from a specific problem associated with recognizing the truth or does it grow from a more general problem with self-control? Or, does the habitual liar suffer from an emotional deficit such that when he or she lies, there are no feelings of guilt and shame? Without these emotional regulators, it is impossible to learn from the harm caused. When healthy people distort the tr