Lie To Me

Research Paper

People lie. Everyone is a liar. Its a fact of life. People lie to their friends, strangers, and

neighbors but more interestingly, people lie to themselves. They may lie to their reflection in the

mirror or about how much he loves me, even though he hits me. This concept of lying to oneself

is called self-deception; which, in itself, is a paradox. To deceive means you must make someone

believe the contrary of the lie you perpetuate, but it then seems impossible to say that the very

same person would then believe the deception. (Van Leeuwen) Therefore somehow a person

must believe without believing (Moomal).

In her paper titled Self-Deception and Emotional Coherence Baljinder Sahdra (a

Research Lecturer at the Institute for Positive Psychology and Education in Australia) brings to

light some of the various theories of how self-deception is possible. She names thinkers that

argue that self-deception involves a division in the self where one part of the self deceives the

other ( i.e. Davidson, 1985; Rorty, 1988 1996) , and others who maintain that such division is not

necessary (Mele, 2001). There are those that consider self-deception to be intentional, and others

that insist it is unintentional. Throughout the different ideas and theories about self-deception,

there is one widely accepted belief -- self-deception is some kind of motivated irrationality, in

which the self-deceiver fails to handle evidence available to them appropriately.(Funkhouser)

We constantly deceive ourselves, and nothing can ever change that fact. Though there are many

theories as to how exactly this happens it still happens. Some people may believe that the entire

concept of self-deception is a bad thing but in reality, we need this evolutionary function to

survive day to day life. Almost no one realizes how often you are deceiving yourself just to make

your life easier.

 D.S Neil Van Leeuwen wrote his paper The Spandrels of Self-Deception: Prospects for a

Biological Theory of a Mental Phenomenon discusses how to define self-deception (which we

have already done so I will not include his definition here) and how it can exist. In his theory, he

first introduces a hypothesis originally from Trivers, for why humans have the capacity for self-

deception. Trivers proposes that self-deception may aid in the deception of others, so its

adaptive. Considering that humans adapt to survive it is then also a survival technique. Leeuwen

supports the first with the idea that if one hides the fact that they are deceiving someone from

their own consciousness it makes it much less likely that one will inadvertently give oneself

away in a lie. If a person doesnt even know they are lying, how can they possibly give it away?

Truthfully, lying to oneself and others is much easier than most people seem to think.

Micheal Shermers theory for self-deception states that belief is our natural state,

meaning that when someone tells us something, we want to believe it. His theory states that it is

uncomfortable for us when we do not believe in something. This can be related to the various

religions through the world and how people with a religion claim to feel more fulfilled than those

who abstain. The human brain is wired to find something in everything around us. We see faces

in pictures, and pictures in patterns. We are constantly searching for something within other

things, and our default (especially in life or death situations) is to believe that the something or

pattern is true--especially if believing it isnt true has a higher cost than the latter. In the past, this

theory has said that the human race was constantly using the function of self-deception and

finding patterns as a way of self-preservation. For example, if when early humans were

wandering around the world a half-million years ago, and heard a rustle in the bushes, would

they be more likely to guess that it is a dangerous predator or that it was just the wind? Shermer

contests that humans would be more likely to believe that it was a predator because the cost of
being wrong is less than if we had guessed it was just the wind and been incorrect. If we guess

its just the wind and are incorrect, we are potentially dinner for another animal. Whereas, if we

guess its a predator and are wrong, we are just on high-alert and a little more cautious than

before.

Self-deception may also contribute to a sense of false grandeur. It not only results in

feelings of positivity in battle and the belief that one person will triumph over another, but also in

unrealistic optimism of the self-employed and denial of physical illness. (Sahdra). Moomal in his

article titled The Evolutionary Psychology of Deception and Self-Deception claims that while

self-deception may be favorable in the short-term, it is counter-favorable in the long-term. Zubair

Moomal goes deeper by examining how self-deception affects how a person thinks of physical

illness or paralysis. The left and right sides of our brains are said to have split functionalities that

govern separate aspects of our personalities. One can be right or left brained meaning their main

personality is more creative and imaginative rather than calm and analytical. He describes

clinical evidence in which patients who have suffered a stroke on the right hemisphere of the

brain will deny their paralysis with amazingly exaggerated reasons such as I have severe

arthritis, it hurts I just dont feel like moving it right now, or Ive never been very

ambidextrous. However, Moomal also notices that this is rarely seen when the left hemisphere

of the brain is damaged, which indicates that this condition of denying paralysis (anosognosia) is

a neurological syndrome rather than a psychological one. Moomal continues to say that when a

person damages the right side of their brain (resulting in left side paralysis) they lose a biological

function that checks for global inconsistencies in the left functionality of continuity and stability

of reality. Without the right side of the brain to fact check the left a person will resort to any
strategy necessary that can keep their perception of reality as coherent as possible, even at the

expense of an immense misrepresentation of reality.

Although, even with the preceding evidence one cannot say that self-deception is a

wholly neurological condition. Moomal analyzed a different experiment, conducted by Trivers,

with people who had not had any section of their brains damaged and he came out with results of

self-deception, which means that this isnt just something that affects those with neurological

handicaps. In Trivets research, people had their self-esteem lowered or heightened by failing or

succeeding to complete a task given to them by the experimenters, before hearing a recording of

their own voice and asked to say who it was. Those who failed the task, and subsequently had

their self-esteem lowered, claimed it was someone elses voice and those who had their self-

esteem heightened, by completing the task, claimed it as their own and were also more likely to

claim someone elses voice as their own. The concept of self-deception is defined that the same

individual has contradictory beliefs. For this to happen, one of someones contradictory beliefs

must be filtered out or overlooked; they must deliberately fail to notice a belief. Which in this

case was that the sound of the voice was not their own. Moomal goes on to say that deceivers

have a looser sense of reality and therefore are less depressed, and so it is concluded that

depressives (the people) have a more accurate perception of reality. In his paper, it is proposed

that the prevalence of depression has been evolutionarily selected for this reason, i.e. reality

checking or testing. Moomal pulls an enlightening quote from Nesse & Williams research in

1995 to assist his assessment Recent studies have found that most of us consistently

overestimate our abilities and our effectiveness. This tendency to optimism helps us to succeed in

social competition, where bluffing is routine, and keeps us pursuing important strategies and

relationships even at times when they are not paying off. After a loss, however, we must take off
the rose-colored glasses to reassess our goals and strategies more effectively. This, in my

opinion may also show that self-deception is not always a bad thing.

David Shapiros article On the Psychology of Self-Deception states that there are some

writers that believe our capacity for self-deception is adaptive, man must have his illusions.

What they are talking about is called positive illusions or illusory hopes. These, like placebos

often contribute to their own success. Optimism is its own kind of self-deception. Those of the

world who are optimistic are constantly saying to themselves that things are going to end up fine

no matter what, when, in reality, it can always go either way. Deep down they believe that there

is a chance that something could go wrong, but they are choosing to overlook this belief in order

to focus on another. Which is the basic definition of self-deception.

Optimism, however, is seen as a positive trait for most people. How can something many

scientists have thought was a bad thing be directly correlated with something that most people

would agree is a good thing? It cant. I believe that all perceptions of self-deception are not

always negative. The tendency toward optimism leads humans to try new things and be fruitful

in social interactions. Without this important personality function, almost nothing would get done

because everyone would believe everything is impossible. There wouldnt be that person, that

always seems to be in history books, that despite everyone around them saying that what they

were trying to achieve was impossible they still believed in their impossible thing and the world

is a better place because of it. Lying, especially to ourselves may not always be the terrible thing

everyone seems to think it is.

 Works Cited

Fernndez, Jordi. "Self-deception and Self-knowledge." Philosophical Studies 162.2 (2013): 379-400.

Academic Search Elite. Web. 28 Oct. 2015.

Funkhouser, Eric. "Self-Deception and the Limits of Folk Psychology." Social Theory & Practice 35.1

(2009): 1-13. Academic Search Elite. Web. 30 Oct. 2015.

Moomal, Zubair, and Stephanus Petrus Henzi. "The Evolutionary Psychology of Deception and Self-

Deception." South African Journal of Psychology 30.3 (2000): 45. Academic Search Elite. Web.

30 Oct. 2015.

Noordhof, Paul. "The Essential Instability of Self-Deception." Social Theory & Practice 35.1 (2009):

45-71. Academic Search Elite. Web. 30 Oct. 2015.

Sahdra, Baljinder, and Paul Thagard. "Self-Deception and Emotional Coherence." Minds & Machines

13.2 (2003): 213-31. Academic Search Elite. Web. 28 Oct. 2015.

Shapiro, David. "On the Psychology of Self-Deception." Social Research 63.3 (1996): 785-800.

Academic Search Elite. Web. 28 Oct. 2015.

Shermer, Micheal. "The Pattern Behind Self-Deception." Ted.com. TED Conferences, LLC, Feb. 2010.

Web. 28 Oct. 2015.

Van Leeuwen, D. S. Neil. "The Spandrels of Self-Deception: Prospects for a Biological Theory
of a Mental Phenomenon." Philosophical Psychology 20.3 (2007): 329-48. Academic Search
Elite. Web. 30 Oct. 2015.