Don't believe everything you think

[zonsb]

Evolutionary guru: Don't believe everything you think


Evolutionary guru: Don't believe everything you think
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21...?full=true

Quote: The human capacity for self-deception knows no bounds, but why do we do it? According to biologist Robert Trivers the simple answer is that it helps us have more children. He told Graham Lawton about the evolutionary benefits of lying

Psychologists been interested in self-deception for years, but you say we need a new science of self-deception?
Yes. Because the psychologists have not produced a theory. Self-deception lies at the heart of psychology, but if you read only psychology you will go blind and probably crazy before you discern the underlying principles. A functional view of self-deception has to come out of evolutionary logic. It has to be a pay-off in terms of reproductive success.

You argue that we deceive ourselves all the time, but why do we do it?
One reason is to better deceive others. Deceiving consciously is cognitively demanding. I've got to invent a false story while being aware of the truth, it's got to be plausible, it cannot contradict anything you already know or are going to find out and I've got to be able to remember it so that I don't contradict myself.

This takes concentration and I may give off cues that I'm lying. If I try to slip something by you I may not be able to meet your gaze. For linguistic cues, there are more pauses and fillers while I try to come up with my story. I'll choose simple action words and avoid qualifiers. Another thing that gives us away us is the effort to control ourselves. Let's say I'm coming to a key word in a lie. I tense up, but tensing up automatically raises my voice. That's a very hard thing to fight.

So believing the lie yourself can help with this cognitive burden?
Yes. If I can render all or part of the lie unconscious I can remove the cues that I'm deceiving you. So that's one kind of general reason to practice self-deception: to render the lie unconscious, the better to hide it.

What other types of self-deception are there?
Another broad category is that there is a general tendency to self-inflation. If you ask high school students are they in the top half of their class for leadership ability, 80 per cent will say yes; 70 per cent say they're in the top half for good looks. It ain't possible! And you cannot beat academics for self-deception. If you ask professors whether they're in the top half of their profession, 94 per cent say they are.

So we self-deceive in order to give ourselves an ego boost?
The ego boost, again, is in order to deceive others. There is little intrinsic value in deceiving yourself without deceiving others.

What are the benefits of deceiving other people?
There are many, many situations in which you gain personal benefit. If you're going to steal, you've got to lie to cover it up. If you're having an affair you lie to protect the relationship Now, what do we mean by personal benefit? Ultimately it is measured in terms of reproductive success. But there isn't a straightforward relationship between deception and reproductive success. For example, if I lie and I rise in the corporation, does this result in extra children? So we have to make a separate argument about why rising in the profession gives you benefits that translate into more surviving offspring.

There must be costs too?
Yes. The cost takes various forms. One is that you are more likely to be manipulated by others. A self-deceived person may be the only one in the room that doesn't know what the hell is going on. Con artists use tricks to get your machinery of self-deception going, and then they control you. The general cost is you risk being out of touch with reality.

But still the benefits outweigh these costs?
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Self-deception would not have evolved if the costs always outweighed the benefits.

What is going on in our brains when we deceive ourselves?
At the moment, not a lot is known about the neurophysiology. Much more is known about the immunology of self-deception. Here's a vivid example of the cost of self-deception. Because of HIV, various aspects of homosexuality have been studied very intensely. It turns out the more you're out of the closet, the better for you. If you're HIV positive, you transit into AIDS much quicker if you're in the closet about being homosexual.

Let's return to evolution. Are humans the only species with the capacity for self-deception?
No, I do not think so. Lying is widespread throughout the animal kingdom, both between species and also within species. One example is mimics, species that are harmless and tasty but gain protection by resembling a poisonous or distasteful one. Psychologists are getting close to showing that monkeys practice self-deception.

Like humans, monkeys naturally associate members of their "in-group" with positive stimuli such as fruits, and out-group members with negative stimuli such as spiders.

Do children come into the world as self-deceivers or does it take a while to develop?
That is very tough to say. There's evidence that deception in children starts at six months of age. By eight or nine months they have developed the ability to deny that they care about something that they do care about. But demonstrating self-deception is tricky.

Is it right that self-deception is correlated with intelligence?
Yes, at least for deception. The smarter your child is, the more he or she lies. In monkeys, the bigger the neocortex is, the more often they're seen lying in nature.

In your new book you get into some quite serious stuff about how self-deception fuels warfare and other evils...
Regarding warfare, if you can get the group believing the same deception, you have a powerful force to impose group unity. And if you've sold the population a false historical narrative, say "the German people need room in which to live", then it's relatively easy to couple marching orders to the delusion.

Tell me about the relationship between self-deception and religion.
It's complex. At one extreme you could say religion is complete nonsense, so the whole thing is an exercise in self-deception. I was raised as a Presbyterian and I occasionally attend. I stand back and I read the creed that I was taught as a child and it's utter, utter nonsense. But could it have spread so far by self-deception alone? Religion has been selected for. It has given many benefits to people - health benefits, cooperative benefits. So I take an intermediate position.

Are you a self-deceiver?
I end the book with a chapter on fighting our own self-deception. I've been remarkably unsuccessful in my own case. I just repeat the same kinds of mistakes over and over. If you ask me about my self-deception, I can give you stories, chapter and verse, in the past. But can I prevent myself doing the same damn thing again tomorrow? Usually not, though in my professional life as a scientist, I feel that I probably practice less self-deception, I'm more critical of evidence, a little bit harder nosed.

You could be deceiving yourself about that.
Absolutely.

Profile
Robert Trivers is one of the world's best-known evolutionary biologists. His work influenced sociobiology, evolutionary psychology, behavioural ecology and Richard Dawkins's concept of the selfish gene. He is professor of anthropology and biological sciences at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, New Jersey. His latest book, titled The Folly Of Fools in the US and Deceit And Self-Deception in the UK, is out this month

I disagree that animals that have evolved camouflage defense mechanism are lying to themselves. Rather, they are lying to predators. I also disagree that, "Like humans, monkeys naturally associate members of their "in-group" with positive stimuli such as fruits, and out-group members with negative stimuli such as spiders." is a monkey lying/deceiving itself. Rather, it's a correlation. This is good, that is bad.

That said. I found the discussion about human's and self-deception interesting enough to warrant posting the article.

[NonEntity]

(10-14-2011 08:29 AM)zonsb Wrote:  "A common criminal is honest." - NonEntity
Honest:
1. honorable in principles, intentions, and actions; upright and fair
2. showing uprightness and fairness: honest dealings
3. gained or obtained fairly

Nassim Nicholas Taleb Wrote:Your reputation is harmed the most by what you say to defend it.

- NonE

[eye2i2hear]

If this theory is valid, this statement is profound:

Quote:The ego boost, again, is in order to deceive others. There is little intrinsic value in deceiving yourself without deceiving others.

I'm assuming by "without" he means "apart from".
But consider the typical/classic Politician/Statist in this light: ego boost x self-deceit = deceiving others, and it's just "wow".

[zonsb]

(10-14-2011 02:35 PM)eye2i2hear Wrote:  If this theory is valid, this statement is profound:

Quote:The ego boost, again, is in order to deceive others. There is little intrinsic value in deceiving yourself without deceiving others.

I'm assuming by "without" he means "apart from".
But consider the typical/classic Politician/Statist in this light: ego boost x self-deceit = deceiving others, and it's just "wow".

Yes, wow!

The question asked -- "So we self-deceive in order to give ourselves an ego boost?" -- was derived in part from the previous comment.

Quote:What other types of self-deception are there?
Another broad category is that there is a general tendency to self-inflation. If you ask high school students are they in the top half of their class for leadership ability, 80 per cent will say yes; 70 per cent say they're in the top half for good looks. It ain't possible! And you cannot beat academics for self-deception. If you ask professors whether they're in the top half of their profession, 94 per cent say they are.

Leadership ability is subjective. Though I think the author meant according to a prescribed set of rules that define leadership ability. It's oh so external "authorityish." Regards "good looks," that's subjective too. The few with the best good looks will very seldom be identified as having the least good looks, and vice verse. Good, better, best -- high, higher, highest. And, what is the measuring scale where a professor fits on it. Is it academia's scale or the students scale?

Frankly, I think the evolutionary argument is moot in consideration that conscious discipline, thought and control can overcome some hard-wired evolutionary traits. I attribute self-deception to being bombarded with mysticism from an early age. A toddler's innocent mind looking to parents to validate his/her accurate identification of reality. The parent's begin polluting the innocent mind with unreal imaginary tooth fairy, Easter bunny, Santa Clause, flying reindeer, gods, spankings and sometimes worse. And then they go to school where heavy artillery bombards them for 13 years. And there's mesmerizing television and propaganda "news." That's not evolutionary process. It's conscious discipline, thought and control of people via external authority indoctrination.

[NonEntity]

(10-14-2011 07:06 PM)zonsb Wrote:  Frankly, I think the evolutionary argument is moot in consideration that conscious discipline, thought and control can overcome some hard-wired evolutionary traits. I attribute self-deception to being bombarded with mysticism from an early age. A toddler's innocent mind looking to parents to validate as to what is real -- as if to ask, is this right what I'm seeing? The parent's begin polluting the innocent mind with unreal imaginary tooth fairy, Easter bunny, Santa Clause, flying reindeer, gods, spankings and sometimes worse. And then they go to school where heavy artillery bombards them for 13 years. And there's mesmerizing television and propaganda "news." That's not evolutionary process. It's conscious discipline, thought and control of people via external authority indoctrination.

This TED talk about children's minds is quite worth the time investment.

- NonE

[zonsb]

(10-14-2011 07:58 PM)NonEntity Wrote:  This TED talk about children's minds is quite worth the time investment.

- NonE

Thanks.

[Kel]

Hmm, very interesting. The self deception-ego boost certainly explains many of my actions/inactions in life and the actions/inactions of others I know. Both of which typically result in mistakes, with only a loss and no" gain"....for me at least.

[zonsb]

(10-14-2011 10:45 PM)Kel Wrote:  Hmm, very interesting. The self deception-ego boost certainly explains many of my actions/inactions in life and the actions/inactions of others I know. Both of which typically result in mistakes, with only a loss and no" gain"....for me at least.

Reading that I connected some dots/integrations. In light of The Origin of Conscious in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind, I recalled what I wrote a few days ago: "It was and still is all so collectivism orientated. The programming is to perform external evaluation of other people's non-violent actions as having relevant meaning to onlookers lives. When the real value is with, are you a like-minded person I can co-create values with."

The manipulation of vestiges of bicameral minds to appeal to external sources. Integrating that with the knowledge that prior to consciousness, there was no ego, the evolutionary argument falls flat. The mind of man didn't evolve. It was a revolutionary discovery/invention, reorganization of the mind--without change/evolution of the brain matter. Unable to introspect, bicameral man had no concept of deception or guilt.

[zonsb]

Therein lies a massive deception.

Quote:It was and still is all so collectivism orientated. The programming is to perform external evaluation of other people's non-violent actions as having relevant meaning to onlookers lives.

Self-deception is a learned environment. It's a person thinking: I don't want to be like that, or, I do want to be like that. Then putting on airs. Juxtaposition, no one cares what I do, save for those of like mind, so long as I'm not initiating force. Then just live on, playing/working my plan.

Program? What program? Don't even go there. Just work your plan.

[Kel]

Found this to be interesting.

Marco Tempest: The magic of truth and lies (and iPods)

[eye2i2hear]

(10-25-2011 05:31 PM)Kel Wrote:  Found this to be interesting.

Marco Tempest: The magic of truth and lies (and iPods)

[Kel]

(10-25-2011 05:44 PM)eye2i2hear Wrote:  

(10-25-2011 05:31 PM)Kel Wrote:  Found this to be interesting.

Marco Tempest: The magic of truth and lies (and iPods)

Thanks. I noticed I used "to be" shortly after reading your E-Prime post. D'oh!

[eye2i2hear]

(10-25-2011 05:53 PM)Kel Wrote:  

(10-25-2011 05:31 PM)Kel Wrote:  Found this to be interesting.

Marco Tempest: The magic of truth and lies (and iPods)

I noticed I used "to be" shortly after reading your E-Prime post. D'oh!

Too funny, actually! I second your D'oh! I was just catching mye self doing precisely that in an email I was writing --I mean, right down to using "found" in that way! It fascinates mE to ponder why "I" wish to/so naturally think and speak in non-E-Prime; might it be the Authoritarian-wanna-be in Me... the miniMe preacher/profit-prophet?!? It IS dagummit 'cause I said IT IS...?!?
(here's to it being more about bad habits)

[NonEntity]

(10-25-2011 06:21 PM)eye2i2hear Wrote:  

(10-25-2011 05:53 PM)Kel Wrote:  

(10-25-2011 05:31 PM)Kel Wrote:  Found this to be interesting.

Marco Tempest: The magic of truth and lies (and iPods)

I noticed I used "to be" shortly after reading your E-Prime post. D'oh!

Too funny, actually! I second your D'oh! I was just catching mye self doing precisely that in an email I was writing --I mean, right down to using "found" in that way! It fascinates mE to ponder why "I" wish to/so naturally think and speak in non-E-Prime; might it be the Authoritarian-wanna-be in Me... the miniMe preacher/profit-prophet?!? It IS dagummit 'cause I said IT IS...?!?
(here's to it being more about bad habits)

I tried to rewrite it in E-prime but found I couldn't figure out how.

Every weigh I tride to right it had sum form of tubey in it!

- NonE

[eye2i2hear]

(10-25-2011 06:31 PM)NonEntity Wrote:  I tried to rewrite it in E-prime but found I couldn't figure out how.
Every weigh I tride to right it had sum form of tubey in it!
- NonE

I'm not sure what "it" (to rewrite) was for you, but regardless perhaps this will aide a bit? (or not so much? iAi --2me)
E-prime: The Spirit and the Letter by Ralph Kenyon
http://www.xenodochy.org/gs/e-prime.html

an excerpt:

Quote:Applying the "Letter/Spirit" distinction. Let me apply the "Letter/Spirit" distinction in the analysis of one statement put forth as an example of E-prime. In her concluding paragraph, Elaine Johnson presents the following sentence as an example of one of her high school student's new-found ability to write in E-prime.

I found the movie more rewarding than the novel.

While some might evaluate this sentence as a good example of E-prime, I do not think it satisfies the spirit of E-prime very well. When one finds something, one usually finds it in some place in this case, in a different category of (more) rewarding things than the category of rewarding things in which one found the novel. Moreover, the sentence treats "rewarding" as some characteristic of the novel that one can discover or find. I think that even the choice of the adjective 'rewarding', which directly modifies 'movie' and implicitly modifies novel' misleads readers in the direction of attending to objects and properties of objects.

Consider, for a moment, the sentence the above sentence rather obviously derives from:

The movie was more rewarding than the novel (was).

This sentence asserts the existence of a relation between too things. I certainly disapprove of the above sentence more than I disapprove of the following one:

I found the movie to be more rewarding than (I found) the novel (to be).

This sentence at least includes explicit reference to a speaker (I), and paraphrases to E' readily, by simply making the verb 'to be' implicit by omission.

I found the movie more rewarding than the novel.

Still, the term 'finds' externalizes one's attention to "what one finds"; one generally "finds" a thing. I offer the term 'evaluate' as better indicating the judgement involved.

I evaluate the movie as more rewarding than the novel.

But even this still suggests a comparative judgement about properties of objects.

Let's get "rewarding" back into direct personal experience and acknowledge more explicitly what we usually mean by "being rewarded" we like how we feel about it. Would you consider the following paraphrase too direct and simple?

I liked the movie better than I liked the novel.

This sentence most directly presents my understanding of the spirit of E-prime. The speaker ('I') takes direct responsibility with an active verb ('like') and presents his/her own comparative judgement (better).

But we must all walk before we can run, and crawl before we can walk. So, I suppose the offered sentence makes a step in the right direction. The above analysis shows a sequence of paraphrases, on a simple theme, going from "not-very-E-prime-like-at-all" to "very-E-prime-like".