Self-deception is an intrapsychic phenomenon, and explanations of it have typically been in terms of what intrapsychic outcomes it achieves (e.g., through self-deception, one can be happier with oneself or about prospects to come). The foundational theme of von Hippel & Trivers's (VH&T's) target article is a simple one, albeit one with profound implications: Any sensible approach to understanding an intrapsychic process – one consistent with modern evolutionary biology –.must ultimately connect that process with effects on the world. That is, intrapsychic processes, to evolve, must have either have had effects on fitness achieved through those effects or have been by-products of some process that did. The primary line of thinking that VH&T specifically pursue is one introduced by Trivers (Reference Trivers1985) 25 years ago: Through self-deception, agents are able to control the inferences that other organisms make about them in ways that enhance the effectiveness of those agents to achieve desired ends.
As VH&T emphasize, the insistence that self-deception be understood in an interpersonal context has broad and deep consequences for how it should be conceptualized and studied. In what ways does self-deception enable other-deception, and through what processes does it do so? When is self-deception most effective at enabling other-deception? Do individuals accordingly engage in self-deception when its beneficial interpersonal consequences are most substantial? If so, through what means do individuals “know” that self-deception is likely to be effective? More generally, how has selection shaped the processes that regulate self-deceptive tactics in ways that, ancestrally, enhanced net fitness benefits? Though self-deceptive processes have been studied by psychologists for decades, we will lack a deep understanding of them until researchers take to heart VH&T's fundamental point.
I take up here one component of self-deception's functional context that VH&T are surely aware of but do not explicitly discuss in any detail. In the interpersonal context in which self-deception operates, other-deception via self-deception may be in the interest of the actor, but not being deceived by others is typically in the interest of all target perceivers. That is, selection should favor perceivers whose inferences are not readily manipulated in the interests of others. Hence, self-deception not only must be understood in an evolutionary framework, but it also must be appreciated in the context of a co-evolutionary framework in which the targets of other-deceit must be assumed to have been subject to selection to avoid being deceived (e.g., Rice & Holland Reference Rice and Holland1997).
In the 30-plus years since the concept of self-deception was introduced, biologists have developed sophisticated theories pertaining to communication between organisms, now collectively referred to as signaling theory (e.g., Searcy & Nowicki Reference Searcy and Nowicki2005). One core component of signaling theory is the concept of honest signaling. The idea is that, for any signaling system to evolve, both senders and receivers must benefit, and for receivers to benefit, the signal must contain accurate or “honest” information. If the signal is dishonest (e.g., the size of peacocks' tails reveal nothing about the quality of their bearers), receivers should evolve to ignore it – that is, the signaling system should collapse (or fail to evolve in the first place).
In light of this notion, how have self-deceptive processes aimed to deceive others been maintained by selection? If perceivers suffer from attending to performances rendered deceptive by self-deception, why has selection not led them to ignore such performances? Perhaps most notably, why should perceivers be fooled by false confidence bolstered by self-deception? Several possibilities come to mind.
First, most performances may well be honest portrayals of earned or honest confidence. A signaling system that is basically honest (honest on average) can tolerate some level of dishonesty (e.g., Searcy & Nowicki Reference Searcy and Nowicki2005).
Second, in many circumstances it may be difficult for individuals to detect the difference between a performance backed by earned confidence and one enabled by self-deceived confidence. An implication of the co-evolutionary nature of signaling systems is that perceivers should be attentive to cues of false confidence – for instance, through utilization of multiple cues and reliance on reputation based on past performance as well as current performance. They should furthermore not tolerate false confidence even when the actor is unaware of its nature. (One reason why narcissistic individuals have unstable interpersonal relations is because their unearned arrogance leads others to reject them.) Yet one may be able to successfully perform with false confidence under conditions in which other information is lacking (such as one-shot interactions). This possibility once again underscores the need for researchers to examine the contexts in which self-deception affects performance, including the audiences of those performances in light of their desire not to be fooled.
Third, confidence bolstered by self-deception may not, ultimately, be other-deceptive. Individuals who have earned confidence may nonetheless benefit by carrying off that confidence by self-deceiving (e.g., not attending to their own shortcomings). In this view, individuals who can best afford to self-enhance through self-deception are those who are viewed positively by others in any case. Ironically, in this view, self-deception facilitates honest, not deceptive, social performance.
These possibilities are not mutually exclusive. And there may be others.
More generally, the fact that social performances enhanced by self-deception must be understood in the context of co-evolved audience resistance to falsely enhanced performance has implications for how self-deception should be studied. And beyond that, at a basic theoretical level, it suggests ways in which an appreciation for the evolutionary processes that have shaped self-deception should be deepened.
Self-deception is an intrapsychic phenomenon, and explanations of it have typically been in terms of what intrapsychic outcomes it achieves (e.g., through self-deception, one can be happier with oneself or about prospects to come). The foundational theme of von Hippel & Trivers's (VH&T's) target article is a simple one, albeit one with profound implications: Any sensible approach to understanding an intrapsychic process – one consistent with modern evolutionary biology –.must ultimately connect that process with effects on the world. That is, intrapsychic processes, to evolve, must have either have had effects on fitness achieved through those effects or have been by-products of some process that did. The primary line of thinking that VH&T specifically pursue is one introduced by Trivers (Reference Trivers1985) 25 years ago: Through self-deception, agents are able to control the inferences that other organisms make about them in ways that enhance the effectiveness of those agents to achieve desired ends.
As VH&T emphasize, the insistence that self-deception be understood in an interpersonal context has broad and deep consequences for how it should be conceptualized and studied. In what ways does self-deception enable other-deception, and through what processes does it do so? When is self-deception most effective at enabling other-deception? Do individuals accordingly engage in self-deception when its beneficial interpersonal consequences are most substantial? If so, through what means do individuals “know” that self-deception is likely to be effective? More generally, how has selection shaped the processes that regulate self-deceptive tactics in ways that, ancestrally, enhanced net fitness benefits? Though self-deceptive processes have been studied by psychologists for decades, we will lack a deep understanding of them until researchers take to heart VH&T's fundamental point.
I take up here one component of self-deception's functional context that VH&T are surely aware of but do not explicitly discuss in any detail. In the interpersonal context in which self-deception operates, other-deception via self-deception may be in the interest of the actor, but not being deceived by others is typically in the interest of all target perceivers. That is, selection should favor perceivers whose inferences are not readily manipulated in the interests of others. Hence, self-deception not only must be understood in an evolutionary framework, but it also must be appreciated in the context of a co-evolutionary framework in which the targets of other-deceit must be assumed to have been subject to selection to avoid being deceived (e.g., Rice & Holland Reference Rice and Holland1997).
In the 30-plus years since the concept of self-deception was introduced, biologists have developed sophisticated theories pertaining to communication between organisms, now collectively referred to as signaling theory (e.g., Searcy & Nowicki Reference Searcy and Nowicki2005). One core component of signaling theory is the concept of honest signaling. The idea is that, for any signaling system to evolve, both senders and receivers must benefit, and for receivers to benefit, the signal must contain accurate or “honest” information. If the signal is dishonest (e.g., the size of peacocks' tails reveal nothing about the quality of their bearers), receivers should evolve to ignore it – that is, the signaling system should collapse (or fail to evolve in the first place).
In light of this notion, how have self-deceptive processes aimed to deceive others been maintained by selection? If perceivers suffer from attending to performances rendered deceptive by self-deception, why has selection not led them to ignore such performances? Perhaps most notably, why should perceivers be fooled by false confidence bolstered by self-deception? Several possibilities come to mind.
First, most performances may well be honest portrayals of earned or honest confidence. A signaling system that is basically honest (honest on average) can tolerate some level of dishonesty (e.g., Searcy & Nowicki Reference Searcy and Nowicki2005).
Second, in many circumstances it may be difficult for individuals to detect the difference between a performance backed by earned confidence and one enabled by self-deceived confidence. An implication of the co-evolutionary nature of signaling systems is that perceivers should be attentive to cues of false confidence – for instance, through utilization of multiple cues and reliance on reputation based on past performance as well as current performance. They should furthermore not tolerate false confidence even when the actor is unaware of its nature. (One reason why narcissistic individuals have unstable interpersonal relations is because their unearned arrogance leads others to reject them.) Yet one may be able to successfully perform with false confidence under conditions in which other information is lacking (such as one-shot interactions). This possibility once again underscores the need for researchers to examine the contexts in which self-deception affects performance, including the audiences of those performances in light of their desire not to be fooled.
Third, confidence bolstered by self-deception may not, ultimately, be other-deceptive. Individuals who have earned confidence may nonetheless benefit by carrying off that confidence by self-deceiving (e.g., not attending to their own shortcomings). In this view, individuals who can best afford to self-enhance through self-deception are those who are viewed positively by others in any case. Ironically, in this view, self-deception facilitates honest, not deceptive, social performance.
These possibilities are not mutually exclusive. And there may be others.
More generally, the fact that social performances enhanced by self-deception must be understood in the context of co-evolved audience resistance to falsely enhanced performance has implications for how self-deception should be studied. And beyond that, at a basic theoretical level, it suggests ways in which an appreciation for the evolutionary processes that have shaped self-deception should be deepened.