Von Hippel & Trivers (VH&T) argue that self-deception arises from interpersonal deception: Agents deceive themselves as a tactic in order to suppress the biological cues that may betray them when they deceive others. If so, self-deception is optimal. As VH&T's corollary 1 states, by deceiving themselves, agents are able to “avoid” the cognitive costs of “consciously mediated deception.” As corollary 2 states, “by deceiving themselves, people can reduce retribution if their deception of others is discovered.”
-
1. The thesis implies that interpersonal deception necessarily precedes self-deception, in the logical sense. So, Robinson Crusoe does not resort to self-deception. Or, if he does, it must be a leftover trait given that his social past is not too far back. However, from casual empiricism, many acts of self-deception do not involve or entail society (Khalil, submitted). In the insightful Aesop's fable of the fox and sour grapes, there is no society. Agents simply go to enormous effort of “face saving” in order to look good to themselves – i.e., where no other humans are involved. One who makes a commitment to avoid, for example, eating chocolate cake, but succumbs to the temptation of eating a chocolate cake while on a visit to a foreign country, may say to himself: “I was not thinking – I was too absorbed watching the scenery.”
-
2. If self-deception is optimum, why would societies develop religious rules and encourage ethics of integrity, and why would even individuals appeal to their “conscience” and enact general rules in order to avoid and detect self-deception? Actually, the phenomenon of general rules – for example, one should not eat chocolate cake – has puzzled Adam Smith (1759/1982, pp. 156–61) who asked why individuals living independently of societies, such as Robinson Crusoe, would seek and want general rules? Smith (see Khalil Reference Khalil2009) argued that agents can easily fall prey to self-deception (what he calls “self-deceit”). Smith observed that people often undertake the wrong (i.e., suboptimal) actions, when they “honestly” think they are following moral rules (Khalil Reference Khalil2010). The impartial spectator (one who resides in one's “breast,” in Smith's words, and decides what the correct action is) might become partial – without the full awareness of the agent. That is, one can eat chocolate cake without one noticing that one is doing something wrong. This could be the case because one can come under the influence of the moment, such as listening to a speech, reading a book, and so on. Such self-serving bias is long known in the literature (e.g., Rosenhan & Messick Reference Rosenhan and Messick1966; Babcock & Loewenstein Reference Babcock and Loewenstein1997). Agents, in turn, according to Smith, resort to self-deception to cover up their mistakes, that is, their suboptimal actions. In this sense, the deception of others, which the agent is trying to cover, is already suboptimal – given that the retaliation of the other would offset any expected benefit from cheating the other.
Smith proceeded to argue that agents, to check their tendency to fall victim to a partial spectator and hence hurt themselves, erect general rules that express the opinion of the impartial spectator. Smith's “general rules” act as what economists call “precommitments” or “self-control” (see Khalil Reference Khalil2010). Examples of precommitments include checking oneself into a weight-loss spa to lose weight, avoiding bars if one wants to avoid drinking, and burning the bridges of retreat to prevent troops from running away in the face of an upcoming battle. But there is one minor difference: While precommitments are enacted to avoid temptations, Smith's general rules are enacted to avoid self-deception.
If this analysis is granted, self-deception is suboptimal because the action that the agent tries to cover up is, to start with, suboptimal.
-
3. For self-deception to be an optimum tactic, interpersonal deception must, to start with, be optimum. But why should we suppose that interpersonal deception is optimum? For example, if interpersonal deception can cost the person some “conscience agony,” and the agent decides that the benefit from cheating friends is not worth it, then cheating will be suboptimal. If so, self-deception is not only suboptimal, but also a “bad,” that is, a negative good because it obstructs the agent from seeing the suboptimal decision.
-
4. Corollary 1 states that agents want to avoid the cognitive cost of deception and hence resort to self-deception. But self-deception can be very costly, where agents reinvent the past, keep telling the fiction to themselves, and suppress other versions, sometimes with violence. Even when self-deception is costlier than frank deception, agents might still resort to self-deception – and hence would be irrational. This would be contrary to VH&T's thesis. But if agents avoided self-deception in such a case, they would be rational. That is, they would only resort to self-deception when the cognitive cost of self-deception was lower than the cognitive cost of frank deception. If agents did such calculation, even unconsciously, the phenomenon of self-deception would not exist – and hence the raison d'être of the target article does not exist.
-
5. Corollary 2 states that agents resort to self-deception because they can “play dumb” and reduce the intensity of retribution. But from casual empiricism, if an embezzler or a politician apologizes, that is, “comes out clean,” public scorn will be much less. In fact, the legal system of all countries and cultural norms in all societies give lenient punishment to people who express remorse and admit guilt.
If self-deception were a weightless hat – which everyone one can see while the person who wears it cannot – it could not be optimal. It would always be better to carry a mirror at all times, that is, a conscience or the “man within the breast” to use the expression of Adam Smith (1759/1982, p. 130), in order to undertake ruthless self-examination rather than face retribution by injured others.
Von Hippel & Trivers (VH&T) argue that self-deception arises from interpersonal deception: Agents deceive themselves as a tactic in order to suppress the biological cues that may betray them when they deceive others. If so, self-deception is optimal. As VH&T's corollary 1 states, by deceiving themselves, agents are able to “avoid” the cognitive costs of “consciously mediated deception.” As corollary 2 states, “by deceiving themselves, people can reduce retribution if their deception of others is discovered.”
I find five problems with the thesis:
1. The thesis implies that interpersonal deception necessarily precedes self-deception, in the logical sense. So, Robinson Crusoe does not resort to self-deception. Or, if he does, it must be a leftover trait given that his social past is not too far back. However, from casual empiricism, many acts of self-deception do not involve or entail society (Khalil, submitted). In the insightful Aesop's fable of the fox and sour grapes, there is no society. Agents simply go to enormous effort of “face saving” in order to look good to themselves – i.e., where no other humans are involved. One who makes a commitment to avoid, for example, eating chocolate cake, but succumbs to the temptation of eating a chocolate cake while on a visit to a foreign country, may say to himself: “I was not thinking – I was too absorbed watching the scenery.”
2. If self-deception is optimum, why would societies develop religious rules and encourage ethics of integrity, and why would even individuals appeal to their “conscience” and enact general rules in order to avoid and detect self-deception? Actually, the phenomenon of general rules – for example, one should not eat chocolate cake – has puzzled Adam Smith (1759/1982, pp. 156–61) who asked why individuals living independently of societies, such as Robinson Crusoe, would seek and want general rules? Smith (see Khalil Reference Khalil2009) argued that agents can easily fall prey to self-deception (what he calls “self-deceit”). Smith observed that people often undertake the wrong (i.e., suboptimal) actions, when they “honestly” think they are following moral rules (Khalil Reference Khalil2010). The impartial spectator (one who resides in one's “breast,” in Smith's words, and decides what the correct action is) might become partial – without the full awareness of the agent. That is, one can eat chocolate cake without one noticing that one is doing something wrong. This could be the case because one can come under the influence of the moment, such as listening to a speech, reading a book, and so on. Such self-serving bias is long known in the literature (e.g., Rosenhan & Messick Reference Rosenhan and Messick1966; Babcock & Loewenstein Reference Babcock and Loewenstein1997). Agents, in turn, according to Smith, resort to self-deception to cover up their mistakes, that is, their suboptimal actions. In this sense, the deception of others, which the agent is trying to cover, is already suboptimal – given that the retaliation of the other would offset any expected benefit from cheating the other.
Smith proceeded to argue that agents, to check their tendency to fall victim to a partial spectator and hence hurt themselves, erect general rules that express the opinion of the impartial spectator. Smith's “general rules” act as what economists call “precommitments” or “self-control” (see Khalil Reference Khalil2010). Examples of precommitments include checking oneself into a weight-loss spa to lose weight, avoiding bars if one wants to avoid drinking, and burning the bridges of retreat to prevent troops from running away in the face of an upcoming battle. But there is one minor difference: While precommitments are enacted to avoid temptations, Smith's general rules are enacted to avoid self-deception.
If this analysis is granted, self-deception is suboptimal because the action that the agent tries to cover up is, to start with, suboptimal.
3. For self-deception to be an optimum tactic, interpersonal deception must, to start with, be optimum. But why should we suppose that interpersonal deception is optimum? For example, if interpersonal deception can cost the person some “conscience agony,” and the agent decides that the benefit from cheating friends is not worth it, then cheating will be suboptimal. If so, self-deception is not only suboptimal, but also a “bad,” that is, a negative good because it obstructs the agent from seeing the suboptimal decision.
4. Corollary 1 states that agents want to avoid the cognitive cost of deception and hence resort to self-deception. But self-deception can be very costly, where agents reinvent the past, keep telling the fiction to themselves, and suppress other versions, sometimes with violence. Even when self-deception is costlier than frank deception, agents might still resort to self-deception – and hence would be irrational. This would be contrary to VH&T's thesis. But if agents avoided self-deception in such a case, they would be rational. That is, they would only resort to self-deception when the cognitive cost of self-deception was lower than the cognitive cost of frank deception. If agents did such calculation, even unconsciously, the phenomenon of self-deception would not exist – and hence the raison d'être of the target article does not exist.
5. Corollary 2 states that agents resort to self-deception because they can “play dumb” and reduce the intensity of retribution. But from casual empiricism, if an embezzler or a politician apologizes, that is, “comes out clean,” public scorn will be much less. In fact, the legal system of all countries and cultural norms in all societies give lenient punishment to people who express remorse and admit guilt.
If self-deception were a weightless hat – which everyone one can see while the person who wears it cannot – it could not be optimal. It would always be better to carry a mirror at all times, that is, a conscience or the “man within the breast” to use the expression of Adam Smith (1759/1982, p. 130), in order to undertake ruthless self-examination rather than face retribution by injured others.