Self-deception as affective coping. An empirical perspective on philosophical issues (original) (raw)
Related papers
Ethics Forum/Les Ateliers de l'Ethique, 2018
Intuitively, affect plays an indispensable role in self-deception’s dynamic. Call this view “affectivism.” Investigating affectivism matters, as affectivists argue that this conception favours the non-intentionalist approach to self-deception and offers a unified account of straight and twisted self-deception. However, this line of argument has not been scrutinized in detail, and there are reasons to doubt it. Does affectivism fulfill its promises of non-intentionalism and unity? We argue that it does, as long as affect’s role in self-deception lies in affective filters—that is, in evaluation of information in light of one’s concerns (the affective-filter view). We develop this conception by taking into consideration the underlying mechanisms governing self-deception, particularly the neurobiological mechanisms of somatic markers and dopamine regulation. Shifting the discussion to this level can fulfill the affectivist aspirations, as this approach clearly favours non-intentionalism and offers a unified account of self-deception. We support this claim by criticizing the main alternative affectivist account—namely, the views that self-deception functions to reduce anxiety or is motivated by anxiety. Describing self-deception’s dynamic does not require intention; affect is sufficient if we use the insights of neuroscience and the psychology of affective bias to examine this issue. In this way, affectivism can fulfill its promises.
On the 'Tension' Inherent in Self-Deception
Philosophical Psychology, 2012
Alfred Mele’s deflationary account of self-deception has frequently been criticised for being unable to explain the ‘‘tension’’ inherent in self-deception. These critics maintain that rival theories can better account for this tension, such as theories which suppose self-deceivers to have contradictory beliefs. However, there are two ways in which the tension idea has been understood. In this article, it is argued that on one such understanding, Mele’s deflationism can account for this tension better than its rivals, but only if we reconceptualize the self-deceiver’s attitude in terms of unwarranted degrees of conviction rather than unwarranted belief. This new way of viewing the self-deceiver’s attitude will be informed by observations on experimental work done on the biasing influence of desire on belief, which suggests that self-deceivers don’t manage to fully convince themselves of what they want to be true. On another way in which this tension has been understood, this account would not manage so well, since on this understanding the self-deceiver is best interpreted as knowing, but wishing to avoid, the truth. However, it is argued that we are under no obligation to account for this since it is a characteristic of a different phenomenon than self-deception, namely, escapism.
The Motivating Influence of Emotion on Twisted Self-Deception
The question on whether self-deception is intentional or not has divided philosophers into two conflicting sides. Despite the disagreement, partisans of either side tend to converge on characterizing self-deception as a kind of motivated believing. They generally agree that self-deception is motivated by desire. In fact, the basis by which they classify cases of self-deception as straight or twisted is on how desire influences the acquisition of self-deceptive belief. In the former, the desire that p (or the desire to believe that p) influences the subject's acquisition of a belief that p. In the latter, despite not desiring that p to be the case, S still acquires the belief that p. Twisted cases of self-deception, however, pose themselves as challenge to the claim that self-deception is motivated by desire. They are problematic because desiring something undesirable is a contradiction. Taking the nonintentional side of the debate, I aim to explore the most viable explanation on how motivation works on self-deception. I argue that emotions are as responsible as desire in self-deceptive belief acquisition. Following the model of lay-hypothesis testing originally laid out by social psychologists, the self-deceiver is considered as someone testing her hypothesis for its confirmation rather than for its negation. On this model, the role of desire and emotions in self-deception can be seen in the generation of the hypothesis and its actual testing. The motivating influence of emotions in biased belief acquisitions is more obvious in twisted cases especially in the triggering of the hypothesis, whereas desire's influence dominates the triggering of a hypothesis in the straight ones.
The Spandrels of Self-Deception: Prospects for a Biological Theory of a Mental Phenomenon
Philosophical Psychology, 2007
Three puzzles about self-deception make this mental phenomenon an intriguing explanatory target. The first relates to how to define it without paradox; the second is about how to make sense of self-deception in light of the interpretive view of the mental that has become widespread in philosophy; and the third concerns why it exists at all. In this paper I address the first and third puzzles. First, I define self-deception. Second, I criticize Robert Trivers' attempt to use adaptionist evolutionary psychology to solve the third puzzle (existence). Third, I sketch a theory to replace that of Trivers. Self-deception is not an adaptation, but a spandrel in the sense that Gould and Lewontin give the term: a byproduct of other features of human (cognitive) architecture.
Self-deception and failure to modulate responses despite accruing evidence of error
Two studies assessed performance on a gambling-type card playing task (Newman, Patter-son, & Kosson, 1987) by males defined as high or low in self-deception. Monetary success in this task depends upon the ability to modulate reward-seeking responses, by attending to information indicative of task-failure. In Study 1, 28 13-year-old boys categorized as high in self-deception using EysenckÕs Junior Lie Scale (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1975), played more cards and won significantly less money than 143 categorized as low in self-deception. Study 2 replicated these findings in a sample of 42 male Harvard undergraduates defined as high or low in self-deception using EysenckÕs Lie scale (Eysenck, Eysenck, & Barrett, 1985) and the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (BIDR; Paulhus, 1991). Also, a higher proportion of high self-deceivers played until the end of the task in both samples, thereby losing all their money, despite the fact that 19 of the last 20 cards were losing. These findings support a model of self-deception as ignoring evidence of error and reinforce the argument that self-deception may be maladaptive.
From self-deception to self-control
2013
‘Intentionalist’ approaches portray self-deceivers as “akratic believers”, subjects who deliberately choose to believe p despite knowing that p is false. In this paper I argue that the intentionalist model leads to a number of paradoxes that seem to undermine it. I claim that these paradoxes can nevertheless be overcome in light of the rival hypothesis that self-deception is a non-intentional process that stems from the influence of emotions upon cognitive processes. Furthermore, I propose a motivational interpretation of the phenomenon of ‘hyperbolic discounting bias’ which highlights the role of emotional biases in akratic behavior. Finally, I argue that we are not the helpless victims of our irrational attitudes, insofar as we have the ability – and arguably the epistemic obligation – to counteract motivational biases.
In this entry, I seek to show the interdependence of questions about self-deception in philosophy of mind, psychology, and ethics. I taxonomize solutions to the paradoxes of self-deception, present possible psychological mechanisms behind it, and highlight how different approaches to the philosophy of mind and psychology will affect how we answer important ethical questions. Is self-deception conducive to happiness? How does self-deception affect responsibility? Is there something intrinsically wrong with self-deception? The entry, on the one hand, is a tour of the literature; on the other, it is a case for more work that crosses traditional sub-disciplinary boundaries.