What is Self-deceit?

Self-deceit functions like the Photoshop of our brains: it airbrushes uncomfortable truths to decorate our life resume, but also prevents us from seeing the cliff beneath our feet. Like that time you added 'basic Spanish' to your resume after one Duolingo lesson, this mental “editing software” helps you project confidence at job interviews, but leaves you panicking when facing an actual Spanish speaker. Self-deceit occurs when reality threatens self-interest, moral identity, or social relationships. It is an evolutionary adaptive strategy that enhances short-term survival and social union by creating a shareable, social reality with collective delusion, but its adverse consequences in modern society require us to consciously regulate it. In this essay, I will discuss forms of self-deceit, the evolutionary and psychological drivers, and evaluate its duple role as both a protective strategy and a source of individual and societal harm.

Self-deceit operates through specialized cognitive mechanisms, or mental tools for maintaining self-image and adapting to the environment, with three core categories addressed in this essay. The first filter is Shielding the Self, including denial and projection (an automatic process that either rejects the unfavorable information that threatens one’s ego or ascribes them to others). The next filter is Rewriting Reality, reconstructing reality cognitively through rationalization, overgeneralization (Warren, 2014), and polarized thinking. Finally, the Inner Maintenance Tool, through emotional reasoning and tolerance (Hippel & Trivers, 2011), appeals to subjective emotions and bears uncomfortable facts.

Among the mechanisms of self-deceit, 'Shielding the Self' relies on primitive defenses like denial - an automatic rejection of threatening information that bypasses rational testing (Warren, 2014; Catton, 1996). Its evolutionary roots are evident in childlike behavior (e.g., refusal of unpleasant truths), demonstrating pre-rational origins (Freud, 1966). Despite its efficacy, the inability of denial to reality-test leads to systemic vulnerabilities, as seen in decision-making failures of U.S. armed forces stemming from the denial of inconsistent information in the Vietnam War (Janis, 1972).

When denial fails, projection extends this protective effect outward, where individuals attribute emotions or truths to others - particularly in situations involving multiple individuals with close relationships - in order to maintain a favorable self-image (Baumeister et al. 1998). This process has important implications in understanding interpersonal conflicts. While projection offers immediate relief from distress (Hippel & Trivers, 2011), it systematically distorts interpersonal relationships and causes internal conflicts. As Morf and Rhodewalt (2001) have shown, it not only strains relationships but also prevents self-awareness, since individuals remain blind to their own flaws - a pattern observed in clinical studies of narcissistic personality traits, where projection is often employed as a means of self-deceit.

In addition to the direct defense mechanisms, more complex cognitive reorganization - Rewriting Reality - also emerges. Rationalization constructs logical justifications to align behaviors with self-image, reducing cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1957). The major difference from denial lies in its thought process. For instance, students may rationalize cheating as reasonable when facing questions beyond the syllabus. The adaptive value of rationalization includes its ability to avoid a downward revision of the self-concept and discourage violence in the short term (Aronson, 1969). However, its interpretive character introduces a potential danger: as the logic is self-constructed, it can perpetuate harmful behavior by justifying the motivations.

Reconstruction processes often make use of some mental shortcuts to simplify situations. For instance, polarized thinking simplifies reality into rigid binaries, ignoring the wide range of human experience, thereby avoiding the anxiety caused by cognitive ambiguity (Kruglanski, 1996). Polarized thinkers are more likely to classify behaviors as "completely moral" or "completely immoral" rather than on a continuous spectrum (Ariely, 2012). Although polarization buffers anxiety, its rigidity will continue to conflict with the complex reality. By rejecting middle-ground perspectives, individuals may actually intensify their emotional distress over time.

Besides, a common method used in cognitive editing is to identify excessively general conclusions. Overgeneralization trades cognitive efficiency for distorted reality at profound costs, neglecting critical information (Warren, 2014) and resulting in unintentional anxiety (Laufer et al., 2016). Though Gigerenzer (2011) underlines its adaptive value in uncertain ancestral environments, career-related overgeneralizations generates failure (Kernis et al., 1989). This testifies the thesis that primitive cognitive strategies may become maladaptive when applied to certain modern contexts, where complex and interwoven situations exist. For instance, a manager who assumes "remote workers are less productive" can overlook high-performing remote teams and implement rigid policies that are unable to capitalize on novel opportunities.

The final defense mechanism - Inner Maintenance Tool - operates internally to regulate emotions to achieve a state of balance. Emotional reasoning allows individuals to justify beliefs based on subjective feelings rather than objective evidence (Warren, 2014), which serves adaptive functions under time pressure (Loewenstein et al., 2001). Yet it may also distort people's perceptions of each other, intensify conflicts, and undermine trust. Dunn and Schweitzer (2005) argue that emotional reasoning often diminish social collaboration and harmony in the workplace. When a coworker delays response, ascribing it to deliberate disregard undermines cooperation, whereas considering it as based on external factors , like "they might be busy", fosters communication.

When all the active regulatory mechanisms become ineffective, human thinking will shift to adopt a passive and tolerant strategy. Tolerance may seem direct and convenient, but it is actually highly restrictive in unbearable situations such as crossing one’s moral boundary. Tolerance reduces gaps between goals and reality by lowering target values or accepting current situations (Carver & Scheier, 2001). The effectiveness of tolerance as a psychological strategy is time-sensitive - particularly when people regulate their attitudes at the beginning of events, the effectiveness of tolerance on decreasing unrest outperforms later interventions (Gross, 2002).

No matter the ways we filter reality, people are frequently driven to self-deceive due to its advantages: protecting self-interest, maintaining social relationships , and supporting moral self-image (Warren, 2014). These motivations are mutually inexclusive but collectively exhaustive. They operate collaboratively, reinforcing one another, while together demonstrates the full collection of motivators; a politician fabricating lies about corruption (self-interest) invokes "public service" (moral self-image) to gain public support (social relationships). Therefore, calling self-deceit "irrational" is superficial, as it overlooks the complexity in its design - both in its evolutionary purposefulness and neural mechanisms, even though it leads to negative outcomes.

Self-deceptive behavior often serve individual interests for it provides measurable advantages for survival. When individuals distort reality cognitively to cling to their beliefs, it is not merely for "inner consistency" but to avoid costly changes, for instance, career transformation, relational distortion, or ideological shifts, which may affect one's current status. Goffman (1959) elaborates that people fabricate credibility through believing in having abilities they do not possess, which helps to secure promotions, build up trust, and obtain resources. Economically, CEO overconfidence drives aggressive investments that yield short-term profits (Malmendier & Tate, 2005); socially, self-deceit can bring social recognition by outperforming others with confidence (Trivers, 2011). Meanwhile, self-deceit incurs significant opportunity costs - for examples skill improvement and career advancement (Chance et al., 2011). Ultimately, what was initially intended as a protective form of self-enhancement could lead to stagnation.

The utility of self-deceit extends beyond the individual to social cohesion. Evolutionary theory suggests that self-deceit reduces conflict and further stabilizes hierarchies (Trivers, 2010), cultivating survival advantages for both the deceiver and the deceived. Nevertheless, its benefits depend on the interaction between culture and the environment rather than only functioning as biological inevitability (Van Leeuwen, 2007). From ancestral tribes to modern societies, humans, as physically vulnerable creatures, require collective living to survive (Marlowe, 2005), while self-deceit is one of the cognitive tools to foster unity (Hippel & Trivers, 2011) that enhance social bonds. Although self-deceit can temporarily unit people, it may erode the foundation of cohesion through undermining trust (Tavris & Aronson, 2007). Investors' selective avoidance of information will contribute to destructive bubbles (Karlsson et al., 2009). This viral spread of distorted thinking damages personal relationships and system stability, making self-deceit, on the other hand, a widespread threat to social harmony and economic security.

Importantly, in the modern society dominated by algorithms, the sophisticated tool for maintaining individual survival and social connection throughout the course of evolution is undergoing subtle changes. The digital personality masks, thriving from the development of internet, allow self-deceit to transform from a protective lie to a productive one. A case in point is that Instagram users use photo editing, filters and selective display to deceive themselves by creating a perfect image, in order to gain social media attention and sometimes profits (Chae, 2017). While self-deceit is a survival instinct, it is also subject to conscious regulation, which does not override the instinct but rather negotiates with it - just as new systems cast impact on traditions, but can never completely eliminate their existence. People’s proactive reconstruction of reality does not occur accidentally, but arises from the interacting influences of emotional necessity and social constraint. In the modern era, algorithmic recommendations and abundant information have further reduced the cost of constructing subjective reality via forming echoing chambers. It has been significantly easier for people to selectively choose information that confirms with their preferences and ignore adverse evidence. Ultimately, this objectively reconstructed reality has been proved to be a critical buffer layer in people's psychological adaptation and social interaction.

From a neurological perspective, the Prefrontal Cortex (PFC) plays a significant role in the process of self-deceit. Neuroimaging studies reveal PFC's double roles in sustaining truths (Badre & Nee, 2018) and creating deceptive narratives (Greene & Paxton, 2009). Costly as self-deceit is metabolically, it is evolutionarily advantageous: we can minimize the behavioral loopholes that allow others to detect our deception (Trivers, 2011). When self-deceit is weaponized, however - as greedy donors deceive themselves, using small charitable donations to disguise their selfishness as generosity - it breeds moral camouflage, facilitating simultaneous conservation of wealth and reputation (Ochsner et al., 2002; Tavris & Aronson, 2007). Moreover, during the process, the dopamine reward generated in the striatum region reinforces the behavior (Abe & Greene, 2014). When deception becomes a habit, the pathological disconnection between perception and behavior could impair the control of emotions and cognition (Trivers, 2011). This is particularly damaging in rehabilitation treatment, as patients who deny having addiction problems or physical disabilities (such as "I can quit at any time") tend to have poorer outcomes (Prigatoño, 2009).

Morally speaking, when self-deceit is used for exploitative purposes, such as corrupt charitable acts, it is not only a cognitive error but also an unethical act, causing harm to others. White lies can bring temporary comfort, but still generate long-term costs in an inconspicuous way (Skotnicki, 2008). While individuals employ self-deceit as a useful strategy, they should be aware of the potential expenses that may arrive afterwards. Admittedly from an evolutionary perspective, creating a shared reality enhances short-term survival capabilities and social cohesion; however, in modern society, the increasingly complex systems require a higher degree of objective rationality.

Self-deceit is a double-edged sword - it helps us buffer the cruelty of reality, but also keeps us away from the truth in an illusory sense of security. Returning to the Photoshop analogy, such functions can be helpful, but the ignorance of its mechanisms may leave us vulnerable to its hidden dangers. In order to fully reap its benefits and avoid the drawbacks, we must consciously regulate: this needs to be cultivated cognitively first, that is, recognizing that our most "rational" thoughts may also contain elements of self-deceit. Equally important is to learn to view emotions as signals rather than facts, understanding that "I am anxious about this decision" requires exploration rather than being regarded as objectivity (Gross, 2015). At the social level, individuals need to fully consider the moral aspect and self-deceit’s impact on society (Haidt, 2012). This comprehensive approach acknowledges that humans are essentially self-correcting storytellers, rather than completely rational beings. After all, our goal is not to eliminate self-deceit - this is practically impossible - but to use it wisely while preserving a sufficient connection with reality, thereby making informed decisions while maintaining genuine relationships.

Bibliography:

Warren, C. S. (2014). Lies We Tell Ourselves: The Psychology of Self-Deception.

Von Hippel, W., & Trivers, R. (2011). The evolution and psychology of self-deception. Behavioral and brain sciences, 34(1), 1-16.

Catton Jr, W. R. (1996). The problem of denial. Human Ecology Review, 53-62.

Freud, A. (2018). The ego and the mechanisms of defence.

Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of groupthink: A psychological study of foreign-policy decisions and fiascoes.

Baumeister, R. F., Dale, K., & Sommer, K. L. (1998). Freudian defense mechanisms and empirical findings in modern social psychology: Reaction formation, projection, displacement, undoing, isolation, sublimation, and denial. Journal of personality, 66(6), 1081-1124.

Morf, C. C., & Rhodewalt, F. (2001). Unraveling the paradoxes of narcissism: A dynamic self-regulatory processing model. Psychological inquiry, 12(4), 177-196.

Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Row, Peterson.

Aronson, E. (1969). The theory of cognitive dissonance: A current perspective. In Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 1-34). Academic Press.

Kruglanski, A. W., & Webster, D. M. (1996). Motivated closing of the mind:" Seizing" and" freezing.". Psychological review, 103(2), 263.

Ariely, D., & Jones, S. (2012). The honest truth about dishonesty.

Laufer, O., Israeli, D., & Paz, R. (2016). Behavioral and neural mechanisms of overgeneralization in anxiety. Current Biology, 26(6), 713-722.

Kernis, M. H., Brockner, J., & Frankel, B. S. (1989). Self-esteem and reactions to failure: The mediating role of overgeneralization. Journal of personality and social psychology, 57(4), 707.

Gigerenzer, G., & Gaissmaier, W. (2011). Heuristic decision making. Annual review of psychology, 62(2011), 451-482.

Loewenstein, G. F., Weber, E. U., Hsee, C. K., & Welch, N. (2001). Risk as feelings. Psychological bulletin, 127(2), 267.

Dunn, J. R., & Schweitzer, M. E. (2005). Feeling and believing: the influence of emotion on trust. Journal of personality and social psychology, 88(5), 736.

Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (2001). On the self-regulation of behavior. cambridge university press.

Gross, J. J. (2002). Emotion regulation: Affective, cognitive, and social consequences. Psychophysiology, 39(3), 281-291.

Goffman, E. (2002). The presentation of self in everyday life. 1959. Garden City, NY, 259, 2002.

Malmendier, U., & Tate, G. (2005). CEO overconfidence and corporate investment. The journal of finance, 60(6), 2661-2700.

Trivers, R. (2011). The folly of fools: The logic of deceit and self-deception in human life. Basic Books (AZ).

Chance, Z., Norton, M. I., Gino, F., & Ariely, D. (2011). Temporal view of the costs and benefits of self-deception. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(supplement_3), 15655-15659.

Trivers, R. (2010). Deceit and self-deception (pp. 373-393). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

Van Leeuwen, D. N. (2007). The spandrels of self-deception: Prospects for a biological theory of a mental phenomenon. Philosophical Psychology, 20(3), 329-348.

Marlowe, F. W. (2005). Hunter‐gatherers and human evolution. Evolutionary Anthropology: Issues, News, and Reviews: Issues, News, and Reviews, 14(2), 54-67.

Tavris, C., & Aronson, E. (2007). Mistakes were made (but not by me): Why we justify foolish beliefs, bad decisions, and hurtful acts.

Karlsson, N., Loewenstein, G., & Seppi, D. (2009). The ostrich effect: Selective attention to information. Journal of Risk and uncertainty, 38, 95-115.

Chae, J. (2017). Virtual makeover: Selfie-taking and social media use increase selfie-editing frequency through social comparison. Computers in Human Behavior, 66, 370-376.

Badre, D., & Nee, D. E. (2018). Frontal cortex and the hierarchical control of behavior. Trends in cognitive sciences, 22(2), 170-188.

Greene, J. D., & Paxton, J. M. (2009). Patterns of neural activity associated with honest and dishonest moral decisions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(30), 12506-12511.

Ochsner, K. N., Bunge, S. A., Gross, J. J., & Gabrieli, J. D. (2002). Rethinking feelings: an FMRI study of the cognitive regulation of emotion. Journal of cognitive neuroscience, 14(8), 1215-1229.

Abe, N., & Greene, J. D. (2014). Response to anticipated reward in the nucleus accumbens predicts behavior in an independent test of honesty. Journal of Neuroscience, 34(32), 10564-10572.

Prigatano, G. P. (2009). Anosognosia: clinical and ethical considerations. Current Opinion in Neurology, 22(6), 606-611.

Skotnicki, A. (2008). Dishonest Dollars: The Dynamics of White-Collar Crime. Journal of Markets & Morality, 11(1), 127-130.

Gross, J. J. (2015). Emotion regulation: Current status and future prospects. Psychological inquiry, 26(1), 1-26.

Haidt, J. (2012). The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. Vintage.