Self-Deception

Lying typically involves (at least) two people: a subject S who lies and a target T who is lied to. S intends, by asserting that some belief (β) is true, to make T believe that β is true, even though S knows β to be false. Thus, one person, who knows something, sets out to deceive another person, who does not.

Reasoning by analogy, self-deception would seem to involve the same person setting out to deceive themselves (and succeeding). But this seems impossible on the face of it. How can a single person play the roles of S and T, both sending and receiving a misleading message, both knowing that β is false and believing it is true? Much philosophical analysis has attempted to square this conceptual circle. Whether or not it succeeds is moot.

Despite the paradoxical nature of self-deception, everyday examples are easily envisaged. A persistent hard-drug user boasts he can kick his habit whenever he wants. A student who keeps skipping class insists she wishes to pursue an academic career. A husband who habitually cheats on his wife swears that he loves only her. Here, actors stubbornly deny what observers can readily perceive: their problematic deeds imply character flaws.

Such everyday examples highlight how self-deception is not merely accidental—a type of [Page 837]cognitive error. It is also motivated—a type of wishful thinking. In particular, the desire to maintain a positive self-view, to self-enhance, lies at the heart of much self-deception. To admit to a character flaw—to being, say, an addict, idler, or cad—entails a psychic cost in the form of lower self-esteem or social shame. To avoid incurring that cost, the admission is avoided. Thus, every act of self-deception involves denial, a classic defense mechanism.

Self-deceptive denials range from moderate to extreme. Suppose one pays a sizeable sum to see a movie, but the movie disappoints. The conclusion that one wasted money, or was foolish enough to do so, is unwelcome. It can, however, be avoided by concluding that the movie was better than it was. Such rationalizations are convenient ways of resolving otherwise dispiriting cognitive dissonances. More unqualified forms of denial surface in clinical cases of narcissism. Here, the motive to self-enhance predominates so strongly that arrogant self-justification becomes routine and invincible.