PhillyTablet Inquirer Daily News
philly.com
email
font size
options
 
Sunday, January 15, 2012

We humans can be a cocky species - so much so that a realistic self-image can be seen as a symptom of trouble.

Take the reaction to a recent survey in which about 52 percent of college students rated their emotional health as below average. About half of them are, after all, going to be below average. But the UCLA researchers who did the survey say it indicates a deeper problem. In past surveys, at least 64 percent of the respondents said they were above average.

What's going on here? Are we truly living in Lake Wobegon, where all the children are above average?

Several scientists blame evolution for our ego-inflating tendencies - call it survival of the self-promoters.

We naturally tend to puff ourselves up and kid ourselves, says Rutgers University evolutionary biologist Robert Trivers. That's because evolution has shaped many organisms into natural-born liars. In his new book, The Folly of Fools, Trivers lays out a case that we humans are such good liars we even lie to ourselves.

People tend to overrate themselves on looks, smarts, and leadership ability, he says. Academics, he notes, are particularly deluded - in one survey, 94 percent thought they were in the top half of their profession.

Wouldn't a clear-eyed view of reality give us all the best chance for survival? Not necessarily, says Trivers, since much of our success in life and mating hinges on deception. And what better way to improve our powers of deception than to believe our own lies? It's survival of the deluded.

Trivers achieved scientific prominence in the 1970s, when he revolutionized the scientific understanding of altruistic behavior, showing how it can pay off as long as good deeds are reciprocated. He also pioneered the idea that evolution works at the level of individual genes - a concept Richard Dawkins popularized in his breakout best seller The Selfish Gene.

Trivers starts his book with a discussion about ordinary deception, which happens throughout the natural world. Male sunfish fight over territory to get a mate, but small male sunfish can avoid all that by imitating females. That way, the little male gets to share the favors of a female with a clueless dominant male. Butterflies take on the appearance of toxic species to avoid being eaten without expending the energy of making toxins.

Among primates, the bigger the brain, the greater the tendency to deceive, says Trivers. We're the dishonest apes. Over the eons, it has been to our ancestors' advantage to convince the world they were nicer, prettier, and smarter than they really were.

Believing your own lies makes you more convincing, as long as you don't go overboard to the point that people laugh at you behind your back. Among children, he says, those who score highest on intelligence tests are most likely to lie to themselves and others.

Humans can also work together to magnify self-deception. In his chapter on religion, he notes the obvious problem with all religions that claim to be the one true system of belief about the one true God. They can't all be right.

From his part-time home in Jamaica, Trivers said he sees a blizzard of deception and self-deception in America today. One antidote, he said, is humor, of the type doled out by his favorite television personalities - Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert.

University of Pennsylvania evolutionary psychologist Rob Kurzban agrees there can be an advantage to self-inflation. He lays out more examples in his book, Why Everyone Else Is a Hypocrite.

People who have had more than 100 sex partners say they are less likely than the average person to get a sexually transmitted disease, for example, and those who have been hospitalized following serious car crashes rate themselves as good or excellent drivers.

It's ironic, says Kurzban, but we expect people to be systematically wrong when it comes to evaluating themselves.

He, too, blames evolution for clouding our vision. "The social world is competitive," he said. "I want people to think I'm good."

But Kurzban offers a very different explanation. For him, there's no such thing as self-deception because there is no true single self to deceive.

He lays out a picture of the human mind as a collection of different parts, or modules, all working partially independently. Two of those parts can disagree, but neither part is the true self - both are simply components of a whole. Some modules of our brains act as press secretaries, and they tend to believe we're a little better than we really are.

The modules are like apps on an iPhone, he says. They don't necessarily share information, and that can lead to hypocrisy.

The module that judges other people might not be in complete agreement with the part that controls our behavior. So a person might make a snide remark about a friend's weight gain, attributing it to lack of willpower, and the next night eat a pint of ice cream and not notice the inconsistency.

The idea that we're not aware of most of the workings of our own minds goes back at least to Freud, with his emphasis on the drives that are unconscious or subconscious. Kurzban says the idea of a subconscious mind has given way to the more contemporary modular view.

He adds that it may be hard to distinguish self-deception from being wrong. Some people don't hide the truth from themselves - they just don't know it, and they don't know they don't know it.

Trivers says the idea of the mind as a collection of modules has some use, but it has been taken beyond the realm of reason when people start saying there is no self.

Neither Kurzban nor Trivers could explain integrity or how it fits into their different frameworks for understanding the mind. Too bad. That should be the subject of another book.

In The Folly of Fools, Trivers applies the science of self-deception to science itself, and finds plenty of examples in which people or whole fields were led astray temporarily.

However fallible individual scientists may be, he says, science is a self-correcting process. "Over the long haul . . . falsehood has no chance, which is why over time science tends to outstrip competing enterprises."

 


Contact staff writer Faye Flam at 215-854-4977, fflam@phillynews.com, on her blog at www.philly.com/evolution, or @fayeflam on Twitter.

Posted by Faye Flam @ 10:40 PM  Permalink | 13 comments
Comments   
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 3:11 AM, 01/16/2012
    I like the modular explanation for how our minds work; when I'm debating an issue with a friend, I want to win, but only by being accurate. Also, I don't want to create the impression of being superior, so my vain side is competing with my humble side. All these aspects are vying to have their say, so my vote (unless I'm deceiving myself!) goes to the modular model. But in the foregoing analysis, I'm surely employing my science "app," Beta version.
    jxxphilly
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 11:37 AM, 01/16/2012
    If I understand Faye correctly, the module in your brain that wants to be accurate may not be on speaking terms with the module that wants to win the debate. It may not be the case that your vain and humble sides are competing. Perhaps they won't even share the same room. Both sides just do what they do as if the other doesn't exist.
    Daniel Hoffman
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 12:38 PM, 01/16/2012
    Heh! I recall the story from my military days: "All right men! We're going on a mission and it's a real challenge. Out of the 20 of you, 19 of you will die." Guarantee ya, every single man in the room will immediately think "Those poor guys."
    rich2506
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 3:42 PM, 01/16/2012
    Daniel Hoffman: Kurzban: "modules all working PARTIALLY independently. Two of those parts can disagree..." Usually, hypocrisy is a judgment made by others--so if there's a contradiction in our perceived behavior, one might say that one module "prevailed." My two parts (modules) can't "disagree" without at least there being some minimal awareness of each other. In rich2506's example, I get his point, but the reactions to so dangerous a mission would vary as he himself implies, i.e., he wouldn't fool himself. It wouldn't take a scientist or genius to figure out that he or she would be one of the ones likely to die. On the other hand, both Kurzban and Trivers could be susceptible to self-deception, as scientists, albeit good ones, they might overrate their rationality. Most professors, studies show are prey to the Lake Wobegon effect, not to get personal.
    jxxphilly
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 4:16 PM, 01/16/2012
    Respectfully, most of us disagree with most of you.

    I would not assert total independence of different parts of my mind. I do find myself convinced by the evidence that there are parallel processes operating on the same issues with little or no influence upon each other. Honest people have figured out that we ourselves hold contradictory beliefs. Part of me finds this upsetting. Part of me says "let the chips fall where they may". A third part notes that this discussion saves the phenomena of very bright people believing stupid things.
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 4:23 PM, 01/16/2012
    Let me try "integrity": Not everyone is a hypocrite or self-deceiver to a great degree. Managing one's modules ethically, or one's self, as Trivers would have it, could be defined as character. Vince Fumo used the "modular" defense: Do-good with the right hand, rob with the left, with public servant presented as the preferred image. I guess, to synthesize Kurzban and Trivers, the modular individual is the one more prone to hypocrisy than the integrated self.
    jxxphilly
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 4:49 PM, 01/16/2012
    First, the (singular) requires "phenomenon." Second, "Respectfully," followed by "very bright people believing stupid things" is a strong argument for completely independent mind modules and pervasive self-deception, unless "respectfully" is heavy irony. There is no "we"! Some politicians are out there preaching "values" and behaving immorally, while others are practicing morality. When the former are caught red-handed, I've never seen one say that "My bad 'module' overcame my good 'module." They know that they were behaving badly. Laura Ingraham said (paraphrasing), that hypocrisy is not a problem for conservatives because we're all hypocrites and we're all forgiven. (if we're conservatives). Self-awareness provides the strength to overcome compartmentalized, modular thought and behavior. I don't see the "most of us" that Daniel Hoffman does, but when did we vote on the merit of arguments?
    jxxphilly
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 5:15 PM, 01/16/2012
    Apology: if a host of "very bright people believed a variety of stupid things," i.e., disagreed with the even brighter people believing smart things, then the stupid things would constitute "phenomena" if construed as separate events, and not as a distinct phenomenon. I hope "we" can all agree on that.
    jxxphilly
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 9:24 AM, 01/17/2012
    What I'm saying is that people way smarter than me are often wrong in the face of overwhelming evidence. Not too long ago, there were some brilliant smokers who maintained that the science saying cigarettes were bad for you was"junk science".

    I have also been completely wrong in disagreements when I was the person way smarter than the one I thought was in error.

    There much more going on than a contest of who is smarter.

  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 10:29 AM, 01/17/2012
    The people claiming cigarettes were safe put on their dumb hat (module); they were self-deceiving to the nth degree. When a person with a high IQ, like Ann Coulter, spouts too much nonsense then her intelligence is in question. She wants to quit smoking (or already has), but her wishful comparison of the cancer risk from tobacco to the "Alar scare" shows that her intelligence is off and on, since Alar does pose a risk. Like many smart people she relies more on impressions than research, making assertions based more on urban legends than facts. Is that smart?
    jxxphilly
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 7:41 AM, 01/18/2012
    Interesting that you should mention Coulter in a discussion about self-deception. I believe, for, "truth" is advances her cause. Still, I say, "Yes. That is smart." It takes a lot intelligence to be that deceptive.

    But hers is a special case of a person for whom deceit is the air she breathes. She has lots of company. For others, I believe that the mind is a plural entity and it as such saves the phenomena of simultaneously holding contradictory beliefs.
    Daniel Hoffman
  • Comment removed.
  • 0 like this / 0 don't   •   Posted 10:17 PM, 01/27/2012
    Sounds like the voices in your head have been there all along.... Where does the "modular" paradigm end and schizophrenia begin?
    starlight


13 comments
About Planet of the Apes
Faye Flam - writer
In pursuit of her stories, writer Faye Flam has weathered storms in Greenland, gotten frost nip at the South Pole, and floated weightless aboard NASA’s zero-g plane. She has a degree in geophysics from the California Institute of Technology and started her writing career with the Economist. She later took on the particle physics and cosmology beat at Science Magazine before coming to the Inquirer in 1995. Her previous science column, “Carnal Knowledge,” ran from 2005 to 2008. Her new column and blog, Planet of the Apes, explores the topic of evolution and runs here and in the Inquirer’s health section each Monday. Email Faye at fflam@phillynews.com.

Tony Auth, illustrator
Tony Auth graduated from UCLA with a degree in biological illustration. He was chief medical illustrator at a large teaching hospital in southern California before joining the Inquirer as staff editorial cartoonist in 1971. Like all practicing political cartoonists, he’s gotten more than his share of both awards and hate mail. Over the years Tony has written and/or illustrated eleven children’s books.