Keeping you in the dark: The psychology of self-deception

Have you ever told yourself you are better than others just to feel more confident? Or convinced yourself that you’d work harder even though you know you won’t? Most of us have lied to ourselves at some point in our lives. Most forms of psychotherapy seek to decrease self-deception so that clients are well adjusted, have valid information of themselves, and are in touch with reality. Influential psychologists such as Sigmund Freud, Carl Rogers, Abraham Maslow, Aaron Beck and others have emphasized the importance of realistic views about the self. So why do we keep ourselves in the dark? Research has focused on the various ill effects of self-deception. For example, the planning fallacy, which refers to our tendency to underestimate the time taken to complete a task (Buehler, Griffin, & Ross, 1994) could lead to procrastination, thereby, resulting in stress and poor quality work (Tice & Baumeister, 1997). 

Even though we know self-deception is harmful, we continue to do it. This concurs with a contrasting view that self-deception is an important defence mechanism that protects us from threatening information or circumstances (Trivers, 2010). Researchers have found that people who have positive illusions about themselves are less likely to be depressed and have positive self-esteem (Taylor & Brown, 1988). Evolutionary psychologists propose that humans are good at deceiving themselves and that self-deception is adaptive. 

Self-deception has been regarded as an unconscious process because, it would be almost impossible for the self to be a deceiver if it consciously knows that it is being deceived (von Hippel & Trivers, 2011). Trivers (2010, p. 373) has defined self-deception as “hiding true information from the conscious mind in the unconscious.” If self-deception involves hiding facts, then how do researchers study this phenomenon? Further, how is self-deception detected? Some indicators include nervousness, and control, rather over-control, of the face, and body muscles (DePaulo et al. 2003). Self-deception can also be checked using questionnaires, like the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (BIDR) developed by Paulhus (1988). Here, items represent exaggerated positive characteristics about the self. For instance, one such item is “I never lie.” The higher individuals rate the item as personally relevant, the more likely they are to be representing a favourable image of themselves to others. After all, although everyone lies, lying itself is negative.

Even though normal individuals engage in self-deception, it has also been associated with psychopathology and neuropsychological disorders. One such neurological disorder, known as Anosognosia (Babinski, 1914) is a self-deceptive disorder where patients have physical injuries but deny them (Bayne & Fernandez, 2010). Ramachandran (2009) described an anosognistic patient who denied that her left arm was paralyzed and believed that her lifeless arm belonged to her father who was “hiding under the table.”

I remember telling myself that I would stop eating junk food. I wrote it in my diary and told my closest friends so that I would be committed to my resolution. Unfortunately, I cannot say that my diet has been very healthy. I remember how I always had some self-validated reason for eating junk, or would trivialize how much I actually ate. Deceiving myself let me do what I wanted without feeling guilty about it. Self-deception is an important coping mechanism to the extent that it does not always result in extreme distortions of reality. Given that about 40% and above individuals engage in self-deception (Svenson, 1981; Baumeister, 2010), we are faced with the glaring truth of how we lie to ourselves about lying to ourselves!

    Sharlene Fernandes

The Wind Howls; The Mountain Remains Still

“There once was a boy so quiet and shy, he used to run home from school when the bell rang, to avoid socializing with his classmates. Like many shy people, this boy sided instinctively with the oppressed. As he grew older, he learned to speak out on their behalf—but remained a shy and quiet man, believing that these traits were his source of spiritual strength. The boy’s name was Mohandas Gandhi, and he later uttered, for me, the most important sentence in history: In a gentle way, you can shake the world.”

This excerpt from Susan Cain’s recent TED Talk, The Quiet Revolution (2014), recapitulates that the tendency to be reserved and reflective is associated with many people who bring extraordinary talents and abilities to the world.

Our lives are shaped as much by our personalities as by culture, religion, or gender. How we interact with people, our choices in relationships or careers; how we bounce back and learn from our mistakes depends a great deal on where we fall on the introversion-extroversion continuum. In her book Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can’t Stop Talking, Cain (2012) speaks about how Introversion is different from being shy. While shyness is the fear of social judgment, introversion is a preference for an environment with less stimulation.  

According to Jung (1971), introverts are drawn to the inner world of thought and feeling, while extroverts toward the external life of people and activities. Extroverts crave large amounts of stimulation but introverts feel their best when they are in quieter environments where they can concentrate, most of the time.

Nowadays, when being social and outgoing is prized above all else, being an introvert can be difficult. According to Cain (2012), “Introverts living under the ‘Extrovert Ideal’ are like women living in man’s world discounted because of a trait that goes to the core of who they are.” In India, a culture with strong family values and large social gatherings, people are often expected to socialize and open up to extended family members which can be very daunting. Many times, an introvert’s quietude is perceived as impolite or lacking respect. Others may mistake silence for ignorance or even insolence. Yoon (2014) says “Introverts listen more than they talk, think before they speak, and focus on relationships. Introverts focus on the meaning of events around us, while extroverts focus on the events themselves.”

Research shows that extroverted leaders are better at leading passive employees because they are able to motivate and inspire them. Introverted leaders however are better at leading proactive employees as they tend to listen more carefully, making them more effective leaders of vocal teams. They are more open to suggestions which makes their employees feel valued, encouraging them to work harder (Grant, Gino & Hoffman, 2010).

Introverts have much to offer at the workplace, yet they are often uneasy in this gregarious and structured environment with a lack of privacy hampering their productivity. The dominant, assertive, and rarely speechless get ahead, while the pensive and inaudibly knowledgeable tend to not get a word in edgewise. In order to cope, many mask their introversion to blend in and circumvent the ‘shy’ or ‘antisocial’ labels (Ronson, 2012).

Introverts however are very valuable to organizations as they often provide a different perspective along with innovative and creative solutions. Unlike extroverts, they spend more time prudently thinking about and analyzing problems before deciphering them. Along with their attention to detail, they are also more persistent and give up less easily. Cain exemplified this in her book through Einstein’s words: “It’s not that I’m so smart. It’s that I stay with problems longer,” (Cain, 2012).

Introverts need to recognize their uniqueness and where they can shine. After all “the secret to life is to put yourself in the right lighting. For some, it’s a Broadway spotlight; for others, a lamp lit desk,” (Cain, 2012).

 Nikita D'Souza

On Language and Its Rules: History in Language

The Merriam–Webster dictionary defines language as “the words, their pronunciation and the methods of combining them, used and understood by a community.” The very definition of language implies that its primary function is to express ideas, thoughts, and feelings to our communities. An infant picks up this skill from the tender age of six months. It would just be incoherent babble at that time but in accordance with the definition given by Merriam–Webster, it could still be classified as language because the infant is trying to convey a certain message to his parents, even though the message might be as inane as “Change my diaper, Dad.”

Further, the history of mankind has been a witness to the fact that language is very dynamic. Whether it is English, French, Greek, or Zulu, all languages have evolved, adapted, and expanded to cater to the changing and ever increasing needs of mankind. Every year, around 1000 words are added to the English dictionary alone. Around 2000 slang words are also invented and added only in Oxford Dictionaries Online (Datoo, 2013). The Oxford English Dictionary, on the other hand, never removes a single word even if it’s no longer in use (Datoo, 2013).  Slang words, as though in defiance, also become an integral part of the English language. This makes it almost impossible to define the scope of a language, begging the question “Who has the right to define or limit a language?” Is it the stodgy old men working for Merriam–Webster occasionally swearing (which is not considered to be a part of language) or is it the people who use these words to express themselves? I would like pose a third option that would render the above two choices obsolete. I believe that language should not be constrained or standardized because language is a culmination of experiences and a non-standard language can lead us to unexplored heights of creativity. This blog series will explore various reasons that support the non-standardization of language.

During British Imperialism, a young British judge called William Jones was stationed in India. He made an attempt to learn Sanskrit in order to effectively enforce British rules in India. While learning Sanskrit, he noticed certain similarities between Sanskrit, Greek, and Latin which pointed to a possibility that many of the Indo-European languages emerged from a common source. Some historians further postulated that these Indo-European people were descendants of the same race and found archaeological evidence supporting their theory. This is a rather detailed example of how language contains history at the macro level. Similarly, language is repository of experience at the grass root level too. It is a well-known fact that the attitudes, behaviors, personality traits, and other psychological characteristics of a person are influenced by peers, parents, media, and other socializing agents like teachers and schools. Language, as established before, is also an integral part of an individual. Hence, it cannot be spared by the pervasive influence of the environment.

English is my second language. I did my high school education in India and pursued my college degree in the Unites States. My English accent is a mixture of Indian and American accent. However, since India was a British colony and British English is widely spoken here, some British accent also seamlessly slithers in. Therefore, a person’s language is like his memoir. It contains the much valuable history of his race, his gender and pivotal moments of his life. James Baldwin (1979) explores the above given claim in his essay “If Black English Isn’t a Language, Then Tell Me, What is?” He writes, “Subsequently, the slave was given, under the eye, and the gun, of his master, Congo Square, and the Bible–or, in other words, and under those conditions, the slave began the formation of a black church, and it is within this unprecedented tabernacle that Black English began to be formed. This was not, merely, as in the European example, the adoption of a foreign tongue, but an alchemy that transformed ancient elements into a new language” (Baldwin, 1979, Para. 7). Baldwin further explains how Black English was a product of the cruel history of slavery and racial discrimination. Similarly, a person’s language is an embodiment of his past including all his toils and rewards. By dismissing his language, one callously dismisses his history.

 Coming up next in this series – On Language and it Rules: Why context matters?

Prachi Bhuptani