Self-deception as a weightless mask

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

Abstract

Self-deception cuts across the behavior of persons, organizations, and states. Self-deception amounts to wearing a weightless mask: While the wearer is unaware of it, spectators usually recognize it. As soon as the wearer becomes conscious of the weightless mask, self-deception ceases to exist. This gives rise to a paradox: How could it ever be possible for the person to succeed in hiding the weightless mask from his or her own conscious self? To solve the paradox, this paper proposes that self-deception involves “two structural choices”: 1) an agent identifies the optimal decision — but the agent may fail (as a result of temptation) to choose it, which gives rise to self-blame; 2) The agent under focus may choose to invent a misleader (a lie) to make the choice appear “as if” it were optimal in order to avoid self-blame. The quest for a blameless choice makes it possible for the person to succeed in hiding the weightless mask from the conscious self. Aside from solving the Self-Deception Paradox, the proposed two-structural choice theory sheds light on three kinds of self-deception: red herring, self-rationalization, and denial.
LanguageEnglish
Pages1-11
Number of pages11
JournalFacta Universitatis Series: Philosophy, Sociology, Psychology and History
Volume15
Issue number1
StatePublished - 2016

Keywords

  • rational choice
  • self-blame
  • temptations
  • image-management
  • just world hypothesis

Cite this

@article{fd8b8550cdbe412daa2d48fb89373c4c,
title = "Self-deception as a weightless mask",
abstract = "Self-deception cuts across the behavior of persons, organizations, and states. Self-deception amounts to wearing a weightless mask: While the wearer is unaware of it, spectators usually recognize it. As soon as the wearer becomes conscious of the weightless mask, self-deception ceases to exist. This gives rise to a paradox: How could it ever be possible for the person to succeed in hiding the weightless mask from his or her own conscious self? To solve the paradox, this paper proposes that self-deception involves “two structural choices”: 1) an agent identifies the optimal decision — but the agent may fail (as a result of temptation) to choose it, which gives rise to self-blame; 2) The agent under focus may choose to invent a misleader (a lie) to make the choice appear “as if” it were optimal in order to avoid self-blame. The quest for a blameless choice makes it possible for the person to succeed in hiding the weightless mask from the conscious self. Aside from solving the Self-Deception Paradox, the proposed two-structural choice theory sheds light on three kinds of self-deception: red herring, self-rationalization, and denial.",
keywords = "rational choice, self-blame, temptations, image-management, just world hypothesis",
author = "Khalil, {Elias Lafi}",
year = "2016",
language = "English",
volume = "15",
pages = "1--11",
journal = "Facta Universitatis Series: Philosophy, Sociology, Psychology and History",
issn = "1820-8495",
number = "1",

}

Self-deception as a weightless mask. / Khalil, Elias Lafi.

In: Facta Universitatis Series: Philosophy, Sociology, Psychology and History, Vol. 15, No. 1, 2016, p. 1-11.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Self-deception as a weightless mask

AU - Khalil,Elias Lafi

PY - 2016

Y1 - 2016

N2 - Self-deception cuts across the behavior of persons, organizations, and states. Self-deception amounts to wearing a weightless mask: While the wearer is unaware of it, spectators usually recognize it. As soon as the wearer becomes conscious of the weightless mask, self-deception ceases to exist. This gives rise to a paradox: How could it ever be possible for the person to succeed in hiding the weightless mask from his or her own conscious self? To solve the paradox, this paper proposes that self-deception involves “two structural choices”: 1) an agent identifies the optimal decision — but the agent may fail (as a result of temptation) to choose it, which gives rise to self-blame; 2) The agent under focus may choose to invent a misleader (a lie) to make the choice appear “as if” it were optimal in order to avoid self-blame. The quest for a blameless choice makes it possible for the person to succeed in hiding the weightless mask from the conscious self. Aside from solving the Self-Deception Paradox, the proposed two-structural choice theory sheds light on three kinds of self-deception: red herring, self-rationalization, and denial.

AB - Self-deception cuts across the behavior of persons, organizations, and states. Self-deception amounts to wearing a weightless mask: While the wearer is unaware of it, spectators usually recognize it. As soon as the wearer becomes conscious of the weightless mask, self-deception ceases to exist. This gives rise to a paradox: How could it ever be possible for the person to succeed in hiding the weightless mask from his or her own conscious self? To solve the paradox, this paper proposes that self-deception involves “two structural choices”: 1) an agent identifies the optimal decision — but the agent may fail (as a result of temptation) to choose it, which gives rise to self-blame; 2) The agent under focus may choose to invent a misleader (a lie) to make the choice appear “as if” it were optimal in order to avoid self-blame. The quest for a blameless choice makes it possible for the person to succeed in hiding the weightless mask from the conscious self. Aside from solving the Self-Deception Paradox, the proposed two-structural choice theory sheds light on three kinds of self-deception: red herring, self-rationalization, and denial.

KW - rational choice

KW - self-blame

KW - temptations

KW - image-management

KW - just world hypothesis

M3 - Article

VL - 15

SP - 1

EP - 11

JO - Facta Universitatis Series: Philosophy, Sociology, Psychology and History

T2 - Facta Universitatis Series: Philosophy, Sociology, Psychology and History

JF - Facta Universitatis Series: Philosophy, Sociology, Psychology and History

SN - 1820-8495

IS - 1

ER -