Why Deception Is Our Way Of Life
June 22, 2010

What a pertinent New Scientist article… Especially after everything that’s been posted recently here at polynomial.me.uk… I’ve said as much in as many ways as I could… And I’m just presently glad to see others saying the same thing now. We certainly need to understand that truths are nothing more than personalised beliefs that suite our own schemas and memetic make ups. Until we grasp this simple principle, and let the importance of our ‘self’ dissipate in varied stances of shifting perception – shifting like the sand dunes of the Sahara, with new daily landscapes uncoiling in the dry desert winds of reason – where we will be afforded many varied and compassionate mindscapes of egoless wonder, we will only grasp at delusions of self imposed, rigid and taught/taut modes of discourse.
As Bertrand Russell once wrote, “Men are born ignorant, not stupid. They are made stupid by education.” Here, within this ‘certain’ construct of human education a sort of deluded Hollywood romanticism is appearing… A romanticism that seems to allow people to understand their educational upbringing is not subject to modification or reinterpretation. In my humble opinion, it is this un-dynamic view of knowledge that cripples the very essence of all our scientific endeavours, as well as science’s educational system itself… If we encourage this fallacy, it will only cause us to scream at every eventuality that we were not prepared for and distrust all we have learnt, rather than simply updating our Operating Systems, as any good computer ‘bod’ will know to do regularly to keep things running smoothly. I know it’s not easy to never be certain of anything. But as Kung Fu Tzu once said, “A scholar who loves comfort is not fit to be called a scholar.” Without this continual updating of our mental schemas and memetic constructs – where we ‘weed’ those erroneous ideas and/or modify them to fit better what we see/observe in actual fact – we can never hope to find that greater perspective that every Taoist sees writhing in the world around us… A perspective of uncertainty; one that complements the natural and inbuilt chaos/nonlinear dynamics inherent within this universal flow… For without this perspective, we can never truly live harmoniously through the Tao.
Just bear in mind one thing before reading this article… Do yourself a favour and don’t get bogged down with Dorothy’s placing hope in the scientific truths we will come to know — after she says that we can never arrive at a truth. This means exactly what it means… Science will show us many aspects of our world, mainly via understanding the patterns unfolding within our dynamic universe… These patterns, while they change and evolve over time, will be repeatable and will show us a functional truth behind their unfolding, one that we can use to understand the world in which we live better. But to ultimately devise a single truth from these patterns – a truth that can only ever satisfy your own schema and memetic self-centred world view – is to lie to yourself. This is not a contradiction… One must see this important point, or we will lose sight of what logic is, and misuse it to trip ourselves up.

Liar, Liar: Why Deception Is Our Way Of Life
How did we get ourselves into this mess? Continual wars and conflicts, climate change and economic crisis loom at the international level, while as individuals we continue, generation after generation, to inflict pain and suffering not only on other people but on ourselves. Why do we have such difficulty in learning what we most need to know to mitigate our most destructive behaviours?
Throughout history there have been a few individuals whose insight into what goes on inside us is as clear as their understanding of what goes on around them, yet with what looks like self-induced stupidity most of us have been wholly unable to learn what they have been telling us.
Take the Stoic Greek philosopher Epictetus. He commented on human behaviour this way: “It is not things in themselves that trouble us, but our opinions of things.” In other words, it is not what happens to us that determines our behaviour but how we interpret what happens to us. Thus, when facing a disaster, one person might interpret it as a challenge to be mastered, another as a certain defeat, while a third might see it as the punishment he or she deserves. Crucially, the decisions about what to do follow from the interpretation each person has made.
For me, this uncertainty lies at the heart of what we need to know if we are to understand ourselves and behave differently. And yet throughout history we have denied this truth because what it tells us about ourselves is that, while we are not responsible for most of what happens to us, we are always responsible for how we interpret it. And we seem to dislike taking responsibility for ourselves as much as we dislike uncertainty.
Over the last 20 years or so, neuroscientists have shown that Epictetus was right – and given us important clues about our neuropsychology. They have found that our brain functions in such a way that we cannot see “reality” directly. All we can ever know are the guesses or interpretations our mind creates about what is going on. To create these guesses, we can only draw on basic human neuroanatomy and on our past experience. Since no two people ever have exactly the same neuroanatomy or experience, no two people ever interpret anything in exactly the same way.
This is frightening. It means that each of us lives alone, in our own world of meaning. Moreover, if everything we know is a guess, an approximation, events can, and often will, invalidate our ideas.
“Each of us lives alone, in our own world of meaning. This is frightening…”
Can you bear to remember that time in your life when you were going along feeling secure and thinking, “This is me, this is my world, that was my past, this will be my future,” when suddenly you found that you had made a major error of judgement? When you realised that many of the ideas underpinning your whole sense of being a person – that sense of “I”, “me”, “myself” – had been invalidated by events?
Have you ever had the sensation of falling through infinite space, shattering, crumbling, of being about to disappear like a raindrop into the ocean? Perhaps you knew that what was falling apart was not your sense of self but some of your ideas. You knew that you now had to go through a period of uncertainty until new ideas emerged.
But if you did not know this, you would have been utterly terrified, so terrified that you would do anything never to go through such an experience again.
Psychiatrists and psychologists have either ignored this experience, maximised its significance as a full-scale “breakdown”, or minimised it as a “panic disorder”. Yet this feeling of falling apart is an essential part of our lives and of most of our narratives. In The Wizard of Oz, for example, Dorothy and her companions emerge wiser and strong from the invalidation of their idea that the wizard could solve their problems, while paradoxically Othello is destroyed by the invalidation of his belief that his wife Desdemona had been unfaithful.
We first experience the terror of being invalidated when we are small children, but by the time we are 3 or 4 we have learned a way of avoiding it: we have learned how to lie. From then on, whenever we glimpse the faintest possibility that our “selves” might be threatened with annihilation, we lie.
First of all, we lie to ourselves. Why? Because we fear that we do not have the strength and courage to face the truth of our situation. We even lie about lying, preferring to call our lies anything but a lie. We say: “He’s in denial” or “She’s being economical with the truth”.
We lie in our private and work lives, to friends, family and colleagues. Often we tell them what we call “white lies”. Some of us do so because we need people to like us: our greatest fear is of being abandoned and rejected. Others tell white lies to avoid the chaotic feelings they get from seeing other people being upset by the truth: they know the world is a chaotic place, and to survive in it they need a personal island of clarity, order and control.
At a public level, we lie about nearly everything, from the true level of corporate wealth to expenses and evidence that humans are responsible for changing the climate.
When it comes to such global-level events, you might think finding out what is true would be a top priority, especially as we start out neurologically blindfolded. But it is not. For all of us there is something more important than finding the truth. We are too frightened to confront the facts because doing so means confronting the danger that most of what supports our sense of who we are could disappear.
Unlike lies, truths require evidence to support them. But no matter how much evidence we accumulate, our truths will always be approximations and absolute certainty will exist only in our fantasies. Lying gives us the temporary delusion that our personal and social worlds are intact, that we are loved, that we are safe, and above all, that we are not likely to overwhelmed by the uncertainty inherent in living in a world we can never truly know.
We can never escape uncertainty: it is part of our very being. Scientists struggle daily to accept uncertainty, and still search for “evidence”. In our personal, professional and collective social lives it looks as if we may have no choice but to confront uncertainty if we are to survive – and survive well.
So we will need to be very careful in future about choosing the situations in which we lie. All lies have networks of consequences we did not expect or intend. The lies we tell may well protect us and our personal – or collective – sense of self in the short term, but in the long term and in a linked-up, complex world, the consequences can be truly disastrous. After all, when we lie to ourselves and to others, we multiply a thousandfold the inherent difficulties we have trying to determine what is actually going on inside us and around us.
One day, neuroscientists may be able to describe the damage we do to our brains when we lie to ourselves and to others, when we create confusion about knowing something that we deny we know. Let’s hope that by then we can start to believe – and to use – the scientific truths we will be telling ourselves.
by Dorothy Rowe
To find out where I sourced this article from, please click here.
Or to learn more about Dorothy Rowe, please click here and here.
your intro was fine
especially the insight in the second paragraph
well put
and i hope it will come to mind some day when explaining this
thank you
(am yet to read the quoted post;)
Hi happyseaurchin.
Have modified the intro slightly… So your reference to the second paragraph now becomes a reference to the third paragraph.
Will be making reference to one or two of your blogs in the future… Hope that’s kewl with you?
Peace,
Karl
Hi Karl,
A very interesting post. It makes you wonder why a social creature, such as ourselves, would have a brain that worked in this fashion. On the surface it appears counter productive to the survival of any group activity. I then looked at it from the viewpoint of shore birds flying in a large flock. Each bird is independent in its choices of flight direction and yet the flock appears to move as one. Perhaps, from the correct vantage point humans also move as one despite their isolated guesses about and reactions to the world in which they exist. Of course this is what we have labeled as chaos theory.
Further rumination integrates the ideas of evolution which suggest that everything develops as a means of improving a species chances of survival. Long story short, we are like we are because it worked. The problem is, that like our own personal experiences with encountered situations that destroy our belief structure, society as an entity has arrived at one of those points. Now we are then left with the question of whether it is possible to adapt to the new environment or will the human species become extinct like so many before. After all, our “success” has been due to advantages we posses for a finite set of environmental conditions.
Best (“…in keeping with the situation.”)
Andrew
Hi Andrew…
A great analogy between human understanding and birds flying in a flock.
I certainly see this similarity too. It would be interesting to see if science could tag memes in a way that might allow one to follow them as ornithologists do with birds who have been tagged.
Analogy (a.k.a. iterative fractal thought) is no doubt the key to cognition.
I certainly agree with you on the second part of your post too. I think this is the make or break time for mankind. Will the inertia from memetic drives like capitalism and mass consumerism be too great for mankind to overcome so that we might see how disconnected and unsustainable our world view has become i.e. the majority want 2.6 children, out of season food from super markets all year long, fresh running water and pristine country side to walk around in, with petrol for their cars and other modes of transport, as well as power and electricity…
As Bertrand Russell once said, “If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way.”
Certainly archaeology has show modern man that civilisations seems to rise to a peak and then fall away again… Or even vanish altogether suddenly, as with the case of Easter Island (if it is true what Attenborough relays). Certainly Life here in Earth is analogous to the Island comparison, albeit an Island in space…
Whether these ebbs and flows of civilisation occur from climatic changes that are inherent in the global weather system/pattern and/or whether they stem from underground water tables changing (as has been proposed over the collapse of the Mayan culture), or even stem from massive man made environmental ‘disturbances’ i.e. topographical rehabition schemes – like cities – for our masses (something I doubt that man would have achieved on such a grand scale – as we are presently doing – before in the past)… Either way, water streams underground about as erratically and unpredictably as it does when one pours a glass of water slowly off one’s freshly waxed automobile.
As we know from the butterfly effect (another powerful metaphor encapsulating the concept of sensitive dependence on initial conditions in chaos theory) small differences in the initial condition of a dynamical system may produce large variations in the long term behavior of the system.
While man does his best to try and document these changes, in order to monitor them and understand them…
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100630/full/news.2010.325.html
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100616/full/465859a.html?s=news_rss
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100612/full/news.2010.297.html?s=news_rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+news%2Frss%2Fnews_s7+%28NatureNews+-+Earth+and+Environment%29
…there are (IMHO) too many people to move or redistribute sparsely throughout the geography of the world… And far too many boarders preventing people from moving freely if the need arose. Perhaps we need to dissolve these boundaries of country and form from our minds and world?
Doom and gloom aside… I feel mankind still has a great capacity to adapt to new circumstances. One only has to look at William Sargant’s studies in “Battle For The Mind” and Pavlov’s studies with dogs to see how man and animals alike can change their behavioural patterns for better adaptability after great hardship… AND sometimes even after perceived or threatened hardship.
Either way, it will be interesting to see if man can muster enough memetic momentum to counter act the inertia of this capitalist rule and so inspire change across the board, thus making him sacrifice his presently too “cosy” consumerist and domesticated bliss… This is something Jung raises pertinently in his book entitled, “The Undiscovered Self.”
I would certainly like to see science play a more rigourous hand in disseminating present statistics into all cultures globally… Perhaps if it was done by those of us who have no personal interest in fame, fortune, or egocentric ideals i.e. let’s make a Buddhist panel of scientists for the IPCC, then the world would have a greater chance at believing it… And the media would have less incentive at ripping the piss out of it simply for the sales of their papers/tabloids/periodicals/etc… and thereby eroding trust in science and empirical research?
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100616/full/news.2010.302.html
Perhaps even David McKay might also be put on the panel… ???
http://www.withouthotair.com/
Saying that… As you mentioned about “a finite set of environmental conditions…” to which we are adapted. If we do find ourselves faced with a new environmental circumstance that we were not designed for… Well, We i.e. mankind, will have to give way to a new algorithm from Life’s diverse arsenal.
As always brother, may you find much love, light and prosperity in all you do.
Warmest regards,
Karl
[...] between the outer and inner worlds. But regardless of what is ultimately real and what is only delusion/illusion, this process of perception that seems to make this world seem so real resides somewhere [...]
[...] or my ‘self’, might really be only a flawed assumption, which in turn became an illusion bourn from grammatical syntax – I would like to introduce another story… One that lays [...]
[...] And to use limitations to describe something which is unbounded is dangerous… It breeds delusion and breaks the delicate balance between what ‘IS’ and what we think ‘it’ is. I’m sure [...]