Well I did it again, used a term in a post, and afterwards realized, that while the term has been in use in my internal dialogue about matters of mind for many years, the fact that I haven't had ongoing external discussions using the term, its meaning as I perceive it, may have drifted. The term is "defense mechanisms", and to my mind, it fits in a loose category along with "cognitive distortions", and "logical fallacies", that I call "The Lies of Mind." I don't remember where I heard it, nor what the exact phrasing was, but when I first heard something to the effect of, "The most effective liar in all the world, when it comes to deceiving you, is your self." That phrase caught my immediate, and complete attention, and although I remember wanting to dismiss it as ludicrous, I thought about it long enough to realize it was a truism.
So I am fairly well convinced that we all lie to ourselves, to what extent, in what circumstances, and whether we're on the lookout for this, I think, has a major influence on our psychological integrity, well being, and the degree to which we live mindfully. So what are your thoughts on this assertion, on the arbitrary category I created, or on any of the particulars?

---

OH that was by no means a verbatim quote Intel, that is the meaning I retained of whatever exact phraseology I originally heard, putting it in quotes was probably not a good idea. I know about the furor over repressed/created memory retrieval, and I fully agree it is a highly controversial procedure, given the vagaries of memory to begin with.
What I am more interested though it the whole concept of self deception, and what peoples take on that is. In doing searches on 'defense mechanisms" I've found that again I have been using the word to mean more than what I've seen so far in the search results. I am really curious to know what people think of the entire idea of self deception, and that it occurs mostly unconsciously.

---

Hmm, what a subject. I get stuck on self deception especially when you drag in the unconscious. I mean, how can you deceive yourself? It's sort of dualist somehow. If I know I'm telling myself a lie, I have failed to deceive myself, haven't I? And if I don't know it's a lie then, again, it's hardly deception is it? I think I'd find it clearer if you, again, listed what you call defence mechanisms, so that I can see where you "...have been using the word to mean more than what I've seen so far..." The standard list of repression, projection, displacement etc. seem to cover all the things I can think of. Are you saying that a "logical fallacy", for example, is more than just sloppy thinking? Sorry, I feel a bit thick .... [no change there, then]

---

"The voice of the majority is no proof of justice." - Schiller

Not necessarily jm. Consider a person who is suffering from depression. He may believe he is worthless, unlovable and will never amount to anything worthy of admiration or praise.

Does he know better, yet choose to believe a lie? If he truly believes it, does it make it irrevocably true? Can he never achieve simply because he believes he can't? Or does he truly believe something that is not true?

If he does, then is he not deceiving himself?

---

A great many people will think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. ~ William James ~

If the deception is there in order to protect us from pain, and if we became aware of the deception, we would become aware of the pain, then no it must be unconscious.

---

This one intel?????
Why we lie: the evolutionary roots of deception and the unconscious mind
David Livingston SmithSt. Martin's Press, 2004 - Psychology - 238 pages
Deceit, lying, and falsehoods lie at the very heart of our cultural heritage. Even the founding myth of the Judeo-Christian tradition, the story of Adam and Eve, revolves around a lie. We have been talking, writing and singing about deception ever since Eve told God, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate." Our seemingly insatiable appetite for stories of deception spans the extremes of culture from King Lear to Little Red Riding Hood, retaining a grip on our imaginations despite endless repetition. These tales of deception are so enthralling because they speak to something fundamental in the human condition. The ever-present possibility of deceit is a crucial dimension of all human relationships, even the most central: our relationships with our very own selves.

Now, for the first time, philosopher and evolutionary psychologist David Livingstone Smith elucidates the essential role that deception and self-deception have played in human--and animal--evolution and shows that the very structure of our minds has been shaped from our earliest beginnings by the need to deceive. Smith shows us that by examining the stories we tell, the falsehoods we weave, and the unconscious signals we send out, we can learn much about ourselves and how our minds work.

Readers of Richard Dawkins and Steven Pinker will find much to intrigue them in this fascinating book, which declares that our extraordinary ability to deceive others--and even our own selves--"lies" at the heart of our humanity.David Livingstone Smith, Ph.D., is currently a professor of philosophy and co-founder and director of the Institute for Cognitive Science and Evolutionary Psychology at the University of New England. He has published widely in the areas of deception and self-deception. A longtime professor in London, he now lives in Scarborough, Maine. Deceit, lying, and falsehoods lie at the very heart of our cultural heritage. Even the founding myth of the Judeo-Christian tradition, the story of Adam and Eve, revolves around a lie. We have been talking, writing and singing about deception ever since Eve told God, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate." Our seemingly insatiable appetite for stories of deception spans the extremes of culture from King Lear to Little Red Riding Hood, retaining a grip on our imaginations despite endless repetition. These tales of deception are so enthralling because they speak to something fundamental in the human condition. The ever-present possibility of deceit is a crucial dimension of all human relationships, even the most central: our relationships with our very own selves. Philosopher and evolutionary psychologist David Livingstone Smith elucidates the essential role that deception and self-deception have played in human—and animal—evolution and shows that the very structure of our minds has been shaped from our earliest beginnings by the need to deceive. Smith shows us that by examining the stories we tell, the falsehoods we weave, and the unconscious signals we send out, we can learn much about ourselves and how our minds work.

Readers of Richard Dawkins and Steven Pinker will find much to intrigue them in this fascinating book, which declares that our extraordinary ability to deceive others—and even our own selves—"lies" at the heart of our humanity.
"Self-deception is one of the most powerful ideas in psychology, indeed, in human affairs, and David Smith's Why We Lie is an excellent synthesis of this crucial topic. The biology is up-to-date and accurate, the psychological implications are clearly worked out, and the writing is inviting and accessible."—Steven Pinker, author of The Blank Slate and The Language Instinct

"David Smith has pulled off a beaut. Why We Lie is a wonderfully blended cluster of arguments to support the painful truth that we are a species whose skills at deceiving others is matched only by our ability to deceive ourselves."—Arthur S. Reber, author of The Penguin Dictionary of Psychology

---

RULES ARE FOR THE OBEYENCE OF FOOLS AND FOR THE GUIDENCE OF WISE MEN

Yeah, you're right FounDit, it is probably an unhelpful way of approaching the OP, although I still feel this Cartesian split between "me" and "my mind" is the cause of a lot of sloppy stuff around in the bookshelves labelled "Mind and Spirit" in my local shop.

I have no problem using the psycho-dynamic schools' labels for defence mechanisms - and I can't think of any lies we tell ourselves that don't fit into them. I just see them as maps - but, as whassisname said "The map is not the territory".

Unless we are going to posit that there is something in our heads called "I" and something called "mind" that engage in a game of "who is more real" - then we are stuck with trying to explain defence mechanisms in terms of brain. The guys who talk about cognitive dissonance (in the face of which we might use these defence mechanisms) - suggest all sorts of neurological solutions to what is going on, things like the energy levels of neurons storing memories, and the idea that, faced with an unpleasant fact, we route the problem through a different "set" of memories. I apologise for the over the top reduction of their theories but ...

For example, my daughter loses her cool at work - and stabs her boss - no witnesses. I "don't like" the fact that she might be a murderer so, instead of examining the situation using the memories I have of her telling me about her role, her work, her colleagues (which are not stored with "high energy"), I use the much more deeply ingrained memories of her caring for our sick dog, playing with her dolls, and intervening at school to stop bullying (btw - she didn't stab her boss, honest - and I'm not "in denial"). I don't consciously chose which facts I bring to the situation, I am bound, by more intensely stored memories, to give more weight to what the latter tell me and will, initially, "refuse to believe" she did it. As I said just now, the label "in denial" which psycho-dynamic theorists use for a behaviour, is not in conflict with the mechanism that the "cognitive dissidents" use. But is either of them "right"? Who knows - and does it matter, as long as the map gets me from A to B in a satisfactory manner?

---

"The voice of the majority is no proof of justice." - Schiller

Hi FounDit First off, I was trying to stay with the OP - and was only using the anti-capitalist assassination story as an illustration of how I thought the regular list of defence mechanisms can still be accepted and used, even if one did not sign up to Freud et al and wanted to go with cognitive psychology, neuropsychology and all the other 'ologies out there. I was hoping that Epi might offer some examples of things he regarded as "lies of the mind " which didn't fit the list.

ASIDE (and not wishing to derail the topic) No, My "first thought [is not] a fear of losing her" - she has not committed the crime so, until I accept that she has, I have no fear of losing her.
I feel (and do not take this wrongly) that you are taking one possible explanation of behaviours i.e. a fear of rejection, and then over-generalising it. I have no doubt that your posited mechanism may be right in some circumstances and for some people, but it's not a case of one size fits all, there is more than one explanation e.g. fear of extinction, which might explain people's behaviour. I feel you are looking for a philosopher's stone and that it ain't out there. Folk are far more complicated and present so much variability that searching for one cause for all behaviour (or even one single cause for one single behaviour) doesn't do them justice. But that's just a personal opinion.

---

"The voice of the majority is no proof of justice." - Schiller

When I read your topic, my first thought was:

Freud, A. (1937). The Ego and the Mechanisms of Defense, London: Hogarth Press and Institute of Psycho-Analysis. (Revised edition: 1966 (US), 1968 (UK))

---

Now there's no way you can prove that the universe makes sense, but there's just no fun in living in the universe if it doesn't make sense... -- Asimov

To lie is to do or say something with the intent to deceive. We do not

lie to ourselves. No fool deliberately sets out with the intention to deceive himself, but he allows

his prejudices to lead him and closes his mind to arguments, therefore never seeing the value of

them… He deceives himself with false reasoning… unsound reasoning… that is not in accord with truth

and is therefore led to believing falsehood because of a lack of objectivity.


It is like a man on a journey who makes the decision never to turn left because he is told it is bad

and therefore never finds out what there was to discover. Most people who believe in evolution or a

god are like that. The average evolutionist has no idea of the arguments for or against... he has

never studied it... but his prejudices are sufficient for him to reach a conclusion.

The average person who rejects the Bible does so, not on the result of study, but prejudice.


We may lie to each other... depending on our moral sense... but we are aware of such lies and are not

deceiving ourselves. When faced with a counter argument to his belief he may well see it to be true

but continues to defend the indefensible. In such a case he is not lying to himself but to others

through a lack of humility and is a fool.

It is jaundiced to say all such men are like that. Because we consider our self to be a liar, we

should not think that all men are.

---

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. Aristotle

Afraid to address the issue Epi? Is the argument too intellectual to grasp? Using the straw man argument again? I stand by what I said and its logic. I see you are still reading me assiduously.

---

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. Aristotle

My, my, plenty of bile there Epi. I must have touched a sore point. You still have not addressed the points made here below.
So you think the comments printed beneath are unintelligent? Pray, address the comments and inform me how.

PS: My comments posted below fit neither description of 'ad hominem.' It was, and is not, an attack on you, or anybody for that matter, neither is it an appeal based on emotion. It is an accurate description of how one can deceive oneself and what constitutes a lie. You are far too sensitive. Now address the argument.

PPS. What are your comments to me but the very thing you accuse me of... ad hominem.



To lie is to do or say something with the intent to deceive. We do not

lie to ourselves. No fool deliberately sets out with the intention to deceive himself, but he allows

his prejudices to lead him and closes his mind to arguments, therefore never seeing the value of

them… He deceives himself with false reasoning… unsound reasoning… that is not in accord with truth

and is therefore led to believing falsehood because of a lack of objectivity.


It is like a man on a journey who makes the decision never to turn left because he is told it is bad

and therefore never finds out what there was to discover. Most people who believe in evolution or a

god are like that. The average evolutionist has no idea of the arguments for or against... he has

never studied it... but his prejudices are sufficient for him to reach a conclusion.

The average person who rejects the Bible does so, not on the result of study, but prejudice.


We may lie to each other... depending on our moral sense... but we are aware of such lies and are not

deceiving ourselves. When faced with a counter argument to his belief a person may well see it to be true

but continues to defend the indefensible. In such a case he is not lying to himself but to others

through a lack of humility and is a fool.

It is jaundiced to say all such men are like that. Because we consider our self to be a liar, we

should not think that all men are.

---

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. Aristotle

I believe that truth is highest form of morality. But standing alone as an absolute, truth exists in a vacuum. Existing in a vacuum without context, truth has the potential to do harm. It can become hardened into something brittle; an aberration that was once beautiful but now warped into something evil.

I believe one must stand guard, keeping a vigil over one's self,
aligning one's outer self with the truth of one's inner self. I think to the extent that one does this is the extent of one's sanity.

I think the greatest damage caused by lying to others is done to oneself.

I think the insane are so muddled up with all the various forms of lying, they have no hold on any kind of reality. They have no inner core of focus, clarity, balance... Their inner world is a drift. They are lost to themselves, wandering in a world that is unreal.

There might be a higher form of morality than truth. Consider this:
During WW2 the Nazis were taking Jews away from their homes and putting them in Concentration/Death Camps. With typical German efficiency they had a list of names and addresses of all Jews and they methodically went round the houses taking whole families away. The Christian neighbour of one Jewish family took the young child of their neighbour into her home just before the Nazis arrived. When they could not find the child listed against the address the Nazi soldiers asked the neighbour if she knew where the Jewish child was.
"No", was the reply.
The Nazis pointed to the young child in the house and asked "Whose child is that?"
The woman's reply was "Mine".
The Nazis left.
The Jewish child survived the War. Her family did not.
Those with brains better than mine can probably cite the book and the author of that story, but who can say if the truth should have been told as part of a higher morality in this case?

Yes, I agree with you. That is what my above first paragraph is about...or perhaps what I alluded to not very well. You have given a very good example of when truth can be used to do harm.

Go back to the Nazis hunting innocent Jews. If the woman in the story had shown consideration and respect for the Nazi soldiers who were just trying to obey orders, that young Jewish child would have been gassed. The "highest standards" must be measured against God in Christ. Where they fall short they are immoral. It is not enough to conform to 'some' standard. We must conform to God's standards, even if we offend or hurt some people by so doing.

jacobusmaximus:
Go back to the Nazis hunting innocent Jews. If the woman in the story had shown consideration and respect for the Nazi soldiers who were just trying to obey orders, that young Jewish child would have been gassed. The "highest standards" must be measured against God in Christ. Where they fall short they are immoral. It is not enough to conform to 'some' standard. We must conform to God's standards, even if we offend or hurt some people by so doing.


That's the problem with a morality; not everyone follows it. If the Nazi's had show respect and consideration toward the Jews,...



Opps, sorry Epi:

Got caught up in the subject and didn't pay attention.

But to get back on track: No one deliberately lies to themselves. They can't else it isn't a lie because they would recognize it as such and not be deceived. I do believe, however, we can create defense mechanisms which have the same result by believing things that are not true for the purpose of avoiding pain.

We don't see it as avoiding pain, however, just the opposite. We see the things we believe as pleasant, good, beneficial and needful for our well-being. However, simply because we believe it doesn't make it true, so therefore it is a deception we have unwittingly created for ourselves.

This is the greatest of all lies because we invented it ourselves, so we then do become the best deceiver of ourselves. Just as in the previous post, the Nazi's convinced themselves they were the master race and all problems in the country were the fault of the Jews. Believing it didn't make it so, but humans have long played the game of, "I think it, therefore it must be true!"

I think it fair to say that all such defense mechanisms are created to avoid the pain we would experience, otherwise there would be no need to do it. Sometimes the pain is not obvious to our conscious mind, but the vestiges of pain long past still reside in memories sometimes buried deeply because of that pain. I think it, therefore it must be true. ;-)

---

A great many people will think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices. ~ William James ~

The effects of propaganda, mass hysteria, and mob psychology, all do rely, or have as part and parcel of the phenomena, deceit of some sort; however, they are all operative at the sociological level, I am more interested in the subtle, and insidious ways we may deceive ourselves. Granted any of the former may utilize what occurs at the individual level; however, my concern is that until we admit to, identify, and learn how to dismantle these mechanisms at the individual level, we cannot hope to have much success against the methods used to deceive whole populations.

---