Lies as the basis of social communication: from biology to politics

[Brother]

Today's massive proliferation of fakes, in an environment where the external barriers to validation that existed in the days of real journalism before the Internet period have disappeared, tell us that we are faced with a completely natural state of the human mind. In fact, a person has always functioned in a system of lies or deceit, which was presented as truth. When candidates for elected office promise something and then fail to fulfill it, this is also an example from this area.

When they broadcast one thing to us from the TV screen, and do something else in life, this is an equally vivid example of the lie that accompanies us.

It follows that we are mistakenly oriented towards the right words and deeds, towards the fact that the world is built honestly. In fact, the world can, on the contrary, be built on mistakes and violations of the rules, which are needed only as an ideal, as a standard of a meter, but in reality it is not present in any implementation.

The hybrid war, for example, which Ukraine is facing, is built on deliberate structures of deception of both Ukraine itself and the international community, which makes it difficult to create methods of counter-influence in response.

Mathematician E. Weinstein, who heads Peter Thiel's investment fund Capital, says: “Evolutionary biologists Richard Alexander and Robert Trivers recently emphasized that deception, not information, often plays a critical role in natural selection systems. At the same time, most of our reasoning considers deception as a distortion of the exchange of pure information, leaving us unprepared to look at a world in which fake can reliably supplant the truth. In particular, humanity's future natural selection systems are likely to remain tied to economic theory, which today uses the market model based on accurate information as its central construct. If we take selection more seriously, we can honestly ask what strict system will be able to tie together the altered reality of the layers of lies, in which absolutely nothing can be accepted in the form in which it appears” [1].

Richard Alexander is also credited with the following thought: “human social life is so fundamentally filled with deception (of ourselves and others) that the only reason to tell the truth, which we sometimes supposedly do, may be to facilitate the spread of selfish lies to the audience” [2].

We have before us the views of evolutionary biologists, which demonstrate that natural selection prefers the characteristic of deception, rather than truth. Human survival is related to the ability to deviate from credible communication. This is the correct social behavior in a group.

R. Alexander himself, in his work on the biology of moral systems, puts it this way: “Few can deny that most people on occasion behave selfishly, which can usually be described as immoral. It is true that it is difficult to apply the adjectives moral or immoral to individuals, not to mention entire societies, so the problem of the duality of human nature arises, rather, these terms can describe individual acts. Moreover, there is a difficulty in the fact that morality in a group (patriotism, loyalty, joint efforts) often correlates with opposite types of behavior of members of other groups, which raises the question that cooperation for the sake of competition was a historical function of group unity” [3].

Another evolutionary biologist who even published a book on the topic of deception and self-deception, R. Trivers. His opinion on the dependence of deception and self-deception is as follows:“Self-deception arises to help deception. The main function of self-deception is to better deceive others. They both make it harder for others to recognize the deception, allowing you to deceive with less cognitive cost. That is, if I am lying to you now about something that is really important to you, you will look behind my sly eyes, if I am lying deliberately, the peculiarities of my voice, other behavioral clues that are associated with the conscious knowledge of deception and nervousness about that it can be detected. But if I do not know the fact that I am lying to you, these methods of detection will not be available to you” [4].

This is a popular speech by Travis, but practically the same thoughts are present in his scientific work. He writes in his article: “Our approach is to consider self-deception among a multitude of diverse processes that are directly comparable to those related to interpersonal deception” [5].

And one more important remark from the series cited in the work: “Most of the research on detecting deception was carried out on people who are not familiar with each other. Our ability to detect deception may be ill-prepared for this task, because this approach removes the possibility that people can learn to use idiosyncratic clues that can help in determining whether a particular individual is lying."

Biology pushes people into groups where survival is by definition higher. Biology also shapes social behavior in groups. For Trivers, cheating is also a way to better survive: “ The cheated person usually loses knowledge, resources or something else, which as a result is reflected in the decline in the spread of his genes. Thus, we get what is called a co-evolutionary struggle: on the one hand, natural selection improves deception, on the other hand, the ability to recognize deception improves” [4].

For us to listen to Trivers (his website is roberttrivers.com), we should quote the opinion of the famous scientist S. Pinker from Harvard: "Pinker called him" one of the greatest thinkers in the history of Western thought. "In the early 1970s, Trivers did for evolutionary biology what Einstein did for physics. He revolutionized the field with several brilliant original articles that have shaped the research paradigm for decades." [6]

Trivers asks a fair question in one of his articles - how can a false reflection of reality be useful for a person himself? [7]. And he answers that the phenomenon of self-deception arises in interaction with others. He defines it as self-deception in order to deceive others and identifies five types of situations where self-deception is needed:

• denial of future deception,
• unconscious behavior, including deception,
• self-deception as self-promotion,
• constructing one-sided social explanations,
• fictitious narratives of future intentions.

And more: “A distinctive feature of self-deception in serving deception is the denial of deception, the unconscious management of selfish and deceptive tricks, the creation of a public image as an altruist and a person interested in the lives of others, the creation of selfish social theories and internal narratives of current behavior, built on prejudice and hiding the real intentions ".

In his collection of articles on natural selection, Trivers also included the article on self-deception that we discussed above [8]. In his main book on this topic, The Folly of Fools, there is even an entire chapter devoted to false historical narratives [9]. That is, deception effectively functions at the level of the whole state.

In 2006, Trivers had a discussion with Noam Chomsky [10]. Chomsky emphasizes that the psychology of deception and self-deception is associated with groupthink. When it is someone else's control, it is intimidation and blackmail. When it is our control, it is liberation and freedom. Trivers replies that psychologists talk about such verbal switching in connection with the person's finding in a we / them situation.

Trivers was once asked about empathy, why it is not in his book. He replied in the following way: “Empathy is a very important part of deception, and I worry that I have not researched empathy. It is not sympathy, it is feeling the feelings of others. A long time ago I asked Bill Hamilton [this is a famous evolutionary biologist - GP] about her. I said what is empathy. And he answered “What kind of empathy?” [eleven].

In passing, we note that Hamilton was the defender of an interesting theory about sex [12]. This is the so-called "red queen" theory. Within the framework of it, it is believed that sex evolved to give parasites a new and unfamiliar combination of genes, thus individuals, thanks to sex, could constantly escape from their parasites. But as a result, the parasites could develop their ability to spread to a new set of genes, which created an endless race. Here we are talking about natural selection of genes, not organisms [13].

In an interview with BBC Focus, Trivers (modestly) says that he created the science of self-deception based on evolutionary and social logic as the first [14]. In doing so, he quotes actor Chris Rock, who said: “You don't really meet me when I first enter the room. You meet my representative." It turns out that we are talking about what in other sciences is called an image.

Trivers is constantly expanding the areas where self-deception manifests itself. For example, in his article, he said that self-deception is most common in the case of hostilities. He stresses: “Military incompetence - failure in anticipation of victory - is accompanied by four common symptoms: overconfidence, underestimation of a neighbor, ignorance of intelligence reports, and loss of manpower. The last two should be noted. The logic of self-deception maintains a conscious illusion of insensitivity to opposite evidence, even when it is provided by your own agents, whose purpose is precisely to provide accurate information” [7]. Before us is just an accurate and accurate analysis of Stalin's thinking on the eve of the war.

In this regard, in the book, Trivers speaks of institutional self-deception. For example, he looks from this angle at the deaths of space shuttles Challenger and Columbia, because NASA officials ignored the warnings of scientists. Regarding the war in Iraq, he emphasizes that self-deception here was not aimed at Iraq, but at internal and external consumption. In a conversation with Chomsky, he also mentioned the example of Iraq:“There is evidence to support that when you are thinking about something (like marrying Suzy), you are in a deliberative stage. In this situation, you are considering options more or less rationally. When you decide to get married, you are in the instrumental stage. Now you don't want to hear anything negative. Your state is elevated, you erase all negativity, you just say that Suzy is the only one."

The famous psychologist A. Bandura emphasized one weak point in the theory of self-deception. He puts it this way: “You cannot force yourself to believe in something while knowing that it is a lie. Therefore, self-deception cannot exist. Attempts to resolve the paradox, how a deceiver deceived himself, were unsuccessful. These attempts usually involved creating a divided self, considering one of them unconscious” [15].

This is a fair point in many ways, although one can get out of it by the fact that there may be a double scheme of deception. A person, deceiving another, deliberately behaves in such a way as not to betray this, that is, according to his behavior, he is, as it were, conventionally deceiving himself.

What are the political consequences of this human ability to be in a situation of self-deception and deception? The first contenders are media and politics. Especially at the intersection of media and politics, called elections.

The corresponding pressure of politics on the media arises because politics is a more organized force with both greater finances and greater influence in society. Researchers, for example, write about the role of information in politics: “Citizens do not form political judgments in a vacuum. Such an imaginary truism as "The voters, not the press, determine the outcome of the elections" is more wrong than correct. Citizens need information to make decisions, and in politics, most of this information comes from the news media” [16].

Information can be anything. But politicians are trying to make sure that the right information appears at the right time in the right place. Thus, their influence becomes stronger than that of journalists, since politicians make journalists the broadcasters of the content they need.

The media really sets the status of a candidate in the race. This was the opinion of the classics Lazarsfeld and Merton, who wrote: “Media gives prestige and increases the authority of individuals and groups, legitimizing their status. Recognition from the press, radio, magazines, newsreels prove that someone has appeared, that someone is so important that he can be singled out from the large anonymous mass, that his behavior and opinion are significant enough to receive public attention” [17].

Researchers identify four components of campaign coverage: the decisions of candidates, the values of news organizations, the economic incentives of news organizations, and the decisions of readers and viewers [16]. Trump, for example, is getting more coverage than other candidates.

There is a series of interesting interviews by the author of the book about Trump, Tony Schwartz [18-20]. The book is called The Art of the Deal, and Schwartz is featured on the cover as an author, along with Trump. Apparently, they had a falling out, so Schwartz allows himself to say not very pleasant things.

Schwartz speaks in every interview about Trump's attitude to lies: “In a civilized society, it is assumed that the other person tells us what is fact. If this connection is broken, we are in chaos. I strongly believe that Trump will pay little attention to the truth when he becomes president, as I watched him 30 years ago when he made real estate deals. "

In another interview, Schwartz stresses: "" He lies strategically. He has no regrets about it at all. " Since many people are" limited by the truth, "Trump's indifference to it " gives him a strange advantage. "

And it's not just Schwartz who says this. Here is the opinion of another enemy of Trump: “If you listen to what Donald Trump has to say on any issue, you will see that he takes opposite positions on the issue, sometimes even in one sentence” [21]. This type of communicative behavior can be deduced from the following observation: “He likes attention and he loves media. He likes to manipulate the media. In this he is a master. "

Politics is a huge field for the use of lies. In principle, this property is embedded in the promises of politicians, since we choose them at one time point, and the fulfillment of their promises is at another.

The modern world is designed in such a way that the rich rule the poor. Gramsci emphasized the role of culture in maintaining the dominance of the ruling class, which leads to a natural acceptance of this dominance by the ruled classes.

Gleb Pavlovsky , for example, says about modernity: “The poor are a political concept. Power belongs to a group of billionaires, and this usurpation of power is justified by concern for the poor. The poor are such a demonstrative specimen of the people, which is taken care of by a group of good patriotic billionaires, so this topic will always be on the program ” [22].

In parallel with the official political institutions, shadow ones are actively functioning. Ukraine is no exception. For example, Andreas Umland drew attention to the fact that Ukraine is being built on the principle of patronism, which is a hidden political structure of the Ukrainian state, built on informal ties rather than formal ones [23].

Hale's book is based on the disclosure of this mechanism, to which he refers in his speech [24]. Hale also speaks of highly patronized societies in which we can easily recognize Ukraine: societies where “connections are not only significant (as it is almost everywhere), but extremely. Such societies are usually characterized by strong personal friendships and families, weak rule of law, pervasive corruption, low social capital, strong patron-client relationship, widespread nepotism, and what sociologists recognize as “patrimonial” or “neopatrimonial” forms of domination ” [ 25]. He uses almost the same words in his book, believing that expectations rule in such societies.

His main opinion is as follows: “ In the post-Soviet space, patronage legacy means that politics is primarily a struggle between extensive networks of personal acquaintances, and not between such formal institutions as“ parties ”,“ parliament ”,“ firms ”, even “presidency" And "state". Such networks often have roots in specific formal alliances (such as the Soviet KGB and its successors), but most tend to have their own people in all major spheres that can influence politics, including government bureaucracy, business, the world of NGOs, media and recruitment. ideologically diverse political parties. Competing networks can have common roots, as is the case in the rivalry between former KGB immigrants in modern Russia " [25].

In his article on Formal Constitutions in Informal Politics, Hale also talks about the formation of expectations: “In highly clientist hybrid regimes, constitutions influence people's expectations of whether one network will dominate for the foreseeable future, thereby helping to resolve or, conversely, complicate the problem. coordination for actors in politics ” [26].

Hale defines as a clientist regime, where politics and economics are organized around the personal exchange of concrete and rewards and punishments, rather than around abstract ideological principles or people that no one has seen in person [27]. That is, we have before us something feudal, and perhaps even an even more ancient structure of social life. A. Fisun also speaks of the importance of informal patron-client networks for structuring political and economic processes [28].

It is clear that the model of the state built in this way serves and provides really only those who are embedded in such networks. Hence the endless lists of "godfathers" in Ukrainian politics [29-30]. That is, our critical arrows against the oligarchs are not entirely accurate. Oligarchs, too, must be embedded in these personal ties in order to stay on the surface.

All this is an attempt to find an answer to the question of why three decades of development in the post-Soviet space give zero results. The answer that follows from this approach is that power is held all the time by the same groups that are informal and actively use this power for personal enrichment. And on the surface beautiful words sound that have nothing to do with reality.

Such a model does not give Ukraine the opportunity to sever existing ties, since they are informal, and to combat them, formal institutions are created - small ministries to combat corruption. According to the laws of network-centric warfare, hierarchies cannot defeat networks. Only networks can defeat networks, which happens during the redistribution of property, when a new personally-oriented network comes to power, forcing the old networks to make room. On the surface, however, this is all called democracy.

The biological lie has become a political lie.

From the point of view of biology, we are natural deceivers, and since we have not clearly realized this yet, then we are tough deceivers, with which we can be fully congratulated.

Literature

1. Weinstein ER Kayfabe
2. Barash DP All the Better to Fool You With, My Dear // Evolutionary Psychology. - 2011. -Vol. 9. - N 4
3. Alexander RD A biological interpretation of moral systems // Zygon. - 1985. - Vol. 20. - N 1
4. Trivers R. Deceit and self-deception
5. Hippel von W., Trivers R. The evolution and psychology of self-deception // Behavioral and brain sciences. - 2011. - Vol. 34. - I. 1
6. Raeburn P. Lying to yourself helps you lie to others
7. Trivers R. The Elements of a Scientific Theory of Self-Deception
8. Trivers R. Natural Selection and Social Theory. Selected Papers of Robert Trivers. - Oxford etc., 2002
9. Trivers R. The Folly of Fools. The Logic of Deceit and Self-deception in Human Life. - New York, 2011
10. Noam Chomsky + Robert Trivers. Discussion with Noam Chomsky and Robert Trivers
11. Jahme C. Deceit and self-deception by Robert Trivers - review
12. Wd hamilton
13. Red queen hypothesis
14. Robert Trivers interview
15. Bandura A. Self-deception: A paradox revisited // Behavioral and brain sciences. - 2011. - Vol. 34. - I. 1
16. Sides J. ao A deep dive into the news media's role in the rise of Donald J. Trump
17. Lazarsfeld PF, Merton RK Mass communication, popular taste, and organized social action
18. M ayer J. Donald Trump's ghostwriter tells all
19. The FRONTLINE interview: Tony Schwartz
20. Schwartz T. I wrote 'The Art of the Deal' with Trump. His self-sabotage is rooted in his past
21. Remnick D. A Conversation with Maggie Haberman, Trump's Favorite Foe
22. Vinokurova E. The last line of the Kremlin defense
23. Umland A. Clan Poroshenko. How the oligarchy is reborn
24. Hale HE Patronal politics. Eurasian regime dynamics in comparative perspective. - New York, 2015
25. Hale HE 25 years after USSR: what's gone wrong? // Journal of Democracy. - 2016. - Vol. 27. - N 3
26. Hale HE Formal Constitutions in Informal Politics: Institutions and Democratization in PostSoviet Eurasia // World Politics. - 2011. - Vol. 63. - I. 04
27. Hale HE Two Decades of Post-Soviet Regime Dynamics // Demokratizatsiya: The Journal of Post-Soviet Democratization. - 2012. - N 2
28. Fisun O. Rethinking Post-Soviet Politics from a Neopatrimonial Perspective // Demokratizatsiya: The Journal of Post-Soviet Democratization. - 2012. - N 2
29. Matchmakers, godfathers and brothers-in-law: a complete list of families and clans that now rule Ukraine
30. Chervonenko V. Map of Ukrainian oligarchs and their influence on the government