Teacher
Professional
- Messages
- 2,670
- Reaction score
- 798
- Points
- 113
Salute, carders, now we will talk about self-deception and self-esteem, the negative consequences of self-deception, shared self-deception in group thinking.
Information is an advantage that allows you to increase your influence and outperform competitors. For those who agree with this statement, self-deception (lying to oneself) appears to be self-defense. How, then, does incorrect information become beneficial? We will analyze this paradox and consider the positive and negative consequences of deceiving others.
Beliefs are even more dangerous enemies of truth than lies. (Nietzsche)
Self-deception and self-esteem
Why do we give ourselves false data? The essence of psychoanalysis as a method of treatment is to allow a person to understand his own mental processes, to bring to the surface what was previously stored in the depths of the subconscious. It is foolish to believe that self-deception can affect self-esteem and maintain mental health, although there is compelling evidence to support this assumption.
Ella and Abramson (1979) found that people who are averse to depression, as opposed to those who are prone to it, deceive themselves about how much control they have in their situation. The researchers conducted an experiment in which they themselves secretly controlled the score in a number of games. If the results of the game turned out to be favorable, the participants in the experiment, who were not prone to depression, overestimated their merits. And while losing, they belittled their participation. On the contrary, patients prone to depression consistently accurately determined the degree of their own control over the situation.
The researchers hypothesized that the habit of being aware of your merits in case of success, and in case of failure, believing that nothing depended on you is an excellent adaptive mechanism for maintaining or increasing your own self-esteem. It is tempting to believe that people who are prone to depression do not suffer from a negative ("depressive") cognitive state, but from a lack of non-depressive cognitive biases (Ella and Abramson, 1979). In other words, a person who is prone to depression perceives the world more realistically than someone who does not.
Levinson and his colleagues obtained additional data that confirmed that people who are not prone to depression deceive themselves more. They consider themselves better than others imagined. People who are prone to depression perceive themselves and are perceived by others as less socially competent. This realistic perception of oneself is weakened during the course of treatment. Researchers have come up with a formula:
Sackheim and Gur (1979) found that self-deception and scores on various psychopathological tests that determine a person's self-esteem are strongly inversely related. That is, high self-esteem indicated a lower likelihood of psychological illness. The link between self-deception and psychopathology is stronger than the link between psychopathology and deceiving others (lying). Self-deception is more powerful in influencing unjustified self-esteem than lying. And deception of others is largely associated with self-deception in women, but not in men.
The work of Seckheim and Wegner (1986) has shown the presence of cognitive biases in ordinary people: the tendency to overestimate one's merits is characteristic of "normal functioning". A healthy person reacts to a positive result with the words: "I was in control of the situation and should be rewarded." If the results are unfavorable, he justifies himself by saying that it was not in his competence, and absolves himself of the blame for the failure.
Taylor and Brown (1988), in their detailed review of numerous works and documents on self-deception, concluded that "a mentally healthy person will certainly edit reality, raise self-esteem, maintain self-confidence, and hold an optimistic outlook for the future. "Such illusions" reward traditional hallmarks of mental health, including the ability to care for oneself and others, be happy, and engage in productive and creative work. "A person may even exaggerate areas of his incompetence, in which he admits a hopeless lack of ability. This contributes to rationalization: you can't have the ability for everything! And it helps to avoid potential failures. Such confessions increase confidence in other areas. However, Taylor and Brown emphasized,
Lane and colleagues (1990) have linked successful self-deception to a lack of psychopathology. They found a correlation between self-defense (measured on the Crown-Marlowe Social Desirability Scale) and the presence of a psychiatric disorder. The researchers used direct clinical diagnostic interviews with the patient and his immediate family to determine psychopathology. They found an inverse relationship between self-defense and psychological distress: the higher the Crown-Marlowe score, the lower the likelihood of psychiatric illness.
The discoveries of Lane and colleagues that self-deception and a tendency to not control internal emotional processes can prevent psychiatric illness should not be taken as a universal principle of good mental and physical health. The repressive mechanism of psychological overcoming is associated with psychological or behavioral dysfunction and with certain chronic diseases. For example, Weinberger and colleagues (1979) studied patients who suffered from anxiety and oversensitivity to criticism (as measured by the Crown-Marlowe social desirability scale). They measured objective parameters that emit anxiety (skin resistance, muscle tension, pulse). Repressors who claimed to have only mild anxiety and anxiety had more physiological changes than non-repressors who said, that they have a low level of anxiety. Experiencing unhappiness does not always trigger physiological responses to stress. In addition, increased physiological responses can lead to chronic diseases such as cardiovascular disease. Lane and colleagues noted that psychological self-defense (repression of negative emotions such as anger or anxiety) is inherent in many convicts who have been sentenced to imprisonment for a sudden outburst of aggression.
The tragic consequences of the destruction of human self-deception are described in two American plays of the mid-twentieth century. In Eugene O'Neill's play "Icebreaker Coming", an abandoned alcoholic, devoid of illusions, commits suicide. In Arthur Miller's Death of a Salesman, Willie Loman commits suicide after his son Biff confronts his father's lies and self-deception.
Hartung (1988) suggested that self-deception brings a person's self-esteem in line with their social position, reducing the tension created by the discord between the imagined image and reality. "Upward self-deception is a way to increase self-esteem in order to take a position for which the person is not qualified." Of course, this can be a predestined self-realization, because it enhances self-confidence when a person has the innate ability for the job. If there is a discrepancy between ambition and true capabilities, then the result is disastrous, and this will certainly affect self-esteem (narcissistic trauma).
The opposite result is downward self-deception. For example, if a successful self-sufficient woman marries a man for whom it is necessary that she maintain a dependent position, then as an adaptive mechanism she can lower her own self-esteem. This makes it easier to overcome internal conflict and feelings of discomfort, and provides social and economic security that might otherwise be at risk. Of course, this form of self-deception is not only associated with sexism, it also arises in different circumstances and explains social inequality and why some people (for example, impostors) take on certain roles. Such people take an adaptive point of view: "I have to come to terms with my fate, because I did not deserve another."
Downward lies are harder to recognize than upward lies. It's easier to convince yourself of false failure than false success. Other people have a harder time dealing with a person whose deception is directed upward, because this behavior is often threatening. And a person whose deception is directed downward poses no danger. Although the forms of self-deception described by Hartung can resolve internal conflict and favor social integration, there are strong reasons to argue that this type of lie has more detrimental than beneficial consequences.
The negative consequences of self-deception
Self-deception can be very helpful in helping to regulate your own self-esteem and dysphoric (depressive) state. But it also has a downside. It can lead not only to the destruction of the personality of the person himself, but also of those around him. At the clinical research level, all doctors know firsthand how difficult it is to get a person to recognize and respond correctly to potentially dangerous and potentially treatable symptoms. Tumors in the chest are ignored, rectal bleeding is perceived as hemorrhoids, and drugs for hypertension are drunk for only a few days or weeks, and then they are forgotten or abandoned. The list is endless, because a person has a desire to always be healthy and a rejection of the fact that he is suffering from a serious illness.
PERSONS WITH PARANOIA UNDERSTAND ANOTHER SILENCE AS A SIGN OF APPROVAL OR ADMITATION, A "HUMAN" RECOMMENDATION LETTER TAKES SERIOUSLY, AND POLITITY AS A SIGNIFICANT FRIENDSHIP.
It is absolutely clear that self-deception regulates and maintains self-esteem. Are there too many good things? Fred Goldner (1982) gave a provocative answer to this question. He proposed a condition that he called prooia as opposed to paranoia. Thanks to the prooja, a person began to deceive himself, believing that others thought and responded well of him and that all his efforts met with wide support and praise. Maggie Scarfe (1994) ironically called this condition the syndrome of happiness, due to which people go through life, forgetting about their problems, and see "goodwill and ... noble intentions in everything." Scarfe, like Bentall (1992) before her, noted in her remarkably eccentric work that happiness is a rather unusual state.
People with pronoia, according to Goldner, have difficulties in assessing reality.
Goldner noted that modern business rules tend to overlook the negative aspects of someone else's assessment (reducing the risk of litigation), and suggested that such omission is one of the factors provoking a breakdown. Regardless of its reasons, a person with pronoia is unable to adequately assess their own capabilities and makes serious mistakes. One employee with a prone asked the boss, who silently fired him, to write a letter of recommendation!
Kirmeier (1983), using psychoanalytic concepts, developed Goldner's ideas, seeing prooya as a form of renunciation that protects fragile self-esteem from criticism and suppression. He suggested that the cause of the pronoia is the constant grandiose perception of oneself in the narcissistic personality. Like paranoia, this form of thinking is designed to create a sense of connection with the chaos and confusion of the social world. Kirmaier, in fact, qualified paranoia as a step towards pronoyance, because the paranoid is more clearly aware of the dark side of society and his own insignificance in the big picture. Thus, the paranoid ultimately deceives himself less than the pronoic.
Self-deception can have a negative impact on someone else's life. An Air Florida flight 90 from Washington, DC National Airport, on the Tampa city border, took off in a violent storm, crashed into a bridge less than a minute later, and began plunging into the Potomac River. 78 people were killed. Trivers and Newton (1982) examined cockpit conversations at the start of the ill-fated flight. In their opinion, the cause of the tragedy was the pilot's self-deception and insufficiently persistent objections from the co-pilot about the wrong decision. The pilot denied or attached little importance to danger signs. A similar demeanor was noted in other plane crashes, partly caused by the pilots' self-deception and their endless belief in their own strength and their own invulnerability. Considering the danger.
It is important to recognize the self-deception of the so-called experts. Professionals such as police officers, customs inspectors and polygraph examiners are confident in their ability to recognize deception. However, as a rule, their ability to recognize someone else's lies is no higher than that of others.
Another unpleasant discovery concerns imaginary specialists advising people who were victims of violence in childhood. Horner et al (1993) conducted a study in which they reported the same data on possible childhood sexual abuse to eight experts who considered themselves to be experts in this type of abuse. The opinions and recommendations of the experts were radically different from each other. According to the researchers: “The judiciary recognizes the inherent adaptability of the witness in its testimony and seeks to restrict it by prohibiting testimony based on hearsay and its own conclusions, as they are largely subject to other people's instructions and personal bias, prejudice and self -interest. Similar legal precautions should be applied to expert testimony. "
These examples point to the danger that individuals and small groups can be exposed to as a result of the self-deception of one individual. An article in a recent issue of The New Yorker (Rosembaum, 1995) cites an interview with Alan Bullock, Adolf Hitler's main biographer, in which he is asked to provide a psychological portrait of Hitler. According to Bullock, until 1941 Hitler was cunning and cautious, he used his image to achieve political and military victories. Intoxicated by the success, intensified by the groveling of the German people, Hitler believed in his own deception. He abandoned the previous manipulations and made a number of disastrous decisions that led to the fall of the Third Reich.
There are many examples in history of how the self-deception of one person in power, or small groups of people who make major decisions, leads to massive destruction and huge human losses. In fact, in our age of nuclear energy, self-deception can lead to complete destruction (Golman, 1985). The “groupthink” processes described below show how important but ill-considered decisions are made.
Groupthink: Divided Self-Deception
Groupthink - This term was coined by Dr. Irving L. Janice (1983), a social psychologist at Yale University, to describe a special form of defective group decision making. He quoted Nietzsche: "Madness is the exception in one person and the rule in the group." However, Janice noted that not all of the group's decisions are reckless, under certain circumstances they can have monstrous consequences - consequences that are predictable in retrospect. He suggested that group decision-making can take into account potential errors and analyze the degree of risk associated with some of the possible alternatives, including those currently being discussed. Janice analyzed in detail some of the major miscalculations in United States foreign policy, which he associated with groupthink syndrome,
Groupthink syndrome has the following features:
✓ the illusion of invulnerability;
✓ blind faith in the unconditional moral principles of the group;
✓ joint attempts at rationalization to ignore danger warnings or other information that impede the implementation of the proposed plan;
✓ a persistent stereotype that the enemy is always weak and not smart enough to interfere with the actions of the group;
✓ self-criticism for any deviation from the general opinion of the group;
✓ shared illusion of unanimity about decisions that are consistent with the general rule;
✓ direct pressure on any member of the group who will make serious arguments against the group's illusions;
✓ the emergence of a self-proclaimed thought police - members of the group, protecting it from extraneous information that will destroy the overall satisfaction with the decision.
One of the factors that influences the groupthink process is the decision prompted by the leader in advance, which he is waiting for. The cohesion of the group and the need to achieve unanimity outweigh the critical discussion of all dissenting people. Strong pressure is exerted on “deviant” group members to change their minds (and then remain part of the group) or leave.
The groupthink process was tested experimentally in specially created groups. Leana (1985) concludes that the leader's pre-determined position primarily determines the group's decision. The cohesion of the group does not limit the number of options considered. In fact, it increases it. But here it should be borne in mind that the group united students who had already worked with each other during the semester before. When making a decision, the group operates with different methods.
Groupthink is typical of groups with varying levels of financial power and influence. He can be encountered at a hobby club dinner, where they discuss where to invest in charity. Or at a meeting of the hospital board, where the question of whether to build a multimillion-dollar building is being decided, despite the presentiment that health care reform will reduce the need for new hospital places.
Groupthink is likely a dangerous form of self-deception. To meet social needs (such as support, agreement and approval), a person sacrifices his own critical abilities. There is no group without a leader. It is ruled by the most power-hungry and influential people, they are often deceived into believing that their decisions are certainly correct, because they were unanimously accepted by other members of the group. Narcissistic leaders (see Chapter 6) who require success, admiration, and submission from their subordinates, and who tend to lie under the pressure of their own grand ambitions, are especially dangerous in these situations.
Groupthink is characteristic of groups that are closed from external influences. Privacy is created in such a way that group members are not distracted by other social roles and the group process would be more effective. Smart and manipulative leaders use the groupthink process to deceive others and themselves in the process.
WHEN PEOPLE PERCEPT THEMSELVES AS A RAW MATERIAL THAT REQUIRES ADVANCEMENT TO MEET THE EXTERNAL CRITERIA AND OBJECTIVES OF THE ORGANIZATION, IT'S EASIER TO SEE AND OTHER MEANS TO ACHIEVE.
Bureaucratic institutions, both corporations and government agencies, encourage self-deception that can cause misery for large numbers of people. Jekall (1980) provides detailed examples of when harsh and ill-considered corporate decisions have resulted in death, harm to health and injury to thousands of people, consumers of low-quality products. Jekall saw this as a consequence of the destruction of individuality in a large organization, separation of responsibilities and responsibility for decisions. Structural separation, when means, ends, actions and their consequences are separated from each other, can lead to a separation of the psyche, in which personal responsibility for actions is separated from the activities of the corporation. That is, a corporation or government agency chooses a demeanor that the vast majority of people,
Jekall went on to describe the type of people valence to service in a bureaucratic organization (corporation): those who easily allow themselves to be manipulated.
Personal qualities (self-identification and a clear perception of oneself) are not as important here as compliance with the ideals of the organization. Such people master the rhetoric and vocabulary of the organization and easily adapt to its needs. The criterion of dignity is no longer what a person is, but what position he occupies in the groups and cliques inherent in each organization. A person sacrifices self-identification and personal values for the good of the corporation.
Many, within the framework of mutual self-deception, misjudge reality and revise their decisions in order to synchronize with the views of someone who seems to them to be omniscient and omnipotent. This phenomenon is often observed during difficult economic and political situations, when in the face of uncertainty and fear, the people endow a strong leader with excessive power. For example, the economic chaos after the First World War led to the emergence of fascist states in Europe. Self-deception on the part of society (this can be explained by the subconscious search for the ideal protective parent) contributes to the self-delusion and grandiose ambition of dictators. Similar examples can be found in recent American history - preparing for a major nuclear war and shifting responsibility for the Vietnam War onto leaders who "know more than we do."
The psychic core of each of us is the search for eternal life, the satisfaction of the needs for care, protection and the belief that we are loved. Some narcissistic personalities, in their grandeur, believe they have power. Their lies reinforce the self-deception of others, which can have dire consequences.
In the second part, we will consider the positive and negative consequences of deception, the consequences of lying on relationships, and such a phenomenon as a personal myth.
Information is an advantage that allows you to increase your influence and outperform competitors. For those who agree with this statement, self-deception (lying to oneself) appears to be self-defense. How, then, does incorrect information become beneficial? We will analyze this paradox and consider the positive and negative consequences of deceiving others.
Beliefs are even more dangerous enemies of truth than lies. (Nietzsche)
Self-deception and self-esteem
Why do we give ourselves false data? The essence of psychoanalysis as a method of treatment is to allow a person to understand his own mental processes, to bring to the surface what was previously stored in the depths of the subconscious. It is foolish to believe that self-deception can affect self-esteem and maintain mental health, although there is compelling evidence to support this assumption.
Ella and Abramson (1979) found that people who are averse to depression, as opposed to those who are prone to it, deceive themselves about how much control they have in their situation. The researchers conducted an experiment in which they themselves secretly controlled the score in a number of games. If the results of the game turned out to be favorable, the participants in the experiment, who were not prone to depression, overestimated their merits. And while losing, they belittled their participation. On the contrary, patients prone to depression consistently accurately determined the degree of their own control over the situation.
The researchers hypothesized that the habit of being aware of your merits in case of success, and in case of failure, believing that nothing depended on you is an excellent adaptive mechanism for maintaining or increasing your own self-esteem. It is tempting to believe that people who are prone to depression do not suffer from a negative ("depressive") cognitive state, but from a lack of non-depressive cognitive biases (Ella and Abramson, 1979). In other words, a person who is prone to depression perceives the world more realistically than someone who does not.
Levinson and his colleagues obtained additional data that confirmed that people who are not prone to depression deceive themselves more. They consider themselves better than others imagined. People who are prone to depression perceive themselves and are perceived by others as less socially competent. This realistic perception of oneself is weakened during the course of treatment. Researchers have come up with a formula:
Sackheim and Gur (1979) found that self-deception and scores on various psychopathological tests that determine a person's self-esteem are strongly inversely related. That is, high self-esteem indicated a lower likelihood of psychological illness. The link between self-deception and psychopathology is stronger than the link between psychopathology and deceiving others (lying). Self-deception is more powerful in influencing unjustified self-esteem than lying. And deception of others is largely associated with self-deception in women, but not in men.
The work of Seckheim and Wegner (1986) has shown the presence of cognitive biases in ordinary people: the tendency to overestimate one's merits is characteristic of "normal functioning". A healthy person reacts to a positive result with the words: "I was in control of the situation and should be rewarded." If the results are unfavorable, he justifies himself by saying that it was not in his competence, and absolves himself of the blame for the failure.
Taylor and Brown (1988), in their detailed review of numerous works and documents on self-deception, concluded that "a mentally healthy person will certainly edit reality, raise self-esteem, maintain self-confidence, and hold an optimistic outlook for the future. "Such illusions" reward traditional hallmarks of mental health, including the ability to care for oneself and others, be happy, and engage in productive and creative work. "A person may even exaggerate areas of his incompetence, in which he admits a hopeless lack of ability. This contributes to rationalization: you can't have the ability for everything! And it helps to avoid potential failures. Such confessions increase confidence in other areas. However, Taylor and Brown emphasized,
Lane and colleagues (1990) have linked successful self-deception to a lack of psychopathology. They found a correlation between self-defense (measured on the Crown-Marlowe Social Desirability Scale) and the presence of a psychiatric disorder. The researchers used direct clinical diagnostic interviews with the patient and his immediate family to determine psychopathology. They found an inverse relationship between self-defense and psychological distress: the higher the Crown-Marlowe score, the lower the likelihood of psychiatric illness.
The discoveries of Lane and colleagues that self-deception and a tendency to not control internal emotional processes can prevent psychiatric illness should not be taken as a universal principle of good mental and physical health. The repressive mechanism of psychological overcoming is associated with psychological or behavioral dysfunction and with certain chronic diseases. For example, Weinberger and colleagues (1979) studied patients who suffered from anxiety and oversensitivity to criticism (as measured by the Crown-Marlowe social desirability scale). They measured objective parameters that emit anxiety (skin resistance, muscle tension, pulse). Repressors who claimed to have only mild anxiety and anxiety had more physiological changes than non-repressors who said, that they have a low level of anxiety. Experiencing unhappiness does not always trigger physiological responses to stress. In addition, increased physiological responses can lead to chronic diseases such as cardiovascular disease. Lane and colleagues noted that psychological self-defense (repression of negative emotions such as anger or anxiety) is inherent in many convicts who have been sentenced to imprisonment for a sudden outburst of aggression.
The tragic consequences of the destruction of human self-deception are described in two American plays of the mid-twentieth century. In Eugene O'Neill's play "Icebreaker Coming", an abandoned alcoholic, devoid of illusions, commits suicide. In Arthur Miller's Death of a Salesman, Willie Loman commits suicide after his son Biff confronts his father's lies and self-deception.
Hartung (1988) suggested that self-deception brings a person's self-esteem in line with their social position, reducing the tension created by the discord between the imagined image and reality. "Upward self-deception is a way to increase self-esteem in order to take a position for which the person is not qualified." Of course, this can be a predestined self-realization, because it enhances self-confidence when a person has the innate ability for the job. If there is a discrepancy between ambition and true capabilities, then the result is disastrous, and this will certainly affect self-esteem (narcissistic trauma).
The opposite result is downward self-deception. For example, if a successful self-sufficient woman marries a man for whom it is necessary that she maintain a dependent position, then as an adaptive mechanism she can lower her own self-esteem. This makes it easier to overcome internal conflict and feelings of discomfort, and provides social and economic security that might otherwise be at risk. Of course, this form of self-deception is not only associated with sexism, it also arises in different circumstances and explains social inequality and why some people (for example, impostors) take on certain roles. Such people take an adaptive point of view: "I have to come to terms with my fate, because I did not deserve another."
Downward lies are harder to recognize than upward lies. It's easier to convince yourself of false failure than false success. Other people have a harder time dealing with a person whose deception is directed upward, because this behavior is often threatening. And a person whose deception is directed downward poses no danger. Although the forms of self-deception described by Hartung can resolve internal conflict and favor social integration, there are strong reasons to argue that this type of lie has more detrimental than beneficial consequences.
The negative consequences of self-deception
Self-deception can be very helpful in helping to regulate your own self-esteem and dysphoric (depressive) state. But it also has a downside. It can lead not only to the destruction of the personality of the person himself, but also of those around him. At the clinical research level, all doctors know firsthand how difficult it is to get a person to recognize and respond correctly to potentially dangerous and potentially treatable symptoms. Tumors in the chest are ignored, rectal bleeding is perceived as hemorrhoids, and drugs for hypertension are drunk for only a few days or weeks, and then they are forgotten or abandoned. The list is endless, because a person has a desire to always be healthy and a rejection of the fact that he is suffering from a serious illness.
PERSONS WITH PARANOIA UNDERSTAND ANOTHER SILENCE AS A SIGN OF APPROVAL OR ADMITATION, A "HUMAN" RECOMMENDATION LETTER TAKES SERIOUSLY, AND POLITITY AS A SIGNIFICANT FRIENDSHIP.
It is absolutely clear that self-deception regulates and maintains self-esteem. Are there too many good things? Fred Goldner (1982) gave a provocative answer to this question. He proposed a condition that he called prooia as opposed to paranoia. Thanks to the prooja, a person began to deceive himself, believing that others thought and responded well of him and that all his efforts met with wide support and praise. Maggie Scarfe (1994) ironically called this condition the syndrome of happiness, due to which people go through life, forgetting about their problems, and see "goodwill and ... noble intentions in everything." Scarfe, like Bentall (1992) before her, noted in her remarkably eccentric work that happiness is a rather unusual state.
People with pronoia, according to Goldner, have difficulties in assessing reality.
Goldner noted that modern business rules tend to overlook the negative aspects of someone else's assessment (reducing the risk of litigation), and suggested that such omission is one of the factors provoking a breakdown. Regardless of its reasons, a person with pronoia is unable to adequately assess their own capabilities and makes serious mistakes. One employee with a prone asked the boss, who silently fired him, to write a letter of recommendation!
Kirmeier (1983), using psychoanalytic concepts, developed Goldner's ideas, seeing prooya as a form of renunciation that protects fragile self-esteem from criticism and suppression. He suggested that the cause of the pronoia is the constant grandiose perception of oneself in the narcissistic personality. Like paranoia, this form of thinking is designed to create a sense of connection with the chaos and confusion of the social world. Kirmaier, in fact, qualified paranoia as a step towards pronoyance, because the paranoid is more clearly aware of the dark side of society and his own insignificance in the big picture. Thus, the paranoid ultimately deceives himself less than the pronoic.
Self-deception can have a negative impact on someone else's life. An Air Florida flight 90 from Washington, DC National Airport, on the Tampa city border, took off in a violent storm, crashed into a bridge less than a minute later, and began plunging into the Potomac River. 78 people were killed. Trivers and Newton (1982) examined cockpit conversations at the start of the ill-fated flight. In their opinion, the cause of the tragedy was the pilot's self-deception and insufficiently persistent objections from the co-pilot about the wrong decision. The pilot denied or attached little importance to danger signs. A similar demeanor was noted in other plane crashes, partly caused by the pilots' self-deception and their endless belief in their own strength and their own invulnerability. Considering the danger.
It is important to recognize the self-deception of the so-called experts. Professionals such as police officers, customs inspectors and polygraph examiners are confident in their ability to recognize deception. However, as a rule, their ability to recognize someone else's lies is no higher than that of others.
Another unpleasant discovery concerns imaginary specialists advising people who were victims of violence in childhood. Horner et al (1993) conducted a study in which they reported the same data on possible childhood sexual abuse to eight experts who considered themselves to be experts in this type of abuse. The opinions and recommendations of the experts were radically different from each other. According to the researchers: “The judiciary recognizes the inherent adaptability of the witness in its testimony and seeks to restrict it by prohibiting testimony based on hearsay and its own conclusions, as they are largely subject to other people's instructions and personal bias, prejudice and self -interest. Similar legal precautions should be applied to expert testimony. "
These examples point to the danger that individuals and small groups can be exposed to as a result of the self-deception of one individual. An article in a recent issue of The New Yorker (Rosembaum, 1995) cites an interview with Alan Bullock, Adolf Hitler's main biographer, in which he is asked to provide a psychological portrait of Hitler. According to Bullock, until 1941 Hitler was cunning and cautious, he used his image to achieve political and military victories. Intoxicated by the success, intensified by the groveling of the German people, Hitler believed in his own deception. He abandoned the previous manipulations and made a number of disastrous decisions that led to the fall of the Third Reich.
There are many examples in history of how the self-deception of one person in power, or small groups of people who make major decisions, leads to massive destruction and huge human losses. In fact, in our age of nuclear energy, self-deception can lead to complete destruction (Golman, 1985). The “groupthink” processes described below show how important but ill-considered decisions are made.
Groupthink: Divided Self-Deception
Groupthink - This term was coined by Dr. Irving L. Janice (1983), a social psychologist at Yale University, to describe a special form of defective group decision making. He quoted Nietzsche: "Madness is the exception in one person and the rule in the group." However, Janice noted that not all of the group's decisions are reckless, under certain circumstances they can have monstrous consequences - consequences that are predictable in retrospect. He suggested that group decision-making can take into account potential errors and analyze the degree of risk associated with some of the possible alternatives, including those currently being discussed. Janice analyzed in detail some of the major miscalculations in United States foreign policy, which he associated with groupthink syndrome,
Groupthink syndrome has the following features:
✓ the illusion of invulnerability;
✓ blind faith in the unconditional moral principles of the group;
✓ joint attempts at rationalization to ignore danger warnings or other information that impede the implementation of the proposed plan;
✓ a persistent stereotype that the enemy is always weak and not smart enough to interfere with the actions of the group;
✓ self-criticism for any deviation from the general opinion of the group;
✓ shared illusion of unanimity about decisions that are consistent with the general rule;
✓ direct pressure on any member of the group who will make serious arguments against the group's illusions;
✓ the emergence of a self-proclaimed thought police - members of the group, protecting it from extraneous information that will destroy the overall satisfaction with the decision.
One of the factors that influences the groupthink process is the decision prompted by the leader in advance, which he is waiting for. The cohesion of the group and the need to achieve unanimity outweigh the critical discussion of all dissenting people. Strong pressure is exerted on “deviant” group members to change their minds (and then remain part of the group) or leave.
The groupthink process was tested experimentally in specially created groups. Leana (1985) concludes that the leader's pre-determined position primarily determines the group's decision. The cohesion of the group does not limit the number of options considered. In fact, it increases it. But here it should be borne in mind that the group united students who had already worked with each other during the semester before. When making a decision, the group operates with different methods.
Groupthink is typical of groups with varying levels of financial power and influence. He can be encountered at a hobby club dinner, where they discuss where to invest in charity. Or at a meeting of the hospital board, where the question of whether to build a multimillion-dollar building is being decided, despite the presentiment that health care reform will reduce the need for new hospital places.
Groupthink is likely a dangerous form of self-deception. To meet social needs (such as support, agreement and approval), a person sacrifices his own critical abilities. There is no group without a leader. It is ruled by the most power-hungry and influential people, they are often deceived into believing that their decisions are certainly correct, because they were unanimously accepted by other members of the group. Narcissistic leaders (see Chapter 6) who require success, admiration, and submission from their subordinates, and who tend to lie under the pressure of their own grand ambitions, are especially dangerous in these situations.
Groupthink is characteristic of groups that are closed from external influences. Privacy is created in such a way that group members are not distracted by other social roles and the group process would be more effective. Smart and manipulative leaders use the groupthink process to deceive others and themselves in the process.
WHEN PEOPLE PERCEPT THEMSELVES AS A RAW MATERIAL THAT REQUIRES ADVANCEMENT TO MEET THE EXTERNAL CRITERIA AND OBJECTIVES OF THE ORGANIZATION, IT'S EASIER TO SEE AND OTHER MEANS TO ACHIEVE.
Bureaucratic institutions, both corporations and government agencies, encourage self-deception that can cause misery for large numbers of people. Jekall (1980) provides detailed examples of when harsh and ill-considered corporate decisions have resulted in death, harm to health and injury to thousands of people, consumers of low-quality products. Jekall saw this as a consequence of the destruction of individuality in a large organization, separation of responsibilities and responsibility for decisions. Structural separation, when means, ends, actions and their consequences are separated from each other, can lead to a separation of the psyche, in which personal responsibility for actions is separated from the activities of the corporation. That is, a corporation or government agency chooses a demeanor that the vast majority of people,
Jekall went on to describe the type of people valence to service in a bureaucratic organization (corporation): those who easily allow themselves to be manipulated.
Personal qualities (self-identification and a clear perception of oneself) are not as important here as compliance with the ideals of the organization. Such people master the rhetoric and vocabulary of the organization and easily adapt to its needs. The criterion of dignity is no longer what a person is, but what position he occupies in the groups and cliques inherent in each organization. A person sacrifices self-identification and personal values for the good of the corporation.
Many, within the framework of mutual self-deception, misjudge reality and revise their decisions in order to synchronize with the views of someone who seems to them to be omniscient and omnipotent. This phenomenon is often observed during difficult economic and political situations, when in the face of uncertainty and fear, the people endow a strong leader with excessive power. For example, the economic chaos after the First World War led to the emergence of fascist states in Europe. Self-deception on the part of society (this can be explained by the subconscious search for the ideal protective parent) contributes to the self-delusion and grandiose ambition of dictators. Similar examples can be found in recent American history - preparing for a major nuclear war and shifting responsibility for the Vietnam War onto leaders who "know more than we do."
The psychic core of each of us is the search for eternal life, the satisfaction of the needs for care, protection and the belief that we are loved. Some narcissistic personalities, in their grandeur, believe they have power. Their lies reinforce the self-deception of others, which can have dire consequences.
In the second part, we will consider the positive and negative consequences of deception, the consequences of lying on relationships, and such a phenomenon as a personal myth.
