Hostname: page-component-669899f699-2mbcq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-25T14:30:53.246Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The evolutionary route to self-deception: Why offensive versus defensive strategy might be a false alternative

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 February 2011

Ulrich Frey  and
Eckart Voland
Ulrich Frey
Affiliation:
Zentrum für Philosophie und Grundlagen der Wissenschaft, Universität Giessen, D-35394 Giessen, Germany. [email protected]://www.uni-giessen.de/cms/fbz/zentren/philosophie/ZfP/wiss_mitarbeiter/[email protected]://www.uni-giessen.de/cms/fbz/zentren/philosophie/ZfP/biophil
Eckart Voland
Affiliation:
Zentrum für Philosophie und Grundlagen der Wissenschaft, Universität Giessen, D-35394 Giessen, Germany. [email protected]://www.uni-giessen.de/cms/fbz/zentren/philosophie/ZfP/wiss_mitarbeiter/[email protected]://www.uni-giessen.de/cms/fbz/zentren/philosophie/ZfP/biophil
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Self-deception may be the result of social manipulation and conflict management of social in-groups. Although self-deception certainly has offensive and defensive aspects, a full evolutionary understanding of this phenomenon is not possible until strategies of other parties are included into a model of self-perception and self-representation.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 34 , Issue 1 , February 2011 , pp. 21 - 22
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Carruthers, P. (2009b) How we know our own minds: The relationship between mindreading and metacognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 32(2):121–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Flinn, M. V. (2007) Evolution of stress response to social threat. In: The Oxford handbook of evolutionary psychology, ed. Dunbar, R. I. M. & Barrett, L., pp. 273–96. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Frey, U. J. (2010) Modern illusions of humankind. In: Homo Novus – A human without Illusions, ed. Frey, U. J., Störmer, C. & Willführ, K. P., pp. 263–88. Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilovich, T. (1991) How we know what isn't so: The fallibility of human reason in everyday life. Macmillan.Google Scholar
Hrdy, S. B. (2009) Mothers and others – The evolutionary origins of mutual understanding. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Kurland, J. A. & Gaulin, S. J. C. (2005) Cooperation and conflict among kin. In: The handbook of evolutionary psychology, ed. Buss, D. M., pp. 447–82. Wiley.Google Scholar
Plous, S. (1993) The psychology of judgment and decision making. McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Prinz, W. (2008) Mirrors for embodied communication. In: Embodied communication in humans and machines, ed. Wachsmuth, I., Lenzen, M. & Knoblich, G., pp. 111–27. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salmon, C. A. (2007) Parent–offspring conflict. In: Family relations – An evolutionary perspective, ed. Salmon, C. A. & Shackelford, T. K., pp. 145–61. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, S. E. (1989/1995) Mit Zuversicht: Warum positive Illusionen für uns so wichtig sind. Rowohlt. (Original work published in 1989).Google Scholar
Trivers, R. (1974) Parent–offspring conflict. American Zoologist 14: 49–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Voland, E. (2007) We recognize ourselves as being similar to others: Implications of the “social brain hypothesis” for the biological evolution of the intuition of freedom. Evolutionary Psychology 5:442–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zahavi, A. & Zahavi, A. (1997) The handicap principle: A missing piece of Darwin's puzzle. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar