Born Liars

Born Liars Plot Summary

Introduction

Deception is woven into the fabric of human existence, far from being merely a perversion or aberration. The capacity to deceive and detect deception is uniquely human and plays a crucial role in every relationship we form. While philosophers from Kant to modern thinkers have unequivocally condemned lying as a moral crime, the paradox remains that unlike stealing or murder, lying is a transgression we all regularly commit. The average person tells approximately 1.5 lies per day, and strangers meeting for the first time typically exchange three lies within ten minutes of conversation. Recent scholarly investigations across multiple disciplines have revealed that our tendency to lie is not a design flaw awaiting correction, but rather a driving force in human evolution. Self-deception, far from being problematic, leads to greater success professionally, better health outcomes, and more satisfying relationships. When stripped of our capacity for deception, we become susceptible to depression, illness, or even madness. Understanding deception is therefore not a journey into human corruption but an exploration of the very mechanisms that allow human society to function, thrive, and progress through the centuries.

Chapter 1: The Evolutionary Advantage of Deception

The human brain might be evolution's most impressive achievement, but it has long puzzled scientists why it evolved to be so disproportionately powerful. Brains are energetically expensive, consuming a fifth of the body's energy despite their relatively small size. The conventional narrative suggested that humans grew intelligent by mastering their natural environment, developing tools and survival techniques. However, this story fails to explain why our brains grew significantly larger than those of apes, with whom we share 98% of our DNA and similar environments. Nicholas Humphrey, a pioneering neuropsychologist, proposed a radical alternative in 1976. He challenged the conventional view by suggesting that human intelligence evolved not primarily to battle nature but to navigate the complexities of social life. He argued that surviving in complex social groups required far more intellectual sophistication than dealing with environmental challenges. Trees don't move and rocks don't strategize, but fellow humans constantly plot, deceive, and form shifting alliances that require monitoring. This insight was further developed by primatologists Richard Byrne and Andrew Whiten in the 1980s. They collected examples of deceptive behavior in primates – baboons pretending to spot predators to distract others from food, chimps hiding their excitement at discovering food to keep it for themselves, and similar tactical deceptions. Their groundbreaking work proposed that our intelligence began in "social manipulation, deceit and cunning cooperation." The ability to deceive others and detect deception created an evolutionary arms race, with each new generation becoming more adept at trickery or spotting trickery, driving the development of increasingly sophisticated brains. Robin Dunbar provided compelling evidence for this theory. He discovered a strong correlation between the size of a primate species' social group and the volume of its neocortex – the brain's "thinking" part. Based on the size of human brains, Dunbar predicted we should be able to maintain social groups of about 150 people, which anthropological research confirmed as the typical size of human communities from hunter-gatherer societies to modern army units. Byrne, working with Nadia Corp, subsequently demonstrated that the frequency of deception in primate species directly correlates with neocortex size. The better the liar, the bigger the brain. The development of language took human deception capabilities to unprecedented levels. Language detached communication from deed, vastly expanding the possibilities for deception. Unlike pointing to food that isn't there, telling someone about non-existent food allows the deceiver to create entirely fictional realities and lets the deception continue indefinitely. This uniquely human capacity for sophisticated deception shapes every aspect of our society, from politics to personal relationships.

Chapter 2: Self-Deception and Mental Well-Being

Human brains operate on a fundamental principle of self-deception that extends far beyond occasional white lies. Our mental processes actively distort reality at a basic perceptual level. What we perceive as objective vision is actually the brain's carefully constructed interpretation of limited sensory data. We experience the world as continuous and coherent despite significant blind spots in our vision and limitations in our sensory apparatus. The brain smooths over these deficiencies, creating a usable but not entirely accurate representation of reality. This creative interpretation extends beyond perception to our understanding of our own actions and motivations. In groundbreaking experiments conducted by Benjamin Libet in the 1980s, subjects were asked to perform simple movements at moments of their choosing while their brain activity was monitored. The surprising results showed that the brain prepares the body to move several hundred milliseconds before the person consciously decides to move. Our conscious intention appears to be an afterthought rather than the initiator of action. Similarly, when researchers covertly swapped photographs that subjects had chosen as more attractive, most participants confidently provided elaborate justifications for preferences they never actually expressed. Psychologist Shelley Taylor discovered that people with a healthy margin of self-deception typically enjoy better mental health than those with more accurate self-assessments. These "positive illusions" fall into three categories: an exaggerated confidence in our abilities, unrealistic optimism about our future, and an inflated sense of control over events. Depressed individuals typically lack these self-enhancing illusions, suggesting that some degree of self-deception is essential for psychological well-being. In Taylor's words, positive illusions are "the fuel that drives creativity, motivation and high aspirations." The benefits of self-deception extend beyond mental health to physical health and achievement. Studies of competitive swimmers found that those most skilled at self-deception consistently performed better in major competitions. Corporate executives who display supreme confidence in their abilities often advance further in organizations than their more realistic counterparts. While excessive self-deception can lead to catastrophic miscalculations, a moderate amount appears optimal for success and happiness. As economist John V.C. Nye observed, economies stagnate when business people become too rational and sensible – innovation requires "lucky fools" willing to take irrational risks. Self-deception seems to have evolved as an adaptive trait that enhanced survival and reproductive opportunities. Our ancestors with unrealistic optimism about their abilities would have been more likely to take on challenges, impress potential mates, and pass on their genes. Even in our modern environment, these mechanisms continue to serve us by cushioning us from harsh realities and propelling us toward achievement. Without this capacity for creative self-deception, we would be sadder, less dynamic creatures, unwilling to meet or rise to challenges.

Chapter 3: How Children Develop the Capacity to Lie

The development of deceptive capabilities begins remarkably early in human life. Even babies exhibit pre-verbal forms of fakery, with nine-month-olds observed faking laughter to join in social interactions and eleven-month-olds watching for their mother to turn away before disposing of unwanted food. These simple acts of deception occur simultaneously with the earliest attempts at communication, suggesting deception is fundamental to human interaction rather than a corrupted skill learned later. Between ages two and four, children tell simple, defensive lies primarily to avoid punishment. These early attempts are usually transparent and easily detected – a three-year-old might deny hitting a sibling immediately after being witnessed doing so. However, between three-and-a-half and four-and-a-half years of age, children develop significantly more sophisticated lying abilities. They begin crafting plausible alternative stories and maintain them when challenged, all while controlling their facial expressions to appear truthful. This developmental leap coincides with the acquisition of what psychologists call a "theory of mind" – the understanding that other people have different thoughts, beliefs, and perspectives from one's own. Before this cognitive milestone, children cannot conceptualize deception because they assume everyone shares their knowledge and perceptions. The Sally-Anne False Belief Test demonstrates this principle: when shown a scenario where a character lacks information the child possesses, three-year-olds cannot predict that the character will act based on their false belief, while five-year-olds can. Far from indicating moral corruption, a child's ability to lie demonstrates impressive cognitive sophistication. Successful lying requires simultaneously tracking reality, creating a plausible alternative narrative, and monitoring one's own behavior to avoid revealing the truth – all while anticipating how others will interpret this information. This complex juggling of mental processes involves theory of mind, executive function, and creative imagination. When a three-year-old tells a well-crafted lie, parents might be concerned about the moral implications, but developmentally, it represents a significant cognitive achievement. Research by Victoria Talwar revealed that children raised in punitive environments actually become more skilled liars rather than more honest individuals. In a comparative study of two West African schools – one with conventional discipline and another with harsh corporal punishment – children from the stricter school displayed more sophisticated lying skills at earlier ages. Having adapted to an environment where telling the truth often led to severe punishment, these children developed exceptional deception skills as a survival strategy. This suggests that rather than harsh consequences, creating environments that reward truth-telling is more effective in raising honest children.

Chapter 4: White Lies and Social Cohesion

Social cohesion depends significantly on the strategic use of deception. Without the capacity for harmless deception, the fabric of society would quickly unravel. White lies serve as lubricants for social interaction, preventing unnecessary conflict and preserving relationships. When we say "I'm fine, thanks" despite feeling miserable, or compliment a friend's unappealing meal, we prioritize social harmony over literal truth. These small deceptions, far from undermining trust, actually reinforce it by demonstrating our commitment to others' feelings. The anthropologist Kang Lee discovered significant cultural variations in attitudes toward lying. In Western cultures, children are typically taught that all lying is wrong, creating a moral absolutism that contrasts sharply with actual social practice. Eastern cultures, influenced by Confucian philosophy, take a more nuanced approach, viewing some deception as necessary for maintaining social harmony. In experiments comparing Canadian and Chinese children, Lee found that Chinese children were more likely to view lying about one's achievements (to appear modest) as morally positive, while Canadian children condemned all lies regardless of intent or context. These cultural differences reflect deeper philosophical frameworks. Confucian ethics emphasizes the importance of roles and relationships over abstract principles. As expressed in the Analects: "Among my people, men of integrity do things differently: a father covers up for his son, and a son covers up for his father – and there is integrity in what they do." This contrasts sharply with Kantian ethics, which holds that lying violates universal moral principles regardless of consequences. These divergent perspectives create different social environments and expectations around honesty. The economist Timur Kuran argues that minor private deceptions can have larger public implications. When individuals publicly express agreement with ideas they privately reject to maintain social standing, they create what Kuran calls "preference falsification." This phenomenon can perpetuate outmoded traditions or social practices long after most people cease believing in them. The sudden collapse of communist regimes in Eastern Europe exemplifies this dynamic – once a few people expressed their true beliefs, the facade of public support rapidly disintegrated. No culture has been discovered that entirely prohibits or permits all forms of deception. The universal pattern is that some types of lies are acceptable while others are condemned, with the specific boundaries varying across cultures. Misunderstandings often arise when people from different cultures encounter each other's distinct "lying etiquette." For example, anthropologists noted mutual accusations of dishonesty between European visitors and Manam islanders in Papua New Guinea, as each group violated the other's unspoken rules about appropriate deception.

Chapter 5: The Medicine of Deceit: Placebos and Healing

The placebo effect demonstrates how deception can produce genuine physical healing. When patients believe they are receiving effective treatment, even inert substances can trigger measurable physiological changes and symptom relief. This phenomenon was first systematically documented during World War II when army physician Henry Beecher discovered that saline injections could relieve severe pain in wounded soldiers when morphine supplies ran low. The patients responded to the injections precisely as they would have to actual painkillers, demonstrating that belief itself can activate the body's healing systems. The power of placebos extends beyond pain relief to treating various conditions including depression, digestive disorders, and even Parkinson's disease. Research by neuroscientist Fabrizio Benedetti has mapped the biochemical responses triggered by placebo treatments, showing that when patients believe they will improve, their bodies release the same healing chemicals that effective medications would stimulate. This effect is enhanced by meaningful rituals, authoritative medical symbols, and the physician's confident demeanor – suggesting that healing involves far more than biochemical interventions. The effectiveness of placebos has increased markedly in recent decades, creating a challenge for pharmaceutical companies. Drugs that performed well against placebos in the 1980s and 1990s now struggle to demonstrate superior efficacy in clinical trials. This escalation in placebo potency likely stems from cultural changes in how we perceive medical treatment. As taking pills for psychological and physical ailments has become normalized and heavily marketed, our expectations about the effectiveness of medications have increased, enhancing the placebo response. The placebo effect varies with cultural context and personal meaning. Blue pills work better as sedatives than pills of other colors – except in Italy, where blue represents the national sports teams and makes men more excited. Expensive placebos outperform cheaper ones, and treatments involving impressive-looking medical devices generate stronger responses than simple pills. These patterns demonstrate that healing is not merely a biological process but a complex interaction between physiology, psychology, and cultural meaning. Medical researchers long dismissed placebo effects as irrelevant or unworthy of study, considering them a contaminant to be eliminated from "real" medicine. However, this perspective reflects a false dichotomy between physical and mental phenomena that modern neuroscience has increasingly challenged. The French Royal Commission investigating Mesmerism in 1784 presciently observed: "Here are the seeds of a new science, that of the influence of the spiritual over the physical." Two centuries later, medicine is finally beginning to cultivate these seeds, recognizing that meaning and belief are not separate from biology but integral to it.

Chapter 6: Dangerous Delusions: When Self-Deception Goes Too Far

While moderate self-deception enhances wellbeing, excessive self-deception can lead to catastrophic outcomes, particularly when powerful individuals or organizations become immune to contradictory evidence. The distinction between beneficial "illusions" and dangerous "delusions" lies in how one responds to new information. Healthy self-deception accommodates contradictory evidence, albeit reluctantly, while delusion persists despite overwhelming facts to the contrary. The Iraq War of 2003 exemplifies how colliding self-deceptions can produce disaster. Saddam Hussein, despite lacking weapons of mass destruction after 1998, maintained the pretense of having them to deter regional rivals. Meanwhile, Western intelligence agencies, predisposed to believe in their existence, interpreted ambiguous evidence as confirmation of their preconceptions. Saddam created a punitive environment where subordinates feared telling him unpleasant truths, leading to what one Iraqi officer described as a situation where "everyone started lying." This insidious symbiosis between deception and self-deception ultimately proved fatal for his regime. Military history provides numerous examples of how over-confidence leads to tragedy. While Francisco Pizarro's audacious attack on the Incan emperor with just 168 men against an army of thousands succeeded against all odds, similar gambles like General Custer's assault at Little Bighorn ended in annihilation. Military historian Norman Dixon identified "under-estimating the enemy and over-estimating the capabilities of one's own side" as a persistent feature of military disasters. The problem is compounded by the fact that military leaders, like professional athletes, are typically selected for their exceptional self-confidence – a trait that helps them perform under pressure but can lead to catastrophic misjudgments when they reach positions of strategic command. Corporate environments can generate similar dynamics. Organizations dominated by overconfident leaders often develop alternative realities where uncomfortable facts are systematically filtered out. As economist Robert Trivers theorized, deception and self-deception create a reinforcing cycle: subordinates tell leaders what they want to hear, the most convincing of these subordinates get promoted, and eventually everyone in the organization believes their own fictions, regardless of contrary evidence. The resultant groupthink can blind entire organizations to impending disasters, as happened with numerous financial institutions prior to the 2008 crisis. Democratic systems provide some protection against dangerous delusions through free press, opposition parties, and regular leadership changes, which help puncture information bubbles. However, even democracies can succumb to collective self-deception when citizens demand certainty and consistency from leaders, punishing those who acknowledge complexity or change their minds in response to new evidence. This creates perverse incentives for politicians to maintain unsustainable positions rather than admit error or uncertainty.

Chapter 7: Balancing Honesty and Necessary Deception

Finding the optimal balance between honesty and necessary deception remains one of humanity's fundamental challenges. Every functioning society requires a foundation of truth-telling – as the seventeenth-century thinker Sir Thomas Browne observed, "all community is continued by Truth, and that of Hell cannot consist without it." Yet strict adherence to absolute truthfulness would make human relationships impossible. Our social nature simultaneously provides the best reason to tell the truth and explains why we sometimes cannot. Kant argued that lying always undermines human dignity and relationships, but even he struggled with everyday questions like whether to tell an author you dislike their work. More pragmatic approaches recognize that our obligations to others inevitably conflict with perfect truthfulness. Benjamin Constant, debating Kant in the 1790s, insisted that "the moral principle stating that it is a duty to tell the truth would make any society impossible if that principle were taken singly and unconditionally." This perspective acknowledges that moral principles must be grounded in social reality rather than abstract absolutes. Liberal philosopher Peter Railton characterizes humans as "us-ish" rather than purely selfish – naturally inclined to prioritize our close associates. Given this natural partiality, honest behavior emerges not from individual moral perfection but from shared social norms and institutions that reward truth-telling. Democratic societies maintain systems of law, free expression, and scientific inquiry that challenge claims to truth and create incentives for honesty. Though imperfect, these social mechanisms help overcome our individual tendencies toward self-serving deception. A productive approach to honesty requires mistrusting our own certainty. Psychologist Robert Burton argues that the correlation we perceive between the strength of our convictions and their likelihood of being correct is often illusory. The warm rush of certainty we experience when forming opinions has little connection to their accuracy. Acknowledging this "feeling of knowing" as potentially misleading creates space for intellectual humility. As physicist Richard Feynman cautioned, "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool." The challenge of balancing honesty with necessary deception resembles the paradox described by Wallace Stevens: "The final belief is to believe in a fiction which you know to be a fiction." Our capacity for imaginative self-deception defines our humanity and drives progress, yet unchecked it leads to dangerous delusions. The wisest approach may be to accept our need for both truth and fiction while maintaining awareness of the distinction – to wear our masks with equanimity while remembering they are masks. This balanced perspective allows us to benefit from the creative power of self-deception without surrendering to its potential dangers.

Summary

Deception represents not a moral failing but a fundamental adaptation that enabled human evolution and continues to sustain both individuals and societies. The capacity to deceive others drove the development of our exceptionally large brains through an evolutionary arms race of deception and detection. This faculty extends beyond interpersonal deception to encompass self-deception, which research shows correlates with better mental health, greater achievement, and enhanced resilience. From the white lies that smooth social interactions to the placebo effects that activate healing, deception permeates human existence in ways that often prove beneficial rather than harmful. The evidence presented across multiple disciplines suggests we must reconceptualize deception not as an aberration to be eliminated but as an essential human capacity requiring wise management. The challenge lies not in achieving perfect honesty—an impossible and potentially harmful goal—but in developing social environments and personal practices that encourage beneficial forms of truth-telling while allowing for necessary deceptions. Democracy, science, and other institutions that challenge claims and reward accuracy provide collective mechanisms for honesty that compensate for individual limitations. The most mature approach embraces the creative tension between our need for truth and our equally important capacity for imagination, recognizing both as essential aspects of human flourishing.

About Author

Loading...

Ian Leslie

Read more

Related Books by Ian Leslie

Loading...

Curious

Ian Leslie

The Desire to Know and Why Your Future Depends on It

★★★★☆4.0