SELF-DECEPTION: A THEORY WITH EMPIRICAL COMPONENTS LINKED TO THE BRAIN

I contend that all theories of self-deception (SD) which operate on a belief/knowledge account are mistaken and that Fingarette is correct in basing SD on a volition/action account. Fingarette's account, however, is also mistaken in its failure to understand the sometimes crucial role of motive...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Carter, Lee
Language:en_US
Published: The University of Arizona. 1981
Subjects:
Online Access:http://hdl.handle.net/10150/290566
id ndltd-arizona.edu-oai-arizona.openrepository.com-10150-290566
record_format oai_dc
spelling ndltd-arizona.edu-oai-arizona.openrepository.com-10150-2905662015-10-23T05:14:25Z SELF-DECEPTION: A THEORY WITH EMPIRICAL COMPONENTS LINKED TO THE BRAIN Carter, Lee Self-deception. Self-perception. I contend that all theories of self-deception (SD) which operate on a belief/knowledge account are mistaken and that Fingarette is correct in basing SD on a volition/action account. Fingarette's account, however, is also mistaken in its failure to understand the sometimes crucial role of motive and the always crucial role of acceptance of responsibility. My theory of SD claims that it occurs due to lack of communication between two extremely different sets of structures in the brain. These have evolved for entirely different purposes, and are called the affective and cognitive brains, respectively. This theory demonstrates why the action/volition account is correct. When the cognitive brain judges some idea to be a threat to one of the various self-concepts, the affective brain is alerted to attempt to protect the system of the self by escape of any viable sort. The theory gains strength by its ability to shed light on other psychological phenomena, e.g., false confession and inexplicably docile behavior greatly disadvantageous to those doing it. In addition, my theory undermines all of the so-called paradoxes of SD, partially by showing that the "deception" in SD does not point toward objective truth and a purposeful even if conscious failure to see it, but rather toward the perceived consistency, or lack of it, of one's self-concept. Specifically, drawing on general examples of SD taken from literature, film, and various psychological experiments, I criticize in great detail the accounts of SD given by Fingarette, Rorty, Szabados, and Saunders. In less detail, I criticize the accounts of Freud, Sartre, and Kierkegaard. 1981 text Dissertation-Reproduction (electronic) http://hdl.handle.net/10150/290566 8738399 8205288 .b13928557 en_US Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author. The University of Arizona.
collection NDLTD
language en_US
sources NDLTD
topic Self-deception.
Self-perception.
spellingShingle Self-deception.
Self-perception.
Carter, Lee
SELF-DECEPTION: A THEORY WITH EMPIRICAL COMPONENTS LINKED TO THE BRAIN
description I contend that all theories of self-deception (SD) which operate on a belief/knowledge account are mistaken and that Fingarette is correct in basing SD on a volition/action account. Fingarette's account, however, is also mistaken in its failure to understand the sometimes crucial role of motive and the always crucial role of acceptance of responsibility. My theory of SD claims that it occurs due to lack of communication between two extremely different sets of structures in the brain. These have evolved for entirely different purposes, and are called the affective and cognitive brains, respectively. This theory demonstrates why the action/volition account is correct. When the cognitive brain judges some idea to be a threat to one of the various self-concepts, the affective brain is alerted to attempt to protect the system of the self by escape of any viable sort. The theory gains strength by its ability to shed light on other psychological phenomena, e.g., false confession and inexplicably docile behavior greatly disadvantageous to those doing it. In addition, my theory undermines all of the so-called paradoxes of SD, partially by showing that the "deception" in SD does not point toward objective truth and a purposeful even if conscious failure to see it, but rather toward the perceived consistency, or lack of it, of one's self-concept. Specifically, drawing on general examples of SD taken from literature, film, and various psychological experiments, I criticize in great detail the accounts of SD given by Fingarette, Rorty, Szabados, and Saunders. In less detail, I criticize the accounts of Freud, Sartre, and Kierkegaard.
author Carter, Lee
author_facet Carter, Lee
author_sort Carter, Lee
title SELF-DECEPTION: A THEORY WITH EMPIRICAL COMPONENTS LINKED TO THE BRAIN
title_short SELF-DECEPTION: A THEORY WITH EMPIRICAL COMPONENTS LINKED TO THE BRAIN
title_full SELF-DECEPTION: A THEORY WITH EMPIRICAL COMPONENTS LINKED TO THE BRAIN
title_fullStr SELF-DECEPTION: A THEORY WITH EMPIRICAL COMPONENTS LINKED TO THE BRAIN
title_full_unstemmed SELF-DECEPTION: A THEORY WITH EMPIRICAL COMPONENTS LINKED TO THE BRAIN
title_sort self-deception: a theory with empirical components linked to the brain
publisher The University of Arizona.
publishDate 1981
url http://hdl.handle.net/10150/290566
work_keys_str_mv AT carterlee selfdeceptionatheorywithempiricalcomponentslinkedtothebrain
_version_ 1718104369936728064