Choice from Deception

An Choice from Deception is an unforced personal choice where a deceived agent chooses to believe a deceptive argument (produced by a deceiver performing an deception attempt).

• AKA: In-Bad-Faith Choice.
• Context:
  • It can (often) result from the interplay of cognitive biases like Confirmation Bias, Illusory Truth Effect, and Motivated Skepticism.
  • It can range from being a Deceived by Another to being a Deceived by Self.
  • It can involve a Deceived Agent being misled by false or exaggerated information, often in a strategic manner by the deceiver.
  • It can occur in various interpersonal or self-driven contexts, including Negotiations, Legal Proceedings, and Personal Decision-Making.
  • It can be mitigated through education on Critical Thinking, Media Literacy, and Intellectual Humility.
  • …
• Example(s):
  • In-Bad-Faith to-Others Choices, such as:
    • a Bad Faith Negotiation, where a company representative negotiates with union workers without any real intent to compromise.
    • a prosecutor who argues a legal position that he knows to be false.
    • an insurer who employs deliberately misleading reasoning to deny a claim.
  • In-Bad-Faith to-Self Choices, such as:
    • “I cannot do X because I belong to psychological type Y” (e.g., “I'm an introvert”), where the individual deceives themselves about their capabilities or limitations.
  • ...
  • Politics & Media
    • A voter choosing to believe deceptive claims by a politician that align with their existing partisan views, even in the face of contradictory evidence.
    • An individual sharing "fake news" stories on social media that they didn't bother to fact-check, because the stories fit their preconceived beliefs.
    • A political commentator deliberately misinterpreting a statement by an opponent in order to stir up outrage among their audience.
  • Business & Commerce
    • A company representative making misleading claims during a negotiation to secure more favorable terms, even though they know their statements are not fully truthful.
    • An advertising agency using deceptive tactics to convince consumers to purchase a product, such as exaggerating its benefits or hiding its flaws.
    • An investor downplaying negative information about a stock they own in order to justify holding onto it.
  • Law & Contracts
    • A prosecutor arguing a legal position they know to be weak or false in an attempt to win a case.
    • An insurer employing deliberately misleading reasoning to justify denying a claim and avoid paying out benefits.
    • A witness convincing themselves that their hazy memory of an event is accurate, in order to provide more compelling testimony.
  • Interpersonal Relationships
    • Choosing to believe a friend's dubious excuse for their behavior to avoid facing an uncomfortable truth about them.
    • Accepting a potential romantic partner's deceptive claims about their past relationships despite red flags.
    • Family members enabling their loved one's addiction by believing their insincere promises to change.
  • Health & Wellness
    • Patients believing exaggerated claims about a fad diet or supplement, ignoring the lack of scientific evidence.
    • An individual rationalizing away symptoms of a health issue to avoid facing a potential serious problem.
    • Consumers being misled by pseudoscientific claims from wellness gurus that provide false hope.
  • Intrapersonal
    • Overestimating one's abilities or readiness in order to justify taking on a new challenge one is not prepared for.
    • Dismissing valid criticism as baseless rather than reflecting on areas for personal growth.
    • Attributing one's failures solely to external factors to avoid taking responsibility.
  • Consumer Choices
    • Choosing to believe that an expensive product has superior features or quality to justify the high price, despite lack of evidence.
    • Downplaying risks or drawbacks mentioned in fine print or reviews to feel good about a purchasing decision.
    • Assuming positive intent behind a company's vague claims rather than seeking specifics.
  • ...
• Counter-Example(s):
  • an Authentic Choice.
• See: Negotiation, Insurance Bad Faith, Duplicity, Fraud, Act of Faith, Fraud, Half-Truths, Lying by Omission, Dissimulation, Propaganda, Sleight of Hand.

---

---

References

2024

• Claude 3
  • A Choice from Deception is an unforced personal choice where a deceived agent chooses to believe a deceptive argument put forth by a deceiver engaging in a deception attempt. In essence, it is a choice made based on false or misleading information, whether due to deception by others or self-deception.
  • At the interpersonal level, a Choice from Deception can occur in various contexts such as negotiations, legal proceedings, or insurance claims, where one party knowingly presents false or misleading arguments to sway the other party's beliefs and choices in a self-serving direction.
  • Intrapersonally, self-deception can lead to Choices from Deception, as when individuals erroneously attribute their capabilities or limitations to innate traits (e.g. “I can't do public speaking because I'm an introvert").
  • Psychologically, various cognitive biases and motivated reasoning processes make people vulnerable to deceptive arguments. These include confirmation bias (seeking information that confirms one's existing beliefs), illusory truth effects (believing false information that is repeated frequently), and motivated skepticism (excessively scrutinizing information that challenges one's beliefs). Emotions can also override rational evaluation of information.
  • When Choices from Deception become widespread in a society, the impacts can be severe. In politics, deceptive campaign rhetoric can sway electoral outcomes. In media, the spread of misinformation can distort public opinion. In markets, deceptive advertising can lead to misinformed consumer choices. The cumulative effects can undermine truth, trust, and effective decision-making in a society.
  • To avoid Choices from Deception, individuals can cultivate critical thinking skills, fact-check claims before accepting them, and strive to be intellectually humble and open to changing one's mind based on evidence. They can also be mindful of their own biases and practice empathizing with other perspectives. At a societal level, promoting media literacy, penalizing deliberate misinformation, and redesigning online platforms to limit the spread of false content may help.
  • Choices from Deception are related to a variety of other concepts such as bad faith argumentation (making arguments one knows to be false), bullshit (indifference to the truth), and dark patterns (design features that manipulate user choices). However, unlike bullshit, Choices from Deception involve some level of belief in the deceptive argument, and unlike dark patterns, they are not necessarily the result of intentional manipulation. Ultimately, Choices from Deception represent a failure of truth-seeking and authentic reasoning, whether in one's own mind or in dialogue with others.
  • **See also:** Negotiation, Insurance Bad Faith, Duplicity, Fraud, Act of Faith, Half-Truths, Lying by Omission, Dissimulation, Propaganda, Sleight of Hand, Bad Faith Argumentation, Bullshit, Dark Patterns

2013

• http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/self-deception/#DefIss
  • QUOTE: What is self-deception? Traditionally, self-deception has been modeled on interpersonal deception, where A intentionally gets B to believe some proposition p, all the while knowing or believing truly ~p. Such deception is intentional and requires the deceiver to know or believe ~p and the deceived to believe p. One reason for thinking self-deception is analogous to interpersonal deception of this sort is that it helps us to distinguish self-deception from mere error, since the acquisition and maintenance of the false belief is intentional not accidental.

---