Site icon

We Are Wired to Deceive Ourselves

wallacekpond

Cognitive Bias and Judgement Error - Systematic Mental Pattern of Deviation from Norm or Rationality in Judgement - Conceptual Illustration

Image Credit: https://www.cs.umd.edu

In what seems like a cruel twist of nature, we humans are wired to frequently deceive ourselves. Although there are reasons for this, which I’ll discuss later in this article, psychology, neuroscience and even anthropology have discovered dozens of ways in which our assessment of reality and our decision making are flawed, often seriously so. The reality is that most of us walk around at any given moment wrong about something. These errors come from many categories of processing such as perception and attention, emotion and mood, memory, identity, values, fear, cognitive distortions (mistakes in thinking), social pressure, stress, language, psychoactive substances, neurochemistry, and others that result in most of us coming to incorrect conclusions and making decisions based on those conclusions on a fairly regular basis. And, because of a related vulnerability we often don’t recognize that we are wrong because we attribute things that don’t “go right” to other factors rather than our own faulty processing. In fact, some of our biases are so strong, we actually see contradictory evidence as supporting our incorrect positions!

It is also true that while everyone is susceptible to mistaken perceptions of reality and resultant, flawed decision-making, not everyone is equally susceptible. Some of us, are in fact, more wrong more often. Although this is a dicey topic, we know empirically that a number of factors or domains can conspire to increase or decrease an individual’s capacity for careful, objective analysis while increasing one’s vulnerability to being misled, such as cognitive style, identity, emotional needs, social environment, and mental health. For example, although one does not need extensive formal education to have common sense, formal education does typically provide things like a more expansive vocabulary, media literacy, and knowledge that often supports more effective analysis and decision making than less formal education.

Relatedly, things like a fundamentalist view on a topic or a strong, identity/morality based political affiliation tends to filter out perception of information that might contradict (and threaten) one’s view and/or affiliation, even if that view is empirically wrong. Moreover, certain personality types or mental health issues such as narcissism and paranoia, by definition, facilitate circular thinking and coming to conclusions that are compelling to the person, but not supported by objective evidence. Even things as simple as discomfort with ambiguity or conflict avoidance tend to increase the likelihood that given individuals will gravitate toward “facts” and conclusions that are not empirically supported, but feel more comfortable. When this is combined with charismatic leadership that speaks from a place of high confidence, folks who are already susceptible to believing things that are not empirically supported, become even more vulnerable to being misled and misleading themselves. I will discuss this in more detail later in this article, but the short version is that humans prefer comfort, stability, and predictability over accurate (epistemically derived) perception. Also, importantly, highly “intelligent” people are also susceptible to inaccurate perceptions and conclusions, particularly if they tie their identity to being “right” and/or use their abilities with language and debate to construct sophisticated/complicated rationales that are difficult to deconstruct and challenge, but may be based on little empirical evidence.

So, before we launch into the dozens of ways that we humans deceive ourselves, what combination of factors tends to support more objectively accurate perception and subsequent decision making?

Across domains, the strongest protective factors represent some version of:

Intellectual humility + curiosity + willing exposure to alternative information and disagreement

Individuals who are most likely to be “correct” are people who are intelligent, and:

Of course, a fundamental, at some level unresolvable element of this entire discussion is the notion of truth and objectivity. Do they even exist in an empirical way? I would argue yes, and…

The Nature of Truth

Most people would agree that things that are measurable can facilitate some level of objective truth. For example, if three calibrated thermometers measure an average temperature of 20.5 degrees Celsius, most people would agree that the temperature is very, very close to 20.5 degrees Celsius, particularly if nothing significant is riding on the interpretation of the temperature. Then there is truth related to the implication of the evidence we are evaluating. For example, if you are a partisan fan, your interpretation of replay evidence of whether or not a football player got both feet down inbounds, and thus made a critical first down catch, may vary widely depending on which team is “your” team regardless of how “clear” the video evidence is. Things get even more complicated with “judgment” calls such as roughing the passer or pass interference. If we apply this same paradigm to things such as presidential elections or the behavior of law enforcement, we find that humans not only have different perceptions of truth, but often times, polemic perceptions of truth. In such cases, can one version of truth be “more,” objectively true? Yes, but that doesn’t mean that objective truth is more compelling than a person’s deeply held, but wrong, perceptions. And if a person’s perception of the truth is also tied to identity and acceptance in a broader social group, then there may be no “evidence” that can alter the perception.

A Long and Partial List of Things That Conspire to Deceive Us

The list below includes over three dozen ways that we humans deceive ourselves, which fall into a few very high-level domains such as how we process information, how we protect identity and emotion, how memory and attention fail, and how social incentives distort judgment. You can see a detailed taxonomy in Appendix 1. Figure 1 provides some visual context for how these factors can be organized.

Figure 1 – Perceptual Biases

Fundamental Attribution Error

The tendency to overemphasize personality-based explanations for others’ behaviors while underestimating situational factors. When someone cuts you off in traffic, you assume they’re a jerk rather than considering they might be rushing to an emergency. FAE also includes attributing our own mistakes to external factors but other peoples’ mistakes to their own shortcomings.

Naïve Realism

The belief that we see reality objectively as it truly is, while others who disagree are uninformed, irrational, or biased. We assume our perceptions are accurate and that reasonable people should see things the same way we do.

Confirmation Bias

The tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information that confirms our pre-existing beliefs while giving disproportionately less consideration to alternative possibilities.

Doubt Bias

When we are not confident in our own perspective, i.e., we doubt ourselves, we are susceptible to adopt someone else’s opinion or perspective even when it is not supported empirically, particularly if we have some affiliation with the other person and he or she projects a high level of confidence.

Intuition Bias

Working backwards from a gut feeling or conclusion to justify it, rather than examining evidence first and then forming a conclusion based on what the evidence shows.

Self-Referential Bias

The tendency to interpret events, information, and others’ behaviors in relation to what they mean for oneself, assuming things are about us or relevant to us when they may not be.

Cognitive Distortion

Systematic patterns of deviation from rational thinking, often involving exaggerated or irrational thought patterns such as all-or-nothing thinking, overgeneralization, or catastrophizing.

Availability Heuristic

Judging the likelihood or frequency of events based on how easily examples come to mind rather than on actual probability. We overestimate the risk of plane crashes because they’re memorable and widely reported.

Affect Heuristic

Making decisions based on emotional reactions rather than logical analysis. If something feels good, we judge it as having more benefits and fewer risks than it actually does.

Dunning Krueger Effect

A cognitive bias where people with limited knowledge or competence in a domain overestimate their ability, while experts tend to underestimate theirs. Incompetence often prevents people from recognizing their own incompetence.

Hindsight Bias

The “I knew it all along” phenomenon where after an event occurs, we believe we predicted or could have predicted the outcome, making the past seem more predictable than it actually was.

Sunk Cost Fallacy

Continuing to invest time, money, or effort into something because of what we’ve already invested, rather than evaluating whether continued investment makes sense based on future prospects.

Recency Bias

Giving disproportionate weight to recent events or information while discounting earlier data, assuming current trends will continue indefinitely.

Negativity Bias

The tendency to give more psychological weight to negative experiences, information, or emotions than to positive ones. Bad events affect us more strongly than equivalently good events.

Representative Heuristic

Judging the probability of something by how much it resembles our mental prototype, often ignoring actual statistical probabilities. Assuming someone is a librarian because they’re quiet and like books, despite librarians being statistically rare.

Motivated Reasoning

Processing information in a way that suits our goals or desires, unconsciously applying different standards of evidence depending on whether we want to believe a conclusion.

False Memory

Remembering events that didn’t happen or remembering them differently from how they actually occurred, often with high confidence in the inaccurate memory.

Predictive Processing/Narrative Bias (Making Meaning at the Expense of Being Right)

The brain’s tendency to prioritize creating coherent narratives and patterns over accuracy, filling in gaps and constructing explanations even when evidence is incomplete or contradictory.

Patternicity

The belief or expectation that what is actually random follows patterns, i.e., “bad things happen in threes.”

Mood State

Current emotional conditions that color our perceptions, memories, and judgments. When depressed, we more easily recall negative memories; when happy, we interpret ambiguous situations more positively.

Anchoring Bias

Over-relying on the first piece of information encountered (the “anchor”) when making decisions. If a shirt is marked down from $200 to $100, we perceive it as a great deal even if it’s only worth $50.

Identity-Protective Bias

Rejecting information or evidence that threatens our sense of self or group identity, even when the information is accurate, because accepting it would require uncomfortable changes to how we see ourselves.

Self-Interest Bias

The tendency to interpret situations in ways that favor our own interests, often unconsciously, while believing we’re being objective and fair.

Cognitive Dissonance Reduction

The mental discomfort of holding contradictory beliefs drives us to change our attitudes, beliefs, or behaviors to reduce the inconsistency, often by rationalizing away contradictions rather than changing core beliefs.

Inattentional Blindness (Bias)

Failing to notice unexpected stimuli in plain sight when our attention is focused elsewhere. In the famous study, people counting basketball passes completely miss a person in a gorilla suit walking through the scene.

Source Monitoring Errors

Confusion about where information came from—whether we read it, imagined it, heard it from someone, or dreamed it. We might remember a fact but misattribute its source or reliability.

Exaggeration Bias

Amplifying or distorting certain aspects of information to make an argument or viewpoint seem more compelling, often unconsciously stretching facts to fit the narrative we’re promoting.

Pluralistic Bias

Believing that our private attitudes and behaviors are different from others’ when they’re actually similar, or believing others hold different views than they actually do, leading to misperceptions about social norms.

Social Desirability Bias

The tendency to present ourselves in a favorable light and give answers or behave in ways that will be viewed positively by others, rather than responding honestly.

Status Quo Bias

Preferring things to stay the same or stick with previous decisions, even when change would be beneficial. The current state is seen as a baseline, and alternatives are judged by how they deviate from it.

Fear Bias

Allowing fear to disproportionately influence decision-making and risk assessment, often leading to overestimation of threats and overly cautious choices that may not serve our best interests.

Loss Aversion

The tendency to prefer avoiding losses over acquiring equivalent gains. Losing $100 feels worse psychologically than gaining $100 feels good, making us overly risk-averse.

Confidence Bias

Excessive certainty in our beliefs, judgments, or abilities that isn’t justified by our actual accuracy or knowledge. Being more confident than our competence warrants.

Dopamine Salience Errors

Misattributing importance or meaning to stimuli based on dopamine responses that signal reward or novelty, causing us to focus on or pursue things that trigger these responses rather than things that are genuinely important.

Framing Effect

Drawing different conclusions from the same information depending on how it’s presented. A medical treatment with a “90% survival rate” seems more appealing than one with a “10% mortality rate,” though they’re identical.

Metaphor Lock-in

Becoming trapped by the implications of a metaphor used to understand a concept, limiting our thinking to what the metaphor suggests while ignoring aspects of reality the metaphor doesn’t capture.

Complex Reality—Simplified Reasoning

The tendency to apply simple, linear cause-and-effect thinking to complex systems with multiple interacting variables, feedback loops, and emergent properties, leading to oversimplified conclusions.

Illusion of Control

Overestimating our ability to influence outcomes, especially in situations that are determined by chance. Believing we can control random events through rituals, strategies, or sheer willpower.

—

Why would deceiving ourselves be so prevalent? What’s the upside?

Most of these distortions aren’t “bugs.” They’re features optimized for:

Humans evolved over hundreds of thousands of years (millions of years of primate evolution) in a world of far less complexity than exists today. What had to be analyzed and understood included a very limited number of variables and equally limited stimuli relative to our lives today. Across populations, in a less complex environment, there is a survival advantage to things such as speed over accuracy or assuming risk over safety. In our contemporary environment, these processing and behavioral tendencies frequently result in distortions that may limit cognitive dissonance, but are not advantageous in other ways.

A Quick Note on Perceptual/Cognitive Distortions and Politics

Politics uniquely combines:

That’s basically a perfect storm for cognitive distortion. You can see a detailed explanation of how our susceptibility to deception manifests in our politics in Appendix 2.

Summary

Humans are inherently prone to self-deception through dozens of cognitive biases and processing errors spanning perception, memory, emotion, identity, and social influences. While everyone is vulnerable, susceptibility varies based on factors like education, cognitive style, personality traits, mental health, and tolerance for ambiguity. People with fundamentalist views, strong identity-based affiliations, or certain personality disorders are particularly vulnerable to circular thinking and rejecting contradictory evidence.

Key Protective Factors Against Self-Deception

Major Categories of Perceptual/Cognitive Biases

Why Self-Deception Persists

These aren’t flaws but evolutionary features optimized for speed over accuracy, social cohesion over truth, survival over objectivity, simplicity over complexity, and comfort over dissonance. Human brains evolved to handle far simpler environments than today’s world, making us ill-equipped for modern complexity while still relying on these ancient shortcuts.

Appendix 1 – Taxonomy of Perception Bias Mechanisms

1. Attribution, Perspective & Social Interpretation Biases

Errors in how we explain causes or interpret others’ behavior.

2. Evidence Filtering, Belief Defense & Motivated Cognition

Biases that protect prior beliefs, identity, or emotional comfort.

3. Heuristics & Mental Shortcuts (Fast but Distorting)

Cognitive efficiency tools that trade accuracy for speed.

4. Emotion, Mood, Threat & Reward Distortions

Biases driven by affective state and motivational neurochemistry.

5. Self-Assessment, Overconfidence & Competence Illusions

Distortions in evaluating one’s own knowledge or ability.

6. Memory Construction & Retrospective Errors

Biases arising from reconstructive (not playback) memory.

7. Attention, Perception & Awareness Failures

Limits in what we notice or encode.

8. Social Signaling & Reputation Management Biases

Distortions caused by group norms or impression management.

9. Cognitive & Narrative Distortions (Clinical / Broad Pattern Level)

Broader thinking styles that systematically skew interpretation.

10. Causality & Temporal Reasoning Errors

Misjudging cause-effect or time-based inference.

Summary Map of Core Mechanisms

MechanismCore Function
Belief defenseProtect identity & worldview
HeuristicsSave cognitive effort
Emotion regulationReduce fear, distress, or uncertainty
Social signalingMaintain belonging & status
Memory reconstructionCreate coherent personal narrative
Attention limitsReduce processing load
Narrative coherenceMake reality feel meaningful


Appendix 2 – Perceptual Distortions and Politics

Politics uniquely combines:

That’s basically a perfect storm for cognitive distortion.

1. Identity-Protective Cognition

Core bias: Beliefs defend identity, not truth.

Politics

Effect

2. Motivated Reasoning

Core bias: Reasoning aimed at a preferred conclusion.

Politics

Effect

3. Naïve Realism (Central in politics)

Core bias: “I see reality objectively; those who disagree are ignorant or evil.”

Politics

Effect

4. Confirmation Bias + Media Ecosystems

Core bias: Seek, trust, and remember confirmatory information.

Politics

Effect

5. Availability Heuristic

Core bias: Salient examples feel common.

Politics

Effect

6. Fear Bias & Threat Prioritization

Core bias: The brain overweighs threats.

Politics

Effect

7. Loss Aversion

Core bias: Losses hurt more than gains help.

Politics

Effect

8. Status-Quo Bias

Core bias: Existing systems feel legitimate because they exist.

Politics

Effect

9. System Justification Bias

Core bias: People defend systems that advantage them even at significant cost to others.

Politics

Effect

10. Illusion of Explanatory Depth

Core bias: We think we understand complex systems.

Politics

Effect

11. Dunning–Kruger Effect

Core bias Low knowledge, but high confidence.

Politics:

Effect

12. Narrative Fallacy

Core bias: Humans prefer stories to epistemic data.

Politics

Effect

13. Framing Effects

Core bias: Wording changes judgment.

Politics

Effect

14. Pluralistic Ignorance

Core bias: People misjudge group norms.

Politics

Effect

15. Dopamine & Outrage Cycles

Core mechanism: Novelty + anger = salience and dopamine high.

Politics

Effect

One quietly disturbing insightis that most political disagreement is not about values; it’s about:

Reason alone can’t address that framework. In fact, reasoning is typically immediately rejected via several of the distortions identified above.

Appendix 3 – Biases Are Universal Across Left and Right

Their expression is asymmetric because:

So asymmetry ≠ superiority; it means different failure modes.

1. Threat Sensitivity & Negativity Bias

Strong asymmetry (well-replicated)

Right (stronger)

Left (weaker on physical threat, stronger on moral harm)

Political effects

Failure modes

2. Disgust Sensitivity & Moralization

Strong asymmetry

Right

Left

Failure modes

3. System Justification Bias

Contextual asymmetry (depends who holds power)

When right holds power

When left holds institutional influence:

Failure modes

4. Epistemic Style (How knowledge is validated)

Clear asymmetry

Right

Left

Failure modes

5. Confirmation Bias & Media Sorting

Symmetric mechanism, asymmetric content

Right

Left

Failure modes

6. Motivated Reasoning

Symmetric process, asymmetric triggers

Right

Left

Failure modes

7. Overconfidence vs. Moral Certainty

Asymmetric expression

Right

Left

Failure modes

8. Illusion of Explanatory Depth

Different targets

Right:

Left:

Failure modes

9. Narrative Fallacy

Different archetypes

Right narratives

Left narratives

Failure modes

10. Pluralistic Ignorance

Different silence dynamics

Right

Left

Failure modes

The Big Asymmetry People Miss

Right-wing errors skew toward false positives
(seeing threats that aren’t there)

Left-wing errors skew toward false negatives
(missing risks, tradeoffs, or unintended harm)

This maps cleanly onto:

One Uncomfortable Truth for Each Side

For the Right
Fear feels like realism, but it often isn’t.

For the Left:
Moral certainty feels like progress, but it often blocks correction.

Both are convinced they’re the adults in the room.

A Final Note

Although all humans are vulnerable to self-deception, social science research suggests that folks aligned with political extremes are more likely to experience perceptional distortions and come to conclusions that are not empirically supported than are mainstream individuals on both the right and left because of:

Exit mobile version