Deception and self-deception, Nature Human Behaviour

Discussion in 'The Cesspool' started by paddoboy, Jul 30, 2019.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. paddoboy Valued Senior Member


    Study: People may use overconfidence to persuade or deceive others:

    A pair of researchers, one from the University of Munich, the other the University of Amsterdam has found that people may behave with overconfidence as a means to persuade or deceive other people. In their paper published in the journal Nature Human Behavior, Peter Schwardmann and Joël van der Weele describe a two-stage experiment they carried out with volunteers and what they found.

    Scientists who study human behavior have found through various studies that most people tend to overrate their own abilities or characteristics. Most people think they are smarter than they actually are, for example. And most people seem to think they are better drivers than all the others on the road. But why is this? In this new effort, Schwardmann and van der Weele sought to find out if there might be an advantage to being overconfident—to that end, they carried out a two-stage experiment designed to reveal possible advantages.
    more at link.....

    the paper:

    Deception and self-deception:


    There is ample evidence that the average person thinks he or she is more skilful, more beautiful and kinder than others1,2 and that such overconfidence may result in substantial personal and social costs3,4,5,6,7,8. To explain the prevalence of overconfidence, social scientists usually point to its affective benefits, such as those stemming from a good self-image or reduced anxiety about an uncertain future9,10,11,12,13. An alternative theory, first advanced by evolutionary biologist Robert Trivers14,15,16, posits that people self-deceive into higher confidence to more effectively persuade or deceive others. Here we conduct two experiments (combined n = 688) to test this strategic self-deception hypothesis. After performing a cognitively challenging task, half of our subjects are informed that they can earn money if, during a short face-to-face interaction, they convince others of their superior performance. We find that the privately elicited beliefs of the group that was informed of the profitable deception opportunity exhibit significantly more overconfidence than the beliefs of the control group. To test whether higher confidence ultimately pays off, we experimentally manipulate the confidence of the subjects by means of a noisy feedback signal. We find that this exogenous shift in confidence makes subjects more persuasive in subsequent face-to-face interactions. Overconfidence emerges from these results as the product of an adaptive cognitive technology with important social benefits, rather than some deficiency or bias.
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    just posting an article is all well and good, but maybe you could give a little bit of your own thoughts around some of the subject content so it doesn't appear like your just spamming add sales for some other web sites content.

    simply copy n pasting content that is collated into a pop-science narrative for laymens comprehension can seem a bit dog-whistle-esque

    content Vs literal accuracy ...
    in psychology the content is the most important aspect
    however, that doesn't mean one should be lazy when it comes to literacy, linguistics & correct grammar.
    not to mention proof reading and editing.

    the irony of potential trolling to include grammatical errors to bait for those seeking superiority is not missed either.


    moving on with the subject
    this makes me wonder about the nature of self deception being primary or secondary to external needs.
    does the person seek to persuade them-self to be able to persuade others initially ?
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    I've been posting articles that I believe are of interest on this forum, long before you arrived on the scene.
    That will continue as and when I see fit.
    My only thoughts on the gist of the article is that I believe it applies to a few here.
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    your assertion of your feeling of being lacking of the right to free speech ?
    i guess you missed my main point which was my question seeking your opinion of the article you posted.
    you do not wish to discuss the subject ?

    what ever feelings you have about feeling a sense of bias toward you are maybe transient in your opinion about other subjects ?

    i am quit interested in these type of subjects, you may have miss aligned my intensity to be a negative projection of mine toward you.
    i hold no bias toward you on the subject.
  8. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    I guess I did.

    Not my cup of tea really, just as I said, I saw it though as reasonably applicable to a few here. But hey, if you feel like commenting, great! be my guest.
    If people have a bias towards me, that's their problem. Just so long as they abide by the rules.
  9. wegs Matter & Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Interesting, paddoboy. Humility is indeed, a lost art.
  10. Bells Staff Member

    Mod Note

    You basically copy and pasted from two different articles, without providing any context or discussion points. And from the Nature site, you literally copied the entire thing.. Please refer to the Copyright section of this site's rules.

    In other words, you started a thread without any actual input from you, nor have you provided anything in regards to what it is you wish to discuss.

    Failure to provide discussion points will see this thread closed and Cesspooled.
  11. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Are you posting this to justify/explain your posting style?
  12. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Wrong Bells, wrong, wrong, wrong.
    I copied part of an article from... and another link given to the paper of the same subject at the bottom, where I posted the abstract, not the entire thing....that link being DOI: 10.1038/s41562-019-0666-7 as I have always done.

    I have no more comment to make on the article other then what I have already said, but if you care to trash it, be my guest!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  13. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Well, may be we don't have access to the full article, do you?

    The title: "People may use overconfidence to persuade or deceive others", didn't hit upon whether I'm lying to myself, to others, or both.

    I think.
  14. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    You mean the full paper? No I don't have access, and that is why I always post the abstract of the paper.
  15. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Well, be more obliged to make some comment.

    The positive aspects (maybe not in an ideal) still outweigh a spam factor IMO.
  16. Bells Staff Member

    Firstly, I was talking about the link to Nature, which is why I clearly stated:

    You copied the abstract in total, which is all that is on the page by way of content in regards to the article itself, because the article is locked behind a paywall.

    So my point still stands. Please refer to our copyright rules as provided in the link above.

    Secondly, you have said barely anything about the subject of this thread, except indicate that this thread was designed to flame others:

    Finally, you have clearly stated that you have no intention of discussing this thread's OP, probably because you only intended to flame. Worse still, you have not even read the study. So the point of this is what, exactly? Ah yes, to flame.

    I'll break it down for you in point form:

    • You started the thread.
    • Copied and pasted an entire abstract (which constituted the whole page at Nature in regards to the content of the article that is locked behind a paywall - thereby breaching copyright - and did so without even acknowledging the authors of the study).
    • You failed to and refused to provide any point of discussion or analysis to what you had posted in the OP, despite request from another member and a comment from myself in regards to this lack of discussion point or analysis.
    • You advised that your only thoughts "on the gist of the article" is that you "believe it applies to a few here" - pointing that your actual intent is to flame others on this site.

    So, thread closed and Cesspooled.
    exchemist and paddoboy like this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page