I’m wary of most attempts to attribute human behavior to evolutionary science, mostly because the relationships are correlative and not actually substantiated in observable evidence. For instance, there’s been a pop culture obsession with male promiscuity being a product of males’ need to propagate the species by “spreading their seed”. I’m hesitant to excuse the kind of male infidelity that seems epidemic lately in the news because of some Cro Magnon subconscious desire to breed a lot. This is the same wariness that I approach a recent article by Thomas Rogers in Salon, an interview with evolutionary theorist Robert Trivers, who recently published his new book The Folly of Fools, on the nature of self-deception, and the importance of it in our evolution.

Trivers postulates that deception is an evolutionary instinct in humans, a necessary component to human (and even other animal) behavior that creates opportunity for us in the wild or among our own human social structures. He uses Arnold Schwarzeneggar’s recent indiscretions as an example of the evolutionary benefit of deception; lying to one’s spouse to foster more offspring with other mates. This premise fits nicely with the male promiscuity theory articulated above. However, self-deception, or the capacity for us to lie to ourselves, is not clear cut. How does one’s self-deception create an evolutionary advantage? Evidently, self-deception makes you a better deceiver, which makes you a better survivor. In addition, Trivers says, deception increases cognitive ability because it demands higher thinking. “The brighter you are, the more complex and devious your deceptions can be.”

Understandably, if an evolutionary theorist notices a human-like behavior in the animal kingdom, they want to attribute it to some evolutionary survival mechanism inherent in our development. However, isn’t it possible that some behaviors in people that are sophisticated social phenomena might just be an adaptation in the wild? For instance, Trivers uses the example of the moth blending with the bark of a tree, a defensive adaptation that deceives predators of their location, but can that really be equated to human deception?

Humans, who are one of a very few species that physically enjoy the act of sex, probably just lie to their spouses for the opportunity to have new and different sexual experiences. If a person’s deceived themselves into believing that their actions are justified, or that a partner is “really a good guy”, is that necessarily correlative to an evolutionary survival mechanism? The complexities of our self-deception, which can not be monitored in the animal kingdom, is much more likely a product of that “higher cognition” that Trivers discussed. When a creature becomes smart enough that survival is no longer a predominant concern, we develop all sorts of ways of making ourselves happy. Self-deception might be one, but masturbation is certainly in there too. How did masturbation help us survive?