Trickery and deceit characterized the relationship of theory

trickery and deceit characterized the relationship of theory

Deception can be defined as the deliberate projection, to one's own advantage . in deception, and this ability may be related to Theory of Mind development. Another study by Li and colleagues () explored the relations among lie- telling in lying is an aspecific cognitive feature in movement disorders characterized by. New Agendas in Theory and Research Matthew S. McGlone, Mark L. Knapp Q Quotation, See also Selective quotation characterized, 54 fabricated quotes, contextomy, 63 Romantic relationships, deception, – competitiveness. How does focusing on this variety of self-deception, characterized by its conflict that this issue will hinge on the scope of alternative theories of self-deception.

trickery and deceit characterized the relationship of theory

Daniel and Herbig further classify deceptions as ambiguity-increasing and ambiguity-decreasing: In a different approach, Heuer builds a taxonomy in terms of the underlying psychological biases that are assumed to result in deception. He lists various perceptual and cognitive biases that may help to develop a theory of deception and counterdeception.

Deception - Wikipedia

Heuer 's approach points to the fact that one can attempt to base a taxonomy on an ordering of the various exemplars of deception or, instead, on an ordering of psychological and sociological constructs that may explain deception.

Each approach has its merits. The ultimate goal is to develop a framework that can account for the effectiveness of deception. But one can argue that it might be wiser to begin the search with a taxonomy that is based on surface similarities and dissimilarities among exemplars of deception. Possibly, there might be some value in trying to start with both types of taxonomies. One attempt to create a theory of deception includes the only taxonomy that has been put to a test.

Whaley devised a taxonomy on the basis of systematic analysis of examples from war and conjuring. He also obtained inputs from diplomats, counterespionage officers, politicians, businessmen, con artists, charlatans, hoaxers, practical jokers, poker players, gambling cheats, football quarterbacks, fencers, actors, artists, and mystery story writers.

Deception and Trickery in the Book of Genesis | Daniel Sarlo -

The resulting framework was tested by classifying an exhaustive list of magic tricks. All deception for Whaley is a form of misperception. He divides misperceptions into other induced, self-induced, and illusions. Self-induced misperception is what we ordinarily refer to as self-deception.

Every deception, according to Whaley, is comprised of two parts: Both dissimulation and simulation come in three forms: In decreasing order of effectiveness, these components of deception can be listed as masking, repackaging, dazzling, mimicking, inventing, and decoying.

Nine categories of deception are obtained by combining the three kinds of dissimulation with the three kinds of simulation. Whaley claims that these nine types exhaustively classify all deceptions; he was able to classify every magic trick into one of these nine categories. Whether other researchers and independent judges can use his system to reliably classify the same magic tricks, as well as other deceptions, into these categories remains to be seen.

One schematic framework was developed for understanding deception in intelligence work Epstein, The framework is attributed to the late J. Angleton, who was a senior officer, as well as a controversial person, in the Central Intelligence Agency.

The basic idea is that of a deception circle that includes, as a minimum, a victim target person or groupan inside person, and an outside person. The outside person is typically an enemy agent who pretends to have become an informant. He is the source of disinformation to the target group. For the disinformation to be effective, however, the enemy must know how it is being accepted and interpreted by the target group.

With the appropriate feedback, the enemy can tailor and fine-tune the disinformation so that it is more consistent with what the target group believes or wants to believe. This deception circle, which also characterizes many other successful forms of deception, such as confidence games, provides a potent and almost irresistible way to plant disinformation. Trying to build a scientific psychology on the basis of folk psychology, according to this position, would hamper progress by starting with vague, contradictory, and almost certainly wrong beliefs.

People who advocate this position argue that the science of psychology should begin with those concepts and laws that have already been shown to be useful in biology, physiology, and neuroscience. The contrary view maintains that any complete science of psychology must take into account people's beliefs about their own and others ' mentality and behavior.

This is the view accepted in this chapter. We believe that any attempt to understand and explain deception must somehow take account of how ordinary people conceptualize deception.

There was a problem providing the content you requested

One obvious way in which a folk psychology of deception can matter is related to the leakage hypothesis, which assumes that people enter a particular psychological state when they believe they are violating a social norm. The experience or state of guilt is accompanied by hormonal and muscular changes that can potentially be detected by an observer. Perhaps the best use of this hypothesis is to predict or detect deception on the basis of beliefs and acts that constitute deceptions and transgressions for a given individual.

What a person believes about lying and deception is part of that individual's folk psychology. Two empirical studies have attempted to describe the way ordinary people conceptualize lying and deception.

trickery and deceit characterized the relationship of theory

Although both studies were psychological investigations, the investigators were communication scientists Hopper and Bell, and linguists Coleman and Kay, Subsequently, another linguist carried out a provocative analysis of the Coleman and Kay study Sweetser, These studies are important because they show that the paradigm laboratory experiment might be supplemented by approaches that better elicit leakage cues from members of various groups.

A Taxonomy in Psychological Space One taxonomy of deception was devised by looking for systematic relationships among deception terms used by speakers of English Hopper and Bell, By examining how their subjects classified 46 terms related to deception, the investigators inferred that folk theories of deception recognize six types: This taxonomy organizes the deception realm in terms of perceived similarities among the various concepts that refer to deception in some sense.

The investigators suggest that their taxonomy is hierarchical. Hopper and Bell add further organization to their taxonomy by looking for attributes or dimensions along which they can order their categories with respect to one another. Their statistical analyses identify three such dimensions and hint at three additional ones.

The dimension that accounts for most of the ordering among the deception terms is evaluation: The two other dimensions that account for most of the ordering among their categories are detectability and premeditation.

The three additional dimensions that may also play a role are directness, verbal-nonverbal, and prolonged. The investigators had their subjects— undergraduates in an American university—each sort 46 words into categories that seemed to go together.

trickery and deceit characterized the relationship of theory

The 46 words had been selected to represent a larger set of deception terms. The assumption was that the more subjects who put the same two words in the same category, the more these two words were psychologically similar. After obtaining an index of similarity between every pair of words, the authors used multidimensional scaling to construct a psychological space for these terms.

Hopper and Bell had another group of subjects rate each of the deception words on ten bipolar adjective scales, such as good-bad, harmless-harmful, moral-immoral, direct-indirect.

Looking for other ways to read this?

In our own analysis, we used these ratings with factor analytic procedures to generate a psychological space for the 46 terms. The resulting space was similar to the one that Hopper and Bell found using their clustering procedure. Our analysis indicated that two psychological dimensions were sufficient to account for the variations of the terms on the rating scales.

Figure 1 shows 31 of the words plotted in this two-dimensional space. We have omitted 15 of the terms from the graph because they overlapped with other terms and would have made the graph unintelligible. For our purposes, it is the principle illustrated by this figure that matters. The second dimension is labeled covertness: Notice that the concept lie is located at the bottom right-hand corner of the figure.

The subjects agreed in rating lying as harmful, socially unacceptable, and immoral, as well as being highly verbal and direct. Deception also is high on harmfulness but is relatively neutral on the covertness dimension. This suggests that the subjects recognize that some deceptions can be highly verbal, such as lying, but that they can also be nonverbal. Although fib and whopper are near lie on the covertness dimension, they are rated as relatively neutral on the harmfulness scale.

A white lie is rated as only somewhat harmless and somewhat overt. There are some possible limitations of these data. The variations among the terms are circumscribed by the limited number and range of Page Share Cite Suggested Citation: Some important dimensions in the folk psychology of deception may have been left out.

A more important limitation is that the role of context is omitted. Disguise is rated as neutral on harmfulness though covert, but a disguise used for a costume party is quite different from a disguise used to rob a bank. Perhaps the apparently neutral rating simply reflects that some respondents rated it as harmful and others rated it as neutral.

Similarly, most jokes are harmless, but certain practical jokes can be quite cruel and harmful. Despite these limitations, however, Hopper and Bell's data probably capture some important aspects about how undergraduates in our culture perceive deception.

Presumably, if such subjects were telling a lie as a joke, they would display less leakage than if they were telling a lie about who wrote their term paper. We have illustrated this procedure in some detail because we believe that, with suitable refinements, it can be used to yield psychological spaces for different subgroups and cultures. We might expect that different groups would differ on which kinds of deception they placed at the socially acceptable and socially unacceptable ends of the harmfulness dimension.

This could be useful information, for example, if leakage cues to deception mainly occur when an individual is deceiving in a way that his or her culture finds socially unacceptable. A Prototype Theory Another way to uncover the psychological space with respect to deception was illustrated by Coleman and Kay These authors carried out their empirical study of the word lie as an assault on the previously dominant checklist theories of meaning.

The checklist view assumes that the meaning of a word consists of a set of features: For example, bachelor refers to any object that is human, adult, male, unmarried.

trickery and deceit characterized the relationship of theory

According to the checklist theory, any person who possesses all four of these defining features is a bachelor, and a person who lacks one or more of these features is not a bachelor.

The classic theory of meaning asserts that the possession of these defining features is both necessary and sufficient for being a bachelor. Such a definition establishes what is called an equivalence class—every person who satisfies the definition is as much a bachelor as every other bachelor. Even before this classical theory began to be challenged in the s, some scholars had pointed to problems with the classical definition.

For example, is the Pope a bachelor? What about a widower? The alternative view of meaning, which became popular during the s, is known as the prototype theory. Much of the early work supporting this theory had been done with colors Rosch, Not all examples of the color red, say, are equal. People in different cultures agree that some examples are better reds than others. Additional experimental work dealing with directly perceptible objects such as plants, animals, utensils, and furniture supported the prototype theory.

Coleman and Kay wanted to show that the prototype phenomenon can also be found in words referring to less concrete things, such as the speech-act word lie. A good lie is one for which the speaker S asserts some proposition P to addressee A such that: P is false false in fact ; S believes P to be false believe false ; and in uttering P, S intends to deceive A intent to deceive.

In the checklist or classical theory these three properties would be necessary and sufficient for a statement to be a lie. Statements that possess all three properties would be the best examples of a lie. Statements that possessed only two of the three defining properties might still be considered lies, but not very good examples.

Statements that had only one of the properties would be considered even poorer examples of lies. Instead, the text implies that the teraphim are legitimate gods and that Rachel lies about stealing them. Still, there is no punishment for Rachel, likely because she is part of the divine plan for Jacob to return to Canaan. Contrary to this, he builds a house in Succoth v. While Esau wants his brother to dwell with him, Jacob cannot because of the divine plan for him to settle in Canaan.

Westermann believes that there is an unwritten understandng between the two brothers on this issue, that is, Esau realizes that the two of them live different lives and that Jacob will not end up coming to Seir. Though the Shechemites follow their request, Levi and Simeon slaughter the rapist along with his father and plunder the city v.

Jacob appears to be disappointed in his sons afterward, but it is made clear in the text that the reason is pragmatic and does not involve ethics. He fears the surrounding armies will want to kill him when they hear what he has 29 Westermann, Genesis 12—36, — On his deathbed, he reiterates this shame, cursing Simeon and Levi for their violent nature He makes his brothers jealous when he tells them that his dreams suggest they will bow down before him sometime in the future v.

His brothers decide to sell him to foreigners 31 and concoct a scheme whereby it appears that he was killed by a wild animal. They take his coat and dip it in blood, then they bring it to Jacob and pretend they have no idea what happened.

Their motive for doing so is to get rid of their brother, of whom they are jealous, and to hide the evidence so as not to suffer repercussions. While the text is clear that selling Joseph into slavery was wrong, 32 the lie, which renders Jacob an emotional wreck, is not evaluated.

Tamar thus seeks revenge on Judah, using him to continue the desired bloodline. There are no negative repercussions for Tamar, though she deceived Judah and made him believe she was a stranger if he had known she was his daughter-in-law, he likely would not have slept with her. Once again, it appears that no judgment is passed on the deceiver. Judah 31 The final text is actually problematic, containing three contradictory explanations: It is also suggestive that Joseph becomes wealthy and powerful in Egypt, while the brothers remain in the same condition as before.

She does not want her husband to find out that she propositioned him, so she invents a lie that will make him look guilty and thus make his witness untrustworthy. In the short term, yes, the results are certainly negative for Joseph. But though he ends up in prison, this ultimately helps him to reunite his family. He then accuses them of being spies and imprisons them for three days v. He allows all but one of them to return home with grain, on the condition that they return with their youngest brother v.

While 33 Claus Westermann, Genesis 37— Joseph forgives his brothers and feels guilty about his persistent recounting of his dreams. Williams admits that here, it is the end that determines whether or not the act of deception is given a positive or negative assessment, 36 though he does not realize that this is the overarching standard in Genesis. He does this so that his father, Jacob, will come down to Egypt.

We are told that Jacob could not survive without his youngest son v. While not everything goes as planned, 37 the result is positive because Jacob comes and reunites with Joseph They appear to fabricate a speech which they place in the mouth of their dead father, whereby he essentially begs Joseph to forgive them for what they have done.

It is clear that their fear and guilt motivates them to lie in this way. This is a fitting end to the 35 The narrator says that Joseph remembers the dreams right before he accuses them of being spies Arguably, this demonstrates his remorse and suggests that this false accusation is the first step to reconcilation with his brothers.

Their deception is not made out to be an ethical problem because the reader is aware of the intended end. Thus, the focus shifts away from the guilt of the brothers to the ultimate reconciliation of the family. This is interesting when we consider divine punishment elsewhere in Genesis: Adam and Eve are punished for their disobedience 3: Thus, we can be sure that Yahweh was thought to punish individuals for certain actions that he did not approve of.

This suggests that lying was not seen as wicked or sinful, at least by the author of Genesis. How is it that the Pharaoh wronged Abraham prior to his being deceived? What did Isaac do to Abraham?

What did Joseph do to 38 Williams, Deception in Genesis, The evaluation of the lie depends entirely on the end result of each story, and ultimately, obedience or disobedience to Yahweh. Thus, the act of lying itself is considered neutral. Thus God punishes people who transgress his commandments and also rewards those who obey him. Might the laws found in Exodus have been known to the author of Genesis? Doubleday, This further attests to the specific meaning of Exodus The law in Exodus is meant to be understood in the specific context of the courtroom; that is, judgment before the elders — a process which depended on the reliable testimony of witnesses.

If lying is interpreted as sinful, then Jacob certainly cannot be perfect or blameless, but we have demonstrated that lying was not viewed this way by the author of Genesis. Childs, The Book of Exodus: Brill, The sociological assessment of Israelite deception There is a tendency in recent scholarship to view biblical acts of deception as positive, rather than as neutral means to an end.

As we have seen, in Genesis, deception is not explicitly evaluated and only the end results of these actions are judged. However, Nicholas concludes that the trickster is always better off by having lied.

This is, of course, much less likely to be the case if the text of Genesis was written during a period of peace and prosperity, such as the hypothetical united monarchy under David and Solomon. But if the context is exilic or post-exilic, the theory immediately gains probability and the social dimensions of deception can be understood. The use of deception and trickery would allow them to rise above in certain circumstances.

Whether or not these methods were really used historically, this would certainly make the trickster a hero in the eyes of the downtrodden Israelites, while other cultures may not view this as ethical behaviour. Noted deception scholar Aldert Vrij even states that there is no nonverbal behavior that is uniquely associated with deception. There are, however, some nonverbal behaviors that have been found to be correlated with deception.

Vrij found that examining a "cluster" of these cues was a significantly more reliable indicator of deception than examining a single cue. If a response to a question has a lot disturbances, less talking time, repeated words, and poor logical structure, then the person may be lying. Vocal cues such as frequency height and variation may also provide meaningful clues to deceit. Streeter, Krauss, Geller, Olson, and Apple have assessed that fear and anger, two emotions widely associated with deception, cause greater arousal than grief or indifference, and note that the amount of stress one feels is directly related to the frequency of the voice.

Camouflage This wallaby has adaptive colouration which allows it to blend with its environment. This usually involves colouring the camouflaged object with the same colours as the background against which the object will be hidden. In the realm of deceptive half-truthscamouflage is realized by 'hiding' some of the truths.

Military camouflage as a form of visual deception is a part of military deception. Disguise A disguise is an appearance to create the impression of being somebody or something else; for a well-known person this is also called incognito. Passing involves more than mere dress and can include hiding one's real manner of speech. The fictional detective Sherlock Holmes often disguised himself as somebody else to avoid being recognized.

In a more abstract sense, 'disguise' may refer to the act of disguising the nature of a particular proposal in order to hide an unpopular motivation or effect associated with that proposal.

This is a form of political spin or propaganda. Depicting an act of war an attack as a "peace" mission or "spinning" a kidnapping as a protective custody. Dazzle[ edit ] Example: The defensive mechanisms of most octopuses to eject black ink in a large cloud to aid in escape from predators. The use by some Allied navies during World War II of Dazzle camouflage painting schemes to confuse observers regarding a naval vessel's speed and heading.

Deception used by governments[ edit ] The term "deception" as used by a government is typically frowned upon unless it's in reference to military operations.

The terms for the means by which governments employ deception are: Subterfuge - in the case of disguise and disguised movement Secrecy - in the fortification of communications and in the fortified concealing of documents.

Propaganda - somewhat controversial label for what governments produce in the way of controlled information and message in media documents and communications. Fake news - in criminal investigations, the delivery of information to the public, the deliberate transformation of certain key details. Misinformation - similar to the above, but unconfined to criminal investigations. Military secret - secrecy for military operations False flag - military operations that deal with deception as their main component.

Simulation[ edit ] Simulation consists of exhibiting false information. There are three simulation techniques: Animals for example may deceive predators or prey by visualauditory or other means. Fabrication[ edit ] To make something that appears to be something that it is not, usually for the purpose of encouraging an adversary to reveal, endanger, or divert that adversary's own resources i. For example, in World War IIit was common for the Allies to use hollow tanks made out of wood to fool German reconnaissance planes into thinking a large armor unit was on the move in one area while the real tanks were well hidden and on the move in a location far from the fabricated "dummy" tanks.

Mock airplanes and fake airfields have also been created. Distraction[ edit ] To get someone's attention from the truth by offering bait or something else more tempting to divert attention away from the object being concealed. For example, a security company publicly announces that it will ship a large gold shipment down one route, while in reality take a different route. A military unit trying to maneuver out of a dangerous position may make a feint attack or fake retreat, to make the enemy think they are doing one thing, while in fact they have another goal.

Using deception to avoid hurting the partner, to help the partner to enhance or maintain their self-esteemto avoid worrying the partner, and to protect the partner's relationship with a third party.