Self-Deception Needs No Explaining

Fingarette, Herbert

doi:10.1111/1467-9213.00101

Cited by 29 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The extant literature on self-deception reveals the enormously rich field of very diverse types of explanations and theories of self-deception. Self-deception is studied in philosophy and psychoanalysis, neuroscience and cognitive psychology; evolutionary and social psychology (Rorty, 1994;Fingarette, 1998Fingarette, , 2000Goleman, 1997;Mele, 2001;Vaillant, 2005;Festinger, 1957;Trivers, 2000;von Hippel and Trivers, 2011). However, interdisciplinary reviews of this literature are extremely rare (Fingarette, 2000).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Self-deception in coaches: an issue in principle and a challenge for supervision

Bachkirova

2015

Coaching: An International Journal of Theory, Research and Prac

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article describes an exploratory study aimed at investigating factors contributing to the phenomenon of self-deception in coaches. Six experienced coaching supervisors were interviewed in accordance with the Conceptual Encounter research methodology. The results are presented in a model of self-deception in coaches. The model consists of three main sections, which include the nature of self-deception, contextual influences on self-deception and the focused influence on self-deception in coaching supervision. These themes are discussed in light of the structural analysis of the literature on self-deception performed from a pragmatic perspective. The paper concludes by considering how the results of the study add to current debates on the nature of self-deception and what implications the findings might have for coaches, coaching supervisors and other practitioners engaged in the development of individuals in organisations. Practice points • This article is relevant to all types of coaching and particularly to coaching supervision. • The article addresses the issue of self-deception of coaches that highlights the role of the practitioner's self in the coaching process and the potential implications of this phenomenon on the quality of practice. • The findings raise coaches' awareness of their self-deception and how to address it. Coaching supervisors and educators should be able to inform their practice using the proposed model.

show abstract

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Self-deception in coaches: an issue in principle and a challenge for supervision

Bachkirova

2015

Coaching: An International Journal of Theory, Research and Prac

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“… As examples of the intentional approach, see Pears (), Davidson (), Talbott (), Fingarette (), Bermúdez ().…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Attribution of Responsibility to Self‐Deceivers

Galeotti¹

2016

Journal of Social Philosophy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“… Herbert Fingarette, for example, argues that the purported paradoxes are actually generated by a misconstrual of how our minds generally work, and that self‐deception is in fact “…as ordinary and familiar a kind of mental activity as one can imagine. The result is unusual, but the way it is managed needs no more explaining than any normal, familiar and everyday activity of the mind…” (289).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“… William Whisner and Herbert Fingarette have also suggested that self‐deception can be driven by motivated (but not intentional) manipulation of attentional processes.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Puzzle of Self‐Deception

Baghramian

Nicholson

2013

Philosophy Compass

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is commonly accepted that people can, and regularly do, deceive themselves. Yet closer examination reveals a set of conceptual puzzles that make self-deception difficult to explain. Applying the conditions for other-deception to self-deception generates what are known as the 'paradoxes' of belief and intention. Simply put, the central problem is how it is possible for me to believe one thing, and yet intentionally cause myself to believe its contradiction. There are two general approaches taken by philosophers to account for these puzzles about the self-deceptive state and the process of self-deception. 'Partitioning' strategies try to resolve the paradoxes by proposing that the mind is divided in some way that allows self-deception to occur. 'Reformulation' strategies suggest that the conditions we use to define self-deception should be modified so that the paradoxes do not arise at all. Both approaches are subject to criticism about the consequences of the strategies philosophers use, but recent cross-disciplinary analyses of self-deception may help shed light on the puzzles that underlie this phenomenon. Abstract It is commonly accepted that people can, and regularly do, deceive themselves. Yet closer examination reveals a set of conceptual puzzles that make self-deception difficult to explain. Applying the conditions for other-deception to self-deception generates what are known as the 'paradoxes' of belief and intention. Simply put, the central problem is how it is possible for me to believe one thing, and yet intentionally cause myself to believe its contradiction. There are two general approaches taken by philosophers to account for these puzzles about the self-deceptive state and the process of self-deception. 'Partitioning' strategies try to resolve the paradoxes by proposing that the mind is divided in some way that allows self-deception to occur. 'Reformulation' strategies suggest that the conditions we use to define self-deception should be modified so that the paradoxes do not arise at all. Both approaches are subject to criticism about the consequences of the strategies philosophers use, but recent cross-disciplinary analyses of self-deception may help shed light on the puzzles that underlie this phenomenon.

show abstract

Self-Deception Needs No Explaining

Cited by 29 publications

References 11 publications

Self-deception in coaches: an issue in principle and a challenge for supervision

Self-deception in coaches: an issue in principle and a challenge for supervision

The Attribution of Responsibility to Self‐Deceivers

The Puzzle of Self‐Deception

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About