If you’re like me, maybe you’ve puzzled over why more people in government Senate/House or even the public, aren’t offended by the never ending lies of Donald Trump or anyone else for that matter. Can people even discern a lie, obvious or not?

The idea may be that we have some kind of built-in lie detector, called “epistemic vigilance.” But philosopher Joseph Shieber throws a wrench in that idea, suggesting we might not be truth-seeking machines after all.

Shieber introduces us to the “Nietzsche Thesis,” which basically says our main goal in conversations isn’t finding the truth, but rather showing ourselves off and climbing the social ladder. According to this idea, we’re more likely to accept or reject things based on how useful they are to us and how they make us look to others, not necessarily whether they’re actually true. Even when it becomes apparent that much of what they accepted as truth were lies a desire to save face will prevent the fooled masses into accepting the truth. Motivational bias will fit in here somewhere too.

And it turns out, we’re not even that great at detecting lies in the first place! Research suggests that our accuracy in spotting deception is only slightly better than chance, around 54%. As an investigator I’ve interviewed/interrogated thousands of people. To try and tune in to lies better I’ve even taken courses from professionals such as FBI agents. Even the best human lie detectors can only get it right only 66% of the time. Did you know many common beliefs about lie detection are actually myths. For example:

• Eye Movement: The idea that eye direction reveals truthfulness (looking up and to the left) versus lying (looking to the upper right) has been discredited.
• Nervousness: Behaviors like stuttering, fidgeting, or touching the face often signify stress or discomfort, not necessarily lying.
• Facial Expressions: While facial expressions can reveal comfort or discomfort, they don’t directly indicate deceit.
• Even crossing arms over ones chest is not an indication of deception.

So, that “epistemic vigilance” might not be as sharp as we think. Think about it: conspiracy theories, echo chambers… they kind of make sense in this light. We often gravitate towards info that already fits what we believe or what our friends believe, even if it’s not exactly factual.

So, what does this mean for us? Well, the Nietzsche Thesis has some pretty big implications. It makes us rethink how reliable testimony is, how we interact with each other, and even how the legal system works. It forces us to confront the fact that we’re often driven by things other than the pursuit of truth. Plus, it highlights our inherent limitations in discerning truth from falsehood, and that many commonly held beliefs about lie detection are inaccurate.

What do you think? Are we truth-seekers or social climbers? Let me know in the comments!