<p>It is my belief that liars inclined to lie to them selves. Freudian psychology can illustrate this point through the concept of the ego-sensor.  Liars can be compelled to lie to themselves in order to protect the ego. Thereby, preserving their sense of identity. This usually occurs in the form of denial, detachment, or reattribution. I do not believe that they intentionally lie to themselves nor do I find that to be possible. Still I've found that the ego will do anything to protect it self when feeling threatened.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-07-01T16:27:57.810Z
This answer seems to be primarily opinion based, which is frowned upon on CogSci.SE. Adding references to studies to support your personal impressions would greatly improve the quality of your answer.
Seanny123
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-07-01T21:21:47.353Z
Since this stack relates to cognitive science I presumed that basic Freudian concepts could be accepted on as given and wouldn't get frowned on. Perhaps my wording was misleading. The base of my opinion is the ego-sensor as given in Freuds publication from 1900: "The interpretation of dreams", specifically the sections referring to latent dream content of which he describes as being suppressed by the unconscious mind to protect to ego
user3302435
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-07-02T06:41:52.723Z
Freud has had an amazing impact on Pscychology and Cognitive Science, However, nowadays his theories are largely outdated and have been disputed, or have been refined by neo-freudians. Having some more recent literature that may back up Freud's beliefs is much appreciated.
Robin Kramer-ten Have
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-07-02T06:49:13.907Z
Just found a [website](https://www.verywell.com/is-psychoanalysis-still-relevant-today-2795854) that has some references to back up MY claim that Freud is outdated.
Robin Kramer-ten Have
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-07-03T01:50:00.637Z
@RobinKramer Is psychological repression outdated? Is not that the essence of Freud's theories and the bedrock of clinical psychology? Myself, I prefer Jungian theories over Freud's, in facts I have many positions that oppose his. Still, I disagree with the view that Freud's theories are no longer relevant, his method of psychoanalysis is still a foundational element of psychology. Nearly every form of clinical psychology is an extension of Freud's  methods in one form or another. Simply, I see no way to dismiss Freud's Methods while leaving the structure of modern psychology intact.
user3302435
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-07-03T07:58:06.747Z
And I agree with you, but you need to back your claims with some literature you have. Otherwise, it is difficult to verify the validity of your answer, and it makes it hard to do further research if one is interested.
Robin Kramer-ten Have
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-07-01T12:39:37.133Z
2016-07-01T12:39:37.133Z
user3302435
<p>Although I cannot answer the question on lying, (self-)speech and thinking are intimately linked to each-other, and actually used in UX-design (e.g. <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/3230315_Thinking_About_Thinking_Aloud_A_Comparison_of_TwoVerbal_Protocols_for_Usability_Testing" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Krahmer, 2004)</a>. He compared two different approaches of thinking-aloud. In other words, people are perfectly able to verbalize their thoughts and actually do so.</p>
<p>One of the approaches he compares is a proposal of <a href="https://psy.fsu.edu/faculty/ericsson/ericsson.proto.thnk.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Ericsson and Simon (1993)</a>. In their nice and brief paper, they discuss (and refer to) many scientific papers (e.g. cognitive scientific and psychological) where self-speech is used during problem solving. Moreover, it showed that self-speech is related to other variables that correspond to thoughts.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>In their review, Ericsson and Simon (1993) found that [[...]] there seemed to be close correspondence between subjects’ thoughts and what information that they looked at--when subjects verbalized thoughts about objects in the environment they very frequently looked at them.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I must admit that self-speech in this way is only used as a methods of identifying cognitive processes, and is often a mandated task in the experiment. However, the fact that people are able to reflect on their thoughts, gives me reason to believe that they can do so unconsciously too. If someone could correct me or confirm this, I invite you to do so.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-11-11T22:46:53.587Z
I undid the part of your edit of the question where you changed "speech" to "self-speech".  Self-speech (or self-talk) can be interpreted as "thinking", "thinking out loud", or "talking about ones self", so naturally they are intimately linked.  I do think the OP's original intent (based on the quote) was to focus on speech to others, which is different.  Unfortunately, this does make your answer less relevant to the original question.
Arnon Weinberg
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-11-12T07:50:18.150Z
No problem. Already figured ;)
Robin Kramer-ten Have
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-06-10T13:55:35.967Z
2016-07-02T06:43:26.450Z
2020-06-17T09:55:31.633Z
Robin Kramer-ten Have
<p>Reading the famous quote of Oliver Sacks, can we draw conclusions about liars?</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>"We speak not only to tell other people what we think, but to tell ourselves what we think. Speech is a part of thought." [Oliver Sacks]</p>
</blockquote>

<p>If speech is part of thought, then maybe liars can begin making fallacious thoughts in the long run?</p>

<p><strong>Is there scientific evidence that suggests that speech affects thinking, possibly in relation to (pathological) liars?</strong></p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-09-13T12:59:44.003Z
I have seen this, but it's anecdotal observations.  It may be that those who do not lie to themselves are more ina  sociopathic direction, since they exercise a kind of malice.  'Plain liars' are, in a way, innocent of that kind of connivery.    Also, welcome to CogSci.SE
New Alexandria
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-09-13T21:01:45.393Z
Warren Buffett, the master investor opined, "the CEO who lies to others in public will eventually start lying to himself in private." If a behavior becomes too ingrained, it becomes hard to control.
Tom Au
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-09-14T15:54:14.923Z
@NewAlexandria- I wish you could elaborate your thesis.
aarbee
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-06-08T21:05:24.703Z
This question, due to the way it's phrased, is primarily opinion-based. If you were to reduce it to clinical terms, like whether self-deception is common in pathological liars, it would be acceptable.
Seanny123
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-06-10T13:35:36.453Z
I love this question. It only needs rephrasing of the actual question.
Robin Kramer-ten Have
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-06-14T02:59:17.637Z
Words and grammar comprise a framework for *categorising* thoughts, or in other words relating current thoughts to previous thoughts and understandings of self and others. When we put our thoughts into words, we encode those thoughts into a more memorable and transferable format. By speaking in falsehoods, a liar may be better able to remember those falsehoods, but this does not mean the liar believes them more. A fiction storyteller also puts falsehoods into words but knows reality from fiction. I postulate that an accurate answer depends on a particular liar's reason for lying.
Michael
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-07-01T17:16:41.337Z
In my opinion, human tend to lie the themselves. Much of moral, philosophical and scientific teaching is an attempt to break that habit.
John Yetter
<social-psychology><thought><speech><deception>
Are liars inclined to lie to themselves?
spocchio
# Are liars inclined to lie to themselves?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2013-09-13)

Reading the famous quote of Oliver Sacks, can we draw conclusions about liars?

> "We speak not only to tell other people what we think, but to tell ourselves what we think. Speech is a part of thought." [Oliver Sacks]

If speech is part of thought, then maybe liars can begin making fallacious thoughts in the long run?

**Is there scientific evidence that suggests that speech affects thinking, possibly in relation to (pathological) liars?**

**Tags:** social-psychology, thought, speech, deception

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: I have seen this, but it's anecdotal observations.  It may be that those who do not lie to themselves are more ina  sociopathic direction, since they exercise a kind of malice.  'Plain liars' are, in a way, innocent of that kind of connivery.    Also, welcome to CogSci.SE  
> **username_2**: Warren Buffett, the master investor opined, "the CEO who lies to others in public will eventually start lying to himself in private." If a behavior becomes too ingrained, it becomes hard to control.  
> **username_3**: @NewAlexandria- I wish you could elaborate your thesis.  
> **username_4**: This question, due to the way it's phrased, is primarily opinion-based. If you were to reduce it to clinical terms, like whether self-deception is common in pathological liars, it would be acceptable.  
> **username_5**: I love this question. It only needs rephrasing of the actual question.  
> **username_6**: Words and grammar comprise a framework for *categorising* thoughts, or in other words relating current thoughts to previous thoughts and understandings of self and others. When we put our thoughts into words, we encode those thoughts into a more memorable and transferable format. By speaking in falsehoods, a liar may be better able to remember those falsehoods, but this does not mean the liar believes them more. A fiction storyteller also puts falsehoods into words but knows reality from fiction. I postulate that an accurate answer depends on a particular liar's reason for lying.  
> **username_7**: In my opinion, human tend to lie the themselves. Much of moral, philosophical and scientific teaching is an attempt to break that habit.  

---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_8 on 2016-07-01. Score: 2

It is my belief that liars inclined to lie to them selves. Freudian psychology can illustrate this point through the concept of the ego-sensor. Liars can be compelled to lie to themselves in order to protect the ego. Thereby, preserving their sense of identity. This usually occurs in the form of denial, detachment, or reattribution. I do not believe that they intentionally lie to themselves nor do I find that to be possible. Still I've found that the ego will do anything to protect it self when feeling threatened.

> **Comments:**
> **username_4**: This answer seems to be primarily opinion based, which is frowned upon on CogSci.SE. Adding references to studies to support your personal impressions would greatly improve the quality of your answer.  
> **username_8**: Since this stack relates to cognitive science I presumed that basic Freudian concepts could be accepted on as given and wouldn't get frowned on. Perhaps my wording was misleading. The base of my opinion is the ego-sensor as given in Freuds publication from 1900: "The interpretation of dreams", specifically the sections referring to latent dream content of which he describes as being suppressed by the unconscious mind to protect to ego  
> **username_5**: Freud has had an amazing impact on Pscychology and Cognitive Science, However, nowadays his theories are largely outdated and have been disputed, or have been refined by neo-freudians. Having some more recent literature that may back up Freud's beliefs is much appreciated.  
> **username_5**: Just found a [website](https://www.verywell.com/is-psychoanalysis-still-relevant-today-2795854) that has some references to back up MY claim that Freud is outdated.  
> **username_8**: @RobinKramer Is psychological repression outdated? Is not that the essence of Freud's theories and the bedrock of clinical psychology? Myself, I prefer Jungian theories over Freud's, in facts I have many positions that oppose his. Still, I disagree with the view that Freud's theories are no longer relevant, his method of psychoanalysis is still a foundational element of psychology. Nearly every form of clinical psychology is an extension of Freud's  methods in one form or another. Simply, I see no way to dismiss Freud's Methods while leaving the structure of modern psychology intact.  
> **username_5**: And I agree with you, but you need to back your claims with some literature you have. Otherwise, it is difficult to verify the validity of your answer, and it makes it hard to do further research if one is interested.  

---

### Answer by username_5 on 2016-06-10. Score: 2

Although I cannot answer the question on lying, (self-)speech and thinking are intimately linked to each-other, and actually used in UX-design (e.g. [Krahmer, 2004)](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/3230315_Thinking_About_Thinking_Aloud_A_Comparison_of_TwoVerbal_Protocols_for_Usability_Testing). He compared two different approaches of thinking-aloud. In other words, people are perfectly able to verbalize their thoughts and actually do so.

One of the approaches he compares is a proposal of [Ericsson and Simon (1993)](https://psy.fsu.edu/faculty/ericsson/ericsson.proto.thnk.html). In their nice and brief paper, they discuss (and refer to) many scientific papers (e.g. cognitive scientific and psychological) where self-speech is used during problem solving. Moreover, it showed that self-speech is related to other variables that correspond to thoughts.

> In their review, Ericsson and Simon (1993) found that [[...]] there seemed to be close correspondence between subjects’ thoughts and what information that they looked at--when subjects verbalized thoughts about objects in the environment they very frequently looked at them.

I must admit that self-speech in this way is only used as a methods of identifying cognitive processes, and is often a mandated task in the experiment. However, the fact that people are able to reflect on their thoughts, gives me reason to believe that they can do so unconsciously too. If someone could correct me or confirm this, I invite you to do so.

> **Comments:**
> **username_9**: I undid the part of your edit of the question where you changed "speech" to "self-speech".  Self-speech (or self-talk) can be interpreted as "thinking", "thinking out loud", or "talking about ones self", so naturally they are intimately linked.  I do think the OP's original intent (based on the quote) was to focus on speech to others, which is different.  Unfortunately, this does make your answer less relevant to the original question.  
> **username_5**: No problem. Already figured ;)  

---

