The Origins of Human Amenability to Propaganda

Kaulin Kirill ORCID: 0009-0001-3933-9824 Deputy Head for PR and Marketing in Lawyer Bureau "Yushin and Partners" 123104, Russia, Moscow, Bogoslovsky Lane, 7, sq. 7 kirkreps@gmail.com

           Our understanding of propaganda as influencing people is still limited by erroneous definitions. As long as we remain within the framework of such concepts, which it is difficult for me to call anything other than naive, we will understand too little about propaganda. It is necessary to turn to the sources.

            The term itself was influenced by its original meaning as "dissemination of information". In the future, it began to acquire a negative connotation and be perceived as the dissemination of false information, fraud and manipulation.

            Currently, terms such as "fake news" and "disinformation" are mostly found on the English-speaking Internet. In the Russian language, the term "fake" is becoming increasingly widespread.

            Precisely because of this, propaganda is perceived too narrowly, as a fraud, as a deception of people (who, therefore, are supposed to want to know the truth). This coloration allows us to use the term for political purposes, calling those journalists, publicists, politicians and speakers who are unpleasant to us "propagandists". However, this definition extremely narrows our perception.

            Encyclopedia Britannica defines propaganda as: "Propaganda, the dissemination of information — facts, arguments, rumors, half-truths, or lies — to influence public opinion. Propaganda is a more or less systematic effort to manipulate the beliefs, attitudes or actions of other people through symbols (words, gestures, posters, monuments, music, clothing, distinctive signs, hairstyle styles, drawings on coins and postage stamps, and so on)"^[1].

             Wikipedia states that "Propaganda is a communication that is mainly used to influence or convince an audience... which may be biased and may selectively present facts"^[2]. The Russian version of Wikipedia defines propaganda as "the dissemination of views, facts, arguments, often rumors, distorted information or deliberately false information" ^[3].

            The Great Soviet Encyclopedia defines propaganda as "the dissemination of political, philosophical, scientific, artistic and other views and ideas in order to introduce them into the public consciousness" ^{[4, p. 242]}.

            There are, however, deeper interpretations. Thus, E. Bernays in the work "Propaganda" understood by it the management of the preferences of the masses, and the French philosopher J. Ellul considers propaganda as a planned influence on the audience in order to attract it to his side ^[5].

            Similarly, the examples of the most ancient use of propaganda are narrowed. They are seen in the laws of King Hamurabi, which, it was claimed, protect justice and the weak, whereas in reality they are rather on the side of the strong and influential. She is seen in the reign of Darius I in Persia and during the civil war in Rome (44-30 BC), when Octavian Augustus and Mark Antony accused each other of low birth, cruelty, cowardice, oratorical and literary incompetence, debauchery, luxury, drunkenness and other vices. And all this was in a special literary form, which influenced the public opinion of Rome. Genghis Khan sent messengers who downplayed the size of his army. Etc.

            All this points to an ingrained understanding of propaganda within the Enlightenment. This approach is most clearly expressed by John Stuart Mill in his book "On Freedom": "If an opinion is correct, then prohibiting people from expressing it means prohibiting people from knowing the truth and preventing them from getting out of error; if an opinion is wrong, then preventing its free expression means preventing people from achieving no less good than in in the first case, namely, a clearer understanding of the truth and a deeper conviction in it, as it usually has its consequence every collision of truth with error."

            Scientists know with what difficulty and with what efforts (including collective ones) and rechecks they achieve the truth. People in everyday life simply do not do this, and therefore they are constantly mistaken. People are constantly assimilating the values of parents, the environment and the team. They initially do not evaluate whether it is correct or not, which requires a very serious analysis. Proof of this: religions, socio-political myths, the views of most people on almost any issue. Is there a God and an immortal soul? Or is it an expression of our need for meaning and fear of death? Did people 400 years ago have facts to judge this? Were there facts in the XVIII century that allow us to establish that democracy is a more effective form than monarchy or aristocracy, or did the enlighteners act under the influence of emotions and myths?

            Why do people support destructive wars that turn against them (say, Germany)? Why do they support dictators who staged repressions, and do not want to hear anything bad about it many decades later? Despite the fact that even their relatives or friends of their relatives could have suffered?

            It must be recognized that the display of truth is not the goal of evolution. Of course, if accurate representation of the true picture of oneself or others will help the spread of genes, then the accuracy of perception or interaction can improve. And sometimes it will be just like that (when, for example, you need to remember where your food supply is, and inform your children or close relatives about this information). But the cases when the accuracy of the message and genetic interests overlap are just a coincidence. Truth and honesty have never been favored by natural selection on their own. Natural selection does not "prefer" either honesty or truth. He doesn't care about them.

            But the property of susceptibility to propaganda is, apparently, evolutionary, which I believe can be proved by references to some facts.

            Deception is very widespread in nature, for example, in mimicry. Living organisms have many opportunities to help them present themselves in a variety of ways. This can be traced from such examples:

 — Individual female fireflies of the genus Photuris perfectly imitate the call to mate, and then eat their partner;

 — Some species of orchids gradually changing their shape become very similar to female wasps, performing the same job — attract male wasps who unwittingly spread orchid pollen;

 — A necessary condition for one of the butterflies to escape from the attack is the adoption of a form imitating the head of a snake and the publication of a formidable roar;

 — Some non-venomous snakes have acquired the appearance and color of venomous;

 — A weak fish responds to a threat aggressively, as if it were strong ^[6].

            From this we can conclude that if deception and self-deception (after all, what is, for example, mimicry under poisonous snakes, but not some self-deception, because not even just a thought changes, but the physical form of the creature itself) contributes to our survival and reproduction, then it will be used as an evolutionary strategy.

            And now a few facts about why deception and self-deception can be a profitable strategy inherent in a person. There are three blocks here: parenting, teamwork, and subordination to the social hierarchy.

            First of all, people are formed in collectives, especially under the influence of parents. Without their upbringing, a person does not become a person (we can recall examples of "Mowgli"). Already here the child uncritically imitates his parents, identifies himself with them and adopts their behavior and information coming from them ^{[7, 8]}. Let us also recall the imprinting mechanism discovered by Konrad Lorenz. And in the future, this feature of the psyche does not disappear completely, although more information analysis functions are added, a person can still uncritically imitate his authorities.

            In addition, the fear of a strong father and reverence for him can be transferred to other figures. In psychology, the concept of "significant other" is known, introduced by G. Sullivan ^[9], which means a person who plays an important role in the life of an individual. The significant other is the main object of identification (that is, the object with whom we identify ourselves). In childhood, it is usually a parent (there may be other family members) of the same sex. The child adopts his habits, patterns of behavior. With age, the significant other changes: these can be friends, teachers, a partner, as well as a political leader.

            It is not for nothing that "father of the fatherland" was an honorary title back in ancient Rome, a title that Caesar especially loved, who practically established a monarchical regime instead of a republic. Examples of imitation of the role of the father by dictators of the XX century are widely known.

            Not only identification with the parent and respect for him can play a role here, but also the fear that the child may experience in relation to the father and other circumstances of his life. According to the generalization principle, this fear can be transferred to other phenomena. In a famous experiment, psychologist D.B. Watson ^[10] studied congenital fears in an infant and decided that one of such fears was the fear of a loud sound. He showed the baby a white fluffy rabbit, the baby was happy, but then Watson started pounding on the pots, the child sobbed. After a certain number of repetitions, the child began to cry at the sight of the rabbit. This is a classic scheme of conditioned reflex, but the interesting thing was that the same reaction spread to all white fluffy objects, that is, generalization occurred.

            A similar situation can occur in the corresponding cultures, where social obedience and fear are brought up: "a gray top will come and bite the side", "I will complain about you, and the policeman will take you away", "babaika will come" and so on. This helps to maintain social order in the future.

            The second block is related to the social interaction of people in teams. Social interaction is required here. And here we not only deceive others (which can be an extremely profitable strategy, for example, in finding a sexual partner and advancing in the social hierarchy), but also deceive ourselves in order to deceive others more convincingly.

            This hypothesis was proposed in the mid-1970s by Richard Alexander and Robert Trivers. In his preface to Richard Dawkins' book The Selfish Gene, Trivers noted Dawkins' emphasis on the role of deception in animal life and added that if indeed "deception is fundamental to animal interaction, then there must be a strong selection to determine deception, which in turn should increase the degree of self-deception, translating some facts and arguments into the subconscious mind, so as not to betray deception by subtle signs of its own knowledge of the implementation of deception." Trivers developed this theory further ^[11]. He also added that "the widespread notion that natural selection approves of nervous systems that always display more and more accurate images of the world is a very naive view of the evolution of the psyche."

            Critics of this thesis pointed out that there is little data confirming this hypothesis ^{[12, 13, 14]}. Some dispute this theory, noting that simply ignoring the truth would serve as well as self-deception, and would have the advantage of preserving true representations ^{[14, 15]}, or that often only those who deceive themselves are deceived. Van Leeuwen ^[14] expresses concern that the wide variety of phenomena considered by this theory as self-deception makes this category so broad that it is difficult to say whether it is a single phenomenon that can be traced to specific mechanisms that can probably be sensitive to natural selection.

            However, this hypothesis has supporting facts. First you need to make a few reservations. It is widely known in everyday consciousness that faith in one's business makes it more effective, including in interaction with others, so an ideologist who believes in his theory or a seller who believes in his product act more effectively than those who do not believe in them. Thus, self-deception could develop for a more effective impact on others (including their deception). The fact that people who tell lies give themselves away by involuntary behavior is widely known: starting with Milton Erickson, who studied such signals, all profiling is also based on this ^{[16, 17]}. 

            The question, however, is how good lie-diagnosing abilities are. Are they enough to spur the mechanism of self-deception? The authors of the article "Evolution and Psychology of Self-deception" ^[18] note that existing studies on lie detection show that people are bad at detecting deception. For example, in their review of studies conducted with professional lie detectors, Vrij and Mann found that the overall detection rate is 55% ^[19]. Just above the 50% probability level. This level is very similar to the 54% that appeared as a result of meta-analysis ^[20]. Many of these studies have concluded that humans are bad "lie detectors," which suggests that the pressure of natural selection should be weak here. But this conclusion is premature, given that these studies are largely based on four conditions that strongly favor the deceiver.

            Firstly, most of the research is related to such deception, which does not matter much to the deceiver. As a result, nonverbal signs associated with nervousness and depression are minimized by themes. In another case, when police officers evaluated video recordings of confirmed truth and uttered lies in real criminal interrogations, the accuracy increased to 72% ^[19]. Meta-analysis also supports this conclusion, given that several signs of deception (for example, voice pitch) are more pronounced when people are more motivated to cheat ^{[20, 21]}. Secondly, most studies do not allow the deceived to ask questions. The deceiver is usually represented on the video, thereby eliminating the possibility of further interaction. The absence of cross-examination minimizes nervousness, since a rehearsed lie can be much easier to utter than a spontaneous answer to an unexpected question. Third, much of the literature on deception detection focuses on finding signals that can be reliably used as a deception identifier, possibly because of the potential application value of common deception signals. Thus, common signs of cognitive load or nervousness tend to be overlooked. Fourth, most of the research on lie detection is conceptual in nature. People who are strangers to each other participate. Whereas people can adapt to the signals of people they know ^{[22, 23]}. The possibility of detecting lies increases when people get to know each other ^{[23, 24]}, and when lies spread among close friends ^[25].

            With this in mind, it can be assumed that people are able to detect lies much better than with a 50% probability. For example, in the De Poileau study, it is reported that in 15-23% of the subjects understood when their lies were discovered ^[26]. This indicator is already high enough to pose a serious threat, especially since in another 16-23% of cases they were not sure that their lies had been discovered. Thus, we can say that people are still able to determine a lie by the behavior of their interlocutors. A similar conclusion is reached by R. Trivers ^[18].

            The next mechanism contributing to the development of deception and self-deception is the mechanism of self-promotion (and, accordingly, belittling others) in order to move higher (or not to be moved lower) within the social hierarchy. Charles Darwin also noted the early and long-lasting antipathy of man to contempt and ridicule. His son, at two and a half years old, became very sensitive to ridicule and so suspicious that he often thought that people who laughed and talked to each other were laughing at him. Darwin's son may have been wrong in this regard, but that's not the point. It is interesting to note that some pathologies, for example, paranoia, may be the same evolutionary trends, only more in-depth ^{[27, 28]}. He was probably wrong only quantitatively, but not qualitatively. We all try to avoid ridicule from an early age. This may be due evolutionarily. In primate communities, and sometimes in humans, highly unpopular individuals are on the margins or outside of society, where it becomes difficult to fight for survival and reproduction. That's why it's important to monitor your status. 

            So people begin to actively use bragging, as well as self-promotion. The desire to spread news about their victories and, conversely, to keep quiet about failures becomes completely normal.

            Is this cheating? Not quite. Telling too gross a lie about yourself and believing in it could be dangerous. Such a lie can be easily revealed, and a person has to spend a lot of effort to remember such inventions. So the best liar, perhaps, is the one who lies little and in the most careful way. And indeed, there are some types of lies that are quite difficult to understand.

            Hence the fundamental attribution error. The tendency to attribute our successes to our skill, and failures to chance. Luck, enemies, Satan — all these explanations have been demonstrated in laboratory experiments, and one way or another, are obvious ^{[29, pp. 77-85]}. In games in which chance plays a role, we tend to attribute our losses to bad luck, attributing our victories to the mind. Experiments show that even if the subject of perception knows the forced nature of the perceived person's behavior, he is inclined to attribute the reason not to circumstances, but to the personality of the figure ^{[30, pp. 84-89]}.

            One of the mechanisms for generating this distortion is the need for self-promotion. Self-aggrandizement occurs at the expense of others. To say that your failure is due to bad luck is the same as writing off the success of the enemy on simple luck. And in general, you have to advertise yourself more than a competitor, because status is a relative thing. If you acquire it, the others lose it. And vice versa, when others lose, you are able to lift up a little.

            In a small community (for example, in a hunter-gatherer tribe), an individual is very interested in downplaying the reputations of other members of the tribe, especially of similar gender and age, because competition is most natural here. And again, the best way to convince others of your information (including the shortcomings of other people) is to believe in it yourself. Therefore, people confidently advertise themselves and belittle others. And indeed, this is not only characteristic of people, but they also tend to evaluate the activities of others in a completely different way than their own. Fate is unfavorable to us, it causes failures, but it brings luck and stupefaction to others.

            And this is another mechanism of self–deception that can be successfully used by propaganda. It will always be easy for people to "sell" the idea that external forces are to blame for their troubles: unfortunate circumstances, the cunning of enemies, etc.

            The mechanism also has additional confirmations. For example, in a series of experiments, it was shown that after hearing a voice recording, the galvanic skin reaction (GSR) of people increases, most of all it increases when they hear their own voice. When they are asked if it is their voice, they are generally mistaken more often than GSR. The essence of the error is of interest. After their self–esteem decreases as a result of "failure" in solving the problem, they become inclined to deny that this is their voice, although their GSR shows that at a certain level they are aware of the truth. When self-esteem grows, they begin to say that other voices belong to them too, but GSR again shows that deep down they know the truth. Robert Trivers, having become acquainted with these experiments, wrote: "It's as if we inflate our self-image... then compress it when we fail, and this is largely an unconscious process" ^{[31, p. 417]}.

            Lopez and Fuchsiager argue that a broad study of the so—called "winner effect" — an increase in the probability of achieving victory in social or physical conflicts after previous victories - confirms the idea that self-deception in the form of positive illusions, such as past victories, gives an advantage in physical form ^[32]. This is confirmed by the experiments of Lamb and Nityanand ^[33]. In the experiment, students who participated in training courses were asked to predict their success in completing the task, as well as the academic performance of each of their peers. A comparison of these forecasts and the actual estimates given for the task indicates a strong positive relationship between self-deception and deception. Those who deceptively rated themselves higher were rated higher by their peers. These results support the claim that self-deception contributes to another deception.

            Well, where is the place of truth on the scale of self-esteem? If in one period, after a series of successes, you feel smart, competent and attractive, and in the next, after a series of failures and a decrease in serotonin, you start to feel worthless, then probably both times you are right. Or do you think not? When were you wrong? Is serotonin linked to truthfulness, or is it an intoxicating drug?

            Another mechanism of self–deception is positive self-esteem and well-being based on increasing self-confidence. Confidence is the determining factor of social influence; self-confident people believe them more, and their advice is more likely to be heard, followed by those who lack confidence somewhat ^{[34, 35]}. To the extent that people can maintain their positive image and increase their self-confidence, thereby they increase the chances of influencing others and being chosen for socially significant roles. For this reason, the improvement of their condition should be widespread and people should believe in their self-affirming stories. The facts confirm these possibilities.

            A person seems better if he is more convinced of himself ^[36]. Most studies of self-praise do not allow us to say for sure whether these stories are self-deception or are intended only to deceive others, but some of the variables used in this study support the idea that people believe in their own self-praising stories. For example, in a series of experiments, Epley and Whitchurch ^[37] photographed participants, and then transformed these photos, making some people more attractive, and others less so. They then presented the participants with these modified photos along with the unmodified ones. In one experiment, participants were asked to indicate their real photos among the real and modified ones. Participants were more likely to choose photos with a more attractive appearance, rather than real or less attractive ones. This effect was also manifested with a photo of a close friend, but not a stranger. Since people often perceive their close friends in an overly positive light ^[38], these data suggest that people do not have a general tendency to perceive people as more attractive than they really are, but rather a specific prejudice towards themselves and loved ones.

            In another experiment, participants were presented with an array of photographs, among which were their photos (either real or transformed in a more or less attractive form). Experiments have confirmed that people were able to find their photos the fastest if they were converted to the attractive side, the average if they were not converted, and the slowest if they were converted to the unattractive side ^[37]. These results show that the improved photo most closely corresponds to how people see themselves in life with their mind's eye.

            The self-aggrandizement effect documented by Epley and Witcher correlated with implicit self-esteem ^[39] and other effects (the "name-letter" effect ^[40]). This correlation suggests that people are constantly improving their own image, regardless of how much information they have about themselves, rather a function of their automatic positivity towards themselves.

            Self-praise, as already mentioned, is associated with the belittling of others. Additional evidence can be found in the studies of Fein and Spencer ^[41]. In one experiment, participants were told that they either did well or poorly on an IQ test. Then they were given the opportunity to watch a video recording of another student being interviewed for a job, and this person presented himself as either a Jew or a Christian (the students themselves were not Jews and were mostly Christians). When the participants observed a person whom they considered a Christian, they were not affected by the fact that they allegedly failed an IQ test. But when participants thought they were watching a Jewish student, their grades depended on how well they did on the IQ test. Those who thought they had done well showed no signs of bias. Those who thought they had failed misjudged the Jewish student. In addition, these people also showed some self-esteem recovery compared to people who thought they had failed but were watching Christians. These results show that people tend to self-aggrandize by belittling others.

            This confirms that people sincerely believe their negative impressions of others when they are made to feel bad. These findings can be considered the flip side of prejudice, documented by Epley and Whitchurch. Thus, by deceiving themselves about their positive qualities and the negative qualities of others, people can show more confidence, thereby helping themselves to advance better socially.

            Another effect of positive self-conceit is associated with identifying yourself with some important business or group of people. The theories of the Self-concept and the theory of identity are based on this.

            More Z. Freud, in his psychological theory, considers the identification mechanism as an example of the fact that a child recognizes the power of the father and mother, becomes like them, begins to decrease with age, and finds greater calm. Therefore, identification, in addition to the fact that a person has a need to identify himself with something, can be considered as a need for self-defense against fear. In addition, a person begins to know himself in childhood. But he is not able to understand complex issues. He needs a value system, thanks to which he can identify himself with a certain sample and begin to study the world. And this system is what binds a person to society in the future, allowing society itself to function.

            As noted by A. Maslow, identity is able to satisfy one of the basic needs – belonging, attachment and involvement. When this need is not realized, a person feels "loss of roots", rejection, loneliness and his own uselessness. "We have not yet got used to the idea that it is extremely important for a person to know that he lives in his homeland, at home, next to people close and understandable to him, that he is surrounded by "his own", that he belongs to a certain clan, group, collective, class" ^{[42, p. 87]}.

            Therefore, a person feels the need to feel part of something, a link in a chain. This gives life, the world and your own emotions some meaning. If these ties are broken, the whole structure of society also disintegrates. E. Erickson believed that a mature personality can be considered only one that has an identity, psychosocial identity and has "a firmly assimilated and personally accepted self-image with all the diverse relationships to the outside world and the corresponding forms of behavior" ^{[43, p. 213]}.

            F. Fukuyama noted, "People believe that they have a certain value, and when they are treated as if this value is less than they think, they experience an emotion called anger. On the contrary, when a person does not justify the idea of his value, he feels ashamed, and when a person is valued according to his self-esteem, he feels proud. The thirst for recognition and the accompanying emotions of anger, shame and pride are the most important characteristics for political life. According to Hegel, it is they who drive the historical process" ^{[44, p. 10]}.

            Even K. Jung, reflecting, among other things, on the political situation in Germany, came to the conclusion that: "The smaller the scale of the personality, the more it is indefinite and unconscious, until finally it disappears, becoming indistinguishable from the sicial and sacrificing its own integrity because of this and dissolves instead in the integrity of the group. The voice of the social group takes the place of the inner voice, and the place of destination is collective needs" ^{[45, p. 197-198]}.

            Together, these three mechanisms described earlier can lead to the fact that a person who has perceived his image as, for example, a Russian or an American, a Christian or a Jew since childhood, will strive to maintain his positive image by improving and overestimating the opinion of himself and his group. If it is shaken and a person feels lower than he used to feel, then he will look for a way out in blaming others: circumstances and certain opponents, a hostile group, in order to feel better again. Thus, propaganda that takes this into account will always be able to manipulate him, as it has happened throughout history.

            Finally, another block of mechanisms of the psyche is connected with social hierarchy. Natural selection supports only what increases our chances of survival and reproduction. But the survival of a particular individual. And it is better carried out in a group (like hunting, or, for example, more complex irrigation or land reclamation, which require cohesion and hierarchy, and on the basis of which the oldest states arose: Egypt and Sumer; and protection from another tribe, which in ancient times treated each other extremely hostile). This means that a person needs to be deceived in order to adapt to life in a group, to perceive its values and ideas. Natural selection will encourage this ability, as it usually does, with the help of appropriate senses. This is how the same mechanisms of infection and imitation can arise, being exposed to which a person "becomes infected" with the emotions of other people and imitates their behavior. Accordingly, people by their very nature are willingly deceived.

            People are able to adopt the values and ideas of society uncritically. E. Fromm also wrote about conformity or conformity, which, in his opinion, is a protective form that is widespread in society, because a person seems to cease to be himself, assimilating the personality that the culture of society wants to see, starting to meet its expectations. The relationship between personality and society was first experimentally investigated by Solomon Ash. The theoretical study of the activity of groups was started by Gabriel Tarde and Gustave Lebon.

            However, a single opinion has not been formed: conformal behavior leads to stable development of society, without its shocking crises, or the "herd feeling" kills individuality, preventing creative abilities from opening up and making thinking stagnant.

            Most likely, both take place here (given that the level of conformity increases if the group is more cohesive and aggressive ^[46]). This is a kind of reverse side of the question of living in a group that better meets evolutionary goals, as well as the question of maintaining a social hierarchy.

            At first, the pack is dominated by a stronger and more powerful individual (meaning, of course, long before civilization). She rules mainly with the help of fear (weaning from the feeder, from reproduction and fear of expulsion). The rest learn to accept this fear, "get infected" with it and thus "be deceived".

            I will refer to the famous experiment of Dilier Desors ^[47], a researcher at the laboratory of Biological Behavior at the University of Nancy. To study the swimming abilities of rats, he took six animals. There was only one way out of their cage: into the pool, it had to be overcome to reach the feeder. It turned out that the rats did not swim for food. They distributed social roles: two became exploiters who did not swim at all, two exploited who swam, one by himself and one "scapegoat". Continuing the experiment, they gathered only one exploiters. The rats fought for a long time, but again distributed all the same roles. Exactly the same result was obtained when one of the exploited, autonomous, etc. were placed. New social roles were always distributed.

            Ethology also distinguishes a type of social organization with the struggle of one community against another. Members of this community are relatives who identify each other by smell. There is no serious aggression within such a large family. Neighboring communities compete for territory. Aggression towards a non-family member often leads to death. An example of such a community is rats. Members of the same family collectively attack prey. The stronger ones play the role of defenders of the group. Related individuals communicate amicably with each other ^{[48, pp. 23-24]}.

            Konrad Lorenz, one of the founders of ethology, called hierarchy the "principle of organization, without which, obviously, an orderly joint life of higher animals cannot develop" ^{[49, p. 23]}.

            The most striking and obvious example of hierarchy shows the "pecking order" among ordinary chickens. This term was used by the researcher Schjelderupp-Ebbe in 1922. In a group of chickens, the leader pecks everyone, and each next one pecks only those who are lower in rank, but does not touch the higher ones ^[50]. The lowest-ranked individual is pecked by all the other chickens, and she is forced to endure.

            Gorillas are large and strong, they have few natural enemies. In such conditions , a simple structure was formed: there is a single male at the head of the hierarchy ^[51].

            The dominant is the oldest, large male. The rest, younger, form a subordination. There are no unions. The dominant reminds of the rank and makes you give him food, comfortable seats and other signs of respect. This hierarchy is quite stable and rarely challenged. Usually, the dominant dispenses with facial expressions and gestures.

            A similar kind of relationship is found among people. History has preserved a story, if you like, a tale about And. Stalin. Walking with other party leaders, he asked if they knew how to treat the people. And asked to catch a chicken. With great difficulty and with the help of the guards, they succeeded, but the chicken was constantly running away. Then I. Stalin, seizing her, plucked her alive. After that, she no longer tried to run away, but only clung to him in fright.

            I do not know if this story is based on a real event related to a chicken, but this is not essential for our topic (since the task is not to establish the historical fact underlying this story, but to demonstrate psychological features that worked and work both before Stalin and after).

            A very high aggressiveness of a person, strong sexuality, a feeling of jealousy, sometimes reaching the point of murder, and, of course, the need to fight for a hierarchical rank almost all their lives – this is obvious evidence that ancient people had a hierarchical pyramid. In many animals living in a group or a small herd — orangutans, lions, horses — in order to avoid endless conflicts, the dominant male expels other males from the herd, including his own sons ^[51].

            Another question arises: is life in a pack, where submission and conformity are required, where deception and self-deception flourish, worth it? And how many individuals became outcasts in the experiment with rats: a maximum of one in six.

            Life in a group has a number of advantages and already existed in fish several hundred million years ago. If there is a whole flock of fish in front of the predator, it is more difficult for him to single out a victim for attack. In addition, if one fish sees food and swims to it, it is easily noticed by the others. It also greatly simplifies the search for a sexual partner. Naturally, large and dominant individuals get more benefits, because they can do it: access to the best food, sex, recreation places, and so on. For example, in the case of an attack on a herd of ungulates, alphas occupy a position in a safe center. But why do those who find themselves at the bottom of the hierarchy need such an order? It's not that obvious, but being part of a group is in their best interests too. The survival rate is still much better than if they were autonomous. In nature, it is more profitable to be an omega in a group than the same omega, but alone, without hope of passing on genes further and soon – dead.

            However, domination based solely on fear is not reliable. Still in the experiment D. It turned out that the dominants who were concerned about the possible loss of their status felt the greatest burden ^[47].

            Here, cunning and lies come to the rescue. "Lying is one of the easiest ways to get what you want," says lie researcher Sissela Bock from Harvard University. — It is much easier to deceive someone and take possession of his money or property than to use physical force" ^[52]. The ability to influence other members of the tribe without physical coercion gave advantages in the struggle for resources and procreation.

            In the future, the dominant individual becomes the one who interacts better with others (and demonstrates his participation in their lives). Frans de Waal demonstrates that this is already happening in chimpanzees and other primates ^[53].

            This is natural, because at the level of chimpanzee development, when a powerful but stupid male makes his way to the top, others unite and are able to destroy him. In such more complex social conditions, status can be acquired without aggressive behavior at all: thanks to the ability to establish connections and provide assistance.

            E.G. Dolnik gives an example of baboons who came to the following conclusion: a male that is stronger and more aggressive can be lowered in rank when you find an ally for this ^[51]. Especially good if there are several allies. These unions are often fragile, and their members are able to betray each other, but gradually there are also stable ones that can lower the status of the dominant. "Unions of youth" are able to change the hierarchy built on the basis of age in baboons. 

            At the head of the pack is often not a single patriarch, but several. They have little trust in each other, but also outright hostility. In their youth, they actively fought for rank, but over time the situation stabilized.

            So gradually, cunning and lies, the ability to interact with others become the main factor for advancement in the social hierarchy. The need to hide your cunning is also an incentive to deceive and self–deceive. Then, having seized power, such cunning people further promote this method. Just as the Bolsheviks knew the methods of underground struggle and, after coming to power, completely cleaned up the political field. In the XX century, in general, on several continents and on representatives of different peoples and races, a kind of gigantic experiment was set up to implement theories about communism and a classless society. An experiment about which the physiologist I. P. Pavlov said that he would regret even one frog for it. As a result of the experiment, cruel hierarchical pyramids appeared everywhere instead of a society of equality.

            This is the answer to the long-standing philosophical question of whether fear or distraction will be used by dominants. This is a dispute between D. Orwell with the society he described and O. Huxley with his model of constant entertainment and distraction from social problems. Both of these methods are relevant. And both of them are constantly used. The Romans also carried out, if necessary, intimidation, up to decimation (execution of every tenth in the ranks) and arranged games and pageantry.

            And propaganda is a continuation of subjugation by verbal methods: a demonstration that you care about the pack, that you intimidate the pack. It's just an extension of ways to demonstrate these qualities. No more than that. Let us recall that even the sacred and the divine were associated in different cultures simultaneously with fear and submission, and at the same time with love and devotion. Don't forget that human ancestors lived in packs long before they had language, logic and abstract thinking.

            These mechanisms of submission and deception are much older. So there is absolutely nothing surprising in the fact that people do not analyze their views, but assimilate ready-made stereotypes and templates, that they simply adopt the values and views of parents, the environment and the team. They initially do not assess whether this is correct or not, which requires a very serious analysis, to which, let's be honest, only an absolute minority has matured. Proof of this: religious and socio-political myths, propaganda, the complacency of most people, their ideas about the world and their answers to polls that they regularly demonstrate to sociologists. As well as the entire history of states and societies, which consists of such things, including deception, intrigue, power struggles, wars and manipulation.

            How does the situation change over the course of history? How do cunning and social interaction develop? Moral feelings are a mechanism developed by evolution for the joint residence of human ancestors. The wisdom and lies necessary to advance in the hierarchy are also a mechanism, or, if you like, a strategy developed by nature and culture for the same purpose. Apparently, the terms "truth" and "self-deception" may appeal to us, but they are too primitive to describe mental processes and their evolutionary roots. Abstract thinking and the rules of logic arose much later than submission to the leader and life in the pack.

            To verify this statement, you can turn to modeling and game theory. Outside of games, strategic interaction can be very complicated, so game theory creates simplified structures called models. Models are not so difficult to analyze, while they reflect important elements of a real task. Game theory has been brilliantly used to demonstrate the origin of morality and morality. Two suspects are under investigation. The police don't have enough evidence, so after separating the suspects, each of them was offered a deal. If one of them remains silent and the other testifies against him, the first will receive 10 years, and the second will be released for assisting the investigation. If they both remain silent, they will receive 1 year of imprisonment under another article of the Criminal Code. Finally, if they both pawn each other, they will get 5 years in prison. Question: What choice will they make?

            In the 1984 book The Evolution of Cooperation, Robert Axelrod explored an extension of the dilemma scenario, which he called the prisoner's Recurring dilemma (PDZ). In it, the participants make a choice again over and over again and remember the previous results. Axelrod invited academic colleagues from all over the world to develop computer strategies in order to compete in the PDZ championship. The programs included in it differed in algorithmic complexity, initial hostility, ability to forgive, and so on.

            R. Axelrod discovered that if the game was repeated for a long time among many players, each with different strategies, "greedy" strategies gave poor results in the long term, while more "altruistic" strategies worked better from the point of view of self-interest. He used this to show a possible mechanism for the evolution of altruistic behavior from mechanisms that were originally purely selfish, through natural selection.

            The best strategy turned out to be "An eye for an eye" ("Tit for Tat"), which he developed and put up for the championship Anatoly Rapoport. It was the simplest of all the participating programs, consisted of only 4 lines of code in Basic. The strategy is simple: cooperate in the first iteration of the game, after that the player does the same thing that the opponent did in the previous step. The "An eye for an eye with forgiveness" strategy works a little better. When an opponent betrays, at the next step, the player sometimes, regardless of the previous step, cooperates with a small probability (1-5%). This allows you to randomly exit the cycle of mutual betrayal. It works best when a misunderstanding is introduced into the game — when one player's decision is communicated to another with an error.

            Thus, Axelrod came to the conclusion: selfish individuals in the name of their own selfish good will strive to be kinder and less envious.

            A similar model can be applied in this case, to determine the importance of deception. However, it will be different from what has already been used. The first reason: unselfish behavior turned out to be beneficial because it was better rewarded according to the conditions of the task. That's all. In fact, it is easy to imagine the plot of a Hollywood movie, where no prisoner was threatened with a term if he remained silent and did not give up. However, in reality, guilt in court is confirmed on the basis of various evidence and facts. The second reason: if you repeat this already familiar situation, then the results will already be known. For example, if none of the people deceives the other (or, conversely, deceives the other), then he gets the maximum advantage (+10 points). So we will come to the already known results.

            Therefore, the conditions are slightly different:

            Both join the struggle for power – plus 5 points for both, because they have at least some chance. This is elementary logic: the one who is engaged in some kind of business has more chances in it. When you enter the struggle for power, you have some chance. There are, of course, various circumstances: the leader can be killed, others can unite against him, and so on. But that's why we are talking about modeling, and not about listing all the possible circumstances in life, of which there are a great many.

            If both do not join – by zeros, they get nothing.

            One did not join the struggle for power, and the other joined – the first got zero points (he did not join), and the second got + 5. Why +5 and not +10? Because, firstly, the very entry into the struggle for power does not guarantee victory, because there are many other circumstances. Secondly, the rejection of one opponent does not mean an automatic victory, because there are always other contenders. If we imagine the situation in such a way that there are no others: this, obviously, will be a victory. There's nothing more to find out. If we continue to find out what circumstances of entry or non-entry into the fight at different stages, imitation of the opponent or actions opposite to his actions, deception, etc. affect the situation, then it is necessary that the game continues.

            There is also a deception when a player thinks that the opponent did not join the fight, but he did (that is, his decision is transmitted with an error). For a successful deception, the player also gets + 5 points.

            In these conditions, there are various strategies of action:

1.      Domineering. Always enters into a power struggle.

2. Altruist. Never enters into a power struggle.

3. A non-voluptuous imitator. He starts by not joining the fight, after which he repeats the previous move of another player (acts like him, therefore the "imitator").

4.      A power-hungry imitator. He starts with a struggle for power, and then responds equally to the move.

5.      A power-hungry inverter. He starts with a struggle for power, then responds back to the opponent's move.

6. Non-voluptuous inverter. He begins by refusing to fight for power, then responds back to the opponent's moves.

7.      Vindictive. He begins by refusing to fight for power until he is deceived, then fights for power to the end.

8.      Detective. The first four moves: don't join, join, don't join, push in. Further, if the opponent has never joined, the detective will join, and in the opposite case – acts as an imitator.

9. A non-voluptuous cunning imitator. The first four moves: don't join, join, don't join, join. Then repeats the opponent's moves.

10. A power-hungry cunning imitator. It starts like this: join, don't join, join, don't join. Then repeats the opponent's moves.

11. The power-hungry cunning inverter. It starts like this: join, don't join, join, don't join. Then he responds back to the opponent's moves.

12. A non-voluptuous cunning inverter. It starts like this: don't join, join, don't join, join. Then he responds back to the opponent's moves.

13. Power-hungry learning inverter. First he enters the fight, then he comes back to the opponent, if he does not start losing in the overall score, if he starts to lose, then he always enters the fight.

14. A power-hungry learning imitator. First he enters the fight, then as an opponent, if he does not start losing in the overall score, if he starts to lose, then he always enters the fight.

15. A power-hungry learning deceiver and an inverter. First enters the fight, then comes back to the opponent, if he is not deceived. After cheating, it always comes in.

16. A power-hungry learning deceiver and imitator. First he enters the fight, then he acts as an opponent, if he is not deceived. After cheating, it always comes in.

            The program code can be found on the Internet ^[54]. After a collision in 10 rounds of each algorithm with each in the absence of cheating, such winners and their points arise:

1 = 750

8 = 600 (it is advantageous not to join first and it is advantageous to repeat moves)

13 = 570 (enters first, acts back until he loses)

4 = 460 (enters, repeats moves)

16 = 450 (enters as an opponent, always enters)

12 = 445 (don't join, back to moves)

14 = 445 (enters as an opponent until he begins to lose)

15 = 420 (enters, responds back)

3 = 385 (does not enter, repeats moves)

5 = 375 (enters, responds back)

9 = 350

10 = 315

11 = 285

6 = 265

7 = 0

2 = 0

          This shows that it is advantageous to behave like an opponent by repeating his actions. This is obvious in relation to primates: if he becomes more aggressive and tries to intimidate me, then I need to act the same way, unless, of course, I want to lose and move down the hierarchy.   

          However, the picture changes if we add deception. If both algorithms cheat 100% of the time, the winners become like this:

1 = 1500

15 = 1500

16 = 1500

7 = 1425 (vindictive performs well, as often happens in life: at first he relaxed and missed his chance; but only once, after which he got angry and fought to the end

8 = 1350 (if the opponent concedes, he fights, and if the opponent fights, he repeats after him)

14 = 1310 (compared to strategy 15, with which they are very similar, it only shows that the inverter strategy is beneficial)

13 = 1305 (also an inverter strategy)

12 = 1260 (the inverter, but does not come into the fight several times)

5 = 1250 (power-hungry inverter)

9 = 1230 (after several moves again behaves like an inverter)

6 = 1185 (non-voluptuous inverter, does not enter the fight first)

11 = 1140 (does not enter several times, including the first one, then behaves like an inverter)

4 = 1100 (enters first, then the simulator)

10 = 1020 (enters first, does not enter several times, then repeats the opponent)

3 = 980 (does not enter first, then behaves like an imitator)

2 = 750

     This shows us that deception is very important. In particular, it is more important to react to deception than to defeat (in the overall score). Deception is more dangerous. In addition, the main strategy becomes the behavior opposite to the behavior of the opponent. Thus, the deception increases in expansion. I can suspect that the enemy only seems meek and powerless, and therefore act ahead of the curve. This is the model of the struggle for power in human society, which has gradually become established: based on cunning.

          What is the easiest way to deceive an opponent? To look meek, submissive and not voluptuous. You can also look friendly when you actually "run over" someone else, like bandits. This is the transformation of human relationships based on cunning, because this strategy is more profitable. This, I believe, is what Friedrich Nietzsche took for "gregariousness" and the loss of the "will to power." They don't disappear anywhere.

          It is also necessary to name the work of Thomas Schelling "Conflict Strategy", for which the author received the Nobel Prize. He analyzes conflict strategies based on game theory and comes to the conclusion that it is more profitable to make small promises that he is able to fulfill than to distribute threats that he has to either verbatim fulfill or break his word. A good threat is exactly the one that did not have to be carried out. Based on his developments, we can slightly adjust our program ^[55]. Now "joining the struggle for power" means acting by the most direct method: by force and the threat of its use and gives not plus, but minus 5 points. Deception, on the other hand, implies an action by cunning and still gives plus 5 points. We will collide strategies, and the probability of deception will be established, in order to balance the situation, by 50%. Then we can note an interesting fact: the leading strategies are simulators (compared to inverters). That is, if a person acts more gently and cunningly, it turns out to be more profitable to do the same than the opposite: in a more rude and straightforward manner. And this is another incentive for the development of deception and for more cultured and indirect behavior. Thus, it can be assumed that at some stage such a development of the culture of mankind was predetermined by the struggle for the selfish interests of people: this is not weakness and not just "gregariousness" (in the sense of adapting to the interests of others), but a manifestation of cunning and a more effective form of defending one's own interests.