Khemset Explores: Bluffing, Lies, and Deception
At present, there is a significant erosion of trust in our modern day institutions in the US. Whether it’s malice from the participants in various cases, the incentive structure being skewed towards people unethically acting in pure self-interest, or corruption that so often accompanies power won through ill gotten means (or all of the above), the end result on society is similar: people no longer feel like they understand or agree upon the rules of the game they’re in.
In poker, bluffing is a well understood aspect of the game. In actual fact, it’s a large part of what makes poker such an exciting game. The clear rules of engagement not only allow for, but encourage, one to be creative, bold, and ultimately deceptive in their game play – preferring that their opponents fold when they are bluffing and call when they have good hands – making for a rich atmosphere of problem solving, psychology, and calculated decisions.
It is because there is an explicit understanding of this that one cannot realistically be confused when it happens. Obviously, in a number of other scenarios, lying or deceiving are explicitly not part of the rules of engagement – or at least not explicitly stated as such. And this is really where the deception that we are seeing in our society needs to be fully fleshed out, lest we will simply continue to perpetuate the same injustices in our world which are predicated on principles that can be described in many ways, the simplest of which is to call them “negative”.
Negative in the sense that they are segregative, disorienting, and inherently not truth seeking – as anything which is deceptive inherently and intentionally obfuscates the truth.
I’m not entirely sure, on the whole, what is going on in our ruling / political class other than to be quite certain that there is a significant amount of deceptive self-interest, greed, and a general lack of transparency. A continuation of deceit entirely prevents forward progress as the collective is not on an even playing field. Some people are playing a game whose real rules they know; others are told a different set of rules and punished for believing them.
As the Epstein files, and various other forms of corruption such as war, financial crimes, and other long-running cover‑ups (ET’s, etc) continue to be pursued and explored, we move towards a more harmonious world as we lift the veil of ignorance which has prevented us from collectively seeing clearly the nature of the world and reality we live in.
As always, one is urged to ask themselves the question – “Why is the world like this?”
Many answers come to mind – primarily that of human nature not having effectively rooted out improper action as a means of living a fruitful and fulfilling life. There is a deep falsehood which can perpetuate improper actions; seemingly caused by one’s failure to see that they will eventually, and inevitably, backfire.
Games are a fascinating way to express deception and explore our human psychology in a controlled setting. When the setting is not one in which deception is expected or agreed upon, it can be said that there is a theme of “meta-deception” at play. Meta-deception, in my opinion, is present in a context where if I were to lie to you when you are not expecting it, I would be a lot more likely to trick you. Herein lies the ethical dilemma, if you can call it that. A meta-deceptive lie is more likely to succeed, but it is also, in my opinion, objectively, a cold, rude, and unfair way to go through life.
I was introduced to the concept of “meta-deception” by YouTuber Stevie Baskin, who did a very comprehensive deep dive into mentalism and Oz Pearlman. In order to not derail the desired direction of this blog any further, I’ll link his video for those who may be interested to explore it themselves: youtube.com/watch?v=FnwcU-XDyJ4&t=4s
Along these lines, I was also recently recommended the show Jury Duty. For those who aren’t aware of it, the plot is that an unsuspecting citizen is asked to participate in a documentary about Jury Duty whilst serving. He agrees, and upon doing so is placed in a mock trial where every other person on set is an actor / actress. It’s hilarious, and the hero adapts extremely well, but it does raise some interesting ethical questions much the same. The show or story has a happy ending and some very funny moments along the way. Nevertheless, we can see that there was a dual reality of meta-deception at play here. The cast reflects on some of the more significant moments during and afterwards the reveal. Although it was generally handled with tact and care from what I could tell as an observer, there is always a very fine line being trod when one is being deceived in a circumstance which does not seem to them to be one in which deception would be present.
In further exploration of deception, a few months ago I became fascinated by the WW2 and Cold War era spy games that took place between the majority of the world’s largest nations. My takeaway from learning a bit about all of this is that, despite the intelligence that was gained at times from certain operations or missions, it largely cancelled itself out based on the double agents that revealed plots and got spies tortured and / or killed.
My overwhelming sense after delving into enough stories from this time period is how fruitless it all was at the end of the day. I understand the deeply idealistic undertone to what I’m about to express, nevertheless, unrealistic as it may have seemed, recognizing the cost of being at war (in general) in this way and finding some middle ground to avoid the destruction associated with it would have saved a lot of lives and, with even comparatively small amounts of cooperation, could have even led to greater successes by working together towards a common goal (or at least some common goals). When both sides are steeped in layers of deception, the apparent “edge” often disappears, but the human cost remains.
And so, in conclusion, my thought is that in order for humanity to get past this, albeit significant, bump in the road – we should consider the implications of these approaches which seek to obscure significant aspects of reality in order to get what we want. We need different stories which are less based around competition and deception in an overall societal sense and more about cooperation. We should also choose more consciously which games we’re willing to play and what the rules of those games are: games like poker, where deception is explicit and consensual, or games like business and politics, where the rules themselves are often obscured.
And last but not least, we should realize that the perpetuation of a lie or a distortion will eventually come out – and the longer it takes, typically the more impactful it will be when it does come to light.
