Lying Is Not Human Evolution. It’s a Misreading of Human Limits.

There is a narrative gaining traction lately that deserves to be challenged.

The idea that lying is a social or evolutionary adaptation. That humans had to lie in order to survive, cooperate, and function in groups.

It sounds clever. It sounds scientific. It is neither.

What this argument actually does is confuse human limitation with human deception.

And that confusion matters.

Human Perception Is Limited,  Not Dishonest

Human beings do not experience reality in full. Our attention is selective. Our memory is reconstructive. Our interpretation is shaped by context, emotion, and prior experience.

This is not a flaw. It is how cognition works.

When someone recounts an event, they are not delivering the totality of what happened,  they are sharing what they were able to perceive and understand.

That does not make the account false. It makes it partial.

Limited perception is not a lie. It is a condition of being human.

What a Lie Actually Is

A lie is not an incomplete truth. A lie is not interpretation. A lie is not subjectivity.

A lie requires conscious intent.

It is the deliberate creation of a second reality, one the person knows diverges from what they saw, knew, or experienced.

This distinction is not philosophical hair-splitting. It is ethical clarity.

When we blur this line, we quietly lower the standards of honesty.

The “Evolutionary Lie” Argument Falls Apart

The claim that humans evolved to lie suggests that deception is foundational to cooperation.

History, anthropology, and biology suggest the opposite.

Human groups survived because of:

• Trust

• Predictability

• Shared meaning

• The ability to correct one another over time

Persistent lying destroys all of these.

If deception were our primary evolutionary strategy, cooperation would collapse. Societies do not scale on sustained dishonesty,  they fracture.

What allowed humans to evolve was not lying, but the continuous refinement of shared truth, even when that truth was incomplete.

Science Does Not Support Absolute Truth Or Dishonesty

Science itself operates on what could be called possible truth.

It offers the best explanation available for now. It does not claim finality. It does not excuse fabrication.

Provisional truth is not falsehood. Uncertainty is not permission to deceive.

Science progresses because honesty about limits is preserved, not because truth is treated as optional.

The Real Ethical Shift We Need

The problem is not that humans cannot access total truth. The problem is pretending that this limitation excuses dishonesty.

Mature honesty sounds like this:

“This is what I know now. This is how I experienced it. I am open to correction.”

Immature certainty sounds like this:

“Truth is subjective anyway.”

One builds trust. The other erodes it.

 Why This Matters in Leadership and Culture

When leaders justify deception as “human nature”, they legitimise avoidance. When organisations confuse ambiguity with dishonesty, they punish transparency.

The real evolution we need is not better storytelling,  but greater responsibility for the truth we can actually reach.

Truth was never about being complete. It was always about being accountable.

A Final Thought 

Humans did not evolve by lying. They evolved by making sense together, correcting each other, and staying honest about what they could, and could not, know.

Limited truth is human. Deception is a choice.

And confusing the two is not progress.

Ligia Koijen