Naming the Elephant

15 Apr, 2026

The Elephant in the Brain by Kevin Simler and Robin Hanson is one of those rare works of pop psychology which are relatively accessible yet, scientifically (at least in my view) have stood the test of time.

The surface-level reasons we can come up with are rarely the real reasons for our behavior. Our real motivations are complex and usually center on status or coalition politics. We develop complex mental compartmentalization and self-deception so that surface-level reasons can appear genuine to others.

How far should we dig past self-deception to find those core motivations? If we find them, should we ever disclose to others? I posit a framework for selectively displayed self-awareness.

Elephants

Following Elephant in the Brain's ideological etymology back to its root, we reach Jonathan Haidt's 2001 paper "The Emotional Dog and Its Rational Tail."¹ Moral judgment is a function of intuition, and conscious reasoning for that judgment is usually confabulated post-hoc. The large and uncontrollable moral judgment is the "Elephant", later extended to non-moral signalling domains.

Self-deception is a bit of an older idea; Robert Trivers first mentions in the foreword to The Selfish Gene (1976):²

"if deceit is fundamental to animal communication, there must be strong selection to spot deception, and this in turn should select for a degree of self-deception, rendering some facts and motives unconscious so as not to betray by the subtle signs of self-knowledge the deception being practiced"

Essentially it will sometimes be advantageous to lie for persuasion or in-group cohesion. Von Hippel and Trivers hypothesize the self-deceived are more persuasive due to their genuine belief in untruth, leading to reduced behavioral leakage and cognitive load.³

I believe it is always better to uncover one's self-deceptions if possible. It is simply an easier life to live with fewer loose mental stitches to unravel. However, when working for The Man, almost inevitably some elephants will remain, which we are vaguely aware of but cannot dispel. Should these be shared with others?

Naming the Elephant

I call this willingness to share hidden motivations "naming the elephant."

If you believe your elephant is directionally aligned with your counterparty, disclosure converts them to a partner. Implicit motivational mechanisms can be made explicit to increase trust. For example, "I was about to pitch this as stepping up because the team is busy. That's not fully it: I want the exposure. Which, now that I've said it out loud, is exactly why I will put in 100% effort."

In cases where your elephant is misaligned with your counterparty, disclosure is still valuable when you can clarify the counterparty's doubts as to the nature of your motivation. Instead of creating a partnership, it resolves a suspicion that gates their effective evaluation. For example, "I am likely overstating product quality because I benefit from selling you this, feel free to adjust downwards and here is why the product is worth it on its own."

On an even higher level, disclosure is a status-gaining move that is itself strategically motivated. Naming the elephant signals epistemic sophistication and an ability to deeply consider people in a situation. But be careful: you should rarely name the elephant because the execution window is narrow. Judging internal states is a low accuracy process, and repeated usage gives a generally distrustful feel.

So what's my motivation for writing this? I'm not going to tell you. Maybe I don't even know.