I may or may not get this, so let me try giving an exaggerated for clarity example of what I think you mean.

You're a billionaire author.

You marry an aspiring trophy poet, not because you like their poetry or dislike their poetry, but because they are utterly gorgeous. But you didn't realize this when you married.

You then introspectively realize "Wait, I only married this person because they are utterly gorgeous! In all other ways I have no real feelings for anything they do one way or the other."

You then hear them say "Oh, my love, it's so nice to have someone who appreciates my poetry." and you realize they think that you selected them as a spouse because you love their poetry.

If you had not introspected that earlier, you might have said something like "Yes, such sweet poetry, written by a sweet author." and not thought about it.

But now you KNOW you don't care about the poetry, so if you say that, you feel like you are lying. but if you tell your spouse the truth, you feel like you are smashing apart the (now apparently fictional) basis of your marriage.

So it might be the fact that the introspection can put you in a position where it may be to your advantage if you make a choice to not tell your spouse the truth, and that is an uncomfortable position to be in.

I share jooyous' confusion. How does it follow from "it's OK to choose partners based on signalling value as long as we both know it" that "I'm judged morally kosher if I have a trophy husband but don't know it"?

To say that it's OK to do X given Y is not to say that it's OK to do X in the absence of Y.

I am still super-confused. I was going for a morality that has a penalty for hurting people. So that if you're doing something that makes someone else unhappy, you have an incentive to figure out what you're doing that has that effect and then take steps accordingly. Meanwhile, if you're lying about something or you're clueless about something and no one notices or cares, that's fine.

I don't think that it's rewarding hypocrisy. I think that this moral stance is about punishing deliberate liars. If you are more self-aware, then yes, you would have more opportunities to deliberately lie (about, for example, what attracts you to a given partner);

Self awareness successfully penalized.

I disagree. Greater self-awareness creates greater opportunity to lie, but it does not compel the person to lie. Where is the penalty in that?

Similarly, if you understand more science, then this gives you the option of creating better, more believable lies; but this is not a reason to reject the study of science.

Not the same. (Unless you want to also declare that the social environment is one in which people often say that the world is flat and that people declining to say the world is flat are at a disadvantage.)

I don't understand your point. Given what little I do understand, I suspect that it may be related to my generally poor awareness of social environments. What social environment are you assuming?

Oh, so the idea is that if you're really clueless, then you're not lying to your partner? You just feel compelled to bring them to fancy dinner parties but never spend one-on-one time with them and you don't know why? Sorry, I'm still having trouble understanding. =/

I wasn't quite going for a moral stance that punishes deliberate liars, but I was going for one where the people cooperate to maximize ... combined utility, I guess? If both people are happy, it's better than an arrangement where one person is making the other unhappy. Which sort of requires honesty, because if you don't tell the other person your real utility function, they won't be able to help with it. And if you act according to a different utility function than you tell them about, that will reflect in your actions and they'll be able to tell something's up.

(Unless you want to also declare that the social environment is one in which people often say that the world is flat and that people declining to say the world is flat are at a disadvantage.)

Not sure how much of this is true, but I hear rumours about that being the case (if you replace "the world is flat" with something like "humans were intelligently designed") in certain geographical locales. (I do hope that Conservapedia is eventually revealed to be just a parody, though.)

EDIT: To avoid appearing to be one-sided, I'll point out that the equivalent of that at the other end of the political spectrum is something like "all races have the same average intelligence".