What do you think?
Rate this book
The Honest Truth About Dishonesty: How We Lie to Everyone—Especially Ourselves
“A lively tour through the impulses that cause many of us to cheat, the book offers especially keen insights into the ways in which we cut corners while still thinking of ourselves as moral people.” — Time
Dan Ariely, behavioral economist and New York Times bestselling author of Predictably Irrational and The Upside of Irrationality, returns with a thought-provoking work that challenges our preconceptions about dishonesty and urges us to take an honest look at ourselves.
Does the chance of getting caught affect how likely we are to cheat?
How do companies pave the way for dishonesty?
Does collaboration make us more or less honest?
Does religion improve our honesty?
Most of us think of ourselves as honest, but, in fact, we all cheat. From Washington to Wall Street, the classroom to the workplace, unethical behavior is everywhere. None of us is immune, whether it's a white lie to head off trouble or padding our expense reports. In The (Honest) Truth About Dishonesty, award-winning author Dan Ariely shows why some things are easier to lie about than others; how getting caught matters less than we think in whether we cheat; and how business practices pave the way for unethical behavior, both intentionally and unintentionally. Ariely explores how unethical behavior works in the personal, professional, and political worlds, and how it affects all of us, even as we think of ourselves as having high moral standards. But all is not lost. Ariely also identifies what keeps us honest, pointing the way for achieving higher ethics in our everyday lives.
With compelling personal and academic findings, The (Honest) Truth About Dishonesty will change the way we see ourselves, our actions, and others.
Dan Ariely, behavioral economist and New York Times bestselling author of Predictably Irrational and The Upside of Irrationality, returns with a thought-provoking work that challenges our preconceptions about dishonesty and urges us to take an honest look at ourselves.
Does the chance of getting caught affect how likely we are to cheat?
How do companies pave the way for dishonesty?
Does collaboration make us more or less honest?
Does religion improve our honesty?
Most of us think of ourselves as honest, but, in fact, we all cheat. From Washington to Wall Street, the classroom to the workplace, unethical behavior is everywhere. None of us is immune, whether it's a white lie to head off trouble or padding our expense reports. In The (Honest) Truth About Dishonesty, award-winning author Dan Ariely shows why some things are easier to lie about than others; how getting caught matters less than we think in whether we cheat; and how business practices pave the way for unethical behavior, both intentionally and unintentionally. Ariely explores how unethical behavior works in the personal, professional, and political worlds, and how it affects all of us, even as we think of ourselves as having high moral standards. But all is not lost. Ariely also identifies what keeps us honest, pointing the way for achieving higher ethics in our everyday lives.
With compelling personal and academic findings, The (Honest) Truth About Dishonesty will change the way we see ourselves, our actions, and others.
309 pages, Kindle Edition
First published June 5, 2012
About the author
Dan Ariely
44 books3,823 followersFrom Wikipedia:
Dan Ariely is the James B. Duke Professor of Behavioral Economics at Duke University. He also holds an appointment at the MIT Media Lab where he is the head of the eRationality research group. He was formerly the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Behavioral Economics at MIT Sloan School of Management.
Dan Ariely grew up in Israel after birth in New York. In his senior year of high school, Ariely was active in Hanoar Haoved Vehalomed, an Israeli youth movement. While he was preparing a ktovet esh (fire inscription) for a traditional nighttime ceremony, the flammable materials he was mixing exploded, causing third-degree burns to over 70 percent of his body.[
Ariely recovered and went on to graduate from Tel Aviv University and received a Ph.D. and M.A. in cognitive psychology from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and a Ph.D. in business from Duke University. His research focuses on discovering and measuring how people make decisions. He models the human decision making process and in particular the irrational decisions that we all make every day.
Ariely is the author of the book, Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions, which was published on February 19, 2008 by HarperCollins. When asked whether reading Predictably Irrational and understanding one's irrational behaviors could make a person's life worse (such as by defeating the benefits of a placebo), Ariely responded that there could be a short term cost, but that there would also likely be longterm benefits, and that reading his book would not make a person worse off.
Dan Ariely is the James B. Duke Professor of Behavioral Economics at Duke University. He also holds an appointment at the MIT Media Lab where he is the head of the eRationality research group. He was formerly the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Behavioral Economics at MIT Sloan School of Management.
Dan Ariely grew up in Israel after birth in New York. In his senior year of high school, Ariely was active in Hanoar Haoved Vehalomed, an Israeli youth movement. While he was preparing a ktovet esh (fire inscription) for a traditional nighttime ceremony, the flammable materials he was mixing exploded, causing third-degree burns to over 70 percent of his body.[
Ariely recovered and went on to graduate from Tel Aviv University and received a Ph.D. and M.A. in cognitive psychology from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and a Ph.D. in business from Duke University. His research focuses on discovering and measuring how people make decisions. He models the human decision making process and in particular the irrational decisions that we all make every day.
Ariely is the author of the book, Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions, which was published on February 19, 2008 by HarperCollins. When asked whether reading Predictably Irrational and understanding one's irrational behaviors could make a person's life worse (such as by defeating the benefits of a placebo), Ariely responded that there could be a short term cost, but that there would also likely be longterm benefits, and that reading his book would not make a person worse off.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,315 reviews
March 22, 2017
This might save you needing to read the book - https://www.thersa.org/discover/video...
And this is the cartoon version - https://www.thersa.org/discover/video...
A few years ago I read Predictably Irrational – a book that remains one of my favourite books on Behavioural Economics. The research reported in that book has just about everything going for it – it is amusing, fascinatingly interesting, clever and fundamentally undermines the core dogma of our age, that we are economically rational agents acting purely on the basis of our own enlightened self-interest.
His next book, The Up-side of Irrationality wasn’t nearly as good, but it did report his 'outsourced research' conducted in India on the effects of providing large bonus pay for performance. Which is something that is better explained in Dan Pink’s book Drive. All the same, this research alone is worth the price of the book. It does much to explain the current mess we are in and even gives some indication of what we might want to do to get back out of that mess.
His latest book, this one, is probably a better read than the last one, but suffers from the fact that I’ve now heard most of this research before. However, where this book really succeeds is in how it goes about explaining the consequences of this research - that is, in the story it tells.
Essentially, we are all cheaters. The thing is that we do not cheat at every opportunity, as standard economic theory might have us predict, but rather, we cheat just enough so that we can go on considering ourselves to be overall ‘good people’. This is why we are less likely to cheat when reminded of the Ten Commandments or even other ethical frameworks that we don't even believe in. This is also why you might have more luck in retrieving money you left in a communal fridge than a can of coke you left there. People tend to be less ‘moral’ with the greater distance from money the thing they are ‘borrowing’ has. This also includes ‘cheating’ on tests and tax returns when the end result will be us being given money.
But the most interesting research in this book, I thought, was that conducted with people who were told they were wearing fake or real designer sunglasses. Dan found that if you thought you were wearing fake sunglasses you were more likely to cheat on other tests they got you to take. The reason being that such sunglasses are purchased as a kind of display of status – meant to display of the wealth of the owner. Wearing fake sunglasses of this type – ridiculously expensive bits of plastic purely designed as status symbols – is a kind of lie, but unlike other lies we tell ourselves, it is a soul destroying one. If we take the can of coke from the fridge it is an act which is over in no time and we can probably rationalise our action – remembering back to the time we lost food from a communal fridge or something similar. But with fake designer sunglasses you are constantly reminded of the fact that you are a fraud, the crime never goes away, is always present to us and our sense of self, as the only point of the sun glasses is to display something we are not as if we were. And this has a bad effect on our likely attitude to other situations requiring some moral fortitude. We are much more likely to say, oh, bugger it, why not? Essentially, Ariely is arguing the slippery slope.
Like I said, a lot of this book has been said before, but this does frame the research in very interesting ways and I think the narrative structure works well. This was a fun read – but Predictably Irrational is still his best book.
And this is the cartoon version - https://www.thersa.org/discover/video...
A few years ago I read Predictably Irrational – a book that remains one of my favourite books on Behavioural Economics. The research reported in that book has just about everything going for it – it is amusing, fascinatingly interesting, clever and fundamentally undermines the core dogma of our age, that we are economically rational agents acting purely on the basis of our own enlightened self-interest.
His next book, The Up-side of Irrationality wasn’t nearly as good, but it did report his 'outsourced research' conducted in India on the effects of providing large bonus pay for performance. Which is something that is better explained in Dan Pink’s book Drive. All the same, this research alone is worth the price of the book. It does much to explain the current mess we are in and even gives some indication of what we might want to do to get back out of that mess.
His latest book, this one, is probably a better read than the last one, but suffers from the fact that I’ve now heard most of this research before. However, where this book really succeeds is in how it goes about explaining the consequences of this research - that is, in the story it tells.
Essentially, we are all cheaters. The thing is that we do not cheat at every opportunity, as standard economic theory might have us predict, but rather, we cheat just enough so that we can go on considering ourselves to be overall ‘good people’. This is why we are less likely to cheat when reminded of the Ten Commandments or even other ethical frameworks that we don't even believe in. This is also why you might have more luck in retrieving money you left in a communal fridge than a can of coke you left there. People tend to be less ‘moral’ with the greater distance from money the thing they are ‘borrowing’ has. This also includes ‘cheating’ on tests and tax returns when the end result will be us being given money.
But the most interesting research in this book, I thought, was that conducted with people who were told they were wearing fake or real designer sunglasses. Dan found that if you thought you were wearing fake sunglasses you were more likely to cheat on other tests they got you to take. The reason being that such sunglasses are purchased as a kind of display of status – meant to display of the wealth of the owner. Wearing fake sunglasses of this type – ridiculously expensive bits of plastic purely designed as status symbols – is a kind of lie, but unlike other lies we tell ourselves, it is a soul destroying one. If we take the can of coke from the fridge it is an act which is over in no time and we can probably rationalise our action – remembering back to the time we lost food from a communal fridge or something similar. But with fake designer sunglasses you are constantly reminded of the fact that you are a fraud, the crime never goes away, is always present to us and our sense of self, as the only point of the sun glasses is to display something we are not as if we were. And this has a bad effect on our likely attitude to other situations requiring some moral fortitude. We are much more likely to say, oh, bugger it, why not? Essentially, Ariely is arguing the slippery slope.
Like I said, a lot of this book has been said before, but this does frame the research in very interesting ways and I think the narrative structure works well. This was a fun read – but Predictably Irrational is still his best book.
November 5, 2022
دن آریلی استاد علوم شناختی در کتاب مصائب زندگی صادقانه ، با بیانی ساده و البته شیوا حقیقتی تلخ را آشکار کرده است ، حقیقتی که تناقضی را در انسان نشان می دهد ، اینکه همه ما در مراحل مختلف زندگی اندکی تقلب کرده و سپس با بیان دلایل مختلف کوشیده ایم آنرا توجیه کنیم و خود را انسانی
صادق و با اخلاق نشان دهیم .
نویسنده کوشش کرده نیروهایی را که سبب تقلب کردن ما می شوند را شناخته و سپس شناختی که بدست آمده را پایه تلاش هایی برای کاستن بی صداقتی کند ، تضادی که آریلی از آن صحبت می کند در حقیقت حاصل جدال نیروهایی ایست که انسان را به تقلب یا بی صداقتی فرا خوانده در مقابله با آن چیزی ایست که تلاش می کند تا انسان را صادق نگه دارد .
افزون بر امیال بنیادی که زمینه را برای بی صداقتی فراهم کرده ، نیروهای روان شناختی و محیطی مانند تضاد منافع ، تظاهر و تقلب ، قول و قرارها ، خلاقیت و خستگی هم وجود دارند که بر کاهش یا افزایش صداقت در زندگی روزمره موثر هستند ، به همین ترتیب بی صداقتی ابعاد اجتماعی مانند تاثیر دیگران بر درک ما از بی صداقتی و یا تقلب کردن به سود و منفعت دیگران هم دارد .
اساس کارنویسنده بر مبنای آزمایش است ، آزمایشاتی که او و همکارانش طراحی و اجرا کرده اند هم تسلط آنان به ابعاد محیطی و اجتماعی بی صداقتی و هم نوآوری های خاص آنان که البته نتایج جالبی هم دارد را نشان می دهد .
در حالی که غالبا فکرمی کنیم که بی صداقتی شامل سه عنصر اصلی : منفعت یا سود ، احتمال دستگیر شدن و میزان مجازات است و در نتیجه زمانی رخ می دهد که انسان با مقایسه فایده با هزینه ها به این نتیجه برسد که آیا ارزش دارد که مرتکب جرم شود یا نه اما تحقیقات آریلی نشان می دهد که اصولا ما تا جایی تقلب می کنیم که بتوانیم همچنان در نظر خودمان به حد کافی با صداقت جلوه کنیم . بر این اساس عنصر اول یعنی منفعت یا سود و عنصر دوم احتمال دستگیر شدن تقریبا بر بی صداقتی تاثیرچندانی ندارند .
در حقیقت آریلی بیشتر کتاب را به بررسی همین نظریه اختصاص داده ، همان تضاد یا مقابله دو انگیزه ، این که دوست داریم خود را فردی صادق و شرافتمند بشناسیم و از سوی دیگر می خواهیم از تقلب و فریب کاری هم منفعتی ببریم . نویسنده نشان می دهد که به لطف انعطاف پذیری شناختی شگفت انگیزمان تا زمانی که فقط اندکی تقلب کنیم می توانیم هم زمان هم از تقلب سود کنیم و هم خود را انسانی صادق و فوق العاده بدانیم . نویسنده این عمل تعادل بخش را نظریه ضریب تصحیح نام گذاری کرده است . سپس او تلاش کرده تا درک بهتری از این سازوکار ضریب تصحیح یعنی چگونگی ایجاد تعادل بین دو میل متناقض به دست آورد .
آریلی عواقب عمل غیر صادقانه را برشمرده و به خواننده هشدار داده که به هیچ وجه آن را دست کم نگیرند . به نظر او اولین عمل غیر صادقانه در شکل گیری ذهنیت فرد درباره خودش و کارهایش نقشی تعیین کننده دارد . از این رو برای ساختن جامعه ای صادق تر و با شرف تر بسیار مهم است که تعداد رفتارهای غیرصادقانه به ظاهر بی ضرر کمتر شود .
در پایان آریلی نشان داده که گرچه همه ما قادر به تقلب کردنیم و در فریب دادن دیگران و به خصوص خودمان با آوردن دلیل و توجیهات مختلف برای ثابت کردن این که چنین کاری نشان دهنده بی صداقتی و بی اخلاقی ما نیست ، بسیار ماهر هستیم و حتی می توانیم از دیگران میکروب تقلب را بگیریم و یا آنرا به راحتی در جامعه گسترش دهیم اما دست ما برای مقابله با بی صداقتی چندان خالی هم نیست ، اگرچه ابزارهای انسان مانند گرفتن تعهد نامه و امضا ، تذکرهای اخلاقی و نظارت در کاستن بی صداقتی در مقابله با عوامل افزایش دهنده بی صداقتی مانند توانایی در توجیه عقلانی ، تضاد منافع ، خلاقیت ، فرسودگی ذهن ، منفعت بردن دیگران از بی صداقتی ما هم کم تعداد تر و هم ناتوان تر هستند .
بدون شک همه ما در زندگی از میزان دروغ ، تقلب و بی صداقتی در جوامع مختلف بارها تکان خورده و شوکه شده ایم ( گرچه نویسنده در کتاب نشان می دهد که در موقعیت مشابه خودمان هم احتمالا همان بی صداقتی را انجام می دهیم ، فقط این توانایی را داریم که خود را فردی صادق و فوق العاده و دیگران را دروغگویی بی شرف بدانیم ) و بارها با این سوال کلی روبرو شده ایم که چه باید کرد ؟ ؟ آریلی دست کم از نگاه صادقانه زیستن به این پرسش پاسخ داده است ، زیستن با بی صداقتی گرچه فرآیندی نامحسوس و تدریجی ایست اما نتیجه نهایی آن فاجعه بار است .
صادق و با اخلاق نشان دهیم .
نویسنده کوشش کرده نیروهایی را که سبب تقلب کردن ما می شوند را شناخته و سپس شناختی که بدست آمده را پایه تلاش هایی برای کاستن بی صداقتی کند ، تضادی که آریلی از آن صحبت می کند در حقیقت حاصل جدال نیروهایی ایست که انسان را به تقلب یا بی صداقتی فرا خوانده در مقابله با آن چیزی ایست که تلاش می کند تا انسان را صادق نگه دارد .
افزون بر امیال بنیادی که زمینه را برای بی صداقتی فراهم کرده ، نیروهای روان شناختی و محیطی مانند تضاد منافع ، تظاهر و تقلب ، قول و قرارها ، خلاقیت و خستگی هم وجود دارند که بر کاهش یا افزایش صداقت در زندگی روزمره موثر هستند ، به همین ترتیب بی صداقتی ابعاد اجتماعی مانند تاثیر دیگران بر درک ما از بی صداقتی و یا تقلب کردن به سود و منفعت دیگران هم دارد .
اساس کارنویسنده بر مبنای آزمایش است ، آزمایشاتی که او و همکارانش طراحی و اجرا کرده اند هم تسلط آنان به ابعاد محیطی و اجتماعی بی صداقتی و هم نوآوری های خاص آنان که البته نتایج جالبی هم دارد را نشان می دهد .
در حالی که غالبا فکرمی کنیم که بی صداقتی شامل سه عنصر اصلی : منفعت یا سود ، احتمال دستگیر شدن و میزان مجازات است و در نتیجه زمانی رخ می دهد که انسان با مقایسه فایده با هزینه ها به این نتیجه برسد که آیا ارزش دارد که مرتکب جرم شود یا نه اما تحقیقات آریلی نشان می دهد که اصولا ما تا جایی تقلب می کنیم که بتوانیم همچنان در نظر خودمان به حد کافی با صداقت جلوه کنیم . بر این اساس عنصر اول یعنی منفعت یا سود و عنصر دوم احتمال دستگیر شدن تقریبا بر بی صداقتی تاثیرچندانی ندارند .
در حقیقت آریلی بیشتر کتاب را به بررسی همین نظریه اختصاص داده ، همان تضاد یا مقابله دو انگیزه ، این که دوست داریم خود را فردی صادق و شرافتمند بشناسیم و از سوی دیگر می خواهیم از تقلب و فریب کاری هم منفعتی ببریم . نویسنده نشان می دهد که به لطف انعطاف پذیری شناختی شگفت انگیزمان تا زمانی که فقط اندکی تقلب کنیم می توانیم هم زمان هم از تقلب سود کنیم و هم خود را انسانی صادق و فوق العاده بدانیم . نویسنده این عمل تعادل بخش را نظریه ضریب تصحیح نام گذاری کرده است . سپس او تلاش کرده تا درک بهتری از این سازوکار ضریب تصحیح یعنی چگونگی ایجاد تعادل بین دو میل متناقض به دست آورد .
آریلی عواقب عمل غیر صادقانه را برشمرده و به خواننده هشدار داده که به هیچ وجه آن را دست کم نگیرند . به نظر او اولین عمل غیر صادقانه در شکل گیری ذهنیت فرد درباره خودش و کارهایش نقشی تعیین کننده دارد . از این رو برای ساختن جامعه ای صادق تر و با شرف تر بسیار مهم است که تعداد رفتارهای غیرصادقانه به ظاهر بی ضرر کمتر شود .
در پایان آریلی نشان داده که گرچه همه ما قادر به تقلب کردنیم و در فریب دادن دیگران و به خصوص خودمان با آوردن دلیل و توجیهات مختلف برای ثابت کردن این که چنین کاری نشان دهنده بی صداقتی و بی اخلاقی ما نیست ، بسیار ماهر هستیم و حتی می توانیم از دیگران میکروب تقلب را بگیریم و یا آنرا به راحتی در جامعه گسترش دهیم اما دست ما برای مقابله با بی صداقتی چندان خالی هم نیست ، اگرچه ابزارهای انسان مانند گرفتن تعهد نامه و امضا ، تذکرهای اخلاقی و نظارت در کاستن بی صداقتی در مقابله با عوامل افزایش دهنده بی صداقتی مانند توانایی در توجیه عقلانی ، تضاد منافع ، خلاقیت ، فرسودگی ذهن ، منفعت بردن دیگران از بی صداقتی ما هم کم تعداد تر و هم ناتوان تر هستند .
بدون شک همه ما در زندگی از میزان دروغ ، تقلب و بی صداقتی در جوامع مختلف بارها تکان خورده و شوکه شده ایم ( گرچه نویسنده در کتاب نشان می دهد که در موقعیت مشابه خودمان هم احتمالا همان بی صداقتی را انجام می دهیم ، فقط این توانایی را داریم که خود را فردی صادق و فوق العاده و دیگران را دروغگویی بی شرف بدانیم ) و بارها با این سوال کلی روبرو شده ایم که چه باید کرد ؟ ؟ آریلی دست کم از نگاه صادقانه زیستن به این پرسش پاسخ داده است ، زیستن با بی صداقتی گرچه فرآیندی نامحسوس و تدریجی ایست اما نتیجه نهایی آن فاجعه بار است .
August 11, 2018
This is a truly awesome book.
Not only it is very easy to read and understand, but it has study designs that are so witty, I feel I am getting smarter just by reading it. The information presented here is so important that anyone in a leadership position must be aware of this. It is very well in accord with the data from the book 'Pathological Altruism` by B. Oakley and points out some of the misinterpretations presented in `The Invisible Gorilla`.
If you are interested in why people lie and cheat, how a bad apple can ruin the whole basket and how to prevent these, read this book. Also read this just to have some fun in human behaviors.
Not only it is very easy to read and understand, but it has study designs that are so witty, I feel I am getting smarter just by reading it. The information presented here is so important that anyone in a leadership position must be aware of this. It is very well in accord with the data from the book 'Pathological Altruism` by B. Oakley and points out some of the misinterpretations presented in `The Invisible Gorilla`.
If you are interested in why people lie and cheat, how a bad apple can ruin the whole basket and how to prevent these, read this book. Also read this just to have some fun in human behaviors.
November 4, 2018
METHODS, METHODS, METHODS. Just because someone says they did a study and here are the findings, it doesn't mean; a) those findings were robust or statically significant, or b) that you can generalize those findings to other phenomena. Not only were Ariely's studies extremely soft/subjective, but he actually took those extremely unreliable results and applied them to other social situations he had no business applying them too. I never know how to rate these books. The questions social scientists want to answer are so interesting, worth 5 stars. The methods they employ to try to answer those questions are often so lacking that it is grossly irresponsible to publish the “findings," making me want to give it one star.
There were so many studies I could have taken issue with in this book. Here are just a sampling of what passed for actual science in Ariely's book:
Ariely was attempting to understand ethics (a very subjective subject to begin with) and provided subjects with fashion (brand name) sunglasses and perceived knockoff sunglasses (even though all sunglasses were real). Subjects then underwent his matrices solving condition (which I do not believe tells us anything at all about the real world to begin with) and those who believed they were wearing knockoffs cheated more. If you gave me a knockoff pair of sunglasses, jeans, purse, ring and told me outright it was generic, which cost a few dollars, I would find it more ethical than spending hundreds or thousands of dollars to prove I am a superior human being by wearing the expensive name brand item you gave me. It could reasonably be argued that people who hoard money in order to walk around looking like a superior human being by branding themselves with labels other people could never afford are far less ethical than people wearing generic items. After providing his findings about the dubious ethical nature of people who wear knockoffs, Ariely suggested you should be weary of your date if s/he wear a knockoff. So, is the "scientific" message is that only very rich, self-important people are honest?
Just as troubling, Ariely is fond of the type of studies made famous by Adrian Raine. A few years ago, Raine, who studies psychopaths but professes not to be one, was caught luring young Asian girls to hotel rooms with the promise of possible admission to Penn. How did he escape the #MeToo movement? I have no idea. His science is just about as bad as his behavior. Raine studied antisocial personalities by going to a temp agency because, as we all know, if you work at a temp agency, you are probably a psychopath. Not only that, but we know that a trait of all psychopaths is lying. However, Raine, who equated psychopaths with temp workers, gave the "psychopaths" a *self-report" questionnaire. Self report is *never* scientifically robust, ever, but self report for people you hope are liars? Raine took the self report answers as truths. Think about that. Self report is bad to begin with. But giving self report to weed out the lairs, how is that going to provide any type of sample you can trust? Adrian decided they were liars AND that he would trust their self report. From the subjects identified through self-report, Raine imaged his little sample of antisocial folks and presented his "neuroscientific findings". People love it because they don't think about how he got those findings. Ariely included a study that makes this very claim, and he loved it! He did not think about it critically, at all.
I could add to this sampling any and all matrix experiments carried out by Ariely.
This book was supposed to be my downtime book, the book I read while falling asleep. I was so worked up that I had to change it to a non-downtime book.
There were so many studies I could have taken issue with in this book. Here are just a sampling of what passed for actual science in Ariely's book:
Ariely was attempting to understand ethics (a very subjective subject to begin with) and provided subjects with fashion (brand name) sunglasses and perceived knockoff sunglasses (even though all sunglasses were real). Subjects then underwent his matrices solving condition (which I do not believe tells us anything at all about the real world to begin with) and those who believed they were wearing knockoffs cheated more. If you gave me a knockoff pair of sunglasses, jeans, purse, ring and told me outright it was generic, which cost a few dollars, I would find it more ethical than spending hundreds or thousands of dollars to prove I am a superior human being by wearing the expensive name brand item you gave me. It could reasonably be argued that people who hoard money in order to walk around looking like a superior human being by branding themselves with labels other people could never afford are far less ethical than people wearing generic items. After providing his findings about the dubious ethical nature of people who wear knockoffs, Ariely suggested you should be weary of your date if s/he wear a knockoff. So, is the "scientific" message is that only very rich, self-important people are honest?
Just as troubling, Ariely is fond of the type of studies made famous by Adrian Raine. A few years ago, Raine, who studies psychopaths but professes not to be one, was caught luring young Asian girls to hotel rooms with the promise of possible admission to Penn. How did he escape the #MeToo movement? I have no idea. His science is just about as bad as his behavior. Raine studied antisocial personalities by going to a temp agency because, as we all know, if you work at a temp agency, you are probably a psychopath. Not only that, but we know that a trait of all psychopaths is lying. However, Raine, who equated psychopaths with temp workers, gave the "psychopaths" a *self-report" questionnaire. Self report is *never* scientifically robust, ever, but self report for people you hope are liars? Raine took the self report answers as truths. Think about that. Self report is bad to begin with. But giving self report to weed out the lairs, how is that going to provide any type of sample you can trust? Adrian decided they were liars AND that he would trust their self report. From the subjects identified through self-report, Raine imaged his little sample of antisocial folks and presented his "neuroscientific findings". People love it because they don't think about how he got those findings. Ariely included a study that makes this very claim, and he loved it! He did not think about it critically, at all.
I could add to this sampling any and all matrix experiments carried out by Ariely.
This book was supposed to be my downtime book, the book I read while falling asleep. I was so worked up that I had to change it to a non-downtime book.
August 14, 2012
How can such a depressing book be so much fun to read? Dan Ariely is an excellent author; I've read two of his previous books, and I haven't been disappointed yet. Ariely combines a light-hearted writing style, a solid set of psychology studies (many of which he personally conducted), and a big dose of common sense. Many of Ariely's findings are not intuitive at first glance--but he is able to explain his findings and make them understandable to the reader.
Ariely shows why we cheat--but with a limit. We do not cheat to the maximum extent possible, even when it is possible to get away with it. Instead, most people think of themselves as honest. We cheat somewhat, but not enough to call into question our self-image of being "basically honest".
The book describes a bunch of psychology experiments where subjects are able to cheat without obvious consequences, and thereby earn some extra money. Ariely does an excellent job at showing the various factors that inhibit or encourage dishonesty. He discusses cheating on tests, politicians and bankers (bankers cheat more than politicians!), golf players (who tend to cheat a lot!), cheating by people of different nationalities (all nationalities and cultures tend to cheat about the same amount), cheating by people in groups, and by religious people (no different from non-religious).
Ariely discusses plagiarism by students, and ordered an essay on the subject of cheating from an essay mill. He received an essay consisting of gibberish that wouldn't be satisfactory for any student. He concludes that essay mills are not a problem. But, I think that this single bit of anecdotal evidence is not exactly convincing.
Ariely constantly looks for approaches that may help to reduce cheating on tax forms, insurance claim forms, and on college tests. He comes up with a number of good, practical suggestions, none of which is going to be used very much in the near term. This is a fun book, easy to read, and absolutely fascinating.
Ariely shows why we cheat--but with a limit. We do not cheat to the maximum extent possible, even when it is possible to get away with it. Instead, most people think of themselves as honest. We cheat somewhat, but not enough to call into question our self-image of being "basically honest".
The book describes a bunch of psychology experiments where subjects are able to cheat without obvious consequences, and thereby earn some extra money. Ariely does an excellent job at showing the various factors that inhibit or encourage dishonesty. He discusses cheating on tests, politicians and bankers (bankers cheat more than politicians!), golf players (who tend to cheat a lot!), cheating by people of different nationalities (all nationalities and cultures tend to cheat about the same amount), cheating by people in groups, and by religious people (no different from non-religious).
Ariely discusses plagiarism by students, and ordered an essay on the subject of cheating from an essay mill. He received an essay consisting of gibberish that wouldn't be satisfactory for any student. He concludes that essay mills are not a problem. But, I think that this single bit of anecdotal evidence is not exactly convincing.
Ariely constantly looks for approaches that may help to reduce cheating on tax forms, insurance claim forms, and on college tests. He comes up with a number of good, practical suggestions, none of which is going to be used very much in the near term. This is a fun book, easy to read, and absolutely fascinating.
June 16, 2018
It's strange to say, but I never expected a book on dishonesty to be so tame...even small.
The book is a look at dishonesty, especially cheating, and covers the author's own experiments and what they tell us about cheating. The most important points are these:
(1) We're not purely rational cheaters; we usually don't cheat to the fullest extent possible, we typically just fudge things in our favor. Thus, we're also sensitive to self-image.
(2) We cheat much less when we're given subtle reminders of our moral codes (or any moral codes). (3) We are more likely to take advantage of "fuzzy" reality to fudge in our favor.
(4) Small acts such as wearing counterfeits makes larger forms of cheating more permissible.
(5) Creative people tend to be more dishonest.
(6) Witnessing certain types of dishonesty make us more likely to cheat (though we are less likely to cheat if we witness someone from a different group doing it)...
And there are more main points.
I like that the book draws conclusions from the author's own experiments. I've read many good books recently that tackle big questions. But most of them have had to tackle those big questions by drawing from a variety of research that is already available, usually with small additions from their own experiments. This book, on the other hand, is based almost entirely on experiments conducted and designed with colleagues. And the conclusion, the "Fudge Theory of Cheating", that people tend to cheat only to the extent that they are able to maintain their own image of virtue appears to be (provisionally) valid across a range of cultures. So...nicely done.
And yet, I still think it's only the beginning of a useful theory. A next version of this book would have to answer pertinent questions: What is the difference between normal fudgers and full-on sociopaths; when do fudgers become full-on cheaters; what is the relationship between shared social norms and cheating (or culture); how does group competition influence cheating...if the author can tackle these questions, I believe he'll be closer to an actual theory of cheating.
My criticisms may be somewhat unfair. After all, now we're talking more about norm creation and acceptance than cheating. (Think also about norms during war. Think about how rules governing the conduct of war become established, reinforced, relaxed, and abandoned...this might give you deeper insights into rules and cheating than what we see in the experiments in this book.)
So, when I say the book is tame, I mean that there is no tackling big important questions about morality. There is no consideration of Hannah Arendt's "Banality of Evil" -- how normal people can come to perpetrate mass atrocities; or how good-intentioned individuals come to rationalize their way into evil. The book is also mute about larger questions of governance and social ontology. What happens when we live in places that are weakly governed or where there are fewer shared norms? How do well-governed places with shared understandings of the world break apart over time? As an International Relations scholar, I've had to consider issues of nation or organization-wide corruption, regime-building, nation-building, and cooperation within anarchy...the themes here seem small (sometimes artificially made so), and that is one of the problems of positivist science...you can only make these kind of judgments when the world is made small.
Also, I feel like the book is incomplete without talking about prospect theory. In most of the experiments, cheaters cheated to get small gains, but prospect theory shows that people will take much higher chances to rectify perceived losses. Prospect theory should be an important part of this book because it could help to fill in an important theoretical puzzle -- why do we just cheat a little bit? If people are more sensitive to losses than gains, then this might explain why we only cheat a little. Perhaps something makes us cautious about punishment (even when we can't see it or we're not sure what the punishment is).
But six years from the book's release there is an even bigger problem: What happens, as has happened now, when there is an utter nation-wide moral collapse...when no amount of honesty, lying, cheating is too absurd and a group wants to change the very definition of morality to fit their habitual cheating, lying, and deceit? What happens when -- by ideology -- cheating is something only your enemy can ever do?
As someone who has myself written tame, small things...I will congratulate Mr. Ariely on writing an amusing book, with some minor practical insights. But I will also urge him to do what is most needed: Think big, think impactful!
The book is a look at dishonesty, especially cheating, and covers the author's own experiments and what they tell us about cheating. The most important points are these:
(1) We're not purely rational cheaters; we usually don't cheat to the fullest extent possible, we typically just fudge things in our favor. Thus, we're also sensitive to self-image.
(2) We cheat much less when we're given subtle reminders of our moral codes (or any moral codes). (3) We are more likely to take advantage of "fuzzy" reality to fudge in our favor.
(4) Small acts such as wearing counterfeits makes larger forms of cheating more permissible.
(5) Creative people tend to be more dishonest.
(6) Witnessing certain types of dishonesty make us more likely to cheat (though we are less likely to cheat if we witness someone from a different group doing it)...
And there are more main points.
I like that the book draws conclusions from the author's own experiments. I've read many good books recently that tackle big questions. But most of them have had to tackle those big questions by drawing from a variety of research that is already available, usually with small additions from their own experiments. This book, on the other hand, is based almost entirely on experiments conducted and designed with colleagues. And the conclusion, the "Fudge Theory of Cheating", that people tend to cheat only to the extent that they are able to maintain their own image of virtue appears to be (provisionally) valid across a range of cultures. So...nicely done.
And yet, I still think it's only the beginning of a useful theory. A next version of this book would have to answer pertinent questions: What is the difference between normal fudgers and full-on sociopaths; when do fudgers become full-on cheaters; what is the relationship between shared social norms and cheating (or culture); how does group competition influence cheating...if the author can tackle these questions, I believe he'll be closer to an actual theory of cheating.
My criticisms may be somewhat unfair. After all, now we're talking more about norm creation and acceptance than cheating. (Think also about norms during war. Think about how rules governing the conduct of war become established, reinforced, relaxed, and abandoned...this might give you deeper insights into rules and cheating than what we see in the experiments in this book.)
So, when I say the book is tame, I mean that there is no tackling big important questions about morality. There is no consideration of Hannah Arendt's "Banality of Evil" -- how normal people can come to perpetrate mass atrocities; or how good-intentioned individuals come to rationalize their way into evil. The book is also mute about larger questions of governance and social ontology. What happens when we live in places that are weakly governed or where there are fewer shared norms? How do well-governed places with shared understandings of the world break apart over time? As an International Relations scholar, I've had to consider issues of nation or organization-wide corruption, regime-building, nation-building, and cooperation within anarchy...the themes here seem small (sometimes artificially made so), and that is one of the problems of positivist science...you can only make these kind of judgments when the world is made small.
Also, I feel like the book is incomplete without talking about prospect theory. In most of the experiments, cheaters cheated to get small gains, but prospect theory shows that people will take much higher chances to rectify perceived losses. Prospect theory should be an important part of this book because it could help to fill in an important theoretical puzzle -- why do we just cheat a little bit? If people are more sensitive to losses than gains, then this might explain why we only cheat a little. Perhaps something makes us cautious about punishment (even when we can't see it or we're not sure what the punishment is).
But six years from the book's release there is an even bigger problem: What happens, as has happened now, when there is an utter nation-wide moral collapse...when no amount of honesty, lying, cheating is too absurd and a group wants to change the very definition of morality to fit their habitual cheating, lying, and deceit? What happens when -- by ideology -- cheating is something only your enemy can ever do?
As someone who has myself written tame, small things...I will congratulate Mr. Ariely on writing an amusing book, with some minor practical insights. But I will also urge him to do what is most needed: Think big, think impactful!
November 6, 2020
مثل همه کتابهای دن آریلی عالیه اما پیشنهاد اکید من این هستش که حتما نسخهی زبان اصلیش رو بخونین.
متاسفانه رفته رفته ترجمهی کتاب نامفهومتر میشه. اوایل با نامفهوم بودنش کنار میومدم اما یه جایی رو هرچند بار که خوندم نتونستم متوجه بشم و دست به دامن نسخهی زبان اصلی شدم تا منظور دن آریلی رو بفهمم. اونجا فهمیدم مترجم نه تنها نتونسته مفهوم رو درست منتقل کنه، بلکه حتی بعضی جاها رو برعکس گفته! ضمنا از جملاتی که کلا ترجمه نکرده بگذریم.
نمونه: صفحهی ۱۲۸، پاراگراف آخر نوشته شده «داوطلبین به طور متوسط ده ماتریس کمتر ... گزارش دادند» در صورتی که نسخه زبان اصلی گفته شده داوطلبین به طور متوسط ده ماتریس گزارش دادند.
یا توی همین قسمت وقتی مترجم نتونست عبارت Madoff رو ترجمه کنه، عبارت Madoff Experiment رو با عبارت «آزمایش آخر» خطاب میکرد و همین باعث شده بود یکم که جلوتر رفت و یه آزمایش دیگه هم اضافه شد، نتونه اون دوتا رو از هم متمایز کنه و کل متن نامفهوم شده بود.
متاسفانه رفته رفته ترجمهی کتاب نامفهومتر میشه. اوایل با نامفهوم بودنش کنار میومدم اما یه جایی رو هرچند بار که خوندم نتونستم متوجه بشم و دست به دامن نسخهی زبان اصلی شدم تا منظور دن آریلی رو بفهمم. اونجا فهمیدم مترجم نه تنها نتونسته مفهوم رو درست منتقل کنه، بلکه حتی بعضی جاها رو برعکس گفته! ضمنا از جملاتی که کلا ترجمه نکرده بگذریم.
نمونه: صفحهی ۱۲۸، پاراگراف آخر نوشته شده «داوطلبین به طور متوسط ده ماتریس کمتر ... گزارش دادند» در صورتی که نسخه زبان اصلی گفته شده داوطلبین به طور متوسط ده ماتریس گزارش دادند.
یا توی همین قسمت وقتی مترجم نتونست عبارت Madoff رو ترجمه کنه، عبارت Madoff Experiment رو با عبارت «آزمایش آخر» خطاب میکرد و همین باعث شده بود یکم که جلوتر رفت و یه آزمایش دیگه هم اضافه شد، نتونه اون دوتا رو از هم متمایز کنه و کل متن نامفهوم شده بود.
July 22, 2024
آیا شما خودتان را فردی صادق میدانید؟ تا به حال در زندگی تقلب نکردهاید و همیشه درستکار بودهاید؟ این تصوری است که اکثر افراد از خود دارند؛ اما دن ریلی در کتاب زندگی صادقانه نظریهی تقلبگری بکر را توضیح میدهد. ماجرا از این قرار است که بکر در یک روز صبح، زمانی که میخواست در جلسهای شرکت کند، بهخاطر نبود ��ای پارک، تصمیم گرفت اتوموبیلش را در مکانی غیرمجاز در خیابان قرار دهد. او با این کار در ذهنش با پذیرفتن ریسک جریمه شدن خود، این تصمیمش را هزینهی حاضر شدن به موقع در جلسه قلمداد کرد. دن ریلی در کتابش از زبان بکر میگوید که هنگام بررسی کردن کارش از نظر هزینه و فایده، زمانی برای فکر کردن به عمل خود از جهت درستی و نادرستی نداشته است بلکه تنها به نتایج احتمالی مثبت و منفی آن فکر کرد.
کتاب مصائب زندگی صادقانه درباره این موضوع صحبت میکند که چرا دروغ گفتن دربارهی بعضی موارد آسانتر از موارد دیگر است. رفتارهای غیراخلاقی در دنیای شخصی و حرفهای چگونه خودشان را نشان میدهند و بر زندگی ما تأثیر میگذارند. در بیشتر مواقع ما خودمان را انسانی دارای استانداردهای اخلاقی بالایی میدانیم؛ اما چرا نیروهای متناقضی در ذهن ما میگذرد. بهطوری که هر یک از آنها ما را وادار میکند که بهخاطر کسب منفعت بیشتر دست به تقلب بزنیم و از اخلاقیات دور شویم. در واقع انسان بر مبنای تحلیل منطقی که انجام میدهد در هر موقعیت مرتکب عمل بزهکارانهای میشود.
دن ریلی در کتاب مصائب زندگی صادقانه مثالها و آزمایشهای مختلفی مطرح میکند تا نتایج رفتار غیراخلاقی را در ابعاد کلانتر بررسی کند. این آزمایشها برای این است تا خواننده متوحه این موضوع شود که چرا دروغ گفتن دربارهی بعضی از مسائل راحتتر از موارد دیگر است. این مشکلات در واقع در اکثر انسانها وجود دارد و خواهناخواه با آن درگیر هستند. با این حال دن آریلی باور دارد که با تمام این مسائل چیزی از دست نرفته است و همچنان میتوان انسان صادقی بود و یک زندگی اخلاقی داشت.
بخشی از کتاب "مصائب زندگی صادقانه یا پشت پرده ریاکاری" اثر دن اریلی روانشناس ومتخصص اقتصاد رفتاری
"قفل" برای این روی در قرار داده شده که آدم درستکار را درستکار نگه دارد!
یک درصد از مردم ریاکار و دزد هستند! اینها بهدنبال بازکردن قفلها و دستبرد به خانهها هستند.
و
یک درصد از مردم نیز همیشه درستکار هستند و تحت هیچ شرایطی ریاکاری نمیکنند!
باقی 98 درصد مردم، تا زمانی درستکارند که همه چیز درست باشد!
اکثر آنها، اگر شرایط به نحوی رقم بخورد که به حد کافی وسوسه شوند، آنها نیز ممکن است دست به خطا بزنند!
قفلها برای جلوگیری از نفوذِ دزدان نصب نمیشوند، دزدها بلد هستند که چگونه قفلها را باز کنند!
قفلها برای حفاظت از مردم ِ نسبتاً درستکار، نصب میشوند تا آنها وسوسه نشوند و درستکار باقی بمانند!
در واقع تمام آدمها، پتانسیل کجروی را دارند، اما قیمت هر کسی، با دیگری فرق دارد!! و آستانه وسوسه هر کسی، با دیگری متفاوت است!
نویسنده در کتاب «مصائب زندگی صادقانه!!» آزمایش های جالبی انجام داده است ؛
او در یک رستوران به عدهای از مشتریان چند سؤال میدهد تا آنها در ازای گرفتن 5 دلار به این سؤالات پاسخ دهند، اما هنگام دادن پول به جای 5 دلار 9 دلار میدهد!! و به گونهای تظاهر میکندکه حواسش نیست و اشتباهاً 9 دلار داده است!
برخی ازمشتریان صادقانه 4 دلار اضافه را برمی گردانند اما عدهای هم به روی خود نیاورده و 9 دلار را در جیب میگذارند و رستوران را ترک میکنند!
در آزمایش دیگری همین کار تکرار میشود با این تفاوت که نویسنده در هنگام گفتوگو با مشتریان، تلفن همراهش زنگ میخورد و چند دقیقهای با تلفن صحبت میکند و در انتها از مشتری برای اینکه وسط گفتوگو با آنها، به تلفن همراهش جواب داده عذرخواهی نمیکند و به نوعی بی احترامی میکند!
در این آزمایش تعداد کسانی که 4 دلار اضافه را برمیگردانند کمتر از آزمایش اول است!
وقتی مشتریان احساس میک��ند نویسنده، وقت آنها را بدون عذرخواهی گرفته، درصدد انتقام بر آمده و پول بیشتری که اشتباهاً نویسنده به آنها داده را باز نمیگردانند!
این آزمایش حاوی نکته جالبی است که میتوان از آن برای توجیه اینکه چرا در بعضی مناطق جهان آمار بالایی از ریاکاری و ناهنجاری وجود دارد، استفاده کرد ؛مردم زمانی که حس میکنند به آنها از سوی قدرت ظلم میشود یا حق آنها در جایی خورده میشود، هرجا که دستشان برسد سعی خواهند کرد
تا با ریاکاری و دزدی این حق خورده شده را جبران کنند..!
و این بهسادگی میتواند مرزهای اخلاق را جابهجا کند
هنر مدیریت
کتاب مصائب زندگی صادقانه درباره این موضوع صحبت میکند که چرا دروغ گفتن دربارهی بعضی موارد آسانتر از موارد دیگر است. رفتارهای غیراخلاقی در دنیای شخصی و حرفهای چگونه خودشان را نشان میدهند و بر زندگی ما تأثیر میگذارند. در بیشتر مواقع ما خودمان را انسانی دارای استانداردهای اخلاقی بالایی میدانیم؛ اما چرا نیروهای متناقضی در ذهن ما میگذرد. بهطوری که هر یک از آنها ما را وادار میکند که بهخاطر کسب منفعت بیشتر دست به تقلب بزنیم و از اخلاقیات دور شویم. در واقع انسان بر مبنای تحلیل منطقی که انجام میدهد در هر موقعیت مرتکب عمل بزهکارانهای میشود.
دن ریلی در کتاب مصائب زندگی صادقانه مثالها و آزمایشهای مختلفی مطرح میکند تا نتایج رفتار غیراخلاقی را در ابعاد کلانتر بررسی کند. این آزمایشها برای این است تا خواننده متوحه این موضوع شود که چرا دروغ گفتن دربارهی بعضی از مسائل راحتتر از موارد دیگر است. این مشکلات در واقع در اکثر انسانها وجود دارد و خواهناخواه با آن درگیر هستند. با این حال دن آریلی باور دارد که با تمام این مسائل چیزی از دست نرفته است و همچنان میتوان انسان صادقی بود و یک زندگی اخلاقی داشت.
بخشی از کتاب "مصائب زندگی صادقانه یا پشت پرده ریاکاری" اثر دن اریلی روانشناس ومتخصص اقتصاد رفتاری
"قفل" برای این روی در قرار داده شده که آدم درستکار را درستکار نگه دارد!
یک درصد از مردم ریاکار و دزد هستند! اینها بهدنبال بازکردن قفلها و دستبرد به خانهها هستند.
و
یک درصد از مردم نیز همیشه درستکار هستند و تحت هیچ شرایطی ریاکاری نمیکنند!
باقی 98 درصد مردم، تا زمانی درستکارند که همه چیز درست باشد!
اکثر آنها، اگر شرایط به نحوی رقم بخورد که به حد کافی وسوسه شوند، آنها نیز ممکن است دست به خطا بزنند!
قفلها برای جلوگیری از نفوذِ دزدان نصب نمیشوند، دزدها بلد هستند که چگونه قفلها را باز کنند!
قفلها برای حفاظت از مردم ِ نسبتاً درستکار، نصب میشوند تا آنها وسوسه نشوند و درستکار باقی بمانند!
در واقع تمام آدمها، پتانسیل کجروی را دارند، اما قیمت هر کسی، با دیگری فرق دارد!! و آستانه وسوسه هر کسی، با دیگری متفاوت است!
نویسنده در کتاب «مصائب زندگی صادقانه!!» آزمایش های جالبی انجام داده است ؛
او در یک رستوران به عدهای از مشتریان چند سؤال میدهد تا آنها در ازای گرفتن 5 دلار به این سؤالات پاسخ دهند، اما هنگام دادن پول به جای 5 دلار 9 دلار میدهد!! و به گونهای تظاهر میکندکه حواسش نیست و اشتباهاً 9 دلار داده است!
برخی ازمشتریان صادقانه 4 دلار اضافه را برمی گردانند اما عدهای هم به روی خود نیاورده و 9 دلار را در جیب میگذارند و رستوران را ترک میکنند!
در آزمایش دیگری همین کار تکرار میشود با این تفاوت که نویسنده در هنگام گفتوگو با مشتریان، تلفن همراهش زنگ میخورد و چند دقیقهای با تلفن صحبت میکند و در انتها از مشتری برای اینکه وسط گفتوگو با آنها، به تلفن همراهش جواب داده عذرخواهی نمیکند و به نوعی بی احترامی میکند!
در این آزمایش تعداد کسانی که 4 دلار اضافه را برمیگردانند کمتر از آزمایش اول است!
وقتی مشتریان احساس میک��ند نویسنده، وقت آنها را بدون عذرخواهی گرفته، درصدد انتقام بر آمده و پول بیشتری که اشتباهاً نویسنده به آنها داده را باز نمیگردانند!
این آزمایش حاوی نکته جالبی است که میتوان از آن برای توجیه اینکه چرا در بعضی مناطق جهان آمار بالایی از ریاکاری و ناهنجاری وجود دارد، استفاده کرد ؛مردم زمانی که حس میکنند به آنها از سوی قدرت ظلم میشود یا حق آنها در جایی خورده میشود، هرجا که دستشان برسد سعی خواهند کرد
تا با ریاکاری و دزدی این حق خورده شده را جبران کنند..!
و این بهسادگی میتواند مرزهای اخلاق را جابهجا کند
هنر مدیریت
May 16, 2012
When I was in college I learned a bit about the Simple Model of Rational Crime which basically states that people lie/cheat by rationally looking at the pros and cons and make a decision based on that. Needless to say, this never sat right with me. People don't make rational decisions, they just don't.
In this book Ariely puts forth another theory, one that he calls the Fudge Factor. The theory goes that there are basically two opposing forces when we decide whether to lie or cheat. One of the forces is that we want to think of ourselves as good and righteous people. The other force is that we want to get more out of situations. So the question is: how much are we willing to "fudge" the truth and still think of ourselves as honest and good people?
Through quite a few experiments, Ariely explores this, along with what may influence it in one way or another. Personally, these theories and experiments sat a lot better with me than the SMORC ever did. The author makes lying and cheating an incredibly interesting topic, and the experiments are novel and informative. The author is clearly an entertaining person and knows how to tell a good story. This book basically felt as though he wanted to show off his super-awesome experiments and findings, excitedly. It made it a fun read.
My biggest complaint is that in all the experiments the reward far outweighed the consequences of being caught. What about in situations, like cheating on a spouse, where the consequences could possibly destroy lives? What about when the consequences outweigh the reward, and yet we lie/cheat anyway?
Ariely, what would you make of this?: A few years back, my boyfriend at the time had a soft-top Jeep. One morning we came outside to find that someone had cut out the back window, and gotten into the car. The thief left all the expensive electronics (stereo, ipod, etc), but took all the change off the floor. It seemed like the guy had gone through quite a lot of effort for a fairly minuscule reward.
(Book Received Through Giveaways)
In this book Ariely puts forth another theory, one that he calls the Fudge Factor. The theory goes that there are basically two opposing forces when we decide whether to lie or cheat. One of the forces is that we want to think of ourselves as good and righteous people. The other force is that we want to get more out of situations. So the question is: how much are we willing to "fudge" the truth and still think of ourselves as honest and good people?
Through quite a few experiments, Ariely explores this, along with what may influence it in one way or another. Personally, these theories and experiments sat a lot better with me than the SMORC ever did. The author makes lying and cheating an incredibly interesting topic, and the experiments are novel and informative. The author is clearly an entertaining person and knows how to tell a good story. This book basically felt as though he wanted to show off his super-awesome experiments and findings, excitedly. It made it a fun read.
My biggest complaint is that in all the experiments the reward far outweighed the consequences of being caught. What about in situations, like cheating on a spouse, where the consequences could possibly destroy lives? What about when the consequences outweigh the reward, and yet we lie/cheat anyway?
Ariely, what would you make of this?: A few years back, my boyfriend at the time had a soft-top Jeep. One morning we came outside to find that someone had cut out the back window, and gotten into the car. The thief left all the expensive electronics (stereo, ipod, etc), but took all the change off the floor. It seemed like the guy had gone through quite a lot of effort for a fairly minuscule reward.
(Book Received Through Giveaways)
September 15, 2012
In all honesty, this book was a letdown. The human propensity for lying and cheating should be a juicy topic, but Ariely manages to squash reader interest by (mostly) confining his experiments to sterile classrooms, where one group of student volunteers after another pencil in answers to one dull test after another, usually involving dotted matrixes, one-dollar bills, and paper shredders. When Ariely and colleagues DO leave the artificial environment of the classroom –- sending a blind girl into a farmers’ market to buy tomatoes, for example –- their research yields some interesting results.
But back to that classroom … our intrepid social scientist’s big discovery is this: We all cheat, but only a little bit. And if we can just get a few reminders that cheating is bad, maybe we won’t do it so much.
That’s not exactly a scientific breakthrough; it’s simple common sense. And that’s the brutal truth.
But back to that classroom … our intrepid social scientist’s big discovery is this: We all cheat, but only a little bit. And if we can just get a few reminders that cheating is bad, maybe we won’t do it so much.
That’s not exactly a scientific breakthrough; it’s simple common sense. And that’s the brutal truth.
July 2, 2012
See this review on my blog: http://www.purplecar.net/2012/07/book...
I “cheat” on crosswords. I don’t cheat, exactly. I don’t look at the answer key; THAT would be Cheating, with a capital C. Instead, I cheat with a lower case c; I Google or Wiki the subject of the difficult clues online. This only works for clues with keywords like an author’s name or a movie title, but the answers I find give me enough forward motion to continue solving the puzzle. If I get stumped again, I scan the clues for more keywords again.
I don’t consider this letter-of-the-law Cheating, because I am working to find the solutions instead of just getting them from the answer key. You may be a crossword purist who is appalled at my lack of morals. You’d be making a mistake, though, to think my morals (when it comes to crosswords) are based on the same assumptions you hold.
It all comes down to why I do crossword puzzles in the first place. You, M. Purist, may crave the challenge and the self-esteem boost when successfully completing a NYT Friday entry. I, on the other hand, find it relaxing to lazily Internet-search trivia and methodically fill in the tiny squares with the gems I find, while learning a bit in the process.
Am I cheating myself? I don’t think so. After all, I’m learning things and relaxing. I’m not entering any crossword competitions. I’m not even going for bragging rights. For me, crosswords are a rote exercise. My methods work for me. In fact, M. Purist, I think your snobby morality about how crosswords should be done is elitist and exclusionary. Upon hearing my theories, one crossword-abandoning friend of mine lit up with discovery. She had stopped doing the puzzles because their difficulty proved unsurmountable, but when we talked she realized she’d been cheating herself out of a fun pasttime because of her overblown sense of “what’s right” in crossworddom. Call us cheater-mcgeeters if you must, but my friend and I are happily googling away our grids.
Duke researcher and EBE (Economic Behaviorist Extraordinaire) Dan Ariely may side with the crossword purists on this one. In his latest book, The (Honest) Truth About Dishonesty: How We Lie to Everyone–Especially Ourselves (THTAD), Dr. Ariely cites his own research and research of close colleagues on the subject of cheating. From “Fun with Fudging” and the “What the Hell Factor,” Ariely examines many different ways we cheat consciously and unconsciously. His clever experiments are great at catching unwitting people at the pervasive self-deception that none of us seem to be able to resist.
The book is probably his toughest read yet. I found Predictably Irrational to be a fun and delightful read. The Upside of Irrationality was a tiny bit more challenging. THTAD is by far the most research and dilemma-heavy of the 3. Perhaps it is the subject matter and being faced with my own shortcomings, but it seems this book had the least amount of engaging anecdotal evidence of Ariely’s signature storytelling charm. While reading THTAD, many times I found myself fading, in that reading-college-textbooks-at-midnight way. I don’t recall this feeling with the other two books.
My meandering could be the disgust factor at work. Ariely mentions Enron and Bernie Madoff, as well as Wall Street and the 2008 crash, then goes on to explain how cheating can be social and become contagious. It’s hardly light fare, despite Ariely’s attempts to soften the blow with his self-deprecating and at times mischievous humor.
Nonetheless, I read the book carefully in its entirety, even though I’d have to backtrack often to where my mind checked out and begin again; Ariely’s insights into human behavior are useful in life and in business. In this book, I learned why I shouldn’t trust the car repair guy I’ve known forever, why I should draw pictures of eyes and hang them on the snack cabinet, why a stack of dollar bills are more likely to stay in tact than my lunch in the work fridge, and why, as a creative person, I may have less gray matter in my brain than you dull types out there.
Where the book falls short, besides the lack of Ariely’s personal stories, is in the area of some needed philosophical talk about morals. Ariely hints at the possibility of varying moral codes when he talks briefly about the perception of cheating in different cultures, but he fails to lay down a common compass from which we all discern our moral directions. Ariely assumes we’re all following a letter-of-the-law approach to Cheating, and that his experiments’ subjects could only be following that same (supposedly Judeo-Christian) approach. But I think Ariely would’ve done well to take a paragraph or two to lay out his assumptions/biases. We can surely infer the basic Western moral sense, but if Ariely took some time to lay out what exactly he thinks is the official definition of “Cheating”, even if only within the confines of his own experiments, his assertions about how we all unconsciously cheat would hold all the more punch. Although his matrices experiment designs seem pretty rock solid, there is a possibility that Ariely may have missed two totally different motivations behind cheating: etiquette and convenience.
In Chapter 9: Collaborative Cheating: Why Two Heads Aren’t Necessarily Better than One, Dr. Ariely presents some findings that suggest we cheat more with others and/or for others’ benefit (“altruistic cheating”). Earlier in the book, he also cites “karma” as a way we justify taking a few extra pens from work when they failed to give us our yearly bonus. But I think this is where Ariely missed an opportunity to explore the finer-tuned aspect of cultural etiquette and convenience. Sometimes certain behaviors are expected for reasons unknown to us, but we’re savvy enough to pick up on signals sent by those around us. For example, in Ariely’s bad-actor experiment (the actor David portrayed “bad” decisions, not that David was poorly skilled at theatrical arts). When David asked whether or not he should cheat, the researcher said, “You can do what you want.” David then obviously cheated and was not rebuked. This is such an odd occurrence in life, it’s possible that the real subjects in the experiment may have surmised that the researcher actually preferred (for whatever mysterious reason) that the subjects cheated. Perhaps it would get her the results she wanted. Who would deny her? It would be more polite, then, to do what is expected and cheat like David (or find a moral middle ground and cheat a little more than normal, which is what the subjects did).
Another experiment Ariely cited was done in a coffee shop. Customers were handed too much change, and Ariely wanted to see how many people would return the excess, and how much of it they'd return. I’m deeply familiar with this very scenario, because I’ve experienced it more than once with my fanatically scrupulous father, who has been known to get into restaurant-silencing arguments over bills for being undercharged. Those cringe-worthy moments of my youth taught me that it’s better etiquette to leave a heftier tip in case the waitstaff notices the error later than to argue that we need to pay more. Perhaps Ariely would just call this "picking-up-on-signals" the collaborative effect, but I find it slightly different than what he describes as “group cheating” in the book.
I run into a collaborative effect everyday here in the suburbs, but again, it isn’t group cheating as much as it is a cultural norm. Take the library loans of music, for example. I am under the impression that if I check out Nicki Minaj’s lastest CD, I am to listen to it but not download it. If I download it to be able to listen to it, I should delete the album when I return the CD to the library. My father and my brother (also a stickler) would delete the files. They would also argue (probably loudly) with people on the street about how everyone should delete any music not bought through legitimate outlets. But if word got out around my town that I was making my tween delete the music she borrowed from the library, I’d get the reputation of an overly strict, trifling and somewhat-crazy parent. Put simply, it would be just plain weird.
Another example of this peer-pressure-to-accept-certain-rules is living in an organized-crime dominant area, which I did growing up. I dare not talk about it too much (for obvious reasons), but I will say that our views on the definitions of “crime” and “wrong” didn’t necessarily match up to say, a nice Midwestern Mayberry-type town’s views. We thought of ourselves as looking more at the big picture: The police? They weren’t the most “upstanding” group. Electronics companies? What, the ones with the child labor in Indonesia? Bankers? Don’t get me started! We were keeping a whole region of the state, thousands of families, afloat, mostly via legitimate means. What were all those people doing for anybody? Who wants a stickler around, anyway? Rule-followers, pencil-pushers, Miss Manners, they only see right in front of their own noses. Where I come from that’s a very immature (and definitely no-fun!) way to be.
Ariely does mention the social aspect behind cheating, as I said. And I may just be lying to myself, as he would say. But I do believe there are subtle signals we send to each other that tell us how we are expected to behave, and I wonder if any of those signals came into play in Ariely’s experiments. This isn’t the strongest of criticisms, of course. It’s a trifling point, a fixation on minutiae, a party-pooper whine. But I guess, like my father, I’m set to be the one that messes up everyone’s good time.
________________
Tomorrow I’ll be sitting in on a conference with Dan Ariely. I’ll let you know how it goes. In the meantime, let me know if you have any questions for him.
Any thoughts? Have you read the book? What did you think?
I “cheat” on crosswords. I don’t cheat, exactly. I don’t look at the answer key; THAT would be Cheating, with a capital C. Instead, I cheat with a lower case c; I Google or Wiki the subject of the difficult clues online. This only works for clues with keywords like an author’s name or a movie title, but the answers I find give me enough forward motion to continue solving the puzzle. If I get stumped again, I scan the clues for more keywords again.
I don’t consider this letter-of-the-law Cheating, because I am working to find the solutions instead of just getting them from the answer key. You may be a crossword purist who is appalled at my lack of morals. You’d be making a mistake, though, to think my morals (when it comes to crosswords) are based on the same assumptions you hold.
It all comes down to why I do crossword puzzles in the first place. You, M. Purist, may crave the challenge and the self-esteem boost when successfully completing a NYT Friday entry. I, on the other hand, find it relaxing to lazily Internet-search trivia and methodically fill in the tiny squares with the gems I find, while learning a bit in the process.
Am I cheating myself? I don’t think so. After all, I’m learning things and relaxing. I’m not entering any crossword competitions. I’m not even going for bragging rights. For me, crosswords are a rote exercise. My methods work for me. In fact, M. Purist, I think your snobby morality about how crosswords should be done is elitist and exclusionary. Upon hearing my theories, one crossword-abandoning friend of mine lit up with discovery. She had stopped doing the puzzles because their difficulty proved unsurmountable, but when we talked she realized she’d been cheating herself out of a fun pasttime because of her overblown sense of “what’s right” in crossworddom. Call us cheater-mcgeeters if you must, but my friend and I are happily googling away our grids.
Duke researcher and EBE (Economic Behaviorist Extraordinaire) Dan Ariely may side with the crossword purists on this one. In his latest book, The (Honest) Truth About Dishonesty: How We Lie to Everyone–Especially Ourselves (THTAD), Dr. Ariely cites his own research and research of close colleagues on the subject of cheating. From “Fun with Fudging” and the “What the Hell Factor,” Ariely examines many different ways we cheat consciously and unconsciously. His clever experiments are great at catching unwitting people at the pervasive self-deception that none of us seem to be able to resist.
The book is probably his toughest read yet. I found Predictably Irrational to be a fun and delightful read. The Upside of Irrationality was a tiny bit more challenging. THTAD is by far the most research and dilemma-heavy of the 3. Perhaps it is the subject matter and being faced with my own shortcomings, but it seems this book had the least amount of engaging anecdotal evidence of Ariely’s signature storytelling charm. While reading THTAD, many times I found myself fading, in that reading-college-textbooks-at-midnight way. I don’t recall this feeling with the other two books.
My meandering could be the disgust factor at work. Ariely mentions Enron and Bernie Madoff, as well as Wall Street and the 2008 crash, then goes on to explain how cheating can be social and become contagious. It’s hardly light fare, despite Ariely’s attempts to soften the blow with his self-deprecating and at times mischievous humor.
Nonetheless, I read the book carefully in its entirety, even though I’d have to backtrack often to where my mind checked out and begin again; Ariely’s insights into human behavior are useful in life and in business. In this book, I learned why I shouldn’t trust the car repair guy I’ve known forever, why I should draw pictures of eyes and hang them on the snack cabinet, why a stack of dollar bills are more likely to stay in tact than my lunch in the work fridge, and why, as a creative person, I may have less gray matter in my brain than you dull types out there.
Where the book falls short, besides the lack of Ariely’s personal stories, is in the area of some needed philosophical talk about morals. Ariely hints at the possibility of varying moral codes when he talks briefly about the perception of cheating in different cultures, but he fails to lay down a common compass from which we all discern our moral directions. Ariely assumes we’re all following a letter-of-the-law approach to Cheating, and that his experiments’ subjects could only be following that same (supposedly Judeo-Christian) approach. But I think Ariely would’ve done well to take a paragraph or two to lay out his assumptions/biases. We can surely infer the basic Western moral sense, but if Ariely took some time to lay out what exactly he thinks is the official definition of “Cheating”, even if only within the confines of his own experiments, his assertions about how we all unconsciously cheat would hold all the more punch. Although his matrices experiment designs seem pretty rock solid, there is a possibility that Ariely may have missed two totally different motivations behind cheating: etiquette and convenience.
In Chapter 9: Collaborative Cheating: Why Two Heads Aren’t Necessarily Better than One, Dr. Ariely presents some findings that suggest we cheat more with others and/or for others’ benefit (“altruistic cheating”). Earlier in the book, he also cites “karma” as a way we justify taking a few extra pens from work when they failed to give us our yearly bonus. But I think this is where Ariely missed an opportunity to explore the finer-tuned aspect of cultural etiquette and convenience. Sometimes certain behaviors are expected for reasons unknown to us, but we’re savvy enough to pick up on signals sent by those around us. For example, in Ariely’s bad-actor experiment (the actor David portrayed “bad” decisions, not that David was poorly skilled at theatrical arts). When David asked whether or not he should cheat, the researcher said, “You can do what you want.” David then obviously cheated and was not rebuked. This is such an odd occurrence in life, it’s possible that the real subjects in the experiment may have surmised that the researcher actually preferred (for whatever mysterious reason) that the subjects cheated. Perhaps it would get her the results she wanted. Who would deny her? It would be more polite, then, to do what is expected and cheat like David (or find a moral middle ground and cheat a little more than normal, which is what the subjects did).
Another experiment Ariely cited was done in a coffee shop. Customers were handed too much change, and Ariely wanted to see how many people would return the excess, and how much of it they'd return. I’m deeply familiar with this very scenario, because I’ve experienced it more than once with my fanatically scrupulous father, who has been known to get into restaurant-silencing arguments over bills for being undercharged. Those cringe-worthy moments of my youth taught me that it’s better etiquette to leave a heftier tip in case the waitstaff notices the error later than to argue that we need to pay more. Perhaps Ariely would just call this "picking-up-on-signals" the collaborative effect, but I find it slightly different than what he describes as “group cheating” in the book.
I run into a collaborative effect everyday here in the suburbs, but again, it isn’t group cheating as much as it is a cultural norm. Take the library loans of music, for example. I am under the impression that if I check out Nicki Minaj’s lastest CD, I am to listen to it but not download it. If I download it to be able to listen to it, I should delete the album when I return the CD to the library. My father and my brother (also a stickler) would delete the files. They would also argue (probably loudly) with people on the street about how everyone should delete any music not bought through legitimate outlets. But if word got out around my town that I was making my tween delete the music she borrowed from the library, I’d get the reputation of an overly strict, trifling and somewhat-crazy parent. Put simply, it would be just plain weird.
Another example of this peer-pressure-to-accept-certain-rules is living in an organized-crime dominant area, which I did growing up. I dare not talk about it too much (for obvious reasons), but I will say that our views on the definitions of “crime” and “wrong” didn’t necessarily match up to say, a nice Midwestern Mayberry-type town’s views. We thought of ourselves as looking more at the big picture: The police? They weren’t the most “upstanding” group. Electronics companies? What, the ones with the child labor in Indonesia? Bankers? Don’t get me started! We were keeping a whole region of the state, thousands of families, afloat, mostly via legitimate means. What were all those people doing for anybody? Who wants a stickler around, anyway? Rule-followers, pencil-pushers, Miss Manners, they only see right in front of their own noses. Where I come from that’s a very immature (and definitely no-fun!) way to be.
Ariely does mention the social aspect behind cheating, as I said. And I may just be lying to myself, as he would say. But I do believe there are subtle signals we send to each other that tell us how we are expected to behave, and I wonder if any of those signals came into play in Ariely’s experiments. This isn’t the strongest of criticisms, of course. It’s a trifling point, a fixation on minutiae, a party-pooper whine. But I guess, like my father, I’m set to be the one that messes up everyone’s good time.
________________
Tomorrow I’ll be sitting in on a conference with Dan Ariely. I’ll let you know how it goes. In the meantime, let me know if you have any questions for him.
Any thoughts? Have you read the book? What did you think?
January 30, 2015
We all admit to telling ‘white lies’ or cheating/bending the truth and usually, several times a day. How often do we admit to (and even realize) that we also lie to ourselves to the point of believing our own dishonesty? Best-selling author, professor, and cognitive psychologist Dan Ariely explores the topic in, “The Honest Truth about Dishonesty: How We Lie to Everyone- Especially Ourselves”.
Ariely instantly dives into thought-provoking and interesting dialogue regarding the topic of dishonesty combining cognitive psychology, behavioral psychology, and elements of neuroscience; while presenting this in an accessible way that is easy-to-understand for all pop-psych readers. The resulting product is a fast-paced text tinged with humor.
The negative side of this is that “The Honest Truth about Dishonesty” is too basic and simplified; not elaborating or diving deep enough. Oftentimes, the information feels ‘obvious’ and abruptly cuts off before the true connections are made or theories are proven. This causes the facts revealed inside “The Honest Truth about Dishonesty” to be less than memorable and not mind-blowing.
On the other hand, the most striking (and applauded) feature of “The Honest Truth about Dishonesty” is the fact that almost all of the experiments/tests described are first-hand conducted either by Ariely or his immediate peers. This is highly notable and makes the book stand out, as most other books nearby on the book shelf tend to be filled with secondary sources and experiments which aren’t related to the topic at hand (many psych books use the same experiments but describe them per their own theories making the arguments weak). Thus, Ariel’s research and expertise on the subject makes the text more credible.
On a related note, Ariel stylistically includes some of the actual documents/tests/charts used in the experiments and even encourages the reader to try them personally again helping to put “The Honest Truth about Dishonesty” on a ‘fun’ and approachable level.
Ariel’s writing weakness is a certain level of choppiness within the text bouncing around on the topic within chapters – sort of like a book that is ADHD. Although this doesn’t make “The Honest Truth about Dishonesty” confusing; it does break reader attention.
Slightly past the halfway point, “The Honest Truth about Dishonesty” loses some steam as Ariely begins to cite more personal observational studies versus hard science having little backing and explanation. The text also becomes quite repetitive causing the entire reading to be somewhat slow and without any excitement or merit.
The final chapter of “The Honest Truth about Dishonesty” sums up some of Ariel’s theories and offers tips concerning the battle with dishonesty. Sadly, these suggestions are bare-boned and thus the conclusion feels weak and forced. This flows into a unique compilation of mini biographies of Ariely’s fellow collaborators (including personal information about how the author knows each). These pages are unique as I have not seen this in other psychology books. Sadly, the notes and bibliography are shamefully thin and take away from the credibility and academic value of the text.
Overall, “The Honest Truth about Dishonesty” is a relatively well-written work (flows smoothly and is entertaining) but some execution flaws are apparent. The text could have also been strengthened with more detail and elaboration but this makes it a strong introduction on the topic to the general reader. “The Honest Truth about Dishonesty” isn’t ‘bad’; it just isn’t a life-changer. Regardless, “The Honest Truth about Dishonesty” is suggested for those interested in the social sciences, behavioral economics, and psychology; seeking a quick but interesting read.
Ariely instantly dives into thought-provoking and interesting dialogue regarding the topic of dishonesty combining cognitive psychology, behavioral psychology, and elements of neuroscience; while presenting this in an accessible way that is easy-to-understand for all pop-psych readers. The resulting product is a fast-paced text tinged with humor.
The negative side of this is that “The Honest Truth about Dishonesty” is too basic and simplified; not elaborating or diving deep enough. Oftentimes, the information feels ‘obvious’ and abruptly cuts off before the true connections are made or theories are proven. This causes the facts revealed inside “The Honest Truth about Dishonesty” to be less than memorable and not mind-blowing.
On the other hand, the most striking (and applauded) feature of “The Honest Truth about Dishonesty” is the fact that almost all of the experiments/tests described are first-hand conducted either by Ariely or his immediate peers. This is highly notable and makes the book stand out, as most other books nearby on the book shelf tend to be filled with secondary sources and experiments which aren’t related to the topic at hand (many psych books use the same experiments but describe them per their own theories making the arguments weak). Thus, Ariel’s research and expertise on the subject makes the text more credible.
On a related note, Ariel stylistically includes some of the actual documents/tests/charts used in the experiments and even encourages the reader to try them personally again helping to put “The Honest Truth about Dishonesty” on a ‘fun’ and approachable level.
Ariel’s writing weakness is a certain level of choppiness within the text bouncing around on the topic within chapters – sort of like a book that is ADHD. Although this doesn’t make “The Honest Truth about Dishonesty” confusing; it does break reader attention.
Slightly past the halfway point, “The Honest Truth about Dishonesty” loses some steam as Ariely begins to cite more personal observational studies versus hard science having little backing and explanation. The text also becomes quite repetitive causing the entire reading to be somewhat slow and without any excitement or merit.
The final chapter of “The Honest Truth about Dishonesty” sums up some of Ariel’s theories and offers tips concerning the battle with dishonesty. Sadly, these suggestions are bare-boned and thus the conclusion feels weak and forced. This flows into a unique compilation of mini biographies of Ariely’s fellow collaborators (including personal information about how the author knows each). These pages are unique as I have not seen this in other psychology books. Sadly, the notes and bibliography are shamefully thin and take away from the credibility and academic value of the text.
Overall, “The Honest Truth about Dishonesty” is a relatively well-written work (flows smoothly and is entertaining) but some execution flaws are apparent. The text could have also been strengthened with more detail and elaboration but this makes it a strong introduction on the topic to the general reader. “The Honest Truth about Dishonesty” isn’t ‘bad’; it just isn’t a life-changer. Regardless, “The Honest Truth about Dishonesty” is suggested for those interested in the social sciences, behavioral economics, and psychology; seeking a quick but interesting read.
April 7, 2012
Entertaining, eye-opening, disturbing
This funny, fascinating, personal paradigm shattering book is in a genre I love, books that make me examine my thinking process, but this one caused me more soul searching than any other I’ve read. According to the Simple Model of Rational Crime (SMORC) we decide whether or not to be dishonest based on a logical, mathematically calibrated cost-benefit analysis, and we’d all be as dishonest as we could be as long as it brought us a benefit greater than the likely cost. Fortunately, author Dan Ariely discovered that people aren’t as cold-bloodedly calculating as that. Unfortunately, the news about human morality isn’t all good.
Ariely is very skilled at conceiving, conducting and describing experiments that tease apart the tangle of human motivations. According to what he’s discovered, we’ll cheat, lie and steal, but only as much as we can rationalize because we want to be able to feel good about ourselves. We’re all capable of dishonesty, and being natural story tellers we’re extremely adept at creating perfectly logical seeming explanations justifying our less than moral actions, though we rarely understand exactly why we make the choices we do. We invariably underestimate how much we are influenced by a myriad of circumstances ranging from conflict of interest to how tired we are feeling.
Since we want to see ourselves as good, most of us never stray far from the straight and narrow path, but small frequent transgressions can create bigger problems than the egregious acts of a few bad apples. Our collective peccadilloes can wreck havoc, but with an improved understanding of the situations that increase dishonest behavior Arliey hopes his book can be a guide for corrective actions and legislation.
This funny, fascinating, personal paradigm shattering book is in a genre I love, books that make me examine my thinking process, but this one caused me more soul searching than any other I’ve read. According to the Simple Model of Rational Crime (SMORC) we decide whether or not to be dishonest based on a logical, mathematically calibrated cost-benefit analysis, and we’d all be as dishonest as we could be as long as it brought us a benefit greater than the likely cost. Fortunately, author Dan Ariely discovered that people aren’t as cold-bloodedly calculating as that. Unfortunately, the news about human morality isn’t all good.
Ariely is very skilled at conceiving, conducting and describing experiments that tease apart the tangle of human motivations. According to what he’s discovered, we’ll cheat, lie and steal, but only as much as we can rationalize because we want to be able to feel good about ourselves. We’re all capable of dishonesty, and being natural story tellers we’re extremely adept at creating perfectly logical seeming explanations justifying our less than moral actions, though we rarely understand exactly why we make the choices we do. We invariably underestimate how much we are influenced by a myriad of circumstances ranging from conflict of interest to how tired we are feeling.
Since we want to see ourselves as good, most of us never stray far from the straight and narrow path, but small frequent transgressions can create bigger problems than the egregious acts of a few bad apples. Our collective peccadilloes can wreck havoc, but with an improved understanding of the situations that increase dishonest behavior Arliey hopes his book can be a guide for corrective actions and legislation.
December 23, 2012
The honest truth is, we are all dishonest.
I want to share a real life scenario that happened with me just yesterday right after I finished reading Dan Ariely's new book The Honest Truth About Dishonesty.
The situation: An anonymous person at our office refills the office refrigerator with a dozen small water bottles, everyday. They’re stacked in the top compartment on their own, unlocked, unmarked, un-anything. They’re just there. Sinister, isn't it? Next to that fridge are two water coolers that are obviously for everyone to use. So who are the bottles for?
The reasoning: In terms of water consumption, I personally prefer having a bottle on my desk rather than walking back and forth to the kitchen for a glass of water. At other times, I either forget, or get too lazy to get my own supplies, and that’s when my dishonest behavior kicks in.
The bad behaviour: I found that I was occasionally opening the fridge and helping myself to one water bottle knowing that they belonged to someone else. In the beginning it was discreet but after going unnoticed for so long, I gradually stopped putting effort in hiding and carried on believing that I was actually entitled to a free bottle of water from our shared office fridge. I’m not sure if I was the only one taking a bottle, but let’s just say I wasn’t.
Yesterday, I confidently made my way to our lovely pantry, opened the fridge, and there it was! A warning note that read, “Please don’t touch!” *ominous music* I didn’t dare touch anything this time, even when there was no one around. I then spent the rest of the day hiding under my desk anticipating arrest and imprisonment.
This is the general idea of the book (without going into spoilery details.) The author, Dan Ariely, whose previous bestsellers include Predictably Irrational and The Upside of Irrationality, conducts different experiments in similar situations to mine, low-risk, low-stakes scenarios where sometimes there are no consequences whatsoever to being dishonest, and then he uncovers some pretty shocking truths regarding just how far we would go as supposedly "honest" people.
It’s a 10-chapter popular psychology book that covers various situations, contexts, and settings that affect human behavior and decision-making when it comes to being dishonest. Ariely is known for his cheerful writing style by which he usually includes his personal stories in between experiments and eases off scientific/psychological analyses for the light user looking for a good read.
The analysis: Read the book. But pay for it first....
I want to share a real life scenario that happened with me just yesterday right after I finished reading Dan Ariely's new book The Honest Truth About Dishonesty.
The situation: An anonymous person at our office refills the office refrigerator with a dozen small water bottles, everyday. They’re stacked in the top compartment on their own, unlocked, unmarked, un-anything. They’re just there. Sinister, isn't it? Next to that fridge are two water coolers that are obviously for everyone to use. So who are the bottles for?
The reasoning: In terms of water consumption, I personally prefer having a bottle on my desk rather than walking back and forth to the kitchen for a glass of water. At other times, I either forget, or get too lazy to get my own supplies, and that’s when my dishonest behavior kicks in.
The bad behaviour: I found that I was occasionally opening the fridge and helping myself to one water bottle knowing that they belonged to someone else. In the beginning it was discreet but after going unnoticed for so long, I gradually stopped putting effort in hiding and carried on believing that I was actually entitled to a free bottle of water from our shared office fridge. I’m not sure if I was the only one taking a bottle, but let’s just say I wasn’t.
Yesterday, I confidently made my way to our lovely pantry, opened the fridge, and there it was! A warning note that read, “Please don’t touch!” *ominous music* I didn’t dare touch anything this time, even when there was no one around. I then spent the rest of the day hiding under my desk anticipating arrest and imprisonment.
This is the general idea of the book (without going into spoilery details.) The author, Dan Ariely, whose previous bestsellers include Predictably Irrational and The Upside of Irrationality, conducts different experiments in similar situations to mine, low-risk, low-stakes scenarios where sometimes there are no consequences whatsoever to being dishonest, and then he uncovers some pretty shocking truths regarding just how far we would go as supposedly "honest" people.
It’s a 10-chapter popular psychology book that covers various situations, contexts, and settings that affect human behavior and decision-making when it comes to being dishonest. Ariely is known for his cheerful writing style by which he usually includes his personal stories in between experiments and eases off scientific/psychological analyses for the light user looking for a good read.
The analysis: Read the book. But pay for it first....
September 29, 2023
كتاب ظريف ومدهش وخفيف الظل.
هل يمكن لأحد منا أن يدعي أنه لم يغش مرة واحدة على الأقل في حياته؟
هل تعريف الغش واضح تماما أم أن هناك امورا نفعلها ولا نعتقد أننا غشاشون بسبب ذلك؟
هل يتأثر مستوى الغش بزيادة مبلغ المال الذي نحصل عليه؟
هل يتأثر باحتمال الإمساك بالتلبس؟
الإجابة هي لا!
يناقش الكاتب فكرة أن سلوكنا مدفوع في الغالب بحافزين متناقضين. فنحن نريد أن نعتبر أنفسنا أشخاصا محترمين وصادقين ونريد أيضا ان نستفيد من الغش في بعض الأحيان؛ فطالما أننا نغش قليلا، يمكننا أن نرى أنفسنا اشخاصا رائعين!!!
يطرح الكاتب العديد من الأسئلة ويحاول الإجابة عنها عن طريق تجارب اجتماعية على طلبة جامعيين استخلص منها بعض النتائج مثل:
- اهمية استحضار المعايير الأخلاقية عند التعرض للمغريات وكيف يكون لذلك أثر اكثر فاعلية من تشديد القوانين والمراقبة الخارجية.
- قضاء المزيد من الجهد والوقت للحصول على اراء من جهة ليس لها مصلحة مباشرة مع ما نتخذه من قرار، ولا ننخدع بعلاقتنا الوطيدة فالناس تفضل مصلحتها في المقام الأول.
- الانتباه لأننا نكون اكثر عرضه للمغريات عند شعورنا بالتعب والإرهاق.
- ارتداء الماركات المقلدة قد يزيد من رغبتنا في الغش.
- تأثير تعبير "وما الفارق" وترجمتها طالما باظت فمش فارقة خلاص 🙂🙃🙃
- المبدعون يغشون ويكذبون أكثر من غيرهم بسبب قدرتهم على التخيل واختلاق القصص والمبررات.
- أننا احيانا نبرر غش من يؤذينا بداعي الانتقام، وتحقيق العدالة.
- الغش معدي؛ طالما كان من اشخاص من وسطنا الاجتماعي وكلما كان شخصا نكن له الاحترام تزيد احتمالات تدني اخلاقياتنا.
يوصي الكاتب باتباع طريقة تعامل الاديان مع المعاصي وهي التأثير على عقليتنا قبل وقوعنا في شرك الإغراء من خلال التعاليم الأخلاقية والشعور بالذنب، فممارسة الشعائر الدينية بانتظام تذكر الأفراد بالتزاماتهم الأخلاقية بطرق عدة.
في النهاية يقول الكاتب أننا جميعا نملك بوصلة أخلاقية، لكننا لا يمكننا افتراض أن ضمائرنا تحمينا بلا جهد منا وباستمرار، ويجب علينا ان نتعلم كيف نغرس في أبنائنا بوصلة الأخلاق وكيف نحافظ على بوصلتنا.
هل يمكن لأحد منا أن يدعي أنه لم يغش مرة واحدة على الأقل في حياته؟
هل تعريف الغش واضح تماما أم أن هناك امورا نفعلها ولا نعتقد أننا غشاشون بسبب ذلك؟
هل يتأثر مستوى الغش بزيادة مبلغ المال الذي نحصل عليه؟
هل يتأثر باحتمال الإمساك بالتلبس؟
الإجابة هي لا!
يناقش الكاتب فكرة أن سلوكنا مدفوع في الغالب بحافزين متناقضين. فنحن نريد أن نعتبر أنفسنا أشخاصا محترمين وصادقين ونريد أيضا ان نستفيد من الغش في بعض الأحيان؛ فطالما أننا نغش قليلا، يمكننا أن نرى أنفسنا اشخاصا رائعين!!!
يطرح الكاتب العديد من الأسئلة ويحاول الإجابة عنها عن طريق تجارب اجتماعية على طلبة جامعيين استخلص منها بعض النتائج مثل:
- اهمية استحضار المعايير الأخلاقية عند التعرض للمغريات وكيف يكون لذلك أثر اكثر فاعلية من تشديد القوانين والمراقبة الخارجية.
- قضاء المزيد من الجهد والوقت للحصول على اراء من جهة ليس لها مصلحة مباشرة مع ما نتخذه من قرار، ولا ننخدع بعلاقتنا الوطيدة فالناس تفضل مصلحتها في المقام الأول.
- الانتباه لأننا نكون اكثر عرضه للمغريات عند شعورنا بالتعب والإرهاق.
- ارتداء الماركات المقلدة قد يزيد من رغبتنا في الغش.
- تأثير تعبير "وما الفارق" وترجمتها طالما باظت فمش فارقة خلاص 🙂🙃🙃
- المبدعون يغشون ويكذبون أكثر من غيرهم بسبب قدرتهم على التخيل واختلاق القصص والمبررات.
- أننا احيانا نبرر غش من يؤذينا بداعي الانتقام، وتحقيق العدالة.
- الغش معدي؛ طالما كان من اشخاص من وسطنا الاجتماعي وكلما كان شخصا نكن له الاحترام تزيد احتمالات تدني اخلاقياتنا.
يوصي الكاتب باتباع طريقة تعامل الاديان مع المعاصي وهي التأثير على عقليتنا قبل وقوعنا في شرك الإغراء من خلال التعاليم الأخلاقية والشعور بالذنب، فممارسة الشعائر الدينية بانتظام تذكر الأفراد بالتزاماتهم الأخلاقية بطرق عدة.
في النهاية يقول الكاتب أننا جميعا نملك بوصلة أخلاقية، لكننا لا يمكننا افتراض أن ضمائرنا تحمينا بلا جهد منا وباستمرار، ويجب علينا ان نتعلم كيف نغرس في أبنائنا بوصلة الأخلاق وكيف نحافظ على بوصلتنا.
December 10, 2017
Fantastic book and very insightful. The research presented is compelling and surprising... and often concerning. To know about it is to be far better prepared to recognize why people do what they do. There are helpful suggestions to recognize when I am not being fully honest and to align my own actions better with the integrity that I perceive myself to have. VERY helpful and super insightful. Thanks yet again Dan, for an amazing book.
April 17, 2013
My rating is 5 because it is that kind of book which made me reflect upon my own behaviour. On the one hand, because of some mistakes and the stories I told to myself, and on the another hand because it was a confirmation for the times I felt really bad, as I was aware of my action.
First thoughts when trying to predict what is the book subject, were that it's most probably a book about cheating in relationships and cheating for becoming richer. Sorry to disappoint you, but it's not about cheating in relationships as you might have expected too. Instead, you get some conclusions based on experiments. I was always expecting numbers, but by the end of the book you get a sense that Dan is critic enough not to draw conclusions out of superficial experiments.
Most interesting aspects found out:
- we are more likely to cheat if we know that others will benefit from our dishonest action
- the stories we tell to ourselves not to feel bad about ourselves when we are dishonest
- that the cheating level is about the same in different countries (experimented in USA, Israel, Italy, Turkey, Canada and England).
Two particular passages that I found particularly powerful are:
"Most people cheat just enough to still feel good about themselves."
"This experience taught me that sometimes (perhaps often) we
don’t make choices based on our explicit preferences. Instead,
we have a gut feeling about what we want, and we go through a
process of mental gymnastics, applying all kinds of justifications
to manipulate the criteria. That way, we can get what we really
want, but at the same time keep up the appearance—to ourselves
and to others—that we are acting in accordance with our rational
and well-reasoned preferences."
First thoughts when trying to predict what is the book subject, were that it's most probably a book about cheating in relationships and cheating for becoming richer. Sorry to disappoint you, but it's not about cheating in relationships as you might have expected too. Instead, you get some conclusions based on experiments. I was always expecting numbers, but by the end of the book you get a sense that Dan is critic enough not to draw conclusions out of superficial experiments.
Most interesting aspects found out:
- we are more likely to cheat if we know that others will benefit from our dishonest action
- the stories we tell to ourselves not to feel bad about ourselves when we are dishonest
- that the cheating level is about the same in different countries (experimented in USA, Israel, Italy, Turkey, Canada and England).
Two particular passages that I found particularly powerful are:
"Most people cheat just enough to still feel good about themselves."
"This experience taught me that sometimes (perhaps often) we
don’t make choices based on our explicit preferences. Instead,
we have a gut feeling about what we want, and we go through a
process of mental gymnastics, applying all kinds of justifications
to manipulate the criteria. That way, we can get what we really
want, but at the same time keep up the appearance—to ourselves
and to others—that we are acting in accordance with our rational
and well-reasoned preferences."
July 4, 2013
I feel a little bad about the three stars. I enjoy Dan Ariely's entertaining and informative books about behavioral economics and the many ways in which we are far less rational than we want to believe. Exploring the topic of honesty from a variety of angles appeals to me as well, and true to form, Ariely highlighted many interesting aspects of honesty/dishonesty -- contagion of dishonesty, how a sense of altruism and collaboration can facilitate dishonesty, the relationship between creativity and lying, how a sense of depletion or deprivation can use up valuable will power so that we have fewer resources for self-control to do the right thing, etc., etc.
So why only three stars? I think a lot of it was that audio was probably not the ideal venue for this book, at least for me. Although I can enjoy popular nonfiction on audio, it can also be a bit of a harder sell.
Other goodreaders complained about Ariely's repeated use of a matrices test as a stimulus for measuring cheating. I can't really blame Ariely for reusing the same test if that's what worked, and the point wasn't the test itself but what he was exploring. So I don't think that was the problem, but I'm not sure why I occasionally felt overloaded and overwhelmed with research descriptions and data and wanted more narrative.
Since I often found myself spacing out I can really only give this three stars, but don't let that put you off from trying the print version which I suspect was a more rewarding experience.
So why only three stars? I think a lot of it was that audio was probably not the ideal venue for this book, at least for me. Although I can enjoy popular nonfiction on audio, it can also be a bit of a harder sell.
Other goodreaders complained about Ariely's repeated use of a matrices test as a stimulus for measuring cheating. I can't really blame Ariely for reusing the same test if that's what worked, and the point wasn't the test itself but what he was exploring. So I don't think that was the problem, but I'm not sure why I occasionally felt overloaded and overwhelmed with research descriptions and data and wanted more narrative.
Since I often found myself spacing out I can really only give this three stars, but don't let that put you off from trying the print version which I suspect was a more rewarding experience.
June 28, 2017
Either 3.8/5 or 4.2/5 .
This one is intriguing. Ariely's writing is easy to follow. It's so fluent, spontaneous and most importantly, he explained everything in simple words with examples & experiments avoiding
complex theories & technical jargon. He discussed psychology behind dishonesty. And if you think about it you'll see that many fundamental cues behind dishonesty are accepted as normal behavior or treated as an open secret. For example, in lab experiments when the result seems to be incorrect, we do some back calculations, fudge the data to make the result look right or give proxy attendance for our friends or classmates who are absent in the class. And even in larger scale, nationwide cheating in public exams by leaking question papers before the exam! And so on.
The book's simplicity will touch anyone. If you ponder over the ideas in it, it will be an eye opener.
This one is intriguing. Ariely's writing is easy to follow. It's so fluent, spontaneous and most importantly, he explained everything in simple words with examples & experiments avoiding
complex theories & technical jargon. He discussed psychology behind dishonesty. And if you think about it you'll see that many fundamental cues behind dishonesty are accepted as normal behavior or treated as an open secret. For example, in lab experiments when the result seems to be incorrect, we do some back calculations, fudge the data to make the result look right or give proxy attendance for our friends or classmates who are absent in the class. And even in larger scale, nationwide cheating in public exams by leaking question papers before the exam! And so on.
The book's simplicity will touch anyone. If you ponder over the ideas in it, it will be an eye opener.
July 20, 2018
ทำให้เข้าใจสาเหตุเบื้องหลังที่ทำให้เราตัดสินใจจะทำการไม่ซื่อสัตย์ ซึ่งไม่ใช่หลักการชั่งน้ำหนักผลประโยชน์อย่างที่เราเคยคิดเอาไว้ เเต่เป็นการชักกะเย่อระหว่างความคิด 2 ด้านคือ การหาประโยชน์ให้ตนเองเเละการที่เรายังมองตนเองเป็นคนดีอยู่ บางครั้งถ้ามีปัจจัยผลักเราให้คิดถึงผลประโยชน์มากกว่าก็จะทำให้เราตัดสินใจทำเรื่องผิดๆได้ง่ายขึ้นเเต่ถ้ามีปัจจัยที่ดันเราให้คิดถึงความดี ก็จะทำให้เรายับยั้งใจได้ดีขึ้น (ในเล่มคือการเเสดงถึงปัจจัยต่างๆเหล่านี้ผ่านการทดลองทางเศรษศาสตร์พฤติกรรม)
จริงๆอยากให้เต็ม 5 ดาวเเต่ที่หักเพราะ การทดลองในเล่ม สรุปง่ายไปหน่อย ไม่ค่อยได้เห็นรายละเอียด หรือปัจจัยที่ทำให้เกิดผลตามที่บอกมาชัดเจนนัก ทำให้ดูง่ายไปนิดนึง เเต่นอกนั้นถือว่าดีงามมาก อ่านง่าย เข้าใจได้ชัดเจนไม่ซับซ้อนครับ
จริงๆอยากให้เต็ม 5 ดาวเเต่ที่หักเพราะ การทดลองในเล่ม สรุปง่ายไปหน่อย ไม่ค่อยได้เห็นรายละเอียด หรือปัจจัยที่ทำให้เกิดผลตามที่บอกมาชัดเจนนัก ทำให้ดูง่ายไปนิดนึง เเต่นอกนั้นถือว่าดีงามมาก อ่านง่าย เข้าใจได้ชัดเจนไม่ซับซ้อนครับ
October 8, 2019
Excellent review on one of the most important part of people behavior - lying.
December 8, 2012
A primeira metade, ou o primeiro terço já está nos livros anteriores, e muitas conclusões grandes são tiradas de alguns experimentos. De repente, ele pode estar até usando outras fontes pra embasar as conclusões, mas não são citadas.
Mas, mesmo assim, gostei. Coisas novas sobre como as pessoas trapaceiam e a influência que isso pode ter nos outros.
Mas, mesmo assim, gostei. Coisas novas sobre como as pessoas trapaceiam e a influência que isso pode ter nos outros.
June 18, 2023
اتفاقای باحالی تو تحقیقا افتاده بود. مخصوصاً اون جاش که ثابت شده بود اونایی که مثل نقل و نبات دروغ میگن مادهی خاکستری (مادهای که سوخت قدرت تفکر رو تأمین میکنه) کمتری نسبت به بقیهی کیسای آزمایششده داشتن و عوضش مادهی سفید (مادهای که سلولای مغز رو به همدیگه متصل میکنه) بیشتری دارن، یعنی میتونن بین خاطرهها و ایدههای تو ذهنشون راحتتر ارتباط ایجاد کنن.
July 18, 2018
The reasons why we lie and to what extent we’re willing to lie are pretty fascinating, and if you haven’t read anything else of the sort before, this might be pretty revelatory. Ariely explains the various studies and results pretty clearly, and it’s definitely not aimed at people who have actually dug into the academic publications: it’s accessible to a layperson, definitely, and to my mind pretty much aimed at the layperson. At any rate, I didn’t find any of it surprising, because I’ve read most of this before and know something of the way we’ve discovered our brains work. I’m not 100% positive there was nothing new, but there wasn’t much that didn’t sound familiar.
So, a good read if you’re looking for something on the subject, but probably not much point if you’re already pretty aware of research into dishonesty and why we lie.
Reviewed for the Bibliophibian.
So, a good read if you’re looking for something on the subject, but probably not much point if you’re already pretty aware of research into dishonesty and why we lie.
Reviewed for the Bibliophibian.
February 4, 2021
החלק הראשון של הספר, פרקים 1 עד 4, ממש טובים. הם מתארים סידרת ממצאים במחקרים פסיכילוגיים שערך המחבר עם קבוצות חוקרים שנות בנושאים של רמאות, קלה עד כבדה וההסברים החברתיים והפסיכולוגיים לגמישות המוסרית כפי שהוא מכנה את זה, של הנבחנים.
הוא גם מציע סידרה של הצעות להתמידדית עם רמאות ועיגולי פינות ובוחן את ההשפעות החברתיות על הנטיות לבצע פשעים קלים, פשעי צווארון לבן וגניבות מינוריות.
החחק השני של הספר הוא כבר חזרה לא כל כך מוצלחת על הממצאים והמסקנות מההפרקים הראשונים של הספר.
באופן כללי המסקנה של הספר היא שאנחנו כאנשים לא בוחלים ברמאות קטנה וככל שהיא רחוקה מגניבת כסף פיזית וניתנת יותר להצדקה כך אנחנו גם לא מפנימים את הסטיה מהנורמות המוסריות.
יחד עם זאת תזכורות חוזרות ונשנות של הנורמה המוסרית, הצהרות ומישטור מצמצמים עד מעלימים את הנטיה לעגל פינות ולבצע עבירות קלות.
באופן כללי הספר היה מנץעניין אבל הפרקים האחרונים כבר לא חידשו כלום.
הוא גם מציע סידרה של הצעות להתמידדית עם רמאות ועיגולי פינות ובוחן את ההשפעות החברתיות על הנטיות לבצע פשעים קלים, פשעי צווארון לבן וגניבות מינוריות.
החחק השני של הספר הוא כבר חזרה לא כל כך מוצלחת על הממצאים והמסקנות מההפרקים הראשונים של הספר.
באופן כללי המסקנה של הספר היא שאנחנו כאנשים לא בוחלים ברמאות קטנה וככל שהיא רחוקה מגניבת כסף פיזית וניתנת יותר להצדקה כך אנחנו גם לא מפנימים את הסטיה מהנורמות המוסריות.
יחד עם זאת תזכורות חוזרות ונשנות של הנורמה המוסרית, הצהרות ומישטור מצמצמים עד מעלימים את הנטיה לעגל פינות ולבצע עבירות קלות.
באופן כללי הספר היה מנץעניין אבל הפרקים האחרונים כבר לא חידשו כלום.
March 24, 2016
Dürüstlük her zaman sorgulanagelen bir kavram. Bu kitap da cok güzel somut deneylerle ve verilerle bu kavramı biraz daha iyi anlamamızı sağlıyor.
Dili, akılcılığı ve mantıklı ornekleri ile bir cok noktada ufuk açtığı gibi cok detayli düşünmemizi sağlıyor.
Daha iyi bir review ve bir kez daha okumayı hak eden müthiş bir kitap.
Dili, akılcılığı ve mantıklı ornekleri ile bir cok noktada ufuk açtığı gibi cok detayli düşünmemizi sağlıyor.
Daha iyi bir review ve bir kez daha okumayı hak eden müthiş bir kitap.
June 21, 2020
Δεν ενθουσιάστηκα. Σε όλο το βιβλίο περιγράφει πειράματα και είναι κουραστικό.
Read
January 15, 2019کتاب دست روی نقطه حساسی گذاشته؛ پدیده ای که از پنهان ترین وجوه شخصیتی و فکری مان شروع شده تا بیرونی ترین حالات زندگی اجتماعی و حرفهای و سیاسی و اقتصادی و فرهنگی مان گسترش پیدا میکند: دروغ گفتن
شاید در نگاه اول به نظر بیاید با کتابی اخلاقی یا روانشناسی مواجه هستیم ولی باید بدانید نویسنده این کتاب متخصص اقتصاد رفتاری است و مشهورترین کتاب آن نابخردیهای پیشبیینیپذیر توضیح میدهد که چارچوب فکری ما انسانها در هنگام تصمیمگیری بر خلاف تصور عموم تا چه حد مملو از نابخردیست. نابخردیهایی که میتوان به راحتی آنها را شناخت و حتی پیشبینی کرد. این کتاب را باید در ادامه آن کتاب دانست. شاخه ای خاص تر از وجوه غیرمنطقی رفتاری ما انسانها.\
برای خواندن این کتاب کاملا تسلیم باشید. شاید توضیحات مکرر انواع آزمایشهای رفتاری کمی حوصلهسربر باشد ولی اگر ذهن آمادهای داشته باشید عصاره کلام این کتاب شما را با عریانترین لحظات عمرتان مواجه خواهد کرد. زمان هایی که کمی ریاکاری کردهاید و دروغ گفتهاید ولی نه آنقدر که ذهنیتتان در مورد خودتان خراب شود.
نمیدانم بقیه چقدر با این کتاب ارتباط برقرار کنند ولی من این کتاب را چنان خواندم که انگار او مرا خورد و قطعا یکی از گزینههایی ست که بعد از چند ماه دوباره سراغش خواهم رفت و باز مطالعهاش خواهم کرد.
ترجیح میدادم انتشارات مازیار این کتاب را با همان طرح روی جلد نسخه اصلی انگلیسی چاپ میکرد و عنوان کتاب را هم دقیقا از همان ترجمه میکرد: صادقانهترین حقیقتِ بیصداقتی
شاید در نگاه اول به نظر بیاید با کتابی اخلاقی یا روانشناسی مواجه هستیم ولی باید بدانید نویسنده این کتاب متخصص اقتصاد رفتاری است و مشهورترین کتاب آن نابخردیهای پیشبیینیپذیر توضیح میدهد که چارچوب فکری ما انسانها در هنگام تصمیمگیری بر خلاف تصور عموم تا چه حد مملو از نابخردیست. نابخردیهایی که میتوان به راحتی آنها را شناخت و حتی پیشبینی کرد. این کتاب را باید در ادامه آن کتاب دانست. شاخه ای خاص تر از وجوه غیرمنطقی رفتاری ما انسانها.\
برای خواندن این کتاب کاملا تسلیم باشید. شاید توضیحات مکرر انواع آزمایشهای رفتاری کمی حوصلهسربر باشد ولی اگر ذهن آمادهای داشته باشید عصاره کلام این کتاب شما را با عریانترین لحظات عمرتان مواجه خواهد کرد. زمان هایی که کمی ریاکاری کردهاید و دروغ گفتهاید ولی نه آنقدر که ذهنیتتان در مورد خودتان خراب شود.
نمیدانم بقیه چقدر با این کتاب ارتباط برقرار کنند ولی من این کتاب را چنان خواندم که انگار او مرا خورد و قطعا یکی از گزینههایی ست که بعد از چند ماه دوباره سراغش خواهم رفت و باز مطالعهاش خواهم کرد.
ترجیح میدادم انتشارات مازیار این کتاب را با همان طرح روی جلد نسخه اصلی انگلیسی چاپ میکرد و عنوان کتاب را هم دقیقا از همان ترجمه میکرد: صادقانهترین حقیقتِ بیصداقتی
May 15, 2017
An interesting topic, though pretty familiar ground if you have any exposure to behavioral economics and/or cognitive psychology. Feels a bit rote, lifeless overall. A straight survey of the material. Takeaways:
* Standard classical model of dishonesty/cheating is SMORC – simple model of rational crime – which says we cheat when it's in our rational interest. EV is positive, or expected payoff is greater than the risk of getting caught and the associated punishment.
* SMORC is false. Ariely calls his alternative the "fudge factor" theory, which basically says that cheating is rampant in all scenarios, whether the payoffs are big or small, but only by small amounts. People cheat just enough so they can still tell themselves they are still good people. Even when there is zero risk of getting caught.
* Probably the most interesting thing is just how common cheating is by these small amounts. I think it conflicts with how most people think about it.
* Points on self-deception are really interesting. For example, people overestimate their abilities on a test based on having just lied about their previous score, even though they should know that that's meaningless in terms of actual performance.
* Standard classical model of dishonesty/cheating is SMORC – simple model of rational crime – which says we cheat when it's in our rational interest. EV is positive, or expected payoff is greater than the risk of getting caught and the associated punishment.
* SMORC is false. Ariely calls his alternative the "fudge factor" theory, which basically says that cheating is rampant in all scenarios, whether the payoffs are big or small, but only by small amounts. People cheat just enough so they can still tell themselves they are still good people. Even when there is zero risk of getting caught.
* Probably the most interesting thing is just how common cheating is by these small amounts. I think it conflicts with how most people think about it.
* Points on self-deception are really interesting. For example, people overestimate their abilities on a test based on having just lied about their previous score, even though they should know that that's meaningless in terms of actual performance.
April 4, 2012
To be published in June of 2012 (DWD's Reviews received an uncorrected proof advance copy) by Harper.
Dan Ariely's The (Honest) Truth About Dishonesty is a fun look at a serious topic - lying. Ariely, a professor of behavioral economics at Duke University, describes his simple experiments and details his results in a light, easy to understand way. His results are often surprising and counter-intuitive.
For example, it is often considered that people are dishonest because they have calculated the risk of being caught and the reward if they get away with the dishonesty and act accordingly. Ariely demonstrates that this is incorrect and spends the rest of the book showing what conditions are more likely to cause dishonest behavior and what conditions decrease dishonesty.
This could have been a stupefyingly dull book, but Ariely deft touch makes it a very fun and very quick read.
http://dwdsreviews.blogspot.com/2012/...
Dan Ariely's The (Honest) Truth About Dishonesty is a fun look at a serious topic - lying. Ariely, a professor of behavioral economics at Duke University, describes his simple experiments and details his results in a light, easy to understand way. His results are often surprising and counter-intuitive.
For example, it is often considered that people are dishonest because they have calculated the risk of being caught and the reward if they get away with the dishonesty and act accordingly. Ariely demonstrates that this is incorrect and spends the rest of the book showing what conditions are more likely to cause dishonest behavior and what conditions decrease dishonesty.
This could have been a stupefyingly dull book, but Ariely deft touch makes it a very fun and very quick read.
http://dwdsreviews.blogspot.com/2012/...
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,315 reviews