Q. Why is there so much cheating and lying going on now? Everywhere you look, there are cheating scandals, from Lance Armstrong and the European soccer leagues to our financial markets, public schools, scientific research and universities. What is causing this?
G. A recent article in Scientific American - Mind gave some useful insights on cheating. There have been many recent spectacular cheating scandals, and not surprisingly, studies on how this arises and why it is so widespread. Has it always been this way, has our culture changed, or is it just the way people are?
Well yes, yes, and yes.
Cheating, defined as "acting dishonestly to gain an advantage" is very common. In a 2001 study, "Cheating in Academic Institutions: A Decade of Research" by McCabe, Trevino and Butterfield, in Ethics & Behavior, outlines how pervasive cheating is in academic institutions.
A 1964 study of 5,000 students in 99 universities found that 3/4 of students had cheated. About thirty years later, a study @ nine of those universities, showed that "overall cheating" had increased slightly. However, "significant" increases were found in cheating on exams, with "disturbing" increases among women and in "collaborative" cheating.
One major change is that what was "plagiarism" in 1964, i.e. using others' work and saying it's yours, is now much less clearly perceived to be cheating. Living/working in a university town, IME, it is now ubiquitous.
The increases have been attributed in many studies to grade point average (GPA) creep, gender mix changes, increased competition, Type A behavior, and self-esteem issues. The most significant factor uncovered was the degree to which students believe their peers cheat.
In a 2012 cheating scandal @ Harvard, 125 out of 279 students in the "Introduction to Congress" (a fine model) course were "investigated for cheating". Over half were told to withdraw for up to a year. "Cheating contagion" is significant in many areas outside of academia. Once a competitive peer is seen cheating, and getting away with it, there is a fear of "relative loss", of "falling behind", which establishes a rationalization, even a perceived "necessity" to also cheat.
The disturbing cheating in science was studied by Martinson, Anderson and Devries in Nature, one of the most prestigious scientific publications, in "Scientists Behaving Badly" (2005). One third of scientists confessed to engaging in wide-ranging behaviors including falsification, plagiarism and outright fabrication. An indicator of how widespread "research misconduct" has become is the number of scientific papers that are retracted. Papers are retracted for many reasons, including when fraud is detected by reviewers, their peers, before the paper is published.
Fang, Steen and Casadevail in "Misconduct Accounts for the Majority of Retracted Scientific Publications" (2012) found that of 2047 bio-medical and life science papers that were retracted, 67% were for fraud, duplicate publication and plagiarism. The percentage of papers retracted because of fraud has increased 10-fold since 1975. This is attributed to the decreasing availability of funding, increased competition for tenure and promotion, and fear of loss of reputation and status; fear of failure trumps desire for reward.
Do other living beings "cheat" to gain advantage over others w/o the "cost" of their own efforts, or is it just our species? No, in fact, bacteria do it, yeasts do it, fish do it, small mammals do it, even other primates do it. Relentless Darwinian selection at work.
We've evolved to be "wired for it"; the bigger the neocortex and the more deeply convoluted and furrowed it is, the more socially-sophisticated, creative and likely a species is to use "dishonest" tactics for deception and social manipulation.
This was demonstrated by Byrne and Whiten in "Machiavellian Intelligence: Social Expertise and the Evolution of Intellect in Monkeys, Apes and Human" (1989). "Machiavellian intelligence" (social or political intelligence) was first applied to primates in Franz de Waal's "Chimpanzee Politics" (1982).
Niccolo Machiavelli was famous for laying out the principles of successful political action in social groups, described as "the art of manipulation in which others are socially manipulated in a way that benefits the user, whether or not it is to the detriment of the one being used." Furthermore, the user feels "no remorse or empathy when their actions harm others."
The links between creativity, dishonesty and our willingness to cheat were studied by Dan Ariely of Duke and his collaborators. Dan's TED talks, including "Our Buggy Moral Code" have been viewed 2.8 million times. He has written "Predictably Irrational", "The Upside of Irrationality" (NYTimes bestsellers) and "The Honest Truth About Dishonesty". His article "Dishonesty in Everyday Life and Its Policy Implications" is on-line.
Ariel's work demonstrated that when students assumed that their teacher could not detect cheating, the average test score rose significantly. However, this was not a few students cheating a lot, but many students cheating a little.
Most folks assume that if the stakes/benefits are higher, that we will cheat as much as possible. However, Ariely showed that even when the highest reward was for a score of 20, students would only raise their score from 4 > 6 by cheating. There is either a "conscience" effect or a (likely) belief that they would attract less attention if they cheated only a little.
Collaborating w/Gino of Harvard Business School, Ariely in "The Dark Side of Creativity: Original Thinkers Can Be More Dishonest" (2011), demonstrated that folk who score higher on psychological tests of creativity are more likely to cheat. This is not a surprise as the same brain regions are responsible for creativity and societal deception.
Ariely and Gino believe the two are causally connected, i.e creative individuals are more skilled at self-deception - they are more able to rationalize cheating so that they feel better, or not as bad, about doing it.
As Scientific American Mind pointed out, Proust observed; "It is not only by dint of lying to others, but of lying to ourselves, that we cease to notice that we are lying." As Nobel Laureate Richard Feynman said: "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool." Or as George Costanza said on Seinfeld "It's not a lie if you believe it."
Can anything be done? Stiffer punishments were not found to be more effective. Ariely found that "self-image" is an important constraint. Procedures like honor codes, ethics classes or signing a statement that one will not cheat are surprisingly effective. So is the realization that activities are increasingly detectable by omnipresent cameras, data base comparisons, social networks, sophisticated medical diagnostics, and the plea-bargained testimony of associates; recent revelations of cheating in finance, medicine, sports, research, academia, betting, etc., came to light this way.
How does this affect spiritual practitioners? Well, if scientific researchers, subject to constant scrutiny by superiors, subordinates, peers and funding agencies, and who must submit their work for detailed review by their external peers, are cheating, it is likely cheating is occurring in spiritual venues.
What can you do? Well, be relentlessly skeptical of everything and "fact check" anything you can. Don't believe that because many others "believe" something, that it is necessarily "true"; we are Darwinianly-evolved to behave that way, but, as many "mass movements" have shown, it can be wrong. Trust your deepest intuition.
we are not far from having cognitive neuroscientific diagnostic tools that can give an indication of one's "spiritual state". One of the biggest barriers to date has been getting "big name" teachers to participate in testing; what does that tell you?
For a fascinating look @ how easy we are to manipulate, stream "Kumare".
 |
| Lance Armstrong Ex-Tour de France champion |
G. A recent article in Scientific American - Mind gave some useful insights on cheating. There have been many recent spectacular cheating scandals, and not surprisingly, studies on how this arises and why it is so widespread. Has it always been this way, has our culture changed, or is it just the way people are?
Well yes, yes, and yes.
Cheating, defined as "acting dishonestly to gain an advantage" is very common. In a 2001 study, "Cheating in Academic Institutions: A Decade of Research" by McCabe, Trevino and Butterfield, in Ethics & Behavior, outlines how pervasive cheating is in academic institutions.
A 1964 study of 5,000 students in 99 universities found that 3/4 of students had cheated. About thirty years later, a study @ nine of those universities, showed that "overall cheating" had increased slightly. However, "significant" increases were found in cheating on exams, with "disturbing" increases among women and in "collaborative" cheating.
One major change is that what was "plagiarism" in 1964, i.e. using others' work and saying it's yours, is now much less clearly perceived to be cheating. Living/working in a university town, IME, it is now ubiquitous.
 |
| Harvard University |
In a 2012 cheating scandal @ Harvard, 125 out of 279 students in the "Introduction to Congress" (a fine model) course were "investigated for cheating". Over half were told to withdraw for up to a year. "Cheating contagion" is significant in many areas outside of academia. Once a competitive peer is seen cheating, and getting away with it, there is a fear of "relative loss", of "falling behind", which establishes a rationalization, even a perceived "necessity" to also cheat.
The disturbing cheating in science was studied by Martinson, Anderson and Devries in Nature, one of the most prestigious scientific publications, in "Scientists Behaving Badly" (2005). One third of scientists confessed to engaging in wide-ranging behaviors including falsification, plagiarism and outright fabrication. An indicator of how widespread "research misconduct" has become is the number of scientific papers that are retracted. Papers are retracted for many reasons, including when fraud is detected by reviewers, their peers, before the paper is published.
Fang, Steen and Casadevail in "Misconduct Accounts for the Majority of Retracted Scientific Publications" (2012) found that of 2047 bio-medical and life science papers that were retracted, 67% were for fraud, duplicate publication and plagiarism. The percentage of papers retracted because of fraud has increased 10-fold since 1975. This is attributed to the decreasing availability of funding, increased competition for tenure and promotion, and fear of loss of reputation and status; fear of failure trumps desire for reward.
 |
| Cortexes of mouse, monkey and human Who would you trust? |
We've evolved to be "wired for it"; the bigger the neocortex and the more deeply convoluted and furrowed it is, the more socially-sophisticated, creative and likely a species is to use "dishonest" tactics for deception and social manipulation.
 |
| Machiavelli |
Niccolo Machiavelli was famous for laying out the principles of successful political action in social groups, described as "the art of manipulation in which others are socially manipulated in a way that benefits the user, whether or not it is to the detriment of the one being used." Furthermore, the user feels "no remorse or empathy when their actions harm others."
 |
| Dan Ariely Duke University |
Ariel's work demonstrated that when students assumed that their teacher could not detect cheating, the average test score rose significantly. However, this was not a few students cheating a lot, but many students cheating a little.
Most folks assume that if the stakes/benefits are higher, that we will cheat as much as possible. However, Ariely showed that even when the highest reward was for a score of 20, students would only raise their score from 4 > 6 by cheating. There is either a "conscience" effect or a (likely) belief that they would attract less attention if they cheated only a little.
Collaborating w/Gino of Harvard Business School, Ariely in "The Dark Side of Creativity: Original Thinkers Can Be More Dishonest" (2011), demonstrated that folk who score higher on psychological tests of creativity are more likely to cheat. This is not a surprise as the same brain regions are responsible for creativity and societal deception.
Ariely and Gino believe the two are causally connected, i.e creative individuals are more skilled at self-deception - they are more able to rationalize cheating so that they feel better, or not as bad, about doing it.
 |
| Richard Feynman Nobel Laureate Physics |
 |
| George Costanza Seinfeld |
As Scientific American Mind pointed out, Proust observed; "It is not only by dint of lying to others, but of lying to ourselves, that we cease to notice that we are lying." As Nobel Laureate Richard Feynman said: "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool." Or as George Costanza said on Seinfeld "It's not a lie if you believe it."
Can anything be done? Stiffer punishments were not found to be more effective. Ariely found that "self-image" is an important constraint. Procedures like honor codes, ethics classes or signing a statement that one will not cheat are surprisingly effective. So is the realization that activities are increasingly detectable by omnipresent cameras, data base comparisons, social networks, sophisticated medical diagnostics, and the plea-bargained testimony of associates; recent revelations of cheating in finance, medicine, sports, research, academia, betting, etc., came to light this way.
How does this affect spiritual practitioners? Well, if scientific researchers, subject to constant scrutiny by superiors, subordinates, peers and funding agencies, and who must submit their work for detailed review by their external peers, are cheating, it is likely cheating is occurring in spiritual venues.
What can you do? Well, be relentlessly skeptical of everything and "fact check" anything you can. Don't believe that because many others "believe" something, that it is necessarily "true"; we are Darwinianly-evolved to behave that way, but, as many "mass movements" have shown, it can be wrong. Trust your deepest intuition.
we are not far from having cognitive neuroscientific diagnostic tools that can give an indication of one's "spiritual state". One of the biggest barriers to date has been getting "big name" teachers to participate in testing; what does that tell you?
For a fascinating look @ how easy we are to manipulate, stream "Kumare".
No comments:
Post a Comment