Reddit reviews The Honest Truth About Dishonesty: How We Lie to Everyone--Especially Ourselves

The problem is that gifts absolutely do influence people on a subconscious level. Even if you're declaring to yourself that you won't be influenced and will be absolutely fair, your brain simply isn't completely under your control. A big expensive gift is especially problematic.

A book I like which touches on the subject: The Honest Truth About Dishonesty: How We Lie to Everyone--Especially Ourselves

Dan Ariely is relatively well known for his work on lying and deception.

I think a lot of people would become a lot wiser if they realized that corruption is a natural progression of a stagnant system where individual actors are not rational, but are in fact predictably irrational, and the kinds of corruption we see are not only not new, but are simply an expression of our natural tendencies over time to be dishonest while rationalizing away out own behavior.

If people understood this, and were honest with themselves about it, we would come to the conclusion that any society we create which doesn't inherently factor in these tendencies is inherently doomed to corruption and eventual failure from the start.

There's a good movie on this subject, based on a book, or check out these TED talks.

> O magari lo fa il 110% dei macchinisti

Al di la' delle cazzate questi fenomeni sono molto ben studiati, vedi Ariely qui.

Pochissime persone sono disposte a commettere crimini, ma moltissimi sono piu' che disposti a 'piegare' un po' le regole, tipicamente con danni enormi.

> Questo thread mi fa cascare le palle.

A chi lo dici, sembra di discutere con bimbetti di 4chan che loro si' che sanno tutto.

I'm reading The Honest Truth About Dishonesty: How We Lie to Everyone by dr. dan ariely .

Basically everybody lies and rationalizes it one way or another.

There is another book Principles: Life and Work by Ray Dio that covers hiring the right people for the job. Basically the best thing you can do is interview at least 3 professionals for the job and choose the one that gives you the most information and the best course of action.

Simply because of the fact that we are all biased one way or another, there will always be knowledge gaps. So, it's important to find the right person and ask the right questions.

Here are some tips to get started:

• This funny and good presentation by Dan Ariely is a good start about human moral behavior (assuming you agree that climate change is a moral problem). There's also a book if you prefer that.
  
• Another important point are the limitations of human morality. A short read would be Paul Bloom's piece in the New Yorker. Again, there's also a book. See also the The Identifiable Victim Bias.
  
• A description of these and various other effects can be fund in George Marshall's "Don't even think about it" which is specifically about the psychology of climate change.
  
  Hope this helps.

I read this one book The Honest Truth About Dishonesty: How We Lie to Everyone--Especially Ourselves, and there was one section that essentially talked about how it was the classic slippery slope method that lands people into these mindsets.

Essentially he makes one little lie about the military and because it's only a little lie he allows himself to think it's okay morally ("I just took one or two candy from the store, nothing big"). Because of this he has set his morality slightly lower without fully realizing it, which means he will make another small lie about the military, and this continues on.

It's one of the main reasons politicians can end up starting out with smaller bribes and then eventually see themselves taking massive bribes. If we allow ourselves to lie and cheat only a little bit we can still think of ourselves as good people (because it's only a little bit, nothing big), but some of us without realizing it will end up making bigger and bigger lies over time because we change the line bit by bit.

Here is the mobile version of your link

LPT: You have a limited supply of energy to spend on self-control.
The more you spend it fighting choosing not to eat something, the less morale judgment you'll have by the end of the day.

Source

You bring it up and don't go past where your partner is comfortable. If you know ahead of time that there's no way the other person would be into it, then you own up to it by breaking up with them.

At least, that would be the most ideal out of a not particularly ideal situation. In my experience, if someone brings this up, they're already cheating or have checked out of the current relationship and are basically just trying to make themselves feel better about hurting their partner. Our self image of "being a good person" is extremely important to us and we find all sorts of justifications for our immoral/harmful/etc behavior. I'm not even talking about just fidelity, I just mean with our behavior and actions in general. Here's a book I recommend if you're interested in the subject. It's quite interesting and the research has been referred to in many other works.

So yeah, they don't have to stay together forever because they've been dating for a few years, but people need to be honest about breaking things off rather than trying to weasel out of things.

>Why would you?

reminding people to be moral, thoughtful, etc. improves the likeliness of that behavior.

>What?

Quoting myself: No. I'm saying I don't know the answer to that question (just like I don't know if God objectively exists).

However I believe it does (doesn't make it objectively the case).

>If you believe X, you accept that X is objectively the case. That is what belief is.

that's where we differ. i realize my beliefs may or may not reflect objective reality. that's just the nature of a belief. But i just choose to accept it as the case (in my subjective reality, because i can really only perceive the world through my own subjective lens).

>Objectively true. The sun objectively exists. It is not a matter of opinion that the sun exists. It is a matter of fact. Whether people believe it or not, it is true. If you accept that the sun exists, then you believe that the sun objectively exists.

and i wouldn't necessarily use that word. i don't know what is objectively the case, because fundamentally i can't perceive things outside my own subjective lens.

>Is that clearer?

uhm...not really. let me put it this way.

1. truth value is a criteria for establishing beliefs about the objective physical world. (ex: gravity requires empirical evidence demonstrating its truth value)
   
   
2. truth value is not a criteria for objective morality. (ex: whether it's true killing people is immoral objectively or not, that's not important)
   
   
3. consequentialism allows you to create a system of morality that maximizes benefit & minimizes cost (ex: consequences for the actions generated by a belief will allow me to determine if this is moral).
   
   
4. measurement of consequences would utilize "objective" physical world information (ex: statistics of condom breaking).
   
   

• Note: i put objective in quotes because whether it's actually objective is up for debate
  
  Conclusion: Consequentialism as i've laid out while utilizing beliefs established in truth value is not actually about measuring whether it's true/false an action is good/bad (that's not the purpose). it's about measuring cost/benefit of an action via examining the outcome. When I say something is immoral, I simply mean the cost isn't worth the benefit (not that it's objectively more/less moral than something else).

I must admit, I get the people I'm discussing with confused sometimes when the orangereds just come in. I didn't mean to imply you felt that way, sorry.

I think that that is a great point, though. Dan Ariely's most recent book was about lying, which I excitedly purchased but haven't read yet.