"Americans embrace lying as a way to get ahead&quo

susnfx · Post by **susnfx** » Sat Jul 17, 2004 9:36 am

I tried to post this as a poll, but I'm having MSN issues and couldn't do it (I'm also having trouble with the title - something keeps changing it and won't let me fix it!).

This article was printed in the local newspaper today (reprinted from the Christian Science Monitor - but not particularly Christian in nature). I am really disturbed by lies, people who tell them, and why it seems lying is so widespread today, so this article was really interesting to me.

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,595077567,00.html

A couple of highlights:

"Though the public expects truth and bristles when the feds lie, wider trends indicate those same outraged Americans are increasingly telling lies of their own to get ahead in school, business and relationships — and apparently feel OK about it.

"74 percent of high school students, in a 2002 survey of 12,000 respondents, said they had cheated on an exam at least once in the past year... In 1992, 61 percent of students reported having cheated. The latest craze is to use cellular phones to photograph exams and show friends in the following class.

"After doing 3.8 million background checks, ADP Inc. announced in April that 52 percent of job applicants had lied on their resumes.

"In the high-pressure, high-stakes environment of 21st- century America, lying has for many apparently become a way of life... People may know it's wrong to lie in theory, researchers say, but in practice they feel the success they want will be out of reach if they admit their flaws and sins along the way.

"They think, 'If I'm playing by rules that no one else plays by, then I'm disadvantaging myself in a way that's apt to play out over a lifetime.'

"Though enticements and pressures to lie may be stronger than in the past, another factor has cultural observers equally concerned: ...many seem to know right from wrong, but material success has become more important to them than the task of sculpting moral character.

"...what's also noteworthy today is that the ordinary person is willing to tolerate routine lying under certain circumstances. When the crime seems practically harmless — to cheat the government out of a few tax dollars, or to bill a rich client for a few unworked hours — then the working guy seems to have won....

"Great progress could occur if Americans could reclaim the definitions of success as laid out in Judaism, Christianity and Islam, according to American University Islamic studies chairman Akbar Ahmed. The trouble is, he says, too many profess to abide by an ancient faith but in actuality their passion is for social status and material gain.

"Those assumptions of life as a quest for moral improvement cannot exist with a philosophy that you need to get to the top of the totem pole at all costs," Ahmed says. "You cannot have both."

I'm certainly no paragon of virtue - I've told lies in my life. I've never lied on a resume or in a job interview. I've never cheated on my taxes. I've told "white lies" to avoid hurt feelings ("I really like the new hair-do," "Your whistle playing on that clip is great."), but other than that I think I've been an honest person. It seems the older I get, the less patience I have with people who feel the need to exaggerate, lie, steal - anything to makes themselves "better" than other people.

So, why do people lie and what do you think it does to you as a person if you do?

Wombat · Post by **Wombat** » Sat Jul 17, 2004 11:28 am

If lying is more prevalent than it once was, perhaps that is because the consequences of getting found out are not great enough. Many of the things that are unfair in life are so because people seem to prefer some element of lottery in life to ruthless meritocracy. Since we are all encouraged to aspire and told that we can get somewhere if we want it enough, there is a strong tendency to think that everyone should have an equal chance to be successful, whatever their talents or or effort. I think that truth is just one of the casualties. It would be easy enough to punish liars more severely if we really wanted to. For my part, I'd prefer that success went only to the deserving but that we all cared much less about being seen as successful.

Another interesting issue is the white lie. Probably we all tell them and the world would be a lot more boring and brutal if we didn't tell them. But it is not easy to tell where blarny and kindness ends and cheating begins. Most of us probably don't hand in dollars we find in the street. In my case, if I found a significant amount, or if I found an artefact that might only be of sentimental value, I'd hand it in. If someone dropped a dollar or even a few cents I'd hand it back to them or alert them. I do this frequently. But I wouldn't hand in a dollar found with no obvious owner. I suspect in sum I've lost a lot more than I've found this way but strictly speaking it is still dishonest although I don't know a single person who hands over petty amounts of found cash.

Post by **Nanohedron** » Sat Jul 17, 2004 12:29 pm

Interesting thread, Susan. Just wanted to mention that when I'm out gallivanting (will I ever stop?) I'll encounter people who evidently expect me to lie about things, my avocations and employment in particular, and occasionally my age. This must be considered normal for a number of folks, where you put on a front to strangers because you feel the actual plumage is a bit dowdy, or personal security issues lead one to set up attempts at smoke and mirrors. I've had people try to catch me at those kinds of falsehoods, apparently thinking I'd slip up. It's hard to miss a poorly-hid but knowing smirk built on the assumption that they've got you, and reading body language is a strong point with me. Smirks are easy. Other than the occasional "white lie" --and I detest those, but sometimes find no other way-- I don't lie about myself. It's not that I'm an ethical exemplar; FAR from it. It's just too hard to remember fabrications and to worry if I'm keeping my story straight. My life is easir, if less glamorous, for it. If there's anything I *would* lie about, I just don't bring it up, or say flat out, but reasonably, that I won't discuss the issue. Funny how I've been accused of nastiness for that one! So I remain my dowdy self. Besides, people attracted to bright, shiny objects bore me. They reek of opportunism.

I haven't read your link yet; I just wanted to reply here because you struck a chord with me, and now (or soon) I will watch Bowling for Columbine, as it was enthusiastically offered to me by an acquaintance and I don't want to have to lie about having watched it.

TelegramSam · Post by **TelegramSam** » Sat Jul 17, 2004 12:41 pm

Oh that's true enough, at least in a university setting. I notice it among my peers quite often. I think half the problem is that it is so much easier to cheat these days. You have cell phones, palm pilots, and other portable electronic doo-dads that are easy to conceal in a classroom full of 300 other students and only a few TAs to police the exam-takers. They also seem obsessed with wealth and the accumulation of junk and social status among their friends. Things like right and wrong just don't really matter as long as they get what the want. It's really qute sad if you ask me. People are less mature these days, is what I think it boils down to. Most are content to remain self-indulgent pleasure-seekers their whole lives, and seem to be driven more by a combination of emotions and hormones than anything approaching logic or higher reasoning.

Go figure...

Walden · Post by **Walden** » Sat Jul 17, 2004 1:11 pm

I grew up in a religious family, as is well enough known. We were always taught that there is no such thing as a white lie. We believe what Revelation 21:8 said about liars.

In popular fiction, such as Nancy Drew and the Hardy Boys, there always seemed to be the notion that a lie was okay so long as it was told by the "good guy" and was for the right reason. These were the values entrenched in most of the pop-culture, including golden age Hollywood, and early television.

My mother was always fond of the Andy Griffith Show, but one thing that bothered her was that Andy's character lied.

Some have attributed the societal attitudes (which are readily apparent in the government--remember the president whose staff lied for him, so he could make a big appearance at Thanksgiving in Iraq?) to situational ethics or to relativism. Perhaps it's really more of a chicken-or-the-egg question.[/img]

Wombat · Post by **Wombat** » Sat Jul 17, 2004 1:37 pm

TelegramSam wrote:Oh that's true enough, at least in a university setting. I notice it among my peers quite often. I think half the problem is that it is so much easier to cheat these days. You have cell phones, palm pilots, and other portable electronic doo-dads that are easy to conceal in a classroom full of 300 other students and only a few TAs to police the exam-takers. They also seem obsessed with wealth and the accumulation of junk and social status among their friends. Things like right and wrong just don't really matter as long as they get what the want. It's really qute sad if you ask me. People are less mature these days, is what I think it boils down to. Most are content to remain self-indulgent pleasure-seekers their whole lives, and seem to be driven more by a combination of emotions and hormones than anything approaching logic or higher reasoning.

Go figure...

As a University lecturer I see a lot of this. Cheating is easier because the penalties, at least in my country, are much smaller than they used to be. At one time, cheating in exams meant expulsion, but students are even known to pass subjects they were caught cheating in now. As for plagiarism in essays, we don't even bother trying to prove it unless we have an absolutely watertight case and even then management are reluctant to cooperate. I really have no idea why. but we have marking deadlines that are very tight and hundreds of scripts to wade through—who has a day to spare searching around to prove plagiarism.

It might sound odd, but I'm not especially bothered nor do I think that attitudes are much worse than they were a couple of decades ago. When I was an undergarduate, the big scam was to bluff your way through exams. The effort some students put into bluffing and cheating is so great that they would expend less energy just learning the subject.

Obviously tricking a teacher is a big ego boost. I wonder what they'd think if they knew how little a lot of us care. We are teachers and scholars, not rat catchers. Getting consistently good marks across the board is as hard as it always was and is the only thing that guarantees entry to the graduate course, the good job and so on. To progress students need references and I can't give good references to students I don't know and they will have impressed me in open conversation where cheating is impossible.

Some people do get through though even though merely having good exam results is not enough. I heard of a case in which a man had been teaching in a good college for ten years on the basis of a Princeton doctorate he never received. He was fired of course when a Princeton-educated vistor couldn't remember him and decided to look him up. The really sad part about this story is that he was apparently one of the best teachers in the faculty.

susnfx · Post by **susnfx** » Sat Jul 17, 2004 1:48 pm

Consequences of lying...hm...this has had me thinking...

I know a person who has always been a leader in doing the right thing in a large organization with which she is affiliated. She refuses to let the leaders get away with shady or questionable actions (and is in a position to do so). I've always held her in the highest regard and she's respected throughout the field. However, over the past couple of years I've realized that she exaggerates stories to make them more exciting or interesting. I don't consider her a hypocrite, but I do find it has lessened my regard for her. Is that unreasonable?

I know another person who exaggerates his musical background and experiences (including who he has "appeared" with, etc.) on his official "bio." Even after calling him on it, he hasn't made any changes, but leaves it in the misleading wording to give the impression he's done much more than he actually has. Is this standard practice? Is it nit-picking to think less of him for it?

It seems we're surrounded in politics, television, print, everywhere we turn, by lies, half-truths, exaggerations. I can't imagine that there's ever going to be a wide-scale attempt in our society to regain some morals, but it's pretty disheartening to think where this will all eventually lead.

Susan

Wombat · Post by **Wombat** » Sat Jul 17, 2004 1:56 pm

Walden wrote:I grew up in a religious family, as is well enough known. We were always taught that there is no such thing as a white lie. We believe what Revelation 21:8 said about liars.

Just as a matter of curiosity, how far does this go? I take it this entails telling nothing but the truth. But does it mean you must always answer truthfully what the questioner wants to know, no matter what the question, as opposed to, say, telling a truth that sounds like an answer but isn't, thus preserving the letter but not the spirit of the injunction? Similarly, would you feel obligated to tell the whole truth? I have in mind the usual problem examples—the axe murderer knocks at your door asking after the whereabouts of your mother or sister, the Nazi asks if here are Jews hiding in your attic.

Wombat · Post by **Wombat** » Sat Jul 17, 2004 2:10 pm

Since you want our opinions and this is something I've been thinking and writing about recently, I can't resist. Just my unconsidered thoughts of course.

susnfx wrote:Consequences of lying...hm...this has had me thinking...

I know a person who has always been a leader in doing the right thing in a large organization with which she is affiliated. She refuses to let the leaders get away with shady or questionable actions (and is in a position to do so). I've always held her in the highest regard and she's respected throughout the field. However, over the past couple of years I've realized that she exaggerates stories to make them more exciting or interesting. I don't consider her a hypocrite, but I do find it has lessened my regard for her. Is that unreasonable?

Not so much unreasonable as a bit hard-line I think. It depends on whether the stories are self-serving and on whether they are mainly for self-promotion or mainly for entertainment. Tall stories can be entertaining. Anecdotes can be part fiction. Why not? I must say though that if I get carried away telling a story and give a false impression that advantages me, I feel bad about it. So I try not to do it. But I do occasionally tell tall stories where it is understood that I am talking tongue in cheek. If I do this, I'd never dream of lying if someone challenged me though.

Is it wrong to tell little children Santa Claus stories?

Are engineers who use Newtonian mechanics for calculations, which they do every day, inveterate liars, even though every Newtonian calculation they do gives an answer that is false?

susnfx wrote:I know another person who exaggerates his musical background and experiences (including who he has "appeared" with, etc.) on his official "bio." Even after calling him on it, he hasn't made any changes, but leaves it in the misleading wording to give the impression he's done much more than he actually has. Is this standard practice? Is it nit-picking to think less of him for it?

Not nit-picking at all. That's serious lying in my book.

dubhlinn · Post by **dubhlinn** » Sat Jul 17, 2004 2:31 pm

In terms of I.T.M.
Imitation could be considered as flattery.
In the world of Academia it probably means something else.
In an ever decreasing job market people will polish their C.V. in an attempt to find a source of income which relates to the time and effort they have put in to get there in the first place.
Lies,are relative to life, and all of the stuff that comes with it.
If you can deliver the goods,and show a profit for the Company.. then all will be forgiven.
As the one true Lord once said;
"Money does'nt talk, it swears"

Slan,
D.

Post by **Nanohedron** » Sat Jul 17, 2004 3:01 pm

TelegramSam wrote:People are less mature these days, is what I think it boils down to. Most are content to remain self-indulgent pleasure-seekers their whole lives, and seem to be driven more by a combination of emotions and hormones than anything approaching logic or higher reasoning.

It seems so. Possibly the concept of maturity for some has shifted to one of being able to display ability in getting material advantage. "Player" = wise, in other words. I've encountered people who certainly think this way, even when it gets them into repeated trouble.

Walden, as for there being no white lies, I admit you've scratched me deep enough.

Wanderer · Post by **Wanderer** » Sat Jul 17, 2004 3:50 pm

Wombat wrote:
susnfx wrote:I know another person who exaggerates his musical background and experiences (including who he has "appeared" with, etc.) on his official "bio." Even after calling him on it, he hasn't made any changes, but leaves it in the misleading wording to give the impression he's done much more than he actually has. Is this standard practice? Is it nit-picking to think less of him for it?
Not nit-picking at all. That's serious lying in my book.

Yeah, mine too. I've got a few (as in very small number) of musical kudos under my belt...and I'm proud of them. It's sad when someone else stretches the truth in this way.

For instance, I played at last years TRF. The Gypsy Guerilla Band played at last years TRF. Every morning, my band was invited (along with others) to play with them for the front gate dances. They would hand out sheet music for new tunes, and we would work them up. We would play maybe 20 mins to a half hour. After 16 such performances, I think I could say that we "played with the Gypsy Guerilla Band".

On the other hand, at Scarborough Faire, I ran into E-Muziki. (Forgive me if I spelled it wrong--I don't have one of their CD's yet). They play some cool ecletic greek nad mideastern style tunes. The bouzouki player also plays tinwhistle, and recognized me from TRF. At the end of one of their sets, they invited me to play Rights of Man. I think it'd be wrong of me to say "I've played with E-Muziki" on any kind of resume or bio.

Other people I suppose have less ethics...like the stereotypical used car salesman who's willing to say anything to make a buck.

Walden · Post by **Walden** » Sat Jul 17, 2004 4:33 pm

Wombat wrote:Just as a matter of curiosity, how far does this go? I take it this entails telling nothing but the truth. But does it mean you must always answer truthfully what the questioner wants to know, no matter what the question, as opposed to, say, telling a truth that sounds like an answer but isn't, thus preserving the letter but not the spirit of the injunction?

In practice, it has involved a lot of just not answering.

Similarly, would you feel obligated to tell the whole truth? I have in mind the usual problem examples—the axe murderer knocks at your door asking after the whereabouts of your mother or sister, the Nazi asks if here are Jews hiding in your attic.

In reading The Hiding Place, we held an especially high regard for the one member of the ten Boom clan who refused to lie in this situation.

Walden · Post by **Walden** » Sat Jul 17, 2004 4:39 pm

Wombat wrote:Is it wrong to tell little children Santa Claus stories?

We felt it was wrong to tell children that he literally delivered presents, and purposely deceive, but were not averse to enjoying the myths and customs associated therewith. My parents gave me presents in my stockig, at Christmas, but were forthright at all times, on the St. Nicholas issue.

Chuck_Clark · Post by **Chuck_Clark** » Sat Jul 17, 2004 9:33 pm

What do you all expect? Our whole system encourages lying. Parents tell their kids its wrong to lie, then tell grandma in the kid's hearing that 'we can't come over tonight, we have prior plans' (yeah, TV reruns). Lecture your kids on honesty, then see how much you can scam out of the tax return. Most Americans don't consider lying on a tax return to be lying. To be blunt, I would strongly suspect anyone who says they never lie of themselves lying.

In business, we watch as those who are most willing to cheat get ahead fastest. And even when a Michael Milliken or Ken Lay gets caught in spectacular fashion, everyone knows that: 1) for each one caught, thousands slide by; and, 2) even after being "punished" the felon will still walk away a millionaire. As many have already pointed out cheating in academia, whether falsifying a CV, cheating on an exam, or plagiarism carries few if any tangible penalties, even in the unlikely event that one gets caught.

What would you do in this very real case. I had an employee who was hard-working, intelligent, innovative and honest. She was also deficient in education, having dropped out of junior college while trying to get away from an abusive husband. Time and again, jobs she was perfectly capable of performing went to others who were NOT so capable, but had either fudged their own background or used political connections to get around the requirements.

After watching until I was sick of it, I finally took a hand and helped her 'enhance' her resume - not actually lying, mind, just casting actual experience in extremely favorable terms. She got the promotion, used her extra income to return to school, wound up with an M.S. degree and if I hadn't retired might well have been my boss by now.

Did I lie? By strict interpretation, probably. Do I feel guilty about helping her improve her life and that of her eventual new husband and kids? Sorry, no.

Morality has changed, By the standards of the Fifties, when I had my first moral training, we've reached a point of almost moral anarchy. Culture changes, in this case because the moral/cultural straitjacket of traditional christianity has given way to a more flexible pragmatism which maintains less strict standards with regard to some traditional faults.

Is this good, bad, horrible or merely different? I don't know. I doubt that anyone my age can make such a judgment, simply because we lived through the paradigm shift. I certainly wouldn't trust the opinion of one of the purveyors of a particular religious mythos. Maybe history will settle the issue, maybe not. Historians sometimes have trouble seeing the truth themselves.