Skip to main content

Home/ contemporary issues in public policy/ Group items tagged cheat

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
Sarah McKee

HOW TO CHEAT AT EVERYTHING | More Intelligent Life - 5 views

moreintelligentlife.com/...how-to-cheat-at-everything

shared by Sarah McKee on 28 Sep 11 - No Cached
  • A con man is essentially a salesman--a remarkably good one--who excels at making people feel special and understood. A con man validates the victim's desire to believe he has an edge on other people.
    • Joette Carini
      Joette Carini on 28 Sep 11
       
      My question for this article was based off of this quote-- I think that a con man is simply someone who is a master of manipulation. This is a good thing sometimes and a bad thing at others, but conning is simply about making people feel like you really know them and then manipulating them. Do you think that this is something that just anyone can do?
    • Matt Nolan
      Matt Nolan on 29 Sep 11
       
      The best way to con someone is to make sure they feel comfortable with and feel like they can trust you like Joette stated. You could also say that someone who is a good con is also a good salesperson, because they want you to you buy into their ideas and beliefs. No, i do not believe everyone can be a con some people are blessed with gifts and some people are blessed with being a con. Being a con artist is frowned upon yet it is still a gift to be able to make people believe anything you want.
    • Kaitlyn Guilbeaux
      Kaitlyn Guilbeaux on 29 Sep 11
       
      Perhaps everyone has the potential to be a con. Anyone could be taught the techniques of how to manipulate people. However, I do believe that some people are naturally better at it than others because they were born with certain traits; charismatic, a good lyer, etc.
    • Felecia Russell
      Felecia Russell on 29 Sep 11
       
      Well this is true. To be a con man, one has to be without compassion, because if he/she has compassion, they wont be able to do their job. It is a little thing called onscience, and that is essentially what a con man does not have. They are not concerned with consequences for the victim, ultimately, it is just a profit for their self benefit.
    • Jonathan Omokawa
      Jonathan Omokawa on 29 Sep 11
       
      I don't think that everyone is cut out to be a con man. There are certain character aspects of con men or grifters that make them so good at what they do. There is no doubt, that you can train to be a grifter, but you will lack the "talent" of someone with that natural ability. The question in my opinion is asking if anyone could be a used car salesman. The general belief is that used car salesmen are some of the best con men because they are able to sell a POS. So by that logic, I would say that no, not everyone can be a con man.
    • Valencia Hamilto
      Valencia Hamilto on 29 Sep 11
       
      Yes I do believe that conning is a task that just about anyone can do. Some maybe naturally better at conning than others but it is a task anyone can do. It just takes the effort to learn all the techniques of a con artist. It is a job in itself that tasks patience, time, and the will to manipulate people. You have to know how to be charismatic polite and convincing while being deceitful at the same time. Once you are able to master those skills you can become a con artist.
    • Xochitl Cruz
      Xochitl Cruz on 30 Sep 11
       
      In order to be a con man I think first of all, you have to be able to speak and "woo" people. If people naturally gravitate towards you it is part of your personality, because it radiates to others around you. So a con man uses this to his.her advantage to manipulate others.
    • steve santos
      steve santos on 30 Sep 11
       
      Readily yes I do think charisma is the how to cheat at everything card that just about anyone can play. Understanding the stakes that other people have in things is the key to see that the way we think is often in relation to where we come from and where we have been raised. Often times what you say or the way you say it is what draws the line between knowing something, questioning it and empathizing with it. Often times people will want all the above at different times. Putting things up to a notion of pure faith that the right people will come into your life at the right time is a beautiful religious notion for those that believe it but for me my ace in the hole against that argument is free will. Predestination makes will invalid so I believe that in reacting to the reactions of people to gain favored results is the true con man way of thinking. Make people feel the way you want to gain the desired results from them. If one carries themselves in that sense than they play the blank slate card where people jump into the sense of reliance in this person that they are the canvas they can emulate deep personal feelings with drawing the connection the con man or woman can act upon
    • Ryan Brown
      Ryan Brown on 30 Sep 11
       
      I would love to have not only the swagger and abilities of a con man but the confidence that comes with being able to have that big of an impact on people. Though i might use those abilites for something a little more benefical to society, i am in complete admiration for their skills. This article was interesting! I couldnt believe that someone who can manipulte people that well for that long can all of a sudden have a moment where they realize all the harm they have done to people. I can barely tell a lie.
    • anonymous
      anonymous on 30 Sep 11
       
      Charisma is a very large factor in the successes and talents of con men. Charismatic people can essentially get people to do anything for them with little to nothing in return, and the art of charisma is sometimes difficult to master. Con men are naturally very stealthy and smart with their time and investments, and much is required from them in terms of a constant rapport to upkeep their status and position.
  • It's an amazing paradox--a con man has incredible emotional insight, but without the burden of compassion.
    • Gaby Ramirez Castorena
      Gaby Ramirez Castorena on 29 Sep 11
       
      is compassion really a burden?
    • Eric Arbuckle
      Eric Arbuckle on 29 Sep 11
       
      It is if you want to be a con man, so the article says..
    • Xochitl Cruz
      Xochitl Cruz on 30 Sep 11
       
      I interpreted this quote as it would be used for politics. In order to come to an agreement for policies and laws, morality has to be set aside. Once morality and emotions are involved the decision is biased due to the comprimising situation one is now in. So in order to be good at a job, in this case a con man, he has to exclude compassion or else guilt will override his decision to con anyone.
    • tania markussen
      tania markussen on 30 Sep 11
       
      From a political perspective it is very helpful, and maybe necessary, to be able to detach your own feelings when making laws, policies, etc. because there will almost always be a "loser" and if every politician walked around and felt truly and deeply sorry about everything, nothing would really go forward. But, feelings aside, they can show compassion and try to make the best decision for the society as a whole.
    • Sarah McKee
      Sarah McKee on 30 Sep 11
       
      I think that not having compassion would be a burden. Sure, they can do their work well, whether it be conning someone or making laws and policies but without compassion you'll only really be good at your job. You won't be able to connect with people because you won't have compassion for anyone. Maybe the world needs people without compassion to make laws and policies but I don't think it's necessary. Compassion can be helpful when making decisions that affect lots of people.
  • "If you feel sorry you are dead in the water," he warns.
    • Gaby Ramirez Castorena
      Gaby Ramirez Castorena on 29 Sep 11
       
      is it possible that these con-men actually have some kind of psychological problems? naturally humans "inherit" this feeling of compassion, just like morals, and to be able to completely disengage with something like caring about people and the damage you do to them, that's something very worthy to take note of.
    • Sarah McKee
      Sarah McKee on 30 Sep 11
       
      But he still had compassion. It just took him a while to realize it. So maybe they do have some psychological problems or something that blocks that compassion, that guilty feeling but at least in this case eventually the human nature to feel guilt and compassion appeared.
  • ...9 more annotations...
  • "You must have an encyclopaedic knowledge of odd bits of trivia and use these facts to win people over. "
    • Eric Arbuckle
      Eric Arbuckle on 29 Sep 11
       
      Doesn't everyone wish they had encyclopaedic knowledge?
    • nsamuelian
      nsamuelian on 30 Sep 11
       
      Eric's exact thoughts were what went through my mind reading this. I feel like it is a unique gift to "win people over" through these means
    • Mike Frieda
      Mike Frieda on 30 Sep 11
       
      I would love this as well. I was thinking how an encyclopedic knowledge effects framing, and I feel as if having access to a vast array of information allows you to most accurately bring your audience to the desired side of your issue. If you know all the information about your audience, this was gone over in the film, you could more easily prime them to see only one side of your policy issue. 
    • magen sanders
      magen sanders on 29 Sep 11
       
      this made me laugh out loud. the fact that people, because of their own ignorance, laugh at those who getted tricked and conned and think they are in on the whole scheme when in reality they are just as ignorant if not more ignorant because they are so diluted with the idea that they arent among the the tricked.in turn it seems that they are actually conning themselves into thinking they are in on it all.
    • Sarah McKee
      Sarah McKee on 30 Sep 11
       
      It's funny yes, but mostly I just find it sad. The ease at which people can be conned. I mean, if placed in the shoes of one of these people, would all of us really be able to see through the con?
    • Mark Drach-Meinel
      Mark Drach-Meinel on 30 Sep 11
       
      It's funny how even a simple act of reverse psychology can work so well if used correctly.
  • "I could sell shit at an anti-scat party," he says, "you have to figure out someone's wants and needs and convince them what you have will fill their emotional void."
    • Melissa Moreno
      Melissa Moreno on 30 Sep 11
       
      I read the same concept in Aristophanes' play Knights, and the theme was the same. One of the characters is a sausage seller in Ancient times, which is as close to selling poop as you can get. It is truly an art and takes a special kind of person to read a person and be able to make them believe they need something. The play is a political satire and it is a very appropriate take on public policy and politics in general. As a politician you have to be able to figure out what you are going to have to do to be the best and win, and further your agenda. 
  • He must take an intense interest in other people, complete strangers, and work to understand them, yet remain detached and uninvested. That the plan is to cheat these people and ultimately confirm many of their fears cannot be of concern.
    • Nancy Camarillo
      Nancy Camarillo on 30 Sep 11
       
      Although in this article is speaking to the techniques of a con man, the same characteristics can be used for anyone who wants to influence another or a group of individuals to believe or accept something that will benefit them. Perfect example is when presidential candidates promise the world to "the polis". They are merely working to understand them,"showing them" that they can put there fears at ease in order to gain their vote. The ability to persuade others give one the ability to influence decision making.  
  • Once, when he visited a victim the day after to "apologise", he found the man crying about his mortgage, wife and kids.
    • Nancy Camarillo
      Nancy Camarillo on 30 Sep 11
       
      In order to be successful at "conning" individuals you must be emotionally detached, this gives you the ability to excel because you do not see the repercussions of the damaged you have caused or can cause. Being indifferent is key, being aware of the consequences leads to the guilt that can ultimately stop one for continuing in this act as we saw with Mr. Lovell. 
    • Bethany Petersen
      Bethany Petersen on 30 Sep 11
       
      It is interesting to see how Mr. Lovell justifies his acts to himself.  He feels that by returning the money that he (in a sense) stole, he no longer has to feel guilty for his actions, even though it was only a small portion of what he took.  While this is a weakness it seems to also be a strength- as long as he no longer feels sorry he will not be "dead in the water".
    • Bethany Petersen
      Bethany Petersen on 30 Sep 11
       
      Although Mr. Lovell will not admit it, his actions suggest that he feels guilty.  This shows another aspect of conning- he is constantly on-edge.  Even though he is in a sense "retired", he is still afraid of being "dead in the water"
  • interest he takes in others.
    • Sarah McKee
      Sarah McKee on 30 Sep 11
       
      Did he start with a general interest in people and turn that into a con or did he learn to be interested in people to enhance his cons?
  • Eric Henderson on 30 Sep 11
     
    I guess with practice, anyone can achieve this, yet some people may have a more natural ability to be able to con than others. Conning can be considered a trade skill just like a carpenter etc. because it is effectively useful in the sales industry. Therefore, it can easily be considered a learned skill. While this may be true, I definitely do not agree with the actual act of conning because it is deceptive and the victim normally does not receive 100% accurate information.
Mangala Kanayson

Question on "How to Cheat at Everything" - 18 views

No more than a parent cons a child into good behavior so Santa will bring the child gifts. People con each other all the time, especially on dates and in business settings. We only seem to call it...

framing heuristics cheat

started by Mike Frieda on 28 Sep 11 7 follow-ups, last by Mangala Kanayson on 04 Dec 11
Brandon Weger

http://www.astcweb.org/public/publication/documents/Burkley%20Sept%202008%20TJE1.pdf - 7 views

www.astcweb.org/...rkley%20Sept%202008%20TJE1.pdf

shared by Brandon Weger on 22 Nov 11 - No Cached
    • Tyler Coville
      Tyler Coville on 30 Nov 11
       
      I have seen a study which said that judges are even more likely to give a soft sentence after lunch.
    • georgenasr
      georgenasr on 27 Nov 12
       
      I actually am in the middle of preparing for a persuasive essay for my public speaking class, so I found everything in this article interesting. While all the listed methods prove to be effective, I have to disagree with the 'When to Say It' section. It almost seems like a cheap way to persuade, kind of like cheating. Since they brought up Greek philosophers in the end, I'll call on Plato to back me up on my opinion. He believed that the Sophists, who first taught persuasion and speaking, told their students ways to abuse rhetoric and such to convince their audience. Plato found this as a fallacy, since he believed that you should be able to convince people with truth, and not tiny tricks. 
    • Finn Sukkestad
      Finn Sukkestad on 27 Nov 12
       
      It is interesting how severely it seems that fatigue can effect your willingness and ability to resist persuasion.  It makes me wonder in what state are you best qualified to make decisions.  I feel as though when you have tons fo energy maybe more than usual you may make rash decisions and resist too much because you have the energy to do so, conversely if you have too little you are too feeble and will believe too much to the point of being naive and ignorant.
    • Alexis Schomer
      Alexis Schomer on 27 Nov 12
       
      I also think it is interesting how being fatigued can effect your ability to be persuaded. There are many sneaky ways for salesmen, lawyers, and other people trying to persuade to do so effectively. Simply by timing their attack at the right moment in the day can make them more likely to succeed as well as mimicking. I thought that idea was interesting as well and definitely makes sense as we are ego driven and like people that remind us of us. These two tactics are completely dependent on the nature of humans and can be manipulated to people's advantages.
    • Sean McCarthy
      Sean McCarthy on 28 Nov 12
       
      This is genius! It applies to more than just the courtroom, and is not only applicable in our own lives, but also in analyzing public policy. When politicians are running for office, they always try to mold the way they act to their desired audience... aka mimicry. Just one example drawn from a sea of possible illustrations.
    • chelseaedgerley
      chelseaedgerley on 28 Nov 12
       
      This article is really interesting. I love learning about emotions or things that affect our decision making without us realizing it. and it totally applies public policy. Like Sean said politicians acts they way they think we want them too. Certain words or "triggers" can sway our thoughts and decisions. I didnt really know that factors such as fatigue can actually weaken your ability towards certain things.
  • ...8 more annotations...
    • Tatiana McCuaig
      Tatiana McCuaig on 27 Nov 12
       
      What I found interesting is how the When and How to say it can be so easily linked. The "how" states that one should ask the audience to think about it, such as the students having to list 8 or 2 reasons, and how that changed their perspective. This ties in to the "when" because it wears the audience down more, having to make them list 8 reasons, thus making them tired and having less energy to oppose the thought of senior exams, reevaluating wether or not they really think that they are a bad idea. 
    • Brandon White
      Brandon White on 28 Nov 12
       
      I am the Vice-President of CLU's debate team. In terms of persuasion, the best method is to remain calm and logical in your argument. A lot of people think that persuasion is about demeaning your opposition into a point where their ability to debate is harmed. However, I feel the best way to persuade and gain ethos over your opponent is to methodically list why the opponent is wrong and give short, but potent, responses that highlight your argument in a meaningful way. I know htis article mainly talks about other arguments of persuasion, I though I would just throw in my two-cents. 
    • Meghann Ellis
      Meghann Ellis on 28 Nov 12
       
      It is interesting to see that in the how to say it section that keeping your arguments to a minimum will increase the strength of an argument but also make it easier to take a side.  You would think that if you have numerous reasons for an argument that it would make the audience think that your argument is much stronger but it just shows that you are trying to pull in as much information to go off of in order to not look dumb. Obviously phrases like umm, and like make an argument weak to the listener.
    • chelseaedgerley
      chelseaedgerley on 28 Nov 12
       
      keep it short and sweet and percise. The more people talk the more they get into jibber jabber.
    • Devon Meredith
      Devon Meredith on 28 Nov 12
       
      When discussing "How to Say It", I think the portion on style is the most important. Someone could be discussing a topic that I might think is interesting yet be totally turned off solely because of their style. In the article, credibility is discussed. The example of people being less convinced in buying something if there it is not something real is more than ever true. No trust in the product, results in no purchase. Style is definitely key and I think the most important part of "How you Say It".
    • Kayla Sawoski
      Kayla Sawoski on 28 Nov 12
       
      Often when trying to get a point across, many will have facts to back them up. When persuading someone, using a credible source really helps to support their argument. Like they say, "it's about the style", as well. The language, the phrases, all the words they use are how they share their position and get the "point" across. Communicating in such a way creates strong arguments and provides a source to believe. 
    • Courtney Sabile
      Courtney Sabile on 28 Nov 12
       
      The art of persuasion is important in the courtroom. People appeal to emotions and using emotions to support your claims will make it more effective.
    • Kim H
      Kim H on 30 Nov 12
       
      The legal system is meant to operate on fact. The prosecution carries the burden of proof, meaning that they must prove that the suspect committed the crime they are being charged for.  But even though they are expected to show facts that prove their case, they often include information that appeals emotionally to the jury to help them get the conviction they are looking for. Persuasion is an emotional technique that is extremely effective. 
    • Erick Sandoval
      Erick Sandoval on 28 Nov 12
       
      It is very effective to use mimicry to persuade someone. If  a salesman tries to sell a product, his chances of selling his product are higher if he acts more like a friend rather than a complete stranger. 
    • Brandon Weger
      Brandon Weger on 03 Dec 12
       
      I think that it is extremely difficult to decide what is the most and least persuasive, because certain things will change the situation, the words could simply be spoken eloquently and some of the jury might already be convinced of the defendant's innocence... The courtroom is a game of persuasion, using evidence and colorful words to paint a portrait of guilt or innocence, or possibly even incompetency... We often let people convince us if we like what they're saying or how they're saying it, conveniently these tactics work in the courtroom as well.
  • Eric Arbuckle on 30 Nov 11
     
    I think the political media realm uses these very tactics on a daily bases to persuade its audience. They attempt the wear down technique by repeating discussions and providing a repertoire of stories to fit their agenda. They sound credible by using statistics and being able to articulate without much hesitation (avoiding hesitant language). They attempt to mimic the audience by, at times, covering entertainment drama stories that attract the audience (in doing this they improve ratings as well). They ask the audience to think about a few reasons why their position is correct by polls, after they have bombarded the audience with their opinions. They inform the audience that other media networks are one sided, do not have the facts right, and are attempting to persuade their audience. Finally, they offer a few weak arguments from the opposing side by using guest opponents, usually only one to create a one sided battle, so they can over power him/her to make the opposing view look discreditable.
  • gina Hogrefe on 29 Nov 12
     
    This article is persuasive, my favorite piece of information from it is that people are fatigued around lunch and later evening so consider arguments around then. Thus a more likely time people will be persuaded.
  • Amanda Garcia on 11 Dec 12
     
    It's a little unfortunate that things like this can be used to persuade people, instead of jury verdicts being based solely on evidence and strength of arguments. Then again, even arguments can be unreliable if the arguer knows how to word them.
Kim H

Does the Invisible Hand Need a Helping Hand? - Reason.com - 8 views

reason.com/...does-the-invisible-hand-need-a

shared by Kim H on 16 Sep 11 - Cached
    • magen sanders
      magen sanders on 16 Sep 11
       
      is this saying that the players would completely forget about the ethical thing to do which is maximize loong term gain and go for short term interests if the "game" has an issue like a player being fined? if there is a consequence do people try to cheat their way out by just getting short term gain and be done with it? do they think they are benefitting??
    • Jonathan Omokawa
      Jonathan Omokawa on 16 Sep 11
       
      I was thinking that maybe the fact that there is a government regulation, they don't feel that they are responsible for taking care of the natural resources? Kind of like the "government" is the babysitter? And the people don't feel that they should be help accountable. 
    • Jonathan Omokawa
      Jonathan Omokawa on 16 Sep 11
       
      I mean to say that "people don't feel that they should be held accountable" not "help" sorry
    • Mangala Kanayson
      Mangala Kanayson on 16 Sep 11
       
      Maybe they think their human dignity and self worth are degraded by micromanagement/government intervention.
    • anonymous
      anonymous on 16 Sep 11
       
      "By pursuing his own interest (the individual) frequently promotes that of society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it." I think this quote, and this article as a whole, refers back to the common saying that "subordination leads to revolution." If a person wants to do something, as in donate time or money to a cause, they will do so because they feel the need to pursue their own interest through helping society, which is a win-win. But if "costs" are presented to people in the form of taxes and they're forced to pay for things they don't necessarily want to contribute to, they will want to go against the goodness of the cause, if merely for the sake of not allowing someone to force them into something.
    • Karina DaSilva
      Karina DaSilva on 19 Sep 12
       
      Exactly. It's just human nature. We don't like to be told what to do, and despite what the money's going towards, since it was obligatory, it doesn't have the same effect as if it was given freely. There could be some satisfaction in paying the taxes, because there's a sense of "it's over with", but I don't think much else. Self interest governs a lot of how this society works, anyways, and making some things obligatory (like picking up kids from a daycare) tends to take away ethic value and increases a more economic perspective ("What is the opportunity cost for leaving my child too long? Is it worth it?")
  • In one game, a player split a day's pay with another player. If the second player didn't like the amount that the first player offered, he could reject it and both would get nothing. The findings would warm the hearts of market proponents. As Bowles notes, "[I]ndividuals from the more market-oriented societies were also more fair-minded in that they made more generous offers to their experimental partners and more often chose to receive nothing rather than accept an unfair offer.
    • Gaby Ramirez Castorena
      Gaby Ramirez Castorena on 16 Sep 11
       
      did the players know that it was just a game? if they knew it was a game in the first place, obviously they wouldn't have minded giving their money away. if they actually thought it was real, that would be some interesting information. i wish they would've included this detail somewhere
    • Matt Nolan
      Matt Nolan on 16 Sep 11
       
      The players that were earning more money will always be more generous than the players that were earning less money. If the players knew it was a game they would have given their money away. But in some cases people that earn more money are less likely to give it away because usually the people that make more money are more frugal and send their money wisely
    • Kelsey Fratello
      Kelsey Fratello on 18 Sep 12
       
      I think it would have been better, like Gaby said, to see weather these people knew they were playing a game or not. I feel that the results would have been very different if they felt that it was for real, compared to if they knew it was a game. People are completely fine with losing money when it is just game; however, people feel that it is for real, they would "play", no pun intended, it smarter. 
  • Instead, parents reacted to the fine by coming even later.
    • Tavish Dunn
      Tavish Dunn on 16 Sep 11
       
      The parents who picked up their kids late before the fine was imposed would come later after the fine because they would pay the same amount for being 5 minutes late as for being 20 minutes late. If people are going to be punished equally for actions of different degrees, they will often not care about a greater offense because the punishment will be the same.
    • John Buchanan
      John Buchanan on 16 Sep 11
       
      Just another example of innate human values and free market principles not coinciding.
    • Melissa Moreno
      Melissa Moreno on 16 Sep 11
       
      While this is on a much smaller scale in the bigger picture, this same principle happens all the time whether when dealing with picking up your kids or republicans and democrats fighting in Washington. The free market does not always coincide with a personal morals, values, and ethics, however, that doesn't mean that it has to be either or.
    • Eric Henderson
      Eric Henderson on 16 Sep 11
       
      The obvious reason that the parents came later than normal after the imposed fine is basically that the parents are rebelling against authority. The parents are sending a message that they do not care about the penalties, instead, they are saying that the people in authority in this situation have no power to tell them what to do.
    • Lauren Dudley
      Lauren Dudley on 18 Sep 12
       
      I believe that the parents were just weighing their pros and cons... pay extra money for the daycare or have more free time before getting their kids. They chose that the extra money for some more time was worth it, so it made it kind of better for the fine to be placed for the parents because it could relieve guilt of being late with paying the daycare extra money.
    • elliott reyes
      elliott reyes on 18 Sep 12
       
      ok i already posted a comment but i dont see it on here anywho if the parents are paying for daycare and have good reasons for being late then they shouldnt be fined for working or whatever the case may be traffic etc there indeed paying for day care the teachers should atleast give a time limit after the initial let out time of the kids
    • Alexis Schomer
      Alexis Schomer on 18 Sep 12
       
      I think the parents saw the payment as an opportunity for extended care rather than a punishment for being late. So i gave them a chance to pay for babysitting pretty much making it more ethical to leave their kids past due. 
    • Devon Meredith
      Devon Meredith on 18 Sep 12
       
      I agree, yet when the parents signed up and paid for daycare they only paid for a certain time. I highly doubt the teachers are given overtime and after everything the teachers are doing for the child, the decent thing would be to pick your child up on time or call to inform them you will be late. Knowing that you will be fined a set price for being late and then using that to your advantage by knowing their is no set limit, is abusing the teachers. That's what I believe.   
    • Sean McCarthy
      Sean McCarthy on 19 Sep 12
       
      I agree with what Eric said ^^^^^ up above, the parents appear to be, metaphorically, laughing in the face of the teachers and declaring that the teachers don't have authority over them. It's just like with politics, they need to find a middle ground where the parents and teachers are happy (eg. maybe charging slightly more, but getting rebates for picking up on time, so parents feel like they have the ability to GAIN something as opposed to the ability to LOSE something)
    • Kevin Olive
      Kevin Olive on 19 Sep 12
       
      My mom would pick me up late whether there was a fine or not.
    • Justina Cooney
      Justina Cooney on 19 Sep 12
       
      I agree with the people who understand this to be a prime example of how people react when they are micro manged. I understand that many people are different but looking at my life experiences I have been most successful when I had a boss that did not micromanage, when I was accountable to my self to pick up my son on time or be on time to a doctor appointment and finally when I had complete control over my own fiances. I look at the fine for being late as a way out of self accountability because it normalizes it by saying most of you can not be responsible so we will create something that allows you feel okay about. This is true in many other cases as well.
  • ...16 more annotations...
  • In one game, a player split a day's pay with another player. If the second player didn't like the amount that the first player
  • We're showing that paying taxes does produce a neural reward.
    • Sarah McKee
      Sarah McKee on 16 Sep 11
       
      I would not have guessed this actually. People complain about taxes so much, but deep down they obviously know that paying taxes is beneficial to others as well as themselves.
    • Eric Arbuckle
      Eric Arbuckle on 16 Sep 11
       
      This is true, unless there are too much taxes. And the taxed product, or in other words, where the money goes for the tax is another issue.
    • Mike Frieda
      Mike Frieda on 16 Sep 11
       
      I disagree with the phrase "too much taxes". It should be noted that taxation in a blank slate economy can never be considered 'too much'. The appropriate amount of taxation depends on the cost of living, income levels, mean wealth, and a variety of other variables.  In the United States it could be said that 'too much taxation' could occur easily, but the greater issue at hand that I think Sarah raises is whether those taxes are being put to good use for the public good. The issue is one of public common interest vs private self interest.
    • Shannon Wirawan
      Shannon Wirawan on 19 Sep 12
       
      In my opinion, the neural 'reward' for paying taxes is not necessarily just about taxes. Since the people knew that the tax was directly for a food bank and not something that doesn't help a sensitive topic; they felt like they were doing some good for a charitable cause even though it was required. And that sparked the 'neural reward' for them.
  • "policies that appeal to economic self-interest do not affect the salience of ethical, altruistic, and other social preferences." Consequently, material interests and ethics generally pull in the same direction, reinforcing one another.
    • John Buchanan
      John Buchanan on 16 Sep 11
       
      I feel like these two points are contradictory.
  • The players looked at the fine as a cost and pursued their short-term interests at the expense of maximizing long-term gains. In this case, players apparently believed that they had satisfied their moral obligations by paying the fine.
    • John Buchanan
      John Buchanan on 16 Sep 11
       
      This is one of the perfect examples of why the federal government charging people for not purchasing health insurance is a ridiculous idea.
    • jackmcfarland12
      jackmcfarland12 on 19 Sep 12
       
      How can you possibly justify satisfying a 'moral' obligation by stealing more of a collective resource in the short term and still having it be an issue in a few months or year. Self-regulation is an important tool for people to have, but potentially throwing the whole community under the bus for a short large gain may not be worth it...
    • Nicolas Bianchi
      Nicolas Bianchi on 19 Sep 12
       
      I definitely agree.  It doesn't really satisfy the moral obligation.  It will be a reoccurring theme for a while and many short term gains will not equate to long term ones.
  • The fine seems to have undermined the parents' sense of ethical obligation to avoid inconveniencing the teachers and led them to think of lateness as just another commodity they could purchase."
    • Mike Frieda
      Mike Frieda on 16 Sep 11
       
      It seems to be a bit of an overreaching argument to suggest that a fine would re-prioritize the ethical behaviors of the parents. I could understand parents viewing the situation in a matter of quantity, that is that being five minutes late is no different than an hour monetarily, but I think that this reasoning does not provide for whether they had a loss of moral integrity or guilt regarding their child being left at the day care late.
    • Xochitl Cruz
      Xochitl Cruz on 17 Sep 11
       
      I do not agree with Bowles' statement that picking up one's children is not an ethical obligation. The way those parents saw the fine, was as a fee for an extra time. If the parents were more late than usual, I think the fine should have been more specific. By having such a vague fine, picking children up late you get fined, is not very informational. The fine should have been defined properly for instance, if you are 10 minutes late you are fined so much money and so on. Just moving the fine progressively according to the lateness of the parent might have produced different results.
    • Hayley Jensen
      Hayley Jensen on 19 Sep 12
       
      I find this reaction to the fine interesting in that it plays directly to the idea that "time is money". Convenience comes at a certain economic value whether its your car, your cell phone, computer, plane ticket, paying someone to mow your lawn or anything of that sort that saves you the hassle of completing a certain task. All the things I have listed are tasks/items that could be done in cheaper/less efficient ways, but we buy the right to the convenience. The issue in the parents minds seems to be not along the line of morality in the sense of respecting OTHERS and their time, but the ethical standard of " I am buying this time, and I will pick up my child late because I 'bought' that right". Once money was introduced to the equation, the parents feel more inclined to not mind the  teachers time but rather their own. 
  • After eight rounds of play, the Colombians withdrew an amount that was halfway between individually self-interested and group-beneficial levels. Then
  • In other words, as people gain more experience with markets, morals and material incentives pull together.
    • Lauren Dudley
      Lauren Dudley on 18 Sep 12
       
      In markets, human beings will look out for their own self interest, because that is a part of human nature, so I do not know about gaining morals in the market because humans will find the best deal for them that they can get. All they have to do is get the other person to agree with them, it does not always have to be fair especially if one side needs something desperately.
    • Lauren Dudley
      Lauren Dudley on 18 Sep 12
       
      but yes the market could help people to learn how to work with others so that we could all benefit
    • Sean McCarthy
      Sean McCarthy on 19 Sep 12
       
      Although 'market players' are often viewed as purely looking out for themselves in competition, human beings do, by nature, feel inclined to give back to society. so oftentimes when they realize that they will do well material-ly in a market, the morals begin to move in. or so the author appears to be saying.
    • Courtney Sabile
      Courtney Sabile on 19 Sep 12
       
      Humans tie in morals and material incentives together, especially in a market. Some may argue that compassion and lending a helping hand is a variation for self gain and worth.
    • Hayley Jensen
      Hayley Jensen on 19 Sep 12
       
      The characteristics necessities for a market to be successful brings those in the industry to acknowledge the importance of respecting the value of a fair-minded exchange. There is competition within the market to be on top but you must rely on others to help excel your profits. The fair-mindedness aspect links to the "moral" aspect seemingly as one BECAUSE of the other. The correlation between the two can be coincidence because of what the author has defined as "moral". Moral could be the idea of being fair, but morality delves deeper into than that. Morality relies on intention or motivation. In this article, the moral issue is the idea of making a fair exchange. He defines fair as making a mutually beneficial exchange with each other. Does each side have the say as to what would benefit the other? Or is this just a ploy to gain trust from the other individual in the fair exchange? This article could be giving too much credit for marketeers in saying that the benefits of being "fairminded" comes from a moral stand point. It is perfectly plausible to say that they are making fair exchanges based on their reputation as a business or/and to pull ahead and be better than the other companies. This, in my mind, would be just playing a smart game and a smart game doesn't have to be aligned with morality.
    • Dana Sacca
      Dana Sacca on 18 Sep 12
       
      There is a pattern that humans get better joy out of doing things that get them socially accepted buy others.
  • The fine seems to have undermined the parents' sense of ethical obligation to avoid inconveniencing the teachers and led them to think of lateness as just another commodity they could purchase."
    • elliott reyes
      elliott reyes on 18 Sep 12
       
      offcourse the parents are gonna come later who wants to get fined for being late to pick up your kid from school especially if the parent was working i mean if the parent was having fun and constantly did it then maybe i wuld agree but i dont think thats the case with the majority of the kids someone needs to pay for the daycare so i dont think parents were late at first for b.s reasons
  • "By pursuing his own interest (the individual) frequently promotes that of society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it."
    • Alexis Schomer
      Alexis Schomer on 18 Sep 12
       
      Self interest creates competition which makes the market more efficient
    • madison taylor
      madison taylor on 19 Sep 12
       
      This idea would be the basis of why we should not increase taxes even more on the upper class because the more of their money they get to keep and spend how they want the more they will spend and boost the economy.
    • Karina DaSilva
      Karina DaSilva on 19 Sep 12
       
      I think this entire article has some valid points towards the laissez-faire economic philosophy.
    • Tyler Schnorf
      Tyler Schnorf on 19 Sep 12
       
      I agree. . The market needs to fail at times to improve business with new competion
    • Caitlin Scott
      Caitlin Scott on 19 Sep 12
       
      I agree with Karina, even if we took all the money from the richest people, we would not be able to take care of the deficit spending problem we have in the United States.  Most of the taxes come from the huge middle class, which are also some of the biggest consumers in a society.  If you allow taxes to be low, then people will not be afraid of losing all of their money at some point and will feel more comfortable putting it back into the economy through commerce and donations.  When people are afraid of the massive amounts of taxes they are going to have to pay, they are going to keep their money in their pockets and not spend it.
  • But we're showing that the neural reward is even higher when you have voluntary giving."
  • He was forever looking over your shoulder, constantly kibitzing and threatening you. In return, you worked as little as you could get away with. On the other hand, perhaps you've had bosses who inspired you—pulling all-nighters in order to finish up a project so that you wouldn't disappoint her.
    • Sarah Marroquin
      Sarah Marroquin on 19 Sep 12
       
      I think it is ridiculous for people to base their work habits on how their bosses treat them. They should do a good job for the sake of their own morals and work ethics.
    • Hayley Jensen
      Hayley Jensen on 19 Sep 12
       
      I think it's going a bit far to define this choice as ridiculous. It's natural for an individual's output to be gauged on their input and the time and effort that goes into the work that they do. Although good work ethic is an individual choice, it would be haphazard to discount outside factors such as necessary employment and financial stability. 
    • Kevin Olive
      Kevin Olive on 19 Sep 12
       
      I think this example is more on not liking the boss than personal work effort. Doing just enough work for the boss to just leave you alone comparing to a boss that is not so controlling and that you are willing to work for.
    • Brandon Weger
      Brandon Weger on 19 Sep 12
       
      Regardless of how the employer or manager treats an employee, they should be doing every aspect required of them, the one thing that I cannot stand though is working your hardest and trying extremely hard to impress and then you get absolutely no recognition for your deeds
    • Luke Gheta
      Luke Gheta on 19 Sep 12
       
      I found this article interesting because it displays to readers that money is not the main internal drive when working. I believe that self fulfillment is the main factor. This goes against the invisble hand and the preceived notation that competition within the work force is drived by money.
  • In return, you worked as little as you could get away with.
    • Tatiana McCuaig
      Tatiana McCuaig on 19 Sep 12
       
      The concept of just getting over the threshold, doing the absolute minimum to satisfy the needs of your job and not bothering to go above and beyond.
    • Erick Sandoval
      Erick Sandoval on 19 Sep 12
       
      I think that when people give voluntarily, it gives them a sense of satisfaction from their conscience. Gaining experience with markets, however, can help tie moral and material incentives so that better decisions are made.
    • mgarciag
      mgarciag on 19 Sep 12
       
      I think it is funny how the fine that was intended to make the parents pick their children up on time backfired and led the parents to pick up their children even later than they normally would have otherwise.  They figured that they would pay the same for an extra five minutes by being late as being 10-15 minutes late. 
    • Meghann Ellis
      Meghann Ellis on 19 Sep 12
       
      I feel like it is almost ironic that the parents don't pick up there kids on time and come even later. They think that if they pay the fine than it compensates them being late. The fine helps them to free their moral obligation to which they don't feel bad 
    • Kim H
      Kim H on 19 Sep 12
       
      "lateness is a commodity they could purchase".    This makes sense to me. If I am going to pay the same fine for being one minute late as I would if I were an hour late, why wouldn't I take my sweet time getting there if it's costing me the same either way. 
  • Eric Arbuckle on 16 Sep 11
     
    Taxes are a necessity for an economy. However, where do we draw the line of.. how much taxes? where does our money go? who gets taxed more? and why do they get taxed more? etc... These are all issues that are going to sway peoples "neural reward."
  • ...2 more comments...
  • Andrew Rothans on 21 Sep 11
     
    I believe taxes are needed for our economy to stay above water. Like Eric said where do we draw the line? And where does the money truly go? I don't feel that all the money we pay in taxes really helps us in the future. It may help the economy and our country but I feel that it does not help me in any direct way.
  • gina Hogrefe on 18 Sep 12
     
    The article of games and players that are seeking rewards; sounds like monopoly to me.What I liked best about the reading is that even voluntary giving has its "neural rewards." Maybe if the general public knew they would get a gift from giving than they would give more.
  • Carissa Faulk on 19 Sep 12
     
    I find it fascinating that, in the case of the day care, the mere act of putting a fine in place seems to remove the moral obligation to be on time. This is certainly not a logical response to such a fine, but as I think about my own life I understand the almost subconscious difference that it incites in one's way of thinking. If you pay a fine for an immoral or unfair act (such as, for instance, a late fee on a library book) it seems to remove the feelings of guilt about inconveniencing others and makes you instead feel as though you had purchased some extra days with the book. It would make sense that this would hold true for taxes. If we pay our taxes and the government gives to the poor, we feel like our moral obligation to the poor has been fulfilled. We think we did our part, when in actuality we have done very, very little.
  • Tyler Schnorf on 19 Sep 12
     
    No the invisible hand does not need a helping hand. The free market is specifically created so that the market works itself out of tough econmic times. Any tampering with the free market could make things way worse than they already are. It might take some time for the market to improve, but it will if we can just leave it alone.
1 - 4 of 4
Showing 20▼ items per page