[intro music] Welcome to Nerdologia! I'm Atila, biologist, researcher and Nerdologia is here to set an example Today we will see what encourages dishonesty Last year, Brazil fell in the Transparency corruption perception index that although criticized, still is a reference source for those who plan to invest in other countries We are not among the worst, but we are still in the category of very corrupt. In a test conducted by Reader's Digest magazine, in Rio de Janeiro, of the 12 "lost wallets" only 4 were returned and one of them came back without money and Rio still did better than Lisbon where only one wallet was returned to the owner while the most honest city in the test: Helsinki, Finland 11 wallets were returned.
But where does the difference between this countries come from? One of the researchers who worked more writing about this is Dan Ariely that we have quoted in the episode about "brands manipulate you" This time, we will talk based on in his latest book: "The honest truth about dishonesty" that you can find on the video description worth reading as it has many interesting things that we will not see here one of many experiments that Dan and his colleagues did was to apply a math test with cash rewards for each correct answer People had to write their answer on a card, check the answer sheet and tell the interviewer how many right answers they got right, and destroy the evidence If they lied about the number of right answers, they will receive more money without anyone knowing or rather, almost anyone because when comparing the number of right answers of those who could lie with another group that delivered the test answers to be corrected It was possible to know how many people truly got the right answers Comparing the right answers of those who could not lie with the right answers of those who could lie It was possible to know how many people have cheated to earn a little bit more the result: people on average added 15 right answers per 100 in which they were paid The oddest thing was that paying more for the right answers did not increase the cheating, when the amount paid per answer was very high, people cheated a little less. Of course, there was always one or the other saying that they got all the right answers, but they were few cases.
Most people added just a few right answers. What led Ariely to propose that, in general, people do not want to see themselves as dishonest, but also tend to take some advantage. What makes them cheat just enough to do well, but less than what would make them uncomfortable.
It's ok to exceed the speed limit, if it's just a little bit more As the bicycle stolen throughout the year each one takes just a little bit of guilt, enough to take some advantage But less to make them uncomfortable, so when they created a distance between the money and the cheating when the person was paid with gift voucher, for example, the amount of cheating increased. Would you dare to take money from the cash register at work? And what about take a copy paper package to help the school work of your children?
What is the problem of stealing a pen? It's not money . .
. But in the end the value is not the same? Now remember how far is Brasilia from the voters and from where public money would be applied.
Moreover, not the money, the public funds the commission, the bidding. All very abstract and distant. Everything gets worse when there is a chance to rationalize or justify the dishonesty.
Other articles in the same line of Ariely showed that the longer people had to think of a justification more people were dishonest steal for a cause is much easier or even worse, if more people do the same less guilty with cheating. It's all right to cross the street off the crosswalk, nobody uses it anyway. All right not to go to Congress, no one goes on Friday anyway Ah, but this test was done among North American students if they repeat the test here in Brazil, for sure there would be more dishonesty.
Really? They repeated the math test, with and without correction, in several countries. The result: in all of them, people got on average, 15% more right answers.
Which brings us to Dan Ariely's conclusion: "People have the same inclination to be dishonest" What changes from one country to another are the legal systems and incentives to dishonesty, a cultural difference. Now listen again to the 1976 advertising with player Gershon Nunes who created the famous law of Gershon and tell me if our culture favors cheating: "Why pay more if VILA gives me everything I need from a good cigarette? I like to take advantage in everything, right?
Take some advantage as well. " And you know what did the students steal more on math tests? A bad example!
Having an undercover actor cheating in front of everyone announcing that he got everything right and taking money without consequences, made those who participated much more dishonest. And the greater the rogue authority figure is, more it influenced others Now, think about how many cheating examples recognized in national network we have, without consequences, only pizza, how many authority figures are dishonest and always have an ideology and a justification for what they did. So do not forget: this year has elections and you can help reduce the number of bad examples and show that it does have something wrong with being dishonest.
Do not forget to enjoy and share videos to give good example and subscribe to our channel. Until next Thursday! And special thanks to André Souza the support in another episode Please: criticism, suggestions, comments and themes down here and our profiles on Twitter and Facebook Voice Alexandre Ottoni: This episode was an offering of NerdStore There, beyond the "Bluehand Protocol" You can find other books, shirts, mugs and even deck Young Nerd NerdStore.
com.
