How come there are so many small acts of fraud and dishonesty in our everyday lives, many of which emerged from those who consider themselves wholly ethical?

Davi Peter Bastian Nehls

Sigmund Freud states that growing up in society leads us to internalize its social virtues, which develops our Superego. This concept, having relations to how our brains work, leads us to be pleased when we follow society’s ethics. However, if that is the case, how come there are so many small acts of fraud and dishonesty in our everyday lives, many of which emerged from those who consider themselves wholly ethical?

In the pages of Predictably Irrational (2009), Dan Ariely seeks to clarify this dilemma through a deeper analysis on the Superego. For him, small transgressions are not sufficient to activate “our internal honesty monitor” — the Superego — which leads us to not only continue misbehaving to a slight degree, but also rationalizing them as somewhat ethical. That may also be the case depending on the nature of the infraction; an experiment conducted by the author showed that individuals have a much inferior propensity to steal cash vs tokens that represented (but were not directly) money. According to him, raw cash triggers (and to a significative extent) our Superego. Going a step away from it, however, makes for a significant change: “not only did the tokens ‘release’ people from some of their moral constraints, but for quite a few of them, the extent of the release was so complete that they cheated as much as was possible” (Ariely, 2009).

Accordingly, there are many real-life scenarios that follow the same context, as detailed in the movie “Bad Education” (2019). A scenic representation of an American fraud scheme, the motion picture details how both the superintendent and assistant superintendent of the Roslyn public school stole several million dollars using their work credit cards. This event is consistent with the previous points raised. Firstly, the means extrapolated direct money handling, which might have impeded the agents from directly taking it from the school. Secondly, the rationale supported throughout the entire film was that the fraud was justifiable due to the administration’s impact on the school’s ranking. Such argument, based on ideals so disconnected from reality, also shines light on another concept: myside bias.

Explored at length by Keith Stanovich in the book “The Bias that Divides Us”, myside bias is the action of people to “evaluate evidence, generate evidence, and test hypotheses in a manner biased toward their own prior beliefs, opinions, and attitudes” (Stanovich, 2020). Because of such, we may support convictions that, despite sounding productive and righteous, are incorrect and possibly even harmful. In politics, myside bias and ethical problems often intertwine, as people tend to favor information that confirms their pre-existing beliefs and ignore contradictory evidence. For instance, supporters of accused politicians may defend them despite evidence of wrongdoing, while opponents may ignore any evidence supporting the politician’s innocence. This can lead to ethical considerations being downplayed in favor of defending one’s own side or attacking the other.

Stanovich also highlights the progressive strengthening of convictions through a comparison with genetics: one’s body rejects genes (convictions) that diverge from its genome (personal ideology), but easily reinforces itself with those that are compatible. Accordingly, as ethical missteps occur, they will over time progress towards unethical behavior and displace how we evaluate it fully. Such correlation is also observed in the movie; Frank Tassone — the superintendent, when holding his ground after the corrupt scheme was discovered, states that the purchases started on the seemingly harmless realm of 5 to 10 dollars.

But not all hope is lost. Keith Stanovich states that “the antidote to this obesity epidemic of the mind is to recognize that beliefs have their own interests, and for each of us to use this insight to put a little distance between our self and our beliefs” (Stanovich, 2020). So, the solution to our dilemma lies right on promoting discussion about it, as “even good people are not immune to being partially blinded by their own minds” (Ariely, 2009). Moreover, this dialogue makes itself worthy not only for its financial consequences, but also for social relations, as even seemingly small ethical lapses can erode trust and undermine principles that are essential for a prospering workplace community.

References:

Ariely, D. (2009). Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions. HarperTorch.

Finley, C. (Diretor). (2019). Bad Education [Motion Picture].

Stanovich, K. E. (2020). The Bias That Divides Us: The Science and Politics of Myside Thinking. The MIT Press.

Este texto foi escolhido pelo Prêmio Pensamento Crítico 2023