Study Shows People In Power Make Better Liars 265
oDDmON oUT writes "MSNBC is reporting that a Columbia Business School study shows those who hold power over others make better liars. According to one of the study's coauthors, 'It just doesn't hurt them as much to do it.' For the average liar, she said, the act of lying elicits negative emotions, physiological stress and the fear of getting caught in a lie. As a result, she added, liars will often send out cues that they are lying by doing things like fidgeting in a chair or changing the rate of their speech. But for the powerful, the impact is very different: 'Power, it seems, enhances the same emotional, cognitive, and physiological systems that lie-telling depletes. People with power enjoy positive emotions, increases in cognitive function, and physiological resilience such as lower levels of the stress hormone cortisol. Thus, holding power over others might make it easier for people to tell lies.'"
Correlation Causation (Score:4, Insightful)
Or maybe the people who don't have moral or emotional problems with lying are more likely to get into power.
Re:Correlation Causation (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe it's because most leaders are psychopaths, so they have absolute no problem telling lies at all.
Re:Correlation Causation (Score:5, Insightful)
The terrifying conclusion of this research is that when you randomly assign normal people to positions of power, they become psychopaths.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If positions of power are detrimental to human mental health then it should be illegal to put people in or allow people to attain positions of power.
And that in a nutshell is the political philosophy called democracy.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And who shall have the power to prevent people from attaining positions of power?
I will. I promise not to abuse the power at all.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The terrifying conclusion of this research is that when you randomly assign normal people to positions of power, they become psychopaths.
And in other news, when you apply a force to something it accelerates in inverse proportion to its mass...
Seriously, why is it in the sciences we can prove things by experiment and they stay proved, but in the social "sciences" every repeat of a well-known, empirically proven result is considered new and insightful?
Is it the lack of sound biological foundation for the social "sciences", so that there is no notion that some truths--like those revealed decades ago by the Stanford Prison Experiment and the Mil
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You compete to gain positions of power. You are born a psychopath, you do not become one, although as a weak willed amoral person it is certainly possible to come under the influence of a psychopath and join them in their corrupt activities.
The flip side of the report is that people get into modern capitalist based positions of power by being better liars, rather than be being competent managers. So being good a blaming other people for your mistakes and taking credit for other peoples work, all whilst s
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
80% of people will give someone what they believe to be a lethal shock (despite the person begging them to stop) with slight prompting.
So I'd say 80% of people are ready to be psychopaths-- they just lack the opportunity.
(sources are the original study and the recent french TV program that duplicated it).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
actually "born" and "bred" come kinda hand in hand. You might have been thinking of "made"?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Or - psychopathy is genetic, not learned.
And F = m*v. At least, that's what I'd really like to believe, so I'm going to keep repeating it on the Internet and completely ignore all the evidence [prisonexp.org] to the contrary [wikipedia.org].
Psychopathy is opportunistic. Everyone has the capacity. Most people take advantage of the opportunity when they have it.
Re:Correlation Causation (Score:4, Insightful)
But this doesn't diminish the point that some individuals are incapable of being anything other than psychopatic - they are simply born without the required hardware to have empathy as a feature of their cognitive architecture. They lack an instinct that most of us have, even if we don't always use it.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Maybe it's because most leaders are psychopaths, so they have absolute no problem telling lies at all.
Let's just hope they are merely sociopaths!
Cops lie alot too (Score:3, Insightful)
I doubt there's many people that lie as much as cops do on a daily basis & get away with it. & I've yet to see a polices facts statement or brief that wasn't full of lies. No wonder bugger all trust coppers these days
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I was being a bit facetious, although I do think psychopaths do excel at politics, mainly because their easy charisma, insanely over-the-top goals and absolute lack of empathy or a conscience, but with the ability to mimic those emotions, make them perfect for a line of work where goals can evaporate and reformulate in days.
There's no doubt that giving someone power can lead to all sorts of nasty side-effects on their egos. It doesn't even take much power. Some of the worst I've seen are mall cops and bea
Re:Correlation Causation (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Correlation Causation (Score:5, Insightful)
Fricking knee-jerk "Correlation != Causation".
It's quite possible that both claims are true (TFA's and yours) -- but in this case, it appears from the study simply that:
Causation = Causation.
Re:Correlation Causation (Score:4, Insightful)
To become a leader you have to be able to look people in the eye and tell them exactly what they want to hear. The better you are at this the higher up the ladder you will climb. For some reason people will always believe what they want to hear. It seems to apply across all ideologies.
Re: (Score:2)
To become a leader you have to be able to look people in the eye and tell them exactly what they want to hear.
Well, if that's all there is to it, then it would always be the salesman who climbs the ladder. But that's not the case.
Being a leader is also being able to know and set boundaries. Being able to recognize win-win deals. Having wisdom.
The Boxer (Score:3, Insightful)
Furthermore, a man "carries the reminders of every glove that laid him down, or cut him 'til he cried out in his anger and his shame ..."
I know I do, anyway ... and I'm not even a fighter.
But sociopaths are another matter -- they don't give a shit about shame. Anger, yes. But not shame.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Their conclusion of the study sounds ridiculous in itself.
They make it sound like some Jedi mind-trick -- as if you are channeling your power into a lie. "These are not the droids you are looking for..."
Re:Correlation Causation (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Correlation Causation (Score:5, Informative)
What you say about getting into power is undoubtedly so. All other things being equal, the ruthless person will have an easier time climbing the ladder.
But, i actually rtfa (well, almost all of page one, so correct me if I'm wrong).Here's a snippet:
"Carney and the other researchers, Andy Yap, Brian Lucas and Pranjal Mehta, used volunteers who were told they were either leaders or subordinates. The leaders were given a large office, and the subordinates given a small windowless space."
So, it wasn't that the ones "in power" got there by being ruthless. So not a chicken/egg/correlation/causation thing.
Re:Correlation Causation (Score:5, Funny)
But, i actually rtfa
Pfft. Great! There goes your chance to sound smarter than the professional researchers. Now you only sound smarter than the slashdotters racing to sound smarter than the researchers. Some accomplishment!
Volunteers [were] told they were either leaders or subordinates. The leaders were given a large office, and the subordinates given a small windowless space.
Ha! That doesn't solve the problem, there's still an issue here that started with the second run of the trial.
Researcher: "Okay, now for control purposes we need to switch the groups. Now, who hasn't been a 'leader' yet?"
Sociopath: "Oh, not me!"
Researcher: "Wait, weren't a leader last time?"
Sociopath: "Golly, no! I swear!"
Researcher: "Okay then."
See? The good liars are still more likely to be leaders. ;)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, what is the cost of lying? If you're a leader, someone might call you out, but probably not. More likely you get more power, as people follow you because you tell them what they want to hear.
If you're a subordinate, you can get penalized - fired, demoted, reprimanded.
So the punishment for lying is different.
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously. Haven't these people ever met anyone in power?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's probably because in that experiment the best liar is the only one who doesn't have an incentive to misreport (ie. lie about) the results. Counterintuitive, I know.
Umm... they spent money on this? (Score:3, Interesting)
All you ever have to do is look at various high-level politicians and you'll know that it's true. The better study would be determining how often they get caught.
Re:Umm... they spent money on this? (Score:5, Informative)
I'm guessing you're just being snarky, but taking your comment at face value: that's a hasty assumption to make; even if you assumed all politicians are liars (which isn't very scientific either) it doesn't follow that all leaders, or even most important leaders, are politicians. If you also consider all the differences between political processes in different countries and cultures, in terms of public exposure, accountability, and levels of direct and indirect power - there are a lot of variables that would account for the usual complaint.
The experiment design seems to reduce this to few enough variables, in a general enough context, to legitimately say "power makes people better at lying".
Note that from TFA this wasn't a survey among known leaders - they randomly assigned power relationships to equivalent populations in an experiment, and found a correlation. So this rules out many of the alternative arguments: self-selection ('better liars acquire power'), specialized populations ('publicly elected politicians need to be better liars'), or learned behavior ('people in power become desensitized to lying').
Re: (Score:2)
An even easier one is to look at your boss
Do I smell... (Score:2)
...an IgNobel prize a-cooking?
The reptile (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Traits such as the submission to authority are part of the deep underlying reptile brain.
That's a pretty dubious statement, since most reptiles don't have much in the way of social structure. "Submission to authority" implies that there's an authority to submit to. Say it's part of the primitive primate brain, and it becomes a little more believable.
what makes a leader 'good'? (Score:5, Insightful)
Delegating! Good leaders know how to delegate better than lesser leaders. Thus, they delegate the lying to the professionals. Rent 'Wag the Dog' for a good example. There's also 'plausible deniability'. By not actually educating themselves on anything, they 'rely on what their researchers told them', when their handlers tell the researchers to tell them what the money men want them to say.
Re: (Score:2)
Being a good leader (in my opinion, obviously) is being someone that people want to follow. You can either be a just or an evil leader, but if people want to follow you, then you are good at leading.
Umm... (Score:4, Funny)
No we don't.
Makes sense (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
People who are in power are generally very confident people. When you lie you need to be confident or people will not be convinced.
Sometimes you simply need to be a good liar with a bunch of well placed people to back you up. People in power may make better liars, but people who lie without getting caught find out how to get the power. Or liars are often the ones with no care for anyone else and simply want to control them. There are many ways to spin the numbers.
Oh, and vague statistics help make better li
Studie shoes good liars get more power. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Studie shoes good liars get more power. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
There's worse than lying (Score:5, Interesting)
You know there's worse things than lying. For instance bullshit. Bullshitters don't even acknowledge that the truth is important, at least liars do that by knowingly lying. Bullshitters believe the crap they spout.
Re: (Score:2)
Like you just did?
Hehe, just messing with ya there... But it makes one pause to consider their statement, doesn't it?
Can I just say... (Score:2)
No kidding (Score:2, Insightful)
We call them sociopaths. (Score:3, Insightful)
They must have missed the study by another university that also reads that sociopaths tend to be in some position of power. Must be easy to miss too because not remembering a lot about the study I couldn't find the link to it with Google either. It still has to be somewhere on this vast web we call the internet. Anyone else happen to read and bookmark it?
Job skill (Score:3, Insightful)
Makes sense... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
wow. This IS Slashdot, but i don't think ANYONE read TFA
This just in... (Score:2, Funny)
Cliches not good enough? (Score:2)
I always thought cliches like "absolute power corrupts" included this concept well enough, but I must disclaim that I'm not an academic with a department to promote who feels in danger of perishing unless he publishes....
Cue the religious debate folks (Score:3, Insightful)
Because this is exactly what high priests in religion have been doing for centuries.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Pastafarianism clearly descends from and owes a great deal to Christianity, since both deities are edible.
Religious debate-y enough for ya? ;P
Re: (Score:2)
For sure, you've obviously been touched by His noodly appendage.
cause / effect? (Score:2)
So which is the cause, and which is the effect?
We need a new tag for stories like this (Score:2)
The power to punish... (Score:2)
'It just doesn't hurt them as much to do it.' For the average liar, she said, the act of lying elicits negative emotions, physiological stress and the fear of getting caught in a lie
"It just doesn't hurt them as much". Let's put it another way. If you're at the bottom of the heap, there's plenty of people with the ability to administer punishment if they don't believe you.
But if you're at the top, if you lie and they don't believe you -- you're the one who can dish out the punishment.
A well-known effect: Self-fulfilling prophecies! (Score:2)
People will buy into what you think of yourself. And then react accordingly. Which then fulfills your prophecy that you are like that. Because everyone confirms it.
This is what creates the bullies, nerds, winners and losers in schools, companies, in all communities, and even on state/world level.
The guy who is the most secure of himself, becomes what most people listen to and believe in. Hence they become leaders.
The problem is, that we all think this would be something unchangable. That we ourselves would
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, yeah.
You're still getting stuffed into your locker.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If there were no lies, this plan would have overwhelming support. Everyone except the very rich and the insurance companies would support it.
Unfortunately, we have Fox News and conservative politicians pumping out lies day and night and a bunch of idiots that believe the lies.
Re:That makes sense (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you kidding? The insurance companies are ecstatic over the bill that is being passed. They get 30,000,000 additional clients, and practically none of the restraints that have been bandied about. The only big thing they'll be upset about is pre-existing conditions, and you can bet your bottom dollar that their friends in high places will ensure they continue to be profitable nonetheless.
Sure, there will be some headaches with implementation and compliance... but they stand to make even more money off the new legislation. Make no mistake... there's a reason insurance companies' stocks have been on the upswing over the past week.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Maybe. On the other hand, the max penalty for not getting insurance is 2.5% of income. For most people (I assume including most uninsured) that's far less than the _current_ cost of health insurance. Add in the extra costs incurred by covering pre-existing conditions, and premiums will have to go up. The extra pe
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you kidding?
The insurance companies were FULLY behind this. They're gonna make a killing off of Obamacare. Think about it..now EVERYONE has to have insurance. This will increase their roles by nearly a magnitude (ok, exaggerating there a little). And, best of all, they can likely now raise their rates since everyone will be mandated to have it or face fines.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The insurance have gone on record as supporting this health care reform.
You might want to check all sides of the health care debate.
Also, if you think that taxes and health care costs will not go up as a result of this new bill, you are sadly mistaken. I wish costs will not go up, but the numbers do not work out. How can millions of people who cannot afford health care get free health care? Those government vouchers, that is right. Those vouchers are paid for by: taxes. The added costs by the health care co
You're paying anyway! (Score:5, Insightful)
How can millions of people who cannot afford health care get free health care?
By waiting until their conditions are serious or critical and then going to the ER, which is much more expensive than traditional care for the same condition, and ludicrously more expensive than preventative care. And that's not even counting that prices are already higher for the uninsured!
The added costs by the health care companies will be passed down to the customers.
You mean they are passed down to the paying customers. You and I are already paying for the uninsured! So given that, would you rather pay for ultra-expensive emergency care, or pay for cheaper regular care?
Locking people out of the regular health care system and forcing them to use emergency services because they can't afford insurance is a serious case of cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Health care costs could have been cut more by stopping all the frivolous health care related law suites.
I'm not saying it isn't a good cause, but that is a trivial amount of savings.
No, we're going to save more money by reducing the amount we are paying for health care for the poor. Just because that cost is now coming out in the open doesn't mean we weren't paying for it before. We were, and paying more at that.
Re:That makes sense, all politicians are liars. (Score:2, Insightful)
There is more to harm this country than to help.
Re: (Score:2)
But if you make a living interpreting the Constitution, as many people in Washington do, the 10th Amendment is moot when it faces the might of the Commerce Clause.
And even if the bill needs to be reworked should SCOTUS rule against it, there's always cooperative federalism to push the issue... your state doesn't obey the new law? Fine. The federal government can withhold related moneys for
Re: (Score:2)
If there were no lies, this plan would have overwhelming support. Everyone except the very rich and the insurance companies would support it.
Unlike the plan that we got that everyone except the very rich and the insurance companies oppose.
However, if this study holds up to further studies, it emphasizes the importance of voting against the incumbent. If this study is correct, it means that the odds are much higher that the incumbent is lying to you.
Re:That makes sense (Score:5, Insightful)
And therein lies the problem.
The Republican party (as a generalization,) feeds on "this will hurt anyone who wants to get ahead in life." They make it seem like taxes that target the rich will hurt everyone, because it will cut down on the desire to be rich.
Bollocks. When a tax, by definition, only affects the top 2%, it ONLY AFFECTS THE TOP 2%! The fact that the "no taxes" people use this as a red herring to convince people that "If you desire to be rich, you should vote against this" is ridiculous. If you desire to be rich, you should be happy in the fact that you now have to pay a little more taxes. It's proof that you're rich! It's not like someone who makes $5 million a year is going to be taxed so heavily, they take home less than someone who makes $25,000 a year. THEY'LL STILL MAKE MILLIONS! You show me a single person who makes $5 mil a year who spends the same percentage of their net income on physical products as someone who makes $25k a year. There are very few "rich" people who put as high a percentage of their income "back into the economy" as poor people. Poor people HAVE to spend a large percentage of their money on food, housing, etc. For a rich person, the required "reinvest in the economy" percentage is far lower. Yes, the raw dollars is higher, but that same income figure, spread among a larger number of middle-class persons, will put a higher dollar value back in to the economy.
P.S. I'm not a fan of unfair taxes, by any means, I'm all for a "graduated flat tax", where people below the poverty line pay no income tax, and it ramps up to a flat amount (whatever amount that has to be to cover the government expenditures,) at a certain point, say, 2x poverty line. No deductions, no 'bulk credits' that 90% of the population qualifies for every year, no loopholes, no untaxed income. ALL income is taxed at the same rate, as long as you are above 2x poverty line. (Or whatever value makes sense.) Short term credits that are meant to promote certain activities into the mainstream, are just fine, as long as they are VERY targeted, and temporary. If you want people to buy houses instead of rent, you make a short term credit, like the one that is about to expire. If you want people to invest in alternative energy, you make an expiring credit, like the one that is in effect for hybrid cars. You use short-term, targeted credits to "shift the herd", not permanent ones that turn into entitlements to do it. Two dogs can shift a herd just as well as tens of miles of fencing.
Re:That makes sense (Score:4, Interesting)
Trouble is, this isn't going to stop with the top 2%. Heck they used to say no more taxes for those making less than $250K (per couple I think). Well, in many parts of the US, that is NOT being wealthy. I think those living in SF and NYC might could vouch for that.
But not only that...as time has gone by, I'm hearing more and more politicians trying to lower the bar as to what is 'rich'...$200K....those making $150K are rich...etc.
Don't kid yourself, with this and new planned massive spending, they're gonna HAVE to start taxing pretty much everyone that is not on welfare. I forget the exact statistic, but something along the lines of the top 10%-15% or so already pay > 80% of the US's taxes. At some point, you can't squeeze more money out of them and have to hit lower hanging fruit. I hear already that new taxes are gonna move the effective top tax rates back up to near Carter era rates were....a number I heard was like 44%, especially when the Bush tax cuts expire. That just too much for the govt to take.
Re:That makes sense (Score:5, Insightful)
Heck they used to say no more taxes for those making less than $250K (per couple I think). Well, in many parts of the US, that is NOT being wealthy. I think those living in SF and NYC might could vouch for that.
Whereas I think being able to afford to live in the parts of SF or NYC that cost that much means you're wealthy. If you make $250k you're wealthy. If you choose to spend most of that on an apartment in lower Manhattan, that's your choice.
I forget the exact statistic, but something along the lines of the top 10%-15% or so already pay > 80% of the US's taxes.
Yes but they also have over 90% of the wealth. Funny how that works out.
At some point, you can't squeeze more money out of them and have to hit lower hanging fruit.
We aren't even squeezing them. They sure as fuck aren't paying 80% of their own income as taxes if that's what that factoid above was meant to imply. They aren't even paying the proportionally greater amount that our progressive taxation system is supposed to make them pay!
As Warren Buffet noted, he pays less in taxes than his secretary.
There's plenty of squeezing left that can be done, and Mr. Buffet agrees. But really, I'd be happy just ensuring that our tax system is in fact progressive.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:That makes sense (Score:5, Insightful)
Kill the upper class and you kill the middle class.
That would be an interesting and relevant comment if MY WHOLE POINT wasn't that we AREN'T "killing" the upper class with progressive taxes. Not anywhere close! They aren't even paying the tax amount that they should be. And even if they were, it wouldn't even come close to ending the upper class. They'd still be ridiculously rich!
No, instead we're killing the middle class directly, and letting the rich shirk their responsibility with accounting tricks. Kinda makes your argument moot, in as much as it applied in the first place.
Class warfare never ends well.
Quoting Buffet again: "There's class warfare all right, and my class is winning."
But I forgot, the kind of class warfare where the wealthy suck up all wealth from the middle and lower class, creating ever-escalating concentration of wealth in their hands, is good for us. It's only when we want to stop this from happening that it's bad.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Nobody is "killing" the upper class.
The fact that the last four years have been the lowest taxed since the Spanish-American war makes them an aberration, not a rule.
The average top marginal tax rate over the last 100 years is about 55%. It spent several decades at 90% during the greatest boom in the middle class (1950-1970).
Your argument is bunk and smells like turd.
Re:That makes sense (Score:5, Informative)
You do realize that during the Reagan years, top marginal rates were 50% and anyone making over $60k was paying at least 42%. When he took office, the top marginal rate was 70%.
When Bush Sr left office, the top marginal rate was 40%. In fact, Bush Sr raised that rate several times.
During the fastest period of economic growth in US history (from 1945-1983) the top marginal rate bounced between 90% and 70%.
The last 4 years were simply an aberration in the last century. This directly contradicts your assertion that a 44% top marginal rate is "simply too much".
History begs to differ.
Re: (Score:2)
Rich people put more or less the same amount of money back into the economy as their poor counterparts do. Which is to say pretty much all of it. They simply do it through investments rather than consumable goods and services purchases.
Invested money allows the company you've invested with to grow their business, hire workers, purchase needed consumables themselves, and provide more goods and services to consumers. Money stuffed in a bank vault gets invested by the bank and does the same. About the on
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
It is certain that "Rich people put more or less the same amount of money back into the economy" but I don't think most people care about others' economies so much.
The less money I have, the more goes into staples. That is food, housing, basic services.
Do these all get produced in xyzcheapland- no, by and large they actually get produced locally (at least in Canada and the USA). My carpenter is local, my food / feed is grown in-country, my lumber and materials are local... That means the local city / sta
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That would be awesome if it were true, but with our cyclical fractional reserve economic system, a dollar saved in the bank is actually capable of being loaned against 20 or 30-fold, making the power of the deposit appear much higher, but actually be a much smaller percentage of the whole economic machine.
In reality, we wouldn't have as many rich people without this fractional reserve system, but we also would have a much more stable economy that wasn't subject to massive economic swings and downturns.
*shru
Re: (Score:2)
Bollocks. When a tax, by definition, only affects the top 2%, it ONLY AFFECTS THE TOP 2%!
And those that would have benefited from the things the top 2% would have done with that money if they hadn't had to give it to the government.
Like most people, you mistake the top 2% in income for the top 2% in wealth. The top 2% in wealth are rarely in the top 2% in "income". Actually, many of the wealthiest people don't technically have very much money at all. All of their money is controlled by a trust that pays their bills for them.
Re: (Score:2)
When a tax, by definition, only affects the top 2%, it ONLY AFFECTS THE TOP 2%!
I understand that when you type all in capital letters then it makes true statements even more true than before.
A number of years ago congress decided to enact a tax that affected only the top wage earners, so they added a 10% tax surcharge on furs, top-of-the line jewelry, and yachts. They reasoned that only rich people bought furs, top-of-the-line jewelry, and yachts, so only rich people would be affected by the tax. Rich pe
Re:That makes sense (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Do you ask Warren Buffet that question? He's a big advocate of higher and stricter taxation for the super-rich. The color of his sky is OBVIOUSLY green.
Re: (Score:2)
Or those who want a political victory so that they can garner support for their favorite politician who espouses their particular brand of religion....
which I think might be the most common out of these. :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Something about ursine relief in woodland?
Rgds
Damon
Re: (Score:2)
You mean this?
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/cto/customerguide/page18.htm
Re:Business Schools (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems more appropriate applied to the EU Parliament or the US Congress. "We will not ratify the Lisbon Treaty without a popular referendum." - "We will have more open government watchable on CSPAN, not hidden behind doors."
Re:Business Schools (Score:4, Insightful)
You need to exchange US Congress for US President. It was Obama that promised open, transparent government and that the process would be aired on CSPAN.
Re:Business Schools (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Business Schools (Score:5, Funny)
I read it!!!
Of course.....I might be lying about that.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
doing a good job around dating Pamela Anderson
He MUST be telling the truth. Who'd want to date a broke over the hill soft pr0n actress?
Re: (Score:2)
Heh. That only works until they get old enough to learn to send false signals. Or someone points out their tells. My niece lies with impunity... but she deliberately sends false tells to my brother on the little lies so that she can get away with the bigger ones. Y
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but given all lie detection systems do not work*, your question is a bit of a no-op.
* Well, the systems that consist of collecting compelling physical evidence and comparing that to what a suspect is claiming often work, but I assume you are talking about machines with buttons and wires and dials and needle-plotters and stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
Not necessarily. One can 'spend' one's trust down and lose moral authority while still maintaining rank in an organization. And if that organization is dysfunctional, that person may never be moved or fired.