Sobre La Deshonestidad y La Falta de Valores

Tenia otro tema de planificacion pautado para estos dias pero de repente surge la necesidad de discutir este otro tema que ya he presentado en mi blog previamente.  Queremos ser Libya, queremos ser Egipto, queremos ser los caceroleros argentinos.  Sin embargo, en lugar de seguir los principios de la no confrontacion, siempre gana el troglodita interior.

Mi blog no tiene intencion de discutir politica abiertamente.  El partidismo ciego siempre redunda en que el argumento siempre acabe con Fortu/no es el diablo, Rivera Schatz es un kaiser cada vez que se refiera a algo anti PNP o Alejamdro Fresita y Sila Corrupta cuando se refiere al lado PPD.  La ceguera es tal que aun con la verdad de frente seguimos sin ver las fallas que nos polarizan y destruyen.  Es el Godwin's law, donde el contrario es un fascista nazi.

Los recientes sucesos de la UPR, donde se golpea a la rectora de la Universidad, demuestra un punto que he traido en diversas entradas de este blog y comentarios en otros.  Somos inconsistentes.  Estuvimos como dos semanas discutiendo los derechos civiles y los carpeteos de la policia.  Discutimos el sobeteo a las feminas en las protestas.  Sin embargo, estos Chibi Ches y Napoleoncitos de gaveta guardaron el libro de la paz para repartir golpes e intimidar a la rectora, en medio de una reunion.

Decia entonces que el problema no es la cuota, no es si la causa es justa o no.  Es el incremento en la falta de respeto a las instituciones.  Los simbolos nacionales: la bandera, los himnos y los simbolos religiosos de cualquier pais merecen un respeto, aunque no creas en su mensaje.  Tu no vas a pisar como si fuera una piedra de camino las reliquias de un templo Shinto, o escupes un Coran porque los musulmanes son terroristas.  Eso es civismo.  Las instituciones se respetan.

Cuando comenzo esto?  Cuando dejamos que las cosas escalaran.  Cuando era bueno que un Tito Kayak se trepara en una grua, deteniendo un proyecto de construccion por varias semanas y se permitio que destruyeran propiedad privada en el proceso.  Cuando decidimos entrar por la fuerza a poner una bandera de Estados Unidos a la tragala en la Oficina de la Procaduria de las Mujeres en la administracion pasada.  Cuando rompimos los cristales donde se guarda nuestra Constitucion (http://www.lexjuris.com/lexprcont.htm) porque no nos gusto que le dieran un homenaje a Julito Labatut.  La broma sofomorica de esconderle la toga al Rector...

He expuesto anteriormente que la crisis va en escalada.  Ya el non plus ultra de matar a alguien en un centro comercial se fue al cuerno.  Lo de respetar la familia tampoco importa.  No respetamos a la policia, que impoone el orden.  Al legislador y el senador que escriben nuestras leyes y son nuestros representantes.  Insultamos a nuestros lideres como tierra.

Hacemos pruebas de dopaje para demostrar la falla del adversario.  Nos sale al reves y entonces aplicamos el filtro.  Criticamos el tribunal federal cuando encontro inocente a AAV y aprobo los pivazos, ahora como toco un azul el tribunal federal no sirve.  Debemos ser consistentes.

El punto es que aunque haya fundamento para desconfiar de estas instituciones eso no da derecho de denigrar las posiciones.  Las autoridades se respetan y hay un sistema con tres ramas de gobierno para asegurar que se fiscalicen entre si.  La mentalidad de corto plazo debe detenerse.  Las decisiones deben ser colectivas.

Y otro tema que he expuesto antes.  Esto es parte de una crisis de valores que tenemos como pueblo.  Una moralidad relativa que va con lo que dice 'si los otros tambien lo hacen no es corrupcion'.  Lo de Jorge de Castro Font, la culpbilidad de Martinez, la 'excusa' de sacar candidatos manchados para aparentar transparencia son reflejo de cosas mas amplias como comunidades enteras enga/nando a AFLAC, o robando agua, luz y cable TV.  La crisis de valores debe comenzar a corregirse desde el nucleo familiar.  Ense/nando a nuestros hijos lo correcto.

Por si no saben del incidente, estos dos sites dan un buen resumen:

http://qiibo.com/2011/03/07/sondeo-sobre-los-ultimos-sucesos-en-la-upr/#
http://poder5.blogspot.com/2011/03/estupidos-huelguistas-universitarios.html

Una afirmacion donde se indica que el sdector privado que se ve tan lejano somos nosotros:
http://puertoricoindie.com/2011/03/05/nosotros-somos-el-sector-privado/

Habian oido de el experimento de la caja de los dulces?  En ese experimento los ni/nos se abstuvieron de comerse los dulces en espera del helado que le prometieron si no tocaban los dulces en el cuarto.  Este otro experimento es mas general.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/39512626/Dishonesty-in-Everyday-Life-and-Its-Policy-Implications-by-Nina-Mazar-and-Dan-Ariely

Vol. 25 (1) Spring 2006, 1–000

© 2006, American Marketing Association

ISSN: 0743-9156 (print), 1547-7207 (electronic)

1

Dishonesty in Everyday Life and Its Policy

Implications

Nina Mazar and Dan Ariely

Dishonest acts are all too prevalent in day-to-day life. This article examines some possible

psychological causes for dishonesty that go beyond the standard economic considerations of

probability and value of external payoffs. The authors propose a general model of dishonest behavior

that includes internal psychological reward mechanisms for honesty and dishonesty, and they discuss

the implications of this model in terms of curbing dishonesty.

Nina Mazaris a postdoctoral associate (e-mail: ninam@mit.edu), and

Dan Arielyis Luis Alvarez Renta Professor of Management Science

(e-mail: ariely@mit.edu), Sloan School of Management, Massachu-

setts Institute of Technology.

Entonces descubro este interesante tema relacionado a lo irracional que son nuestras decisiones.  Y como todoes desde el mercadeo hasta los politicos nos manejan como marionetas. El libro aqui:
http://bookoutlines.pbworks.com/w/page/14422685/Predictably-Irrational

The Context of Our Character, Part 1

Why We Are Dishonest, and What We Can Do About It

Ariely conducted an experiment on Harvard students. He gave students a 50-question, multiple-choice quiz.  They would take the quiz, then transfer the answers to a Scantron sheet.  The students received $0.10 for each correct answer.  The results were as follows:

• Proctor does the scoring of the quiz and hands out the reward (control group)
  • 32.6/50
• Correct answers to the quiz pre-marked on the Scantron, students give both workbook and Scantron to proctor
  • 36.2/50 (cheating = 3.6 questions)
• Correct answers to the quiz pre-marked on the Scantron, students shred their workbook and give Scantron to proctor
  • 35.9/50
• Correct answers to the quiz pre-marked on the Scantron, students instructed to destroy both workbook and Scantron. When done, students directed to go to front of room, and take the amount of money they had earned from a jar, with no supervision
  • 36.1/50
• Conclusions
  • Given the opportunity, many honest people will cheat (similar experiments were conducted at MIT, Princeton, UCLA, and Yale with similar results, so it's not just that Harvard students are crooks).
  • Once tempted to cheat, students didn't seem to be influenced by the risk of getting caught; even when we have no chance of getting caught, we still don't become wildly dishonest.
  • "We care about honesty and want to be honest. The problem is that our internal honesty monitor is active only when we contemplate big transgressions, like grabbing an entire box of pens. For little transgressions like taking a single pen, we don't even consider how these actions would reflect on our honesty."
• One more variation: Nina, On, and Ariely conducted a similar experiment.  But, one group was asked to write down 10 books they had read in high school, and the other group was asked to try to recall and write down the 10 Commandments.
  • When cheating was not possible, the average score was 3.1
  • When cheating was possible, the book group reported a score of 4.1 (33% cheating)
  • When cheating was possible, the 10 Commandments group scored 3.1 (0% cheating)
    • And most of the subjects couldn't even recall all of the commandments!  Even those who could only remember 1 or 2 commandments were nearly as honest.  "This indicated that it was not the Commandments themselves that encouraged honesty, but the mere contemplation of a moral benchmark of some kind."
  • Perhaps we can have people sign secular statements--similar to a professional oath--to remind us of our commitment to honesty.  So Ariely had students sign a statement on the answer sheet: "I understand that this study falls under the MIT honor system."
    • Those who signed didn't cheat.  Those who didn't see the statement showed 84% cheating.
    • "The effect of signing a statement about an honor code is particularly amazing because MIT doesn't even have an honor code."

The Context of Our Character, Part 2

Why Dealing With Cash Makes Us More Honest

Ariely conducted an experiment on MIT's communal refrigerators.

• When he slipped in a 6-pack of Coke, all the Cokes had vanished within 72 hours
• When he left a plate containing 6 $1 bills, no one *ever* took any of the money
• Would you feel bad about taking a pen for you child?  How about taking $0.10 from petty cash to pay for a pen for your child?  The two are economically identical, but get very different reactions.
• "Cheating is a lot easier when it's a step removed from money."

Ariely returned to the honesty tests, but with a twist: Students told the proctor their score.  The proctor gave them tokens.  The students would then walk to another experimenter and trade the tokens for cash.

• The control group solved 3.5 questions
• The cash group claimed to have solved 6.2 questions...definite cheating
  • Of 2,000 participants, only 4 went for total cheating--claiming to have solved every problem
• The token group claimed to have solved 9.4 problems...brazen dishonesty
  • Switching from cash to an equivalent non-monetary currency doubled cheating!
  • Of the token group, 24/150 participants cheated all the way.

We have no idea how dishonest we are

• Students predicted that they would be no more likely to cheat with tokens than cash...they were completely wrong.
• People who have their assistants turn in their expense reports (rather than turning them in personally) are much more likely to cheat.
• Businesspeople are more likely to claim dubious expenses when they are traveling across the country than when they are in their home city, or even just returning from the airport.
• Overall, cheating is not limited by risk; it is limited by our ability to rationalize the cheating to ourselves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictably_Irrational
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Ariely
http://web.mit.edu/ariely/www/MIT/Papers/spot.pdf

Va relacionado a un tema previo de la alcantarilla.  The power of the voice.
http://alcantarillaalquimica.blogspot.com/2011/01/hitler-youth-la-superaza-y-algo.html
http://www.the7thfire.com/new_world_order/mind_control/battle_for_your_mind.htm

imagen cortesia de:
http://culturepopped.blogspot.com/2011/03/final-philosophical-fight.html

Cierro con un cuento de cooperacion:
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sopa_de_piedra