Dishonesty Pays

It would be nice if the world always rewarded the "good guy", but the truth is that some amount of dishonesty appears to be advantageous career-wise. I am not condoning it, only pointing it out as a fact of human life. Further, it is "skillful" use of dishonesty that pays, not merely dishonesty by itself. If one is not skilled at it, then honesty may be the better route. But those who rise the furthest are skillful in its use. And, it does carry risk, but taking risks is sometimes one possible route to getting ahead. Many people are willful gamblers in life. Be aware of it; be ready for it; and don't be surprised when it's used against you. -t

Given this keen insight can you explain why you do not condone Dishonesty? I sure do.

This is in danger of straying into a discussion about morals and treating dishonesty as an on/off switch or a character quality. The meaning intended (I think) in the title is dishonest behaviour (pays).

Not sure about the motivation behind the original observation but people complaining about it are sometimes sour grapes who perceive the success of others as dishonesty because what they do to get it isn't considered honest work by the righteous. They want to justify their position by claiming high moral ground. Mostly what they see as dishonest behaviour is really just general aggressive behaviour. Please, excuse the terrible generalisations. Relax your morals and join in the backstabing fun. It's how we entertain ourselves in this wrold.

Is there a point being made about it all here or just an observation?

I am not the orignal author so I can not say. But dishonesty only pays if the people who use it are not found out. If everyone used it it would not pay as either as

1. we would all assume that we are all Dishonest ( and thus disount all claims as needed) or 2. we would all inflate our accomplishment etc so as to net out to 0 relative advantage.

We can see this in marketing:

Most consumers are now savy enough to discount a good deal of marketing hype

We can see this in resume inflation

More backgound cheecks and more people inflating anyway to compensate for the inflation of others

We can see this in the need for a Masters Degree on a job posting for a Junior Sys admin

And I think the MBA debacle speaks for itself when you need one to run a candy store.

It is my personal option that the unknown author of this page is in fact in sour grapes land, but I could be wrong. In any case I am asserting that universal dishonesty is not sustainable and I think we should all do our part to prove it.

If you are confronted with a dishonest individual your only option is to be dishonest right back, and if you do not do this, then yes dishonest will pay-- right from your wallet. On the other hand you can prevent pepole from engaging in dishonesty if you prove that you are not guilible, and that you are not defensless. "Condone away if necessay", is my point.

My claim is that dishonesty is only effective if only a few engange in it. By not condoneing, and by not adopting the methods of the new social contract you are making the problem worse.

I am saying that the social contract is moving from ' I will be honest if you will be' to 'I will lie if you do.' (those two mean exactly the same - maybe you mean that the tit for tat strategy's opening gambit is changing from cooperate to shaft?)

They only mean the same in the end state. You are correct that the default is what is changeing. I intended the constuctions to be as close as possible as it is a subtle point. If life were a path independent fucntion with no side effects then it would not matter, but how we come to the dynamic equilibrum is important becuse you can get scre-ed along the way. One may decied which default to use on per person, per cituation basis, based on your experience and that of others. Is there more risk to assuming good will, or evil intent. Should one trust implicily or should it be earned? All these are the right questions to ask. I deny the authors suggestion that we must 'not condone dishonesty' and thus unlilateraly disarm. The Madoff's of the world are counting on it. They count on the assumption of good will.

Is this bad? Maybe. Is it true? You judge. In any case think on it.

-- MarcGrundfest

I'm not talking about universal or mass dishonesty. I'm talking about skillful use of dishonesty, which also requires knowing when to be honest instead of dishonest. This is knowing when to avoid it, to sprinkle it on lightly, and to pour it on full bore. For example, one may use it judiciously around coworkers they spend a lot of time with, but heavily for one-time contacts. If you lie to a one-time contact, then the risk is a lot smaller because they'll be complaining in Timbuktu instead of at your desk. -t

Are you being honest ? Why is it ok to for me to be dishonest but not you, and if it ok how can you not condone it?

I am confused...

I'm just the messenger reporting on human behavior and the results of it. I am not condoning anything. Let me put it another way: As far as what "works", honesty works better than bad lying, but skilled lying works better than honesty.

Perhaps the title should be changed to "Dishonesty Can Pay", but I tend to favor brief wiki titles over fully accurate, but long titles. The caveats can be placed inside the topic. An exception may be if there is overlap risk. -t

 In the clearing stands a boxer
 And a fighter by his trade
 And he carries the reminders
 Of ev'ry glove that layed him down
 Or cut him till he cried out
 In his anger and his shame
 "I am leaving, I am leaving"
 But the fighter still remains

-Simon & Garfunkel