Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Study Shows People In Power Make Better Liars

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the practice-makes-perfect dept.

Science 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.'"

cancel ×

265 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Business Schools (1, Insightful)

Wonko the Sane (25252) | more than 3 years ago | (#31575490)

Why am I not surprised that Columbia Business School is researching ways to lie more effectively? They must be trying to catch up to Harvard.

Re:Business Schools (1)

ELitwin (1631305) | more than 3 years ago | (#31575660)

I'm assuming you didn't RTFA, but if you did, then you have major comprehension issues. And who the hell modded this insightful?

Re:Business Schools (4, Funny)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 3 years ago | (#31575862)

"I'm assuming you didn't RTFA, but if you did, then you have major comprehension issues."

I read it!!!

Of course.....I might be lying about that.

Re:Business Schools (4, Insightful)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#31575778)

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."

Correlation Causation (4, Insightful)

selven (1556643) | more than 3 years ago | (#31575498)

Or maybe the people who don't have moral or emotional problems with lying are more likely to get into power.

Re:Correlation Causation (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31575516)

Congrats, you beat the tag.

Re:Correlation Causation (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31575532)

BINGO!

Re:Correlation Causation (4, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 3 years ago | (#31575544)

Maybe it's because most leaders are psychopaths, so they have absolute no problem telling lies at all.

Re:Correlation Causation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31575636)

Spoken like a true loser.

Re:Correlation Causation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31576084)

Spoken like a true/lying psychopath.

(Your pointy hair is showing.)

Re:Correlation Causation (5, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 3 years ago | (#31576068)

The terrifying conclusion of this research is that when you randomly assign normal people to positions of power, they become psychopaths.

Re:Correlation Causation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31576502)

True psychopaths are born not bred.

Re:Correlation Causation (2, Interesting)

517714 (762276) | more than 3 years ago | (#31576152)

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 (2, Insightful)

DABANSHEE (154661) | more than 3 years ago | (#31576434)

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:Correlation Causation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31575570)

You took the words right out of my mouth. It certainly wasn't while you were kissing me.

Re:Correlation Causation (0, Redundant)

Taibhsear (1286214) | more than 3 years ago | (#31575612)

Exactly what I was going to say. Would mod up if I had points.

Re:Correlation Causation (5, Informative)

DanTheStone (1212500) | more than 3 years ago | (#31575618)

RTFA. There's an actual experiment here, not just observations like the summary here implies.

Re:Correlation Causation (5, Insightful)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 3 years ago | (#31575622)

Or maybe you could RTFA where in the study they control for that... because the participants in the study were randomly assigned "leader" and "subordinate" roles.

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 (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31575842)

RTFA?

You must be new here.

Re:Correlation Causation (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31575884)

They got it all wrong it's not that those in power are better liars, it's because they are better liars that they have power. Obviously the eggheads that researched this never saw the outside world.

Re:Correlation Causation (3, Insightful)

jmyers (208878) | more than 3 years ago | (#31575724)

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:Correlation Causation (1)

Ray (88211) | more than 3 years ago | (#31576490)

For some reason people will always believe what they want to hear.

As Paul Simon famously asserted, "A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest."

The Boxer (2, Insightful)

handy_vandal (606174) | more than 3 years ago | (#31576628)

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:Correlation Causation (1)

cerberusss (660701) | more than 3 years ago | (#31576770)

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.

Re:Correlation Causation (2, Interesting)

rxan (1424721) | more than 3 years ago | (#31575744)

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 (3, Informative)

Mindcontrolled (1388007) | more than 3 years ago | (#31575746)

You just put up another correlation-causation-problem here. Yet another alternative: While you are in power, your lies are a matter of controlling people, when you are not in power, you gotta lie to cover your arse. Different motivations for the lies, different reactions.

Re:Correlation Causation (4, Informative)

migla (1099771) | more than 3 years ago | (#31575756)

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 (5, Funny)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 3 years ago | (#31576210)

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:Correlation Causation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31576196)

Yes they are more likely.

I read a psychology study wherein the participants lie to each other and rate who is the best liar. They then, as part of the study, vote for a representative to return their results. Every single group voted for the best liar to return the results.

So are we hardwired to want liars in power?

I remember the first times I saw Ron Reagan and Bill Clinton when they were running for office. I was awestruck by how good they were at lying and I knew with certainty they'd be elected.

Obama is so good at it, I believed every damn hopey changey word!

Good liars get elected!

Re:Correlation Causation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31576602)

Well, this explains Barack Obama then.

Re:Correlation Causation (1)

Livius (318358) | more than 3 years ago | (#31576668)

Obviously. Haven't these people ever met anyone in power?

That makes sense (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31575506)

At least to why Obamacare passed.

Re:That makes sense (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31575602)

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 (1)

brainboyz (114458) | more than 3 years ago | (#31575668)

Or those that don't want health insurance.
Or those that plan on being rich in the future.
Or those that think government should be smaller.
Or...

See the pattern? The support would still be well divided.

Re:That makes sense (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Freak (16973) | more than 3 years ago | (#31575844)

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 (3, Interesting)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 3 years ago | (#31576008)

"Bollocks. When a tax, by definition, only affects the top 2%, it ONLY AFFECTS THE TOP 2%! "

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 (5, Insightful)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 3 years ago | (#31576418)

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:That makes sense (1)

brainboyz (114458) | more than 3 years ago | (#31576098)

Sorry, I overly simplified the second point. I plan on being rich in the future and don't want my money taken to offset the poor. As far as I'm concerned, screw the graduated system: flat tax, period. 15% income tax after the federal poverty line across the board with no exceptions, no loopholes, and no credits. No one is held up except those that are spending every penny on survival and no one is pulled down.

If the liars in political power would trim all the government excess, then we could easily pay for everything and then some.

Re:That makes sense (0, Troll)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 3 years ago | (#31576226)

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.

As far as we're pointing out stupid talking points for one party, we might as well point them out for both parties, and mention that "Tax cuts for the rich" when called such by democrats are not really tax cuts for the rich, but tax cuts for everybody. Politicians like to spin things, what do you expect?

I do agree with your 'graduated flat tax,' but I think there is also a benefit in everyone paying some taxes, even if it is just a dollar or two. People who pay taxes become more interested in what happens to their money: keeping people from paying taxes is a way to keep them out of government. We should have as many people involved as possible.

Re:That makes sense (1)

The Mighty Buzzard (878441) | more than 3 years ago | (#31576308)

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 only thing you can do with money that doesn't put it right back out into the economy is stuff it in your mattress.

I'm not saying things can't get a bit lopsided and make the fiscal landscape unpleasant. I'm just saying that this idea that money going to the rich somehow takes it out of the economy is patently absurd and utterly false.

Re:That makes sense (1)

Toze (1668155) | more than 3 years ago | (#31576566)

you should be happy in the fact that you now have to pay a little more taxes.

Man, what colour is the sky in your world?

Re:That makes sense (4, Funny)

The Mighty Buzzard (878441) | more than 3 years ago | (#31576598)

A well thought out and detailed response. Obviously I must now rethink my position.

Re:That makes sense (1)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 3 years ago | (#31576588)

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:That makes sense (1)

LoyalOpposition (168041) | more than 3 years ago | (#31576690)

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 people responded by not buying furs, top-of-the line jewelry, and yachts that they otherwise would have bought. As an unintended consequence, the market in furs, top-of-the-line jewelry, and yachts crashed. Unfortunately, top wage earners didn't work making furs, top-of-the-one jewelry, or yachts, so the people who lost their jobs weren't top wage earners, but were affected nonetheless.

I hope that when they passed a law that, by definition, only affects the top 2% of wage earners they remembered to legislate that this law shall have no unintended consequences. Perhaps they should put it all in capital letters.

~Loyal

Re:That makes sense (4, Insightful)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 3 years ago | (#31575676)

If there were no lies, this plan would have overwhelming support. Everyone except the very rich and the insurance companies would support it.

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:That makes sense (2, Insightful)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 3 years ago | (#31575916)

"If there were no lies, this plan would have overwhelming support. Everyone except the very rich and the insurance companies would support it."

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:That makes sense (1, Interesting)

BlackSnake112 (912158) | more than 3 years ago | (#31575962)

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 companies will be passed down to the customers.

Health care costs could have been cut more by stopping all the frivolous health care related law suites. Doctors are too afraid of being sued to provide the care needed. They order too many tests to cover everything plus people lie to their doctors to get meds. The doctors and hospitals have to have massive malpractice insurance in case they are sued. Guess where the cost of this insurance goes? It is passed to their customers.

You're paying anyway! (4, Insightful)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 3 years ago | (#31576706)

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. (1, Insightful)

InsaneProcessor (869563) | more than 3 years ago | (#31576056)

Oh yes, we have Fox News pumping out information like: This bill will increase taxes on everyone that pays taxes, and, This bill will increase the entitlements thusly increase the base of voters that will vote for politicians that will increase entitlements even more, and, This bill will do more to ruin jobs that to improve the lives of citizens. Bye the way, if you read the bill, these are all facts. My son and I poured over the documents for two days.

There is more to harm this country than to help. Since when does the federal government reduce waste and fraud? Really. When?

The congressional leaders have done nothing but lie the the public about their intent. They don't give a rat's ass about improving healthcare or anything about our lives. They only want total control over everything in this country. Then, they will have all the power and lots of our money.

If you read the constitution, you will find that the 10th amendment makes a good portion of this bill illegal anyway.

Re:That makes sense, all politicians are liars. (1)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 3 years ago | (#31576644)

If you read the constitution, you will find that the 10th amendment makes a good portion of this bill illegal anyway.

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 your state. Hey, it worked for the dirnking age, right?

Re:That makes sense (1)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 3 years ago | (#31576526)

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.

Columbia Business School (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31575518)

And they have Expert power [wikipedia.org] , right?

Who's to say they are not lying?

Umm... they spent money on this? (2, Interesting)

KiltedKnight (171132) | more than 3 years ago | (#31575542)

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? (5, Informative)

Bodrius (191265) | more than 3 years ago | (#31575822)

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:Umm... they spent money on this? (1)

shoehornjob (1632387) | more than 3 years ago | (#31576338)

His comment had noting to do with being snarky. I belive he was referring to the apathy many American people feel toward politicians our political system in general. We almost expect them to lie cheat and steal so it's no surprise that they are good at it.

Re:Umm... they spent money on this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31576072)

ditto

Re:Umm... they spent money on this? (1)

royallthefourth (1564389) | more than 3 years ago | (#31576086)

An even easier one is to look at your boss

Do I smell... (1)

joshamania (32599) | more than 3 years ago | (#31575582)

...an IgNobel prize a-cooking?

This is news? (0, Troll)

filesiteguy (695431) | more than 3 years ago | (#31575584)

Somehow I think anybody in power would be able to give personal experiences on this. Be it a politician (as KiltedKnight suggested), power broker, agent, spy or executive.

Nothing new here, move along!

Re:This is news? (1)

DamonHD (794830) | more than 3 years ago | (#31575716)

Something about ursine relief in woodland?

Rgds

Damon

Re:This is news? (1)

filesiteguy (695431) | more than 3 years ago | (#31576494)

Huh?

You mean this?

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/cto/customerguide/page18.htm

The reptile (2, Interesting)

katovatzschyn (1720514) | more than 3 years ago | (#31575598)

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/persuaders/interviews/rapaille.html [pbs.org] "The Reptile Always Wins" Traits such as the submission to authority are part of the deep underlying reptile brain. Even when other parts of brain saying not to, it very hard to ignore these base desire to submit. It is the core of our intelligent being. This is more than just "correlation imply causation," it is reflection of deep underlying trait that is known. There is not many news in this story. If you look on this principle you will find much to read.

Re:The reptile (1)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 3 years ago | (#31576218)

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'? (5, Insightful)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 3 years ago | (#31575630)

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:what makes a leader 'good'? (1)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 3 years ago | (#31575904)

Delegating is something good managers have to know how to do, but it is completely separate from being a good leader.

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.

Columbia - School for the gifted? (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31575638)

Wait, Columbia did a study that just figured out that Politicians are better liars?

Wow, no wonder so many MBA's we hire are so ineffective at their jobs. You really need to perform a study to determine this?

Next study: Do females have an advantage in child rearing?

Reading things of this nature just reinforces my decision to discontinue structured learning, and go at it myself.

Umm... (3, Funny)

tool462 (677306) | more than 3 years ago | (#31575640)

No we don't.

Better Liars Make Better (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31575642)

war criminals.

As this member of the Bush Crime Family [georgewbush.org] has clearly demonstrated.

Yours In Astrakhan,
Kilgore Trout

Makes sense (2, Insightful)

Cyko_01 (1092499) | more than 3 years ago | (#31575644)

People who are in power are generally very confident people. When you lie you need to be confident or people will not be convinced.

Re:Makes sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31575808)

I've never been a very confident person, or had much power, but I am a very good liar. I perform magic and such for money on occasions, and some misdirection techniques I've learned help, but in general lying has always been very easy. Maybe because I do not feel bad if I lie unless it has some sort of negative consequence for someone.

Re:Makes sense (2, Interesting)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | more than 3 years ago | (#31575876)

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 lies ;)

TFA isn't true (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31575648)

TFA isn't true. I'll prove it:

I.. uh.. have had sex before.

She had big bobs.

Yeah, they were nice.

You know, when you, like,
you grab a woman's breast
and it's...

And you feel it and...

it feels like a bag of sand
when you're touching it.

(please dont mod me down, you point holders have all the power)

Studie shoes good liars get more power. (2, Insightful)

santax (1541065) | more than 3 years ago | (#31575674)

I am no expert, but I have a feeling this has more to do with this. Especially in todays companies where there is a culture of promoting the biggest assholes and creating a play-field where you actually get rewarded if you F%@* somebody over. The elbow-way of making career gets you more. Unfortunately for those companies that work like this, they are actually selecting people to be liars and when you don't lie and so you come 2% of your target short, you're out. That guy next to you, who actually stole several sales from you... he is getting a new office. These companies are breeding bastards and often they don't see that. But by selecting management on these traits (what they effectively are doing) I am no surprised at all by this.

Re:Studie shoes good liars get more power. (4, Informative)

ShadowRangerRIT (1301549) | more than 3 years ago | (#31575738)

RTFA. The study wasn't done on people in power already, it was done by assigning people to leader and subordinate roles. Your point may or may not be valid, but it has nothing to do with this study.

Re:Studie shoes good liars get more power. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31576512)

Oh, I'd highly recommend reading something on the subject...perhaps this:

"Snakes in Suits" Nice title, eh? And very, very appropriate.

Here's a sample:
http://www.macleans.ca/article.jsp?content=20060529_127516_127516

Note the popularity of this, and similar titles:
http://www.amazon.ca/Snakes-Suits-When-Psychopaths-Work/dp/0060837721

Re:Studie shoes good liars get more power. (1)

santax (1541065) | more than 3 years ago | (#31576666)

Thanks, always interested in more books about the mind :)

No shit? (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31575692)

Obama certainly fucked you yanks good. Serves you bitches right.

There's worse than lying (4, Interesting)

e2d2 (115622) | more than 3 years ago | (#31575752)

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:There's worse than lying (1)

Shark (78448) | more than 3 years ago | (#31576294)

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... (1)

epp_b (944299) | more than 3 years ago | (#31575788)

Duh

No kidding (2, Insightful)

SilverHatHacker (1381259) | more than 3 years ago | (#31575840)

How do you think they got in power?

Re:No kidding (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31576290)

How do you think they got in power?

In the experiment: by being randomly selected.

We call them sociopaths. (2, Insightful)

Recovery1 (217499) | more than 3 years ago | (#31575854)

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 (2, Insightful)

Citizen of Earth (569446) | more than 3 years ago | (#31575856)

Lying is an important job skill for people in power. Either people are born with the aptitude, they learn it, or they are at a disadvantage to good liars at acquiring and holding power.

Where's the transparency? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31575898)

Come on Obama. You're fumbling the ball and I can't help but to think it's on purpose.

Thanks, Captain Obvious! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31575936)

Ihttp://www.sustainabilityninja.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/captain-obvious.jpg

Makes sense... (1)

Drakin020 (980931) | more than 3 years ago | (#31575992)

Well yeah? How else would they have gotten into that kind of power?

Having a small penis helps, too. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31575998)

Having a small penis helps, too. Nothing can make a man act more powerful than a micropenis and raisin testes.

This just in... (2, Funny)

Stick32 (975497) | more than 3 years ago | (#31576012)

Columbia University Business school finds "people in power makes better liars." The report goes on to state, "it's 'bitchin' cold in Antartica" and "people who cut me off in traffic are total 'dick's." Full story at 11.

Cliches not good enough? (1)

macraig (621737) | more than 3 years ago | (#31576030)

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....

The Harkonnen Complex (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31576048)

"All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible. Such people have a tendency to become drunk on violence, a condition to which they are quickly addicted."

--Frank Herbert; Chapterhouse: Dune (1985)

Cue the religious debate folks (2, Insightful)

thewils (463314) | more than 3 years ago | (#31576076)

Because this is exactly what high priests in religion have been doing for centuries.

Re:Cue the religious debate folks (2, Funny)

Toze (1668155) | more than 3 years ago | (#31576590)

Pastafarianism clearly descends from and owes a great deal to Christianity, since both deities are edible.

Religious debate-y enough for ya? ;P

correlation is not causation (0, Offtopic)

erroneus (253617) | more than 3 years ago | (#31576282)

I really think this should become more of a slashdot meme. People could really learn from it.

People who are better liars tend to rise to power more often than people who aren't. We have already identified that most people in power are also sociopaths. What the summary would seem to be saying is that people who are placed in power develop comfort telling lies. If there is a causation, it's that better liars end up in power more often than those who aren't.

Obvious to parents (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31576382)

For anyone who's ever been a parent, this is obvious. I can lie my teeth off to my kids without so much as flinching (all in their best interest of course), but they can't so much as bend the truth without contorting themselves into a pretzel.

Re:Obvious to parents (1)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 3 years ago | (#31576712)

For anyone who's ever been a parent, this is obvious. I can lie my teeth off to my kids without so much as flinching (all in their best interest of course), but they can't so much as bend the truth without contorting themselves into a pretzel.

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. Yeah, we can see through it most of the time, but she's getting better year by year.

cause / effect? (1)

loshwomp (468955) | more than 3 years ago | (#31576594)

So which is the cause, and which is the effect?

Where's the transparency? (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#31576640)

Mod me down but you know that Obama is a fucking liar.

That is how you get into power (1)

AthleteMusicianNerd (1633805) | more than 3 years ago | (#31576676)

It's the whole prisoner detainee problem. This is more useless research pointing out the obvious cranked out by our "higher learning institutions".

Lie detection systems are totally meaningless? (1)

nfc_Death (915751) | more than 3 years ago | (#31576720)

Wouldn't this mean that depending on your social, financial, or business stature, all lie detections systems will not work properly? Do not lie detection systems rely on some basic similarities in physiological human response to achieve their goal?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>