In our first experiments, we took students and measured how creative they were using multiple methods. No matter the measure, we found that the more creative people cheated more on a math test.
Second, we tried to temporarily increase creativity in some people but not in others. There are all kinds of evidence that this works. [For tips on boosting creativity, see “Your Creative Brain at Work,” by Evangelia G. Chrysikou; Scientific American Mind, July/August 2012.] Those in whom we increased creativity cheated a bit more. That's more causal, supporting the idea that creativity is the mechanism.
Then we went to a big advertising company and asked its employees questions that tested their moral flexibility in personal relationships, taxes, relationships with companies, and so on. If you were on a business trip, would you report a dinner you purchased after you got home on your expense report? We also asked the CEO which jobs have more or less creativity. The results showed that the more creativity in a person's job, the more moral flexibility the person reported in our survey.
Creativity is very helpful for lots of things, so we don't want to stamp it out. But if you take creative people and put them in a situation where they have a conflict of interest and where the rules are flexible, this is going to be a bad recipe. Wherever rationalization is easy, I would worry a lot about the rules, regulations and code of conduct—and then I would try to eradicate conflict of interest. In finance, you can make lots of money if you see reality in one way or another. In medicine, if a physician gets paid for prescribing a test or procedure, creativity can also play a big dangerous role. And there are cases where creativity exercises might not be beneficial. I would also worry about increasing creativity just before doing taxes or playing golf.
Not all dishonesty is bad. We all know about white lies and social politeness. Telling the truth all the time is a difficult thing to live with, which is why we often encourage some level of dishonesty.
This article was originally published with the title Unveiling the Real Evil Genius.
Rights & Permissions
See what we're tweeting about
12 Comments
Add CommentThe word 'evil' is not a scientific one. Are wolves that hide meat from bigger pack members 'evil'?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIntelligent people may not be as passive and willing to accept the rationalization of unjust political or economic structures. They may tip the paperboy $20 at Christmas but see no moral issue with not declaring $20 in income so a wasteful governmnet can pi$$ it away.
Anyways, 'not playing the game' is not the same as deceiving and hurting individuals. People need not be 'sheeple' in China, the USA or any society. We evolved to take care of ourselves, family and clan...not be indentured servants to 'Big Brother'. In novels and movies there is a reason why we root for the rebellious non-conformist. He is often the ethical one not selling his soul
Lex can't hold a candle to Mitt ...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd as far as evil goes, Mitt can't hold a candle to Obama
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow I look forward to mid-November when it will be possible to post an article without drawing political fire.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"moral flexibility" ??? Funny characterization of dishonesty.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI guess we shouldn't be surprised at the outcomes when we choose the most qualified, creative psychopaths for political leaders and CEOs.
stunning comeback - you sound like a mislead knuckle-dragger who cannot believe that Willard will do no good for most of us.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisstunning comeback - you sound like a mislead knuckle-dragger who cannot believe that Willard will do no good for most of us.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe flexible nature of our psyche (if that is the correct word to use) is unnerving. Our ability to be moral/honest or amoral/dishonest within the borders of the flexibility of our environment as pointed out by this article is an example. We are truly influenced by our environment and therefore are not in control of who we are or who we are to become. THAT is truly unnerving to me. I prefer to try for a steady-state identity. But that may only be a compulsion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisConditioning by the media, society, advertising, educational systems has resulted in people who are totally self-absorbed who have no moral compass. Some lack any sense of what is right or wrong any more.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPsychopaths do anything that results in the outcome they want regardless of how that affects anyone else. That is evil, but American society puts many who do that well on a pedestal and holds them out as role models. No wonder people can rationalize away almost any behavior.
The most dangerous con artist is a brilliant one who is confident, attractive, and persuasive. The masses who are conditioned to believe whatever they're told are easy prey for these people who will do almost anything. Most people cam be talked out of what they just saw by someone who keeps repeating that something else actually happened. You know people like that who repeat the last thing they heard as though it were fact, waffling back and forth between totally different viewpoints or even believing two things that are mutually exclusive at the same time.
For some, there is nothing they will not do to others - and they are attracted to money but above all power. They are running the show, but that does not mean we have to be a party to it - yet. Escape is becoming vastly more diffult though.
Good article. Rationalization, is a psychoanalysis' term: "A neurotic defense mechanism, a fake rationale, some use to justify what everybody, including themselves, know it's unacceptable". Avoiding legal punishment is self-protection, you're not obliged to declare against yourself, not self-harming prevails; only on a superior command, as in martyrdom, this rule can be broken. Sexual instinct is stronger than self-preservation instinct, this makes near impossible for example to deter kid molesters just by punishing them; in the Lewinski to Clinton sexual attack, mr B C wasn't obliged to say the truth if risks of being found liar were smaller than admitting the fact. Some religious comments about this: "Sin entered the world because of the law, as before the law there was sin, but it wasn't imputed" or: "Those breaking the law unadvertently will get few beats, but those doing evil knowing it will get many beats", this in contrast with the rule: "Ignoring the law doesn't exmpt to comply it". For Aquinas those following their conscience thinking something is not evil don't sin. Ethics is different from law enforcement; you're not obliged to suicidal acts, and have every right to escape harm, punishments do harm, so you can observe silence or lie to those prosecuting you. Attorneys may have a command not to defend those confessing guilty, they may act in this as a first court, but attempts to reduce punishments to their customers are right. Imprinting ethics can be done in different ways: prof. Rodriguez-Delgado, that stopped a bull's attack by a radio signal activating electricity in the bull's brain, proposed a "psycho-civilized society", hope we're not treated as bulls or our minds rearranged, modern psychotherapy can do this. The Bible's stated "The saved won't be able to sin", in contrast to the current situation, we may have been created perfect, but we were created free. Smart people find ways to avoid faults detected or punished, this is far from devoting minds to invent or teach crimes, as writers Sade, Ducasse or Genet, or invert their scale of values, evil being considered the goal; some say this is an evidence of satanic influence in some mental disorders, no surprise, theologians consider death and disease a result of devil's actions in nature: "Death entered the world because of the envy of devil". Anti-psychiatrists said it's better allowing "insane" doing their will as long as it's not harmful or risky to third parties or to themselves. Above all, stay calmly!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree telling the truth all the time is impossible thing to live with.If you want to support of people make them fool if you tell them truth they stone you.Man always want illusion,those who provide them illusion people run behind them.How can man survive without illusion in this world?.Long long ago Freud wrote "people are not capable to understand the truth".My firm opinion is truth is harmful to survival on earth.You to wear thousand persona in the world for survival.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou're right that man wants and needs illusion to soften the harshness of his reality but it's important to respect each man's right to determine where and when he wants to delude himself. With rare exception it's not up to one individual to decide where that boundary lies for another.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this