Students lie, cheat, steal, but say they're good

[LiberalNation]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081130/...LWJGz9Y2dvzwcF

NEW YORK – In the past year, 30 percent of U.S. high school students have stolen from a store and 64 percent have cheated on a test, according to a new, large-scale survey suggesting that Americans are too apathetic about ethical standards.

Educators reacting to the findings questioned any suggestion that today's young people are less honest than previous generations, but several agreed that intensified pressures are prompting many students to cut corners.

"The competition is greater, the pressures on kids have increased dramatically," said Mel Riddle of the National Association of Secondary School Principals. "They have opportunities their predecessors didn't have (to cheat). The temptation is greater."

The Josephson Institute, a Los Angeles-based ethics institute, surveyed 29,760 students at 100 randomly selected high schools nationwide, both public and private. All students in the selected schools were given the survey in class; their anonymity was assured.

Michael Josephson, the institute's founder and president, said he was most dismayed by the findings about theft. The survey found that 35 percent of boys and 26 percent of girls — 30 percent overall — acknowledged stealing from a store within the past year. One-fifth said they stole something from a friend; 23 percent said they stole something from a parent or other relative.

"What is the social cost of that — not to mention the implication for the next generation of mortgage brokers?" Josephson remarked in an interview. "In a society drenched with cynicism, young people can look at it and say 'Why shouldn't we? Everyone else does it.'"

Other findings from the survey:

_Cheating in school is rampant and getting worse. Sixty-four percent of students cheated on a test in the past year and 38 percent did so two or more times, up from 60 percent and 35 percent in a 2006 survey.

_Thirty-six percent said they used the Internet to plagiarize an assignment, up from 33 percent in 2004.

_Forty-two percent said they sometimes lie to save money — 49 percent of the boys and 36 percent of the girls.

Despite such responses, 93 percent of the students said they were satisfied with their personal ethics and character, and 77 percent affirmed that "when it comes to doing what is right, I am better than most people I know."

Nijmie Dzurinko, executive director of the Philadelphia Student Union, said the findings were not at all reflective of the inner-city students she works with as an advocate for better curriculum and school funding.

"A lot of people like to blame society's problems on young people, without recognizing that young people aren't making the decisions about what's happening in society," said Dzurinko, 32. "They're very easy to scapegoat."

Peter Anderson, principal of Andover High School in Andover, Mass., said he and his colleagues had detected very little cheating on tests or Internet-based plagiarism. He has, however, noticed an uptick in students sharing homework in unauthorized ways.

"This generation is leading incredibly busy lives — involved in athletics, clubs, so many with part-time jobs, and — for seniors — an incredibly demanding and anxiety-producing college search," he offered as an explanation.

Riddle, who for four decades was a high school teacher and principal in northern Virginia, agreed that more pressure could lead to more cheating, yet spoke in defense of today's students.

"I would take these students over other generations," he said. "I found them to be more responsive, more rewarding to work with, more appreciative of support that adults give them.

"We have to create situations where it's easy for kids to do the right things," he added. "We need to create classrooms where learning takes on more importance than having the right answer."

On Long Island, an alliance of school superintendents and college presidents recently embarked on a campaign to draw attention to academic integrity problems and to crack down on plagiarism and cheating.

Roberta Gerold, superintendent of the Middle Country School District and a leader of the campaign, said parents and school officials need to be more diligent — for example, emphasizing to students the distinctions between original and borrowed work.

"You can reinforce the character trait of integrity," she said. "We overload kids these days, and they look for ways to survive. ... It's a flaw in our system that whatever we are doing as educators allows this to continue."

Josephson contended that most Americans are too blase about ethical shortcomings among young people and in society at large.

"Adults are not taking this very seriously," he said. "The schools are not doing even the most moderate thing. ... They don't want to know. There's a pervasive apathy."

Josephson also addressed the argument that today's youth are no less honest than their predecessors.

"In the end, the question is not whether things are worse, but whether they are bad enough to mobilize concern and concerted action," he said.

"What we need to learn from these survey results is that our moral infrastructure is unsound and in serious need of repair. This is not a time to lament and whine but to take thoughtful, positive actions."

___

[LiberalNation]

Thirty-six percent said they used the Internet to plagiarize an assignment, up from 33 percent in 2004.

got to be careful with that, not hard to catch.

I haven't stole anything in the last year, I must be a really good person.

[Francois Cellier]

Originally Posted by LiberalNation

I haven't stolen anything in the last year, I must be a really good person.

Not even a male companion's heart? You must be devastated!

[LiberalNation]

lol and the last thing I want right now is a guy.

[Pookie]

Where are the parents here?
Purrs,
Pookie

[Vespasian]

Originally Posted by LiberalNation

_Thirty-six percent said they used the Internet to plagiarize an assignment, up from 33 percent in 2004.

....can it be any worse when they're adults?

Foreign Secretary Jack Straw says he never saw the controversial "dodgy dossier" about Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction before it was published in February.

Mr Straw said the dossier was an "embarrassment" for the government and was commissioned by Downing Street communications director Alastair Campbell. He apologised to the student whose thesis was used as the basis of the "dodgy dossier", during questions from the Commons foreign affairs select committee.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3015272.stm

Originally Posted by LiberalNation

Josephson also addressed the argument that today's youth are no less honest than their predecessors.

......indeed, kids will be kids......

[ninjalooter1701]

Originally Posted by Pookie

Where are the parents here?
Purrs,
Pookie

They are modeling this behavior.

[Zan de Man]

Originally Posted by Vespasian

....can it be any worse when they're adults?

Touché

[potter]

Originally Posted by ninjalooter1701

They are modeling this behavior.

And parents are modeling their behaviour off government and industry officials..

It's a fucking free for all folks.....

[Neko]

Originally Posted by LiberalNation

Despite such responses, 93 percent of the students said they were satisfied with their personal ethics and character, and 77 percent affirmed that "when it comes to doing what is right, I am better than most people I know."

I think that this is one of the big faults of humanity in general - most people are such excellent hypocrites that they even manage to convince themselves that they're good. When I'm up in front of St Peter I'll at least be able to say in my favour that I never pretended that any of it was right.

Though, on the other hand, being satisfied with one's personal ethics and character can be interpreted in more than one way...

[Gilles de Rais]

Originally Posted by Neko

Though, on the other hand, being satisfied with one's personal ethics and character can be interpreted in more than one way...

Yeah, that part was ok. Just indicate you're comfortable with your own behaviour, whatever that behaviour might be. It the sentence afterwards that shows what a bunch of lying hypocrites most of us are...

[contracycle]

The OP is not tyoo suprising, everyone does it, which is why rigorous methodology is the only viable response to self-regard. There was some brain scan stuff a while ago showing that when making a decision the emotional parts light up firstm and then the rational parts, with the implication being that you think mostly to rationalise decisions you have already made.

[Neko]

But equally, just doing what you want to do can be a rational choice (frequently the most rational one).

[contracycle]

Sure, and it can be healthier than obsessing about "morality" and such. But you still need to maintain self-awareness of the consequences and implications of your actions, lest it turn into simple sociopathy.

[Neko]

Originally Posted by contracycle

Sure, and it can be healthier than obsessing about "morality" and such. But you still need to maintain self-awareness of the consequences and implications of your actions, lest it turn into simple sociopathy.

But I'm still okay if I remain aware of the consequences but just don't care, right?

M'kay. Back to the seriousness-ness, I didn't entirely think through that last post, but here's a more rigorous update.

I'm no neroscientist, but it seems kind of iffy to differentiate "emotional" and "rational" brain bits, because often the justification of an action is entirely lacking in logic, and based purely on emotion - to take your example, someone wants to murder his wife, but doesn't because he feels bad about it. He doesn't need logic to justify it. I'm not trying to put forward a theory of my own here, just suggesting that most people's brains are such a bloody mess that you'd be hard-pressed to pin down the sources and reasoning behind any one decision.

[Neko]

Perhaps what I'm looking at here is a conflict between the neuroscientists vision of emotional vs rational, and the psychologists' vision of id vs. ego vs. superego.

[contracycle]

I don't do id, ego etc as I can see no serious evidence for their existence, they are purely the constructs of Freud as far as I can tell and little more than a semantic device.

But the braibn definitely does have various bits that perform various functions, and did not spring into existence ex nihilo but was evolved sequentially. Various bits do activate depending on thye kind of problem the person is considering, as in:

Greene and his colleagues found "that brain areas associated with emotion and social cognition (medial prefrontal cortex, posterior cingulate/precuneus, and superior temporal sulcus/temperoparietal junction) exhibited increased activity while participants considered personal moral dilemmas, while 'cognitive' brain areas associated with abstract reasoning and problem solving exhibited increased activity while participants considered impersonal moral dilemmas."

http://www.reason.com/news/show/35014.html

Although some of the classifications may be dubious - that is, I would regard "emotions" as simply a hard-coded decision tree, but in a sense therefore rational none the less from the organisms perspective - it is possible to distinguish between those decisions which are automatic and those over which we have access and control, i.e. those we experience as rational thought. The decision "not to murder his wife" may be experienced as an emotional revulsion to killing a fellow human, but there are sound reasons for his brain producing that sensation.

I don't think thast most people's brains are a mess, but I do think there are huge and conflicting layers of constructed consciousness imposed upon our 'instinctive' reactions and responses. To that extent, defaulting to a 'true' attitude of what you might call extended self interest is like total solipsism and psycopathy, becuase it still acknowledges the real elements of the fixed decision tree that form our human consciousness.

[Neko]

I think that the concepts of id and superego do explain a lot of stuff helpfully - it might not be all that scientific, but it's pretty much the best method for explaining secondary emotions and altruism and stuff like that. The ego I can take or leave.

I guess when neuroscience is more advanced it'll be able to provide a more sophisticated picture, but I've seen people decide stuff, and frankly "emotional reaction followed by logical justification" just ain't cutting it for me. For instance:

Although some of the classifications may be dubious - that is, I would regard "emotions" as simply a hard-coded decision tree, but in a sense therefore rational none the less from the organisms perspective - it is possible to distinguish between those decisions which are automatic and those over which we have access and control, i.e. those we experience as rational thought. The decision "not to murder his wife" may be experienced as an emotional revulsion to killing a fellow human, but there are sound reasons for his brain producing that sensation.

Sure, there are many good reasons for your brain to give you a hefty jolt of revulsion every time you think about killing your wife, but unless you're an evolutionary psychologist they don't actually occur to you at the time. All our guy feels is the emotion. If his wife's annoying and has left him a load of money and there's very little chance of him being caught, he's effectively justifying an illogical decision via emotion, rather than the other way around.

I don't think thast most people's brains are a mess, but I do think there are huge and conflicting layers of constructed consciousness imposed upon our 'instinctive' reactions and responses. To that extent, defaulting to a 'true' attitude of what you might call extended self interest is like total solipsism and psycopathy, becuase it still acknowledges the real elements of the fixed decision tree that form our human consciousness.

Hey, you say potato... For me that's a mess. I'm not saying it's not necessary, but it's still one big, fugly mess. I guess from a different point of view it could be seen as beautiful complexity, however.

[contracycle]

Oh I'm not by any means saying that it is entirely impossible to make rational decisions. More significantly, emtions and rationality are not diametirc oppositesd but synthetic comnponents of deicsion-making. Even hard-coded emotions cab be over-ridden with sufficient programming/rationalisation - that in part is what the rational function is there for. But it is impossible to truly adopt a totally impersonal and unemotional rationality - and it would be undesirable to do so. To become Spock would be tantamount to ceasing to be human. The fact that emotions inform deicsions doesn't necessarily mean that the emotional contribution is invalid - but, it might be.

To maintain an overview of your inherent emotional nature, to apply systems like wastching for confirmaiton bias and suchlike, can achieve an awareness of the self not unlike what the eastern tyraditions would refer to ass mindfulness - an awareness of yourself, as particular being in a particular place and time, a real and realistic understanding of your own cognition. This what makes 'doing what you want to do' different from solipsism or sociopathy.