Lively and fun

Dishonesty and cheating is quite a difficult issue to write about, but Dan Ariely has a light-handed, breezy approach which works very well. Much of the news is rather depressing - most people cheat some of the time, our doctors, dentists and bankers exploit us to their advantage, children are born with the natural inclination to deceive and we all mislead ourselves to our own advantage. On the bright side, most people are constrained by a broader moral code - you should only cheat a bit, you should not cheat blind people, you might also lie or cheat to achieve a greater 'overall fairness' in the world.

A lot of the results presented come from experiments on US undergraduates, so research-wise you might question the wider validity and implications. I found the questions raised interesting and most of the results intuitively satisfying. The book ends with a series of interviews/conversations with Ariely's colleagues. These do not add much to the content (they repeat results already presented) but it is interesting to hear Ariely, on the hoof, talking through the possible interpretations, misinterpretations and complications in the results. It shows how careful you have to be in experimental design, and in drawing any firm conclusions. The academic mind at work, you might say.

Narration. Mr Ariely (who speaks English with a strong Isreali accent) stumps up the fee for a professional narrator and I salute that decision. The narrator is a bit sing-song/Jackanory, but this is sometimes welcome as an antidote to the sensitive nature of many of the findings - i.e. a humorous tone helps when we are discussing how 'we are all a bit naughty, aren't we?'

8 people found this helpful

It's yourself you have to fool!

MPs dishonestly claiming expense, banks lying to manipulate the LIBOR irate, price fixing by oil companies... Lying, cheating and dishonesty are all around us! Indeed Ariely's research shows that most of us are just a little bit dishonest, it seems. That's perhaps no surprise. The surprise factor for me, is that the bigger the amount, the LESS likely we are to cheat. The limiting factor seems to be not how much we can get away with, but how much we challenge our self-image by an act of dishonesty - and how far we can justify it to ourselves. This book looks at the many ways we justify our cheating, and how far from the truth and into serious fraud such justifications can subtly take us by salami tactics. Many factors are investigated by Ariely in a series of experiments. How does cheating by others corrupt our own honesty? How much do we calculate the risk of getting caught? Would a pair of drawn cartoon eyes stop you taking unclaimed money off a table? Are highly creative people more likely to tell lies than less creative people? Like his other books, I found this quite an eye opener - into my own attitudes towards honesty, cheating and my own self justifications to preserve intact my own good self-image. If nothing else, I think I recognise my own mental tricks to fool myself more. Enjoyably read by Simon Jones - the narration is like a hitchhikers guide to dishonesty in the very pleasant company of Arthur Dent.

6 people found this helpful

Interesting, but rehashing all the tired examples

The subject matter of the book is quite interesting. However, judging from just the examples, it seems like not much research is performed in the field, since the same research results surface in every book on the subject.

2 people found this helpful

Good overall but ideas a little stretched

I enjoyed the book it really found it enlightening. The experiments seem to conclude ideas that I already suspected that lying is complicated and not a simple cost benefit analysis.
I found it strange how Dan was happy to put his interviews in the book that are himself, yet pay someone else to narrate a book on dishonesty. I'm not sure if this was intentional but it certainly surprised me.
Lying is something we all in fact do and this does explain and suggest some reasons as to why, but it doesn't really cross over too much into the realm of ethics or morality with the depth required. I did feel that the book went far too deep into exactly how people were tested and I would've preferred more discussion and philosophy on the morality of the results and possible conclusions.
l enjoyed it overall but felt it needed a little more work or an sequel with more analysis. I would definitely recommend it to any psychology fan or student.

1 person found this helpful

It's (honestly) great!

A fascinating study of human behaviour, that is also enjoyable for the humour with which Ariely delivers his insights: thoroughly accessible and well-narrated.

1 person found this helpful

Incredible book

Amazing book, the information in here has changed the way I think. I have recommended to everyone I know. Simon Jones is such a charismatic narrator, he keeps it interesting and intriguing. This is one book I will continue to listen to. Can not recommend highly enough

Amusing and interesting

Read with a smile. Interesting experiments revealing human nature, and how our environments influence us.

Great addons

The one on one interviews at the end with the researchers whos studies he published added alot of value to the analysis presented in the title.

Brilliant.

What did you like most about The (Honest) Truth about Dishonesty?

The sharp mind of the author presenting paradigm shifting information.

What was one of the most memorable moments of The (Honest) Truth about Dishonesty?

The whole book with all his numerous insights!

Any additional comments?

The insights presented in this book overturns many traditional perceptions.

All blindingly obvious...with hindsight

Well worth listening to, and whilst in no way a self-help book there is much to cause you to do things differently.

This is not a typical review, but just a couple examples of things that I'm now doing differently:

When I come across someone who has a declared 'conflict of interest' I now make much more allowance that what they are telling me is biased and I devalue the worth of what they are telling me much more than I did previously - this is of real value to those of us that read academic papers/attend conferences/listen to expert witnesses/speak to researchers funded by pharmaceutical companies etc.

I now often have a very superficial chat about morality and ethics at the beginning of meetings (which can be easily done whilst you are preparing a drink for someone rather than calling out for coffee and setting down to business straight away for example), it might be something faith based that we can talk about, or totally humanist (and it doesn't matter if you're not a humanist or if you are an atheist) as this subconsciously primes the person in front of you to behave more honestly, and also makes you more honest in your dealings with them so that you are both less likely to behave in that grey area of what is acceptable. Win win.

I would have liked a bit more information about the entry criteria for his experiments as I feel that it would be likely that some of the results could be biased if a high degree of rigour was not applied. The entry criteria were probably very rigorous, but we should have been told.