Why Do We Assume That Liars Always Deceive Us Maliciously?

The fact that we’re accomplices in so much deception signals that we’re already more enmeshed in it than we usually acknowledge. However, simply because lies sometimes stoke our egos does not mean we should uncritically accept them. Consider again the scenario of the real estate agent praising the house you want to buy. In the short term, you are willing to accept her lies about the house because you are already inclined to buy it too. In the long term, though, accepting what the real estate agent says at face value could prove very dangerous. However much you’d like to believe that the house has been cleared for termites by multiple inspectors, this is an assurance that demands scrutiny. Lenders extended loans to those with terrible track records of repayment. Both sides had a financial stake in allowing the deception to continue. Economic forces, though, rarely tolerate such arrangements. Just as there is no way to explain to someone else all the kinds of lies we’ll accept, and all the kinds we don’t want to hear, we can’t really make this explanation to ourselves, either. The Liar’s Advantage, then, can seem in some ways permanent. It exploits mental processes over which we largely have no control.

Neautiful Lilies Bloom In Ugly Waters

It is also helpful to consider where our notions about deception come from. Why do we assume that liars always deceive us maliciously? Where do our misconceptions about the averted gaze come from? Bush had in mind when he signed into law the No Child Left Behind Act, which mandated periodic competency testing. In another classroom, a proctor read a newspaper while students took the test, and students left the room for bathroom breaks, unaccompanied by proctors. In a third classroom, students talked to one another before handing in their answer sheets. Overall, the testing took place in a chaotic atmosphere. But the history of testing at Brook suggests otherwise. Until 2005, Brook was another urban school with a dismal record of failure. The students at Brook became poster children for the benefits of school reform, brought about by a partnership of its teachers and students. If it seemed too good to be true, it was. After an exposé by the Dallas Morning News, it became apparent that the rise in scores had more likely been brought about by systematic subterfuge than true academic improvement. Investigators came to believe that some teachers doled out answers to their students during the test or later changed their students’ answers. When the state assigned independent monitors to oversee test administration the following year, the science scores plummeted, with only 39 percent of students passing.

All The Butterflies Have Broken Wings

Indeed, testing irregularities were identified at hundreds of schools in Texas, and in the fallout of these revelations teachers and administrators were fired, suspended, and demoted. The results of the competency tests would then be used as a yardstick to determine school success. Schools that performed poorly would face penalties such as teacher or administrator firings or, in extreme cases, takeover by the state. No Child Left Behind, which also promised schools billions of dollars in new federal funding, received bipartisan support. Even lawmakers who traditionally opposed increases in federal money for education lined up behind the act, attracted by the new accountability schools would face in keeping up their test scores. There is a problem underlying this emphasis on test performance, though, one that relates not to the fairness of tying an entire school’s destiny to a standardized test but, rather, to the integrity of the test performance itself. Or they might respond by cheating. Raising the specter of cheating is not just a matter of cynicism. Research shows that students cheat, and cheat frequently. A 2006 study by the Institute of Ethics examining 36,000 high school students found that 60 percent of them cheated on a test during the previous year, and 35 percent of them did so more than once. A third of them admitted to plagiarizing material from the Internet. Cheating, then, is not an aberration.

It Takes A Lot To Laugh

These studies suggest that it is typical, a practice the vast majority of high school students engage in. And McCabe also found another surprising result, one particularly relevant to a discussion of how cheating might undermine the results of mandatory tests such as those required by No Child Left Behind. Determined that while 90 percent of teachers reported knowing that cheating was occurring in their classrooms, a third of them took no action to prevent it. Given these attitudes, it is easy to see how cheating could skew the results of standardized tests. And in many cases when jobs and funding were on the line, cheating is exactly what occurred. State officials in Mississippi had to throw out test results in nine different schools after evidence of widespread cheating emerged. In Arizona, test results were discarded across nine school districts where teachers had read portions of tests to students in advance or had given them additional time to finish. Recent years have seen cheating scandals in schools from New York to Florida to California. In some cases, teachers would give students the actual tests to study from ahead of time. In other instances, teachers would simply write correct answers on the blackboard while students took the test. Indeed, the origins of deception in children almost always involve a relationship between the child and someone else. Many children, at least, seem to take this view. In his study of high school students, McCabe found that the most common reason students gave for their cheating was the example set by adults. Yet this conception is probably too simplistic. Even parents who stress the value of honesty the most frequently find that their children lie to them, and to others, with regularity. Just as the uses and purposes of lying by adults are complex, deception as practiced by children is no different. The dishonesty on tests like those mandated by No Child Left Behind turns out to be one of the simpler forms it takes. As she explained it, the game sounded easy.