Did This Expert On Cheating Get Caught Lying? An EXCLUSIVE interview with Dan Ariely.

Dan Ariely is the most famous cognitive behavioral scientist on the topic of lying and misbelief. Over the summer an organization named Data Colada accused him of making up some of the data that made his career. Soon The New Yorker, NPR, The Atlantic, New York Times and a dozen other publications picked up the story about how he, and Francesca Gino (a researcher at Harvard) were lying about their research on lying. Ariely never gave a recorded interview on the topic, instead submitting his answers to reporters over email.

But it just so happened that over the summer I reached out to Ariely because I was fascinated by his MRI research on the brains of pathological liars (which is not under any sort of investigation that I'm aware of) and we set up a date to talk earlier this month. The result: An exclusive interview with Ariely on the scientific fraud scandal, and some answers to the hard questions about what really lies at the bottom of truth and deception.

Other Coverage:

Get Exclusive Updates on Patreon:

Subscribe to my newsletter

Scott Carney Investigates Podcast

Books:
⁠The Wedge⁠

⁠What Doesn't Kill Us⁠

⁠The Enlightenment Trap⁠

The Vortex

The Red Market

Listen to the Scott Carney Investigates Podcast on:

YouTube

Apple:

Spotify:

Anchor:

Social Media:


#DanAriely #Lying #Science

©PokeyBear LLC (2023)

[BarryWolfeMusicPgh]

So glad you posted this addendum to your full interview.

In my work as a senior HR guy, I've had to investigate all kinds of issues involving credibility. I don't need to be a psychologist to have learned this lesson from all that experience: People lie. And when their jobs are on the line, people can lie well.

I've also learned that your only course is to follow not people's squishy and invariably self-serving rationalizations about intentions, but facts.

Ariely clams the problems lay with the dataset when he received it from the insurance company. That dataset had about 6, 000 car odometer reading. The one the Data Colada guys reviewed had about 20, 000. The new numbers appear to have been copied with Excel's random number generator on the last few digits. They Data Colada couldn't reproduce the results after 1 million simulations. The Hartford, the carrier who gave him the data, told him in a letter, "“Though some of the data in the published study data is originally sourced from our data…it is clear the data was manipulated inappropriately and supplemented by synthesized data.”

Ariely told Science magazine "I wish I had a good story, but I don't."

Are his research recordkeeping skills really as genuinely sloppy as that studied slovenliness he sports appearing on cameras?

[radiandrea]

The definition of truth from the behavioral expert says it all.

[stanleyklein]

Dan Ariely: "The truth is something somebody full-heartedly believe in." So, if I firmly believe I am the smartest person on Earth, my belief (not even my knowledge) is stone cold evidence that my belief is true. This is sadly typical of the juvenile level of thinking evidenced by credentialed psychologists.

[stanleyklein]

Neuroscience can teach ONE thing: The structure and activity of neurons. It is NOT informative about psychology (subjectivity is not easily informed by objective observations).

[AB-etnj]

"We can do safe research which will yield boring, reliable results ... or we can take risks" ... what kind of a researcher is this?

[anniealexander]

Just found your channel. Juat to nitpick, Ariely is not a behavioural psychologist. Behavioural psychologists would argue about internal states not being observable.

I was an academic in psychology and these psychologists working in marketing and business departments are a nuisance. While they ate successful they are "behavioural scientists" or their research is "behavioural economics" but when their bad behaviour is uncovered they are called psychologists. These people don't work in psychology departments, aren't contributing to the teaching of psychology students, aren't submitting research to psychology dept ethics committees etc. They are only psychologists when it suits them.

Anyway, now I know why Ariely spoke so forgivingly of Elizabeth Holmes in Bad Blood. His explanation of Holmes having started out with good intentions boy!

[dingai]

oh boy... that part where he tries to pull a Jedi mind trick... "if you think about it"... "I had no incentive"... WTF. And all the "duping delight" leaking from his face, especially his eyes... he looks so different in that moment than during moments in which he's plainly speaking about things

[DW-xtvz]

I thought you were going to fall for insider bias after the interview but you turned the plane upward at the 8:00 minute mark. Well done!

[pewarrenau]

The media have a terrible habit of cherrypicking details from scientific research, which results in stories that exaggerate or misreport findings. This is especially problematic for studies that haven't been subjected to rigorous peer view or validation. Good science needs to be reviewed... which is boring and doesn't make good headlines. Researchers make mistakes. However, this protocol failure seems suspicious for academics with so much experience. In addition, it seems a bit cynical that Dan has courted the media for many years to further his career but then claims 'conspiracy' when the same media criticises him.

That said, I think the most concerning aspect of this scandal is how the academic community may have shut down dissenting academic views. The social sciences are generally more subjective and are far more difficult to empirically test. Therefore, it would seem to make sense that open academic discussion and review is paramount. An excellent example of how science should work was the recent publication about room temperature superconductors, which the science community immediately attempted to validate and review for errors, which were found and that refuted the findings.

[Efesus]

Oh boy, this is gonna be interesting.

[Mrcockington]

2 simple words "plausible deniability"

[stanleyklein]

Note: Radiology (e.g., brain imaging) offers ZERO insight about intentionality (or any other subjective [i.e., psychological] state). This is not sour grapes: I introduced radiology to personality/social psychology (in 1993 with Gazzaniga and Kihlstrom). However, I soon realized the error of my decision.

[YoYo-gtiq]

What!? His explanation about truth was a conclusion he came to about pathological liars.

[marktregear]

He appears guilty as sin. Unfortunately his type of thinking is widespread and will eventually collapse the entire system.

[maxm]

There is no possible way for a viewer of this video to determine "the truth" of what happened with the research, because two people making claims or repeating claims with no independent evidence come down to one's "gut."

If there were a clear and easy conclusion to be made by simply listening to various people talk about the events and the people involved, most people would be arriving at that conclusion and there would be little reason to discuss the situation.

Research is complicated and you have to be able to look at the statistics and the tests of the statistics and compare them to other findings by other people and evaluate the limitations that research always has--which is also a complex subject requiring knowledge of both research in general and the particular subject matter of the research.

I understand why the creator of this video might ask for discussion, but I don't see why he would suggest that we can have an interesting and valid opinion based on our "impressions."

[redrei]

Was Dan Arielle sitting in a sauna during the interview? 😂

[stanleyklein]

Dan Ariely's "incentive" argument is such a blatant falsehood (or outright stupidity) that (if the former), he is yet again making travesty of himself vis a vis his research topic (honesty).

[Rhombohedral]

Nudging Youtube style: Youtube asked me yesterday if i wanted a notification when this video would come live. Besides I have notification on on already I clicked the send me notification button.
Result Youtube did not send me any notification this video becoming live.
= I dont get Youtube/ Youtube is weirdThere is zero way to nudge Youtube into doing the thing like giving notifications when you want notifications to be accurate. Basically for this video I had 2 notifications. !) general when you upload a video 2)specifically for this video alone send me a notification= result zero shit happening LOL

Any book you read you have to take it with grain of salt

[dingai]

Are you SURE you heard him right? Just from that clip, it sounded to me like he was talking about whether or not a False statement is a Lie. If the person believes it is true, it's a Mistake, an Error. If they Know that it's untrue, it's a Lie. That's a pretty standard distinction... And so is his point that intentions matter. Someone who INTENDS to deceive and manipulate can be RELIED UPON to do that. Someone who intends to tell the truth and occasionally, by accident, makes mistakes - can also be RELIED UPON to do that. That is, mostly get things write, but sometimes get things wrong. So, over time, they are likely to learn from their mistakes and get better and contribute positively. So.... What exactly is wrong with this?