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

[@sgcarney]

Watch the full interview with Dan Ariely here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/iJ6ZpHyCeM91brM

[@johnf4680]

I missed the days when this kind of thing would seem big and important to stop. Now we have much bigger problems.

[@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?

[@stanleyklein524]

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.

[@AB-et6nj]

He's a fraud who's more like a motivational speaker, not a scientist.

[@fluxpistol3608]

True. I (and some others) call this small t truth vs big T Truth. He is dealing in small t truth. Hard to communicate verbally though

[@dingai]

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...

[@humanbeing2420]

How any credentialed academic could make such a statement is beyond me. The truth has nothing to do with belief. A statement is true regardless of whether anyone full-heartedly believes in it. By Ariely's logic, Donald Trump won the 2020 election because he believes he did. Ariely is a charlatan and a hack.

[@AB-et6nj]

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

[@sgcarney]

Yeah. Pretty problematic statement.

[@JavaScripting64]

Typical move fast and break things enjoyer

[@fofopho]

Hey Scott. Video was a good watch, very nice. I would make one request for future videos on similar topics. When you are dealing with science or research, it’s important to remember that certain words have very technical uses and meanings that differ from their more colloquial uses and meanings. Words like “confounding“ “theory“ and such. They mean something very specific in the field of research and should be used with care so as not to give people the wrong idea.

[@sgcarney]

There is a valid discussion to be had over the value of jargon vs ineligibility. As long as I'm generally understood I'm ok with some unclarity. Other people fall on other sides of that equation.

[@stanleyklein524]

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).

[@anniealexander9911]

I broadly agree. I would add that psychology has been a minefield for neuroscience. Neuroscience just takes psychology experiments and adds an expensive piece of equipment on top of. Without psychology the field of neuroscience would have to actually come up with the experiments themselves.

[@radiandrea]

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

[@DW-xt7vz]

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!

[@sgcarney]

Whew!

[@anniealexander9911]

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 is.....oh boy!

[@sgcarney]

Thanks!

[@sophiemoconnell]

​​@@anniealexander9911 I have been learning about the brain and was hoping to study behavioural economics, neuroscience or psychology in more depth. But my faith in what's reliable information and what's not has really been shaken. Do you know what the most reliable resources are or which psychological biases or neuroscientific research has been validated? Thank you. 😊

[@stanleyklein524]

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.

[@WolfKain]

Thought provoking, well done ✊🤘

[@maxm2639]

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."

[@sgcarney]

You have to make up your own mind. Which is why it’s an interview.

[@maxm2639]

@@sgcarney But my point was that the information given in an interview is inadequate to make a decision about what actually happened, who is "guilty," etc. If I say: "My friend says that his wallet was stolen by someone he knew. What do you think?", that's not a useful question since I would have to provide a lot more information plus some evidence that would allow checking, for your opinion to mean anything. The internet and this country is already overcrowded with people who think they can have a meaningful opinion about something just by watching a video with one or two people making claims.

[@nilskp]

Ironic that he looks like Two-Face

[@abhigyandutta3277]

Saying Ariey "erred accidentally" or had good intentions shows how you shouldn't be talking about this topic in the first place. He is not a toddler, plus the evidence clearly shows intentional data manipulation. Worst take ever to try and sympathize with a scumbag who singlehandedly made an entire community a topic of ridicule.

[@sgcarney]

I think I made a pretty fair video here.

[@abhigyandutta3277]

@@sgcarney ask what other neuroscientists or any data scientist think. Comments from people not familiar with topic is not an endorsement of a job well done. My main point of contention was the fact you chose to give this man an iota of doubt.

[@sgcarney]

I let him say his piece and then pointed out inconsistencies. Reporters should interview the subjects they report on. Indeed, there are laws about that.

[@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.

[@sgcarney]

Agreed.

[@marktregear5776]

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

[@anniealexander9911]

He sure knows how to cling on to his job in a way that no other academic has been able to. That, in particular, I find curious. I don't agree with Gino that it is sexism as plenty of male academics have been brought down with less. But I do wonder how he has managed to hang in there after years of this.

[@Xannther-x7b]

To me Ariely’s definition of truth feels like a post-hoc justification of his behaviour. I’d be interested to see how he defined truth before the scandal broke.

[@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

[@redrei9]

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

[@csours]

A big problem with "the truth" is that the human mind seeks satisfaction inside some framing story, and it really matters what that framing story is. For instance is "I don't know" a true answer? How about "Answering that question would take an immense amount of work" - true but unsatisfying.

[@francodegasperi3814]

If this guy is advising billionaires giant corporations and govt ther's no way to measure the damage done if he fucked up. Makes you question how many of this "experts" Advice changes millons of people's lives for better or worse, most likely worse

[@Efesus67]

Oh boy, this is gonna be interesting.

[@stanleyklein524]

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).

[@amichaelthomas83]

I think you are wrong about the idea that they have convinced themselves that they are doing things with the best intentions... these people deserve everything that is coming to them after their initial deceit.

[@Mrcockington]

2 simple words "plausible deniability"

[@Rhombohedral]

Nudging KZbin style: KZbin 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 KZbin did not send me any notification this video becoming live. = I dont get KZbin/ KZbin is weirdThere is zero way to nudge KZbin 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

[@sgcarney]

Hah! KZbin is the worst.

[@markmuller7962]

Google sucks

[@Rhombohedral]

@@markmuller7962 Yep LOL I just noticed it also changed my notifications on comments from yes I want to be notified by itself to dont notify.. While recently I again had changed it to notify me... KZbin is really a nightmare LOL

[@YoYo-gt5iq]

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

[@innerspacesurfer]

Ariely's facial hair told me what I needed to know.

[@joebazooks]

Super iron-y man

[@tinagarcia4117]

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 I was thinking the same way😂😂

[@AB-et6nj]

Two faced

[@jeffreyjay2899]

He is a burn victim.

[@fluxpistol3608]

Which is what?

[@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?

[@sgcarney]

I'm not sure which clip you are referring to, but there is a link to the full interview in the description.

[@joebazooks]

yeah i dont buy it. what makes u think a liar wont lie again to cover their tracks?

[@gepisar]

yeah, this seems to be the case; get caught lying in professional academia; thats pretty much the end.

[@oldmanbeta]

Phenomenal presentation! Thanks.

[@2454014]

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

[@stanleyklein524]

Bravo for this presentation.

[@JavaScripting64]

Academia is broken.

[@gepisar]

truth relativism in science; wow - ok.

[@Fuuntag]

He was just obviously pre-loading his defense. Doesn't believe it. He has no integrity obviously.

[@sgcarney]

likely.

[@peterhart1966]

Really?! I mean,,,,Really?!

[@Kannot2023]

I want my money back from Dan Ariely books

[@sharpvidtube]

The man looks two faced😂

[@duanemansel5704]

CAN YOU SAY, "CULT" ?

[@thesauce669]

Lie and get rich---got it

[@valerienagy8764]

What the eff is going on with his facial hair?

[@RealMaxMura]

The likely answer is due to 3rd degree burns that happened when he was in his teens. A flare that apparently exploded at some sort of graduation ceremony and resulted in burns covering 70% of his body.

[@valerienagy8764]

That's awful! Thanks for letting me know. @@RealMaxMura

[@tinagarcia4117]

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@tinagarcia4117]

Yes that reality incredibly and dreadfully sad

[@tnijoo5109]

In an interview a while back he told the story of how he had grown out his beard, which makes it (the evidence of his burns on his face) look more fucked it I guess, and people told him that it made them feel better about their own deformities or burns so he decided to keep wearing it. Now I wonder if any of that was even true. I actually wonder now if he still grows out his half beard so people have sympathy for him. Idk.

[@ipekseda3087]

When did people start pronouncing it SPEER-A-MINT? It sounds so stupid. Ex-pear-a-ment, please.

[@hnybee113]

I can't TRUST anyone who doesn't know how to shave. 😂😂lol. Jk

[@sgcarney]

In Ariely's case that's because of a 3rd degree burn on his face form when he was in the army.

[@DW-xt7vz]

@@sgcarneyactually he wasn’t in the army at the time. Another convenient omission of facts on his part.

[@sgcarney]

I read something about that as well. Getting to the bottom of things is hard.

[@anniealexander9911]

I thought it was something from childhood?

[@Eric-steele]

Your over thinking it

[@sgcarney]

How so?

[@Eric-steele]

@@sgcarney he's a liar it's that simple

[@sgcarney]

The more I think about it, the more I agree. I'm just not sure exactly which lie it is.

[@riccardoconte6155]

they are not expert on lying. They are not Navarro or Paul Ekman. They’re behavioral economists.