Why students lie!

After the last blog, I was intrigued by a short article in the New York Times that follows on well. The basic premise being that students lie to gain leverage. Not big news I grant you, but after reading about the lengths some winners will go to, it seems that lessons begin early.

The basic premise with being a teacher and indeed a parent is the willingness to believe in the best when you consider a child. By that I mean that you always try to look for the best or positive outcome, sometimes regardless of what is actually right in front of your eyes and ears. In her article Ms Konnikova believes that 
“We are so bad at spotting deception because it’s better for us to be more trusting. Trust, and not adeptness at spotting deception, is the more evolutionary beneficial path,”. 
More than once, I have seen the shocked expression on a parents face when the truth about "what is real and what is told" are completely different things. As we know, the more we trust or love someone, the harder it is to accept or even consider the fact that they would lie or try to deceive us.

The idea that telling lies is acceptable is in many ways a norm these days. I doubt whether any of us could say that we have not told a lie, and this leads us to have a "grey" approach to the whole concept of truth. It becomes increasingly difficult to criticise or judge others if we ourselves also engage in the same practises. The old expression about "apples not falling far from the tree" seems to definitely apply here. It is far to easy for us to forget that we are the role models that our children and students tend to learn from and copy behaviours. A great pity that we conveniently forget and then go about our lives. This must really confuse and amaze a teen, who as I have said before, is still developing the reasoning skills associated with social intelligence. They must think that this is typical behaviour for an adult, and they will react accordingly.

But students and teens are sometimes forced into (or at least they think they are forced into) using lies to solve problems. It is amazing as a teacher the number of times this has occurred, but unfortunately the tendency is to look at the action and sometimes we forget about the cause. Lying can be a form of acting out and simply a "cry for help", and that I'm sure we have seen. The main problem seems to be that many teachers and parents look more closely at the occurrence rather than the cause. I see the punishment dealt and then the more than common move on, and I know I have been guilty of doing the same in the past. It takes some time to sit and chat with the child to really get to the cause of the lie, and that often the reason we choose to ignore all but the incidence. Maybe we would all be better off to take the time regardless of how busy we are.

I recall a comment my father made to me in my early teens about being more concerned with not learning from the lie. He encouraged me to admit to the lie rather than try to hide it, and I think that learning from that made me rethink. I have used that tactic with students over the years and see the puzzled expression when I praise them for admitting their mistake. But I have also found that I do not seem to have too many repeat the mistake! I also find that communication between us seems to grow.

Do winners keep on winning?

It is an amazing coincidence that winners keep on winning, or is it? The idea that you beat the odds over and over again seem to fly in the face of statistics. So maybe its the so called "winning attitude or win at all costs" that gives the real edge. There surprisingly more cases of the sense of entitlement this begets, but none more obvious than Martin Shkreli. We have all heard about his attitude and responses to questions about his morality or ethical attitudes, and he really is coming across as a pin-up boy for entitlement. But the amazing (and incredibly sad) part is, this is not an isolated case anymore.

The feeling of invincibility seems evident in many cases of winners being winners. The entitlement and bullying that occurs on some of these cases is getting a little out of hand. If you read the follow up of Shkreli and others make light or even fun of the occurrence on social media. After being a congressional hearing regarding his extravagant episode concerning raising the cost of medicine, he starts "bad mouthing" them on social media - calling them imbeciles. Only the really brave, naive or ridiculously stupid resort to these actions with the belief their will be no repercussions! It really brings to mind the old adage of "9 foot tall and bulletproof" as a saying to denote the impulsive and reckless behaviour of teens. The number of similar cases of so called winners behaving badly is on the increase, and that is a very troubling thought. It really solves the riddle about schadenfreude with winners behaviour going to extremes or the levels shown in the media almost daily. This in itself explains the ridicule that greets their behaviour, which I'm sure is a mystery to them.

But probably even more shocking to us "mere mortals" is the lengths they will go through to keep on winning. It seems that moral and ethical considerations become a little flexible in the mind of winners, with the end more than justifying the means used in winning. An interesting article "A new study shows that winners will cheat to keep winning" brings into question the mental state of winners - I have attached here. But are they to blame, or simply a product of the social pressure to be winners? It almost appears as if winners are able to justify in their own mind ethical or moral hiccups and then simply forget or ignore them. But the sad part is they still judge others based upon accepted social norms while living outside them. A bit of an incongruous thinking perhaps - that some of us would consider a case of double standards.

I have already blogged about the social push in students to be overly self-promoting in their search for the winning recipe. We have created the monsters that we now see. But, and I mean a huge but, adults like Shkreli are old enough to have well-developed social and ethical intelligence. So his actions are more due to swagger and over-confidence rather than anything else.  The quote from Schurr and Ritov above suggest that it is all part of the strategy to either keep winning or give the illusion of winning. Their article on "Winning a competition predicts dishonest behaviour" (linked) dealt with the ethical behaviour, or lack thereof, of perceived winners. Now considering that these "winners" are leaders in business and government, I really think that their bad examples are becoming more prevalent and more selfish in nature it brings into question the role model they are providing for subsequent generations.

I'm becoming more and more concerned by the action of our so-called leaders as they push through with their own agendas and it seems their own rules. But even more worrying is their response when they are faced with an option that does not involve winning or an opinion that differs from theirs. Far too often they resort to unsavoury tactics including cheating, bullying and worse, so again I ask the question do winners keep on winning?

Control or well-being?

In a recent blog, I introduced the idea of control or well-being as the camps that seem to occupy parental and societal interest. There are I'm sure numerous stories and takes on how to handle a child's tantrum in public, and all have their followers. But does it have to be that black and white, or is there a grey?

I posed the question of a noisy child in a movie or theatre. You are sitting and hearing a child misbehave or scream out while you are trying to watch and listen. A hypothetical for most but it actually happened at performance of "King & I". The audience then proceeded to blame the mother for the child's outburst. The child was autistic and this seemed to generate greater anger against the mother. The actors response was quite interesting and I have included it here. I think that many of us forget that social norms are learnt, and most learning is done by doing. Too often we forget that our learning was also slow and done by exposing us to different experiences, some if which we handled well and others were memorable for all the wrong reasons. Thinking back, I can reflect on my first visit to a live show, and the fact that I too was a little "squirrelly" but remained quiet for fear of embarrassment rather than anything else. We have taken the selfish route many times and saw what was best for us forgetting the patience that was part of our parent's repertoire during the learning process.

Most learning for children us mimicking the actions if others around them. If they are constantly surrounded by adults, they can copy the actions and examples they witness. But far from solving the problem, could it in fact make it worse? I have written about the role of play in childhood learning and the real social learning that occurs. Children do copy the actions of their peers, but they also form their own little code of "right and wrong" and other social mores by these interactions. Allowing them to take the ownership of these is seen as positive rather than the imposition by others, including parents. I think that in many ways we get it wrong by imposing rather than allowing a "more organic growth of morals and ethics" especially as they enter teen and even pre-teen ages and begin showing a sense of responsibility.

Perhaps teh Germans have struck a more realistic and effective way of doing just that! The article in the Wall Street Journal (linked here) provides us with a situation where kindergarten-age students are taken into the woods by their teachers. The general aim is to provide students with the ability to develop "independence and social skills". The students learn from each other and the challenges that arise, with teachers there to stop them hurting themselves. I wonder how many western parents, or for that matter those from Hong Kong, would entertain ideas to allow their child to be involved? It does come from good thought and understanding of the role of experiential learning and its importance in child development. Surely this provides an "organic growth, more so that a more traditional lecture based approach adopted by most parents. I wonder how this approach handles the tantrums mentioned earlier, and if it indeed solves this? I think the quote below sums it up so well ...

In rule-bound Germany, growing up is surprisingly rule-free. Parents send 5-year-olds to the bakery alone on Saturdays. Children typically settle their own disputes on the playground. And kindergartens are legally bound to try to develop their charges into self-reliant individuals. 

We are all searching for ways to promote social growth and the development of a moral compass in our children. Using control or well-being is simply changing the focus, and I seriously wonder if the learning through play (or experiential learning) is indeed the solution. After reading about the German experience and then its ongoing benefits, in place of the more helicopter approach that is so common here and in most other western countries, I would be advocating for a trial at least. Lets try to assist the development rather than simply getting in the way. Would you be game enough to give your child such an opportunity at Kindergarten age?