There are several (to me) notably peculiar things about this book. Firstly, it equates social science with economics. This is not the first I’ve come across such confluence, but it is the most blatant. Secondly, it situates itself solidly in the realm of economics, despite being essentially about psychology. I always find this a little forced in behavioural economics books; the novel findings of economists are rediscoveries of psychology. I assume this is just a stylistic choice in the case of this book, though, as Ariely is a professor of psychology and behavioural economics and has a PhD in psychology. Probably the most critical difference that this makes in practise is that economics begins with the premise that individuals act rationally; psychology does not. (Rationality is not adequately defined in this book, but that’s no surprise, it never is in economics.)

The third odd thing is the sudden swerve into religion within the final chapter. I wasn’t expecting this and found it rather disconcerting. I took it as an attempt to reconcile the economic model of behaviour (even modified somewhat) with notions of morality. From a philosophical perspective, this book takes a naively simplistic approach to honesty and truth, and indeed good and bad behaviour. I guess this is inevitable given its scope. The shift from describing behavioural experiments to telling stories from the Torah still seems strange, though. Religion can indeed be conceptualised as a method of encouraging honest behaviour, yet in reality it is so much more complex than that. I don’t know, maybe I’m not the right audience for this book. I study some areas of economics at PhD level, so am bothered by oversimplifications. On the other hand, I really enjoyed another of Ariely’s books, [b:Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions|1713426|Predictably Irrational The Hidden Forces That Shape Our Decisions|Dan Ariely|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1255573980s/1713426.jpg|3074803]. Perhaps this one just went too far by venturing into such an obviously moral and ethical area without really considering those dimensions?

The potential cultural variations in propensity to dishonesty are mentioned at one point, while reading I was conscious of the following, explicitly explained on page 238:

‘Although the focus of the various experiments presented here was dishonesty, it is also important to remember that most of the participants in our experiments were nice people from good universities who will likely attain positions of some power and influence later in life. They were not the kind of people one typically associates with cheating.’

This is a major issue with research on human behaviour: hypotheses are so often just tested on a bunch of students, totally unrepresentative of the population as a whole. Moreover, I take issue with the assumption that privileged students are necessarily ‘nice people’ who are less likely to be dishonest than (less privileged) others. The comment that they’ll likely be powerful in the future is more significant - and suggests that expensive further education isn’t instilling much in the way of ethics. Studying economics is certainly enough to undermine any beliefs in right and wrong, as the ideal rational utility maximiser is an utter psychopath.

Economic theory also provides a convenient rationale for ethically dubious behaviour. This book does make clear how easy it is to rationalise behaviour after the fact, definitely an important thing to recognise. Although I’ve been carping for three paragraphs, I did enjoy reading this. The style is engaging and cheerfully explanatory. I am probably too familiar with economics to enjoy it properly, though. The domination of economics in the social sciences gets on my nerves, especially when it comes to public policy. Also, I was given this book as a present, otherwise I probably would not have read it. ‘The Honest Truth About Dishonesty’ is quite entertaining, though, and gives you the opportunity to try out the Stroop Test. ( )

So much of business depends on getting the truth out of people. Customers, suppliers, and employees. Telling lies is just so natural, and so hard to root out of human behaviour. I enjoy reading Ariely so much on the irrational constituents of economic behaviour. This book while not quite as important as his earlier titles, still proved enjoyable to read. ( )

A good read about Ariely's research on lying. I do agree with much of what is discussed in this book, but I am still left with a few questions that I would like to see investigated.

1. Many people did lie or cheat in different circumstances. Were there any consistent behaviors in some people? If so, what was "unique" about those consistent liars or honest people?

2. Does religion, gender, education, age or any other traits change the results? Most of the studies occur on college campuses, which are not statistically applicable to all of humanity.

3. I would like to see more research into what methods would work in helping individuals see their own actions as dishonest. People always want a good self image and will be creative in telling themselves stories to explain their actions as good and not dishonest. What are some ways to help us keep from lying to ourselves? Ariely briefly looks at this issue, but more depth would be great. ( )

Seemed to cover a lot of the same things as Predictably Irrational, or at least refer to the same kinds of studies, but it's narrated by Simon Jones (the original Arthur Dent from the old BBC radio and TV series), who makes everything seem hilarious in a deadpan sort of way that, combined with the writing style, makes what is essentially a summary of a bunch of studies about humans being kinda terrible seem really fun. ( )

Mildly interesting. ( )