
CEOs Who Cheat in Bedroom Will Cheat in Boardroom: Study - kgwgk
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-08-09/ceos-who-cheat-on-spouse-twice-as-likely-to-cheat-at-work-study
======
jedberg
Or to put it another way: people who were dumb enough to use an app to cheat
on their spouse were also dumb enough to get caught cheating in other aspects
of their life.

They got their data from the Ashley Maddison hack and then cross referenced
that with police records of people who got caught. I'm not sure this is a very
valid study.

~~~
not_a_cop75
Dumb enough. Just call it what it is - bad character.

There is no person that is so intelligent that he/she can cheat for long and
not eventually get caught. If people want to know the truth about a person
badly enough, they will.

~~~
jedberg
> There is no person that is so intelligent that he/she can cheat for long and
> not eventually get caught.

How do you know? Wouldn't the very best never get caught and therefore we'd
never know?

How do you explain all of the unsolved crimes?

~~~
cheeky78
Because we didn't have the technology and ability to lookup DNA as cheaply or
easily 20+ years ago. I expect unsolved crime to continue to go down as our
technology gets better.

~~~
moate
But that hasn't been the case. Here's a good example:

[https://www.npr.org/2015/03/30/395069137/open-cases-why-
one-...](https://www.npr.org/2015/03/30/395069137/open-cases-why-one-third-of-
murders-in-america-go-unresolved)

------
ChuckMcM
There is a reason people look into infidelity when doing background checks for
sensitive positions. :-)

That said, the conclusion is not surprising. One measure of personal integrity
is whether or not a person will do (or not do) what they "promise." This is
typically referred to as "keeping your word" in English, the concept is fairly
universal in my experience but different cultures refer to it in different
ways. From what I have read it is a particularly strong characteristic value
in "honor" cultures.

Of course there are 'levels' to these sorts of promises, like "I will be home
for dinner tonight" is a much less "serious" vow than "I will forsake all
others."[1] And again, in my experience, people I have known have a sort of
'internal measure' of what promises they are willing to break and which ones
they aren't. Ethics classes are all over these sort of discussions.

As the marriage vow of fidelity is considered a fairly "strong" vow (high
consequence for violating it), it seems reasonable to extrapolate that if
someone was willing to violate that promise then mere 'business' promises
would be similarly fair game.

Always a good thing to know where your boss stands on such things.

[1] A typical marriage vow promising monogamy.

~~~
RealityVoid
> There is a reason people look into infidelity when doing background checks
> for sensitive positions.

That reason is, mostly, vulnerability to blackmail.

------
dotdi
So they found that people that exhibit lower ethical and/or moral standards
behave with lower ethical or moral standards, which is hardly surprising but
it's interesting to see the correlation show up in actual data.

~~~
scarejunba
Well, we don’t know about the universality of that, right? Are cheaters more
likely to rape? Are boardroom liars more likely to steal your wallet?

------
bulatb
For any situation, the statement "I want X" neatly partitions people in two.

Group 1 treats it as a normative statement about the world: "I want X" means
they _should have_ X, and arrangements of the world in which they don't have X
are ones in which the world has morally wronged them. This injustice means
they're owed redress, which makes it morally and socially acceptable to do
whatever necessary to _take_ from the world what it wrongly denied them.
Anything they do is justified; they're just reclaiming what's already theirs.

Group 2 treats "I want X" as a positive (non-normative) statement about
themselves, like "I had toast for breakfast." It may inform their plans and
decisions but doesn't justify behavior that's normally unjustified.

Everyone is in (1) some of the time, many are in (1) most of the time, and
some are in (1) all the time.

You can see this every day in common, totally mundane scenarios. I guess
including the home and the boardroom.

~~~
electricviolet
Interesting, is there research on this or is this a personal theory of yours?

~~~
TheOtherHobbes
It's textbook dark triad entitlement.

Neurotypicals understand that other people exist as separate individuals. Dark
triad types are utterly self=centred and only aware of their own desires and
interests.

Other people either satisfy their desires or hinder them - sometimes actively,
sometimes just because they're randomly in the way.

The person who frustrates - or even just distracts - a dark triad individual
is considered evil. They must be removed, humiliated, punished, or destroyed
in some other way.

------
olivermarks
'Finance professors at the University of Texas at Austin and Emory University
...examined four groups of users specifically -- a total of 11,000 brokers,
corporate executives, white-collar criminals and police officers. Cross-
checking against public records, they found that those Ashley Madison
customers generally were more than twice as likely to have violated
professional codes of conduct compared with a control group, according to
authors John Griffin, Samuel Kruger and Gonzalo Maturana.' How did they
extrapolate CEO's as cheats from this? CEO's have ample time, money and
excuses to arrange affairs without resorting to dating apps. They are probably
the most attractive people to have an affair with for many people...

------
metalliqaz
It seems to me that CEOs are often hired specifically for their ability to
cheat and get away with it.

~~~
jmpman
I remember a study conducted by the military to determine what characteristics
predicted leadership. Ultimately it concluded that the ability to tell a
believable lie had the best correlation. Extrapolate that fun fact as you
wish.

~~~
phkahler
Your comment forced me to think. People are all imperfect. People in
competitive environments are unforgiving. That means covering your shortcoming
or mistakes is important, and that's inherently deceptive.

~~~
ivm
But from here one can conclude that wealthy and powerful people are inherently
immoral because otherwise they wouldn't be able to attain and maintain these
positions.

~~~
jmpman
I’d suggest reading The Prince.

------
acd
Upper management is more likely to cheat in general according to the book
Freakonomics.

The section about bagels and that that management where more likely not to pay
for their bagels in the honesty basket.

“ Feldman’s bagel business is a great example of the decency and goodness of
mankind. After years of delivering bagels, Paul Feldman noticed certain
trends, and he gathered data on his bagel sales. This data showed that the
smaller offices that he delivered to practiced honesty more often than the
bigger offices.”

------
5440
"Win if you can, Lose if you must, but always cheat." Jesse Ventura via Werner
Herzog.

------
wpietri
Not entirely surprising. "How you do anything is how you do everything." Or as
Barbara Tuchman put it, "Character is fate."

~~~
lefstathiou
“Character is destiny” - Heraclitus

[http://www.geocities.ws/john_russey/philosophy/Ethos_Anthrop...](http://www.geocities.ws/john_russey/philosophy/Ethos_Anthropos_Daimon.html)

~~~
friendlybus
Destiny or fate are parts of the unconscious being played out without being
named.

------
ssttoo
Dan Ariely (the "Predictably Irrational" author) also wrote "The Honest Truth
about Dishonesty". There were studies there that showed cheating is a slippery
slope. Once you cheat with something small, you're more likely to cheat again
about something bigger.

------
dash2
Here's the original study:
[https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2745062](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2745062)

------
mikeorgan239
I want to thank you russiancyberhackers@gmail.com for helping me hack my wife
laptop cause i needed some document from that same laptop and my wife was so
smart to have alot of passcode on the laptop but i was smarter cause after
contacting this hacker the impossible became possible i had full access to her
laptop without touching her own laptop but right on my laptop i saw all i
needed. thanks alot

------
AnimalMuppet
This might give some reason to care about whether politicians have had
affairs. If they can't keep their wedding vows, why should we expect them to
keep their oath of office?

------
inscionent
I heard they also cheat at golf

------
musgrove
Scoundrels are scoundrels. Politicians will also cheat in office who cheat on
their spouses, it's been clearly demonstrated. I'm not even sure why a study
was needed to confirm this behavior that's been observed in broad daylight for
centuries.

------
yumraj
Basically morally/ethically compromised folks will cheat everywhere they can.

------
irrational
I’ve never understood the thought that we can separate public and private
morality/ethics. I remember during the Bill Clinton hearings, many of his
supporters said that just because he is untrustworthy in his private affairs
(pun intended), doesn’t mean he is untrustworthy in his public affairs. I’ve
heard the exact same line of reasoning being used by Trump supporters.

------
hank_z
lol, what about the prime minister? yeah, the new British prime minister

~~~
jfk13
Many of us (I think) don't have a great deal of faith in his character.

------
hsnewman
This is a surprise?

------
dondawest
>If people want to know the truth about a person badly enough, they will.

This is an example of the “just world fallacy.” There are many people so
intelligent that they can cheat for so long and not get caught. Look at
Michael Jackson. He died innocent in the eyes of the law.

Or look at the Zodiac killer: he’s still out there. Whole lotta people “trying
to find the truth about that person”, as you say, and after _decades and
decades_ they got nothin’.

The world is not fair or just. Cheaters can cheat and get away with it, and
they can do this in perpetuity. To think otherwise is to make a classic
logical error.

If people want to know the truth about a person badly enough, they’re fucked.
Because the truth is elusive. And the world ain’t fair.

~~~
warent
Not to veer too far off topic here but Michael Jackson died innocent because
he was innocent. He was greatly misunderstood and a fire of experienced racism
that was fed by the media. Here's an article you might find interesting:

[https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_610258](https://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_610258)

~~~
quacked
Isn't this out-of-date after the new documentary "Leaving Neverland"?

~~~
nicolashahn
Looks like a no:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leaving_Neverland#Criticisms_o...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leaving_Neverland#Criticisms_of_allegations)

> "[Robson and Safechuck] have previously testified under oath, under intense
> cross-examination, [have] maintained for twenty years a consistent story
> about Michael Jackson being innocent, and they come forward and completely
> change their story. That in itself is discrediting."

Looks more like they realized they could make a bunch of money on a
controversial "documentary" without getting hit with a defamation lawsuit,
since MJ is dead.

~~~
dondawest
Watch the documentary dude. Safechuck and Robson are legit. In addition to the
other accusers. MJ was guilty as hell.

They only testified on Michael’s defense team under pressure and duress and
witness tampering. Safechuck and Robson are definitely legit.

~~~
jjeaff
I'd say MJ has a pretty good case for not guilty by reason of insanity.

And I don't mean that as a jab. I really think he was so messed up by his
abusive upbringing and subsequent life that he may not have been fully
accountable.

"Affluenza" on steroids.

~~~
dondawest
No dude. He was fully accountable. MJ was a ruthless business negotiatior. He
bought the Beatles catalog out from under Paul McCartney’s nose _after Paul
had given him the idea._ He negotiated the most lucrative contract of all time
with Thriller. Michael Jackson was absolutely 100% mentally “all there” and
fully accountable for his actions. Just because he was a terrible drug addict
who molested kids while high as hell does not mean he was innocent, or “not
guilty by reason of insanity.” Unless you think drunk drivers should be able
to plead “temporary insanity from substance abuse,” there is no insanity
defense for Michael Jackson.

Zero insane people have the ability to negotiate contracts like MJ did.
Michael was a ruthless and canny businessman and anyone who thinks he was
“insane” is not familiar with the absolutely fiendish and dark level of
planning he put into his rape career. The dude had silent alarms outside his
bedroom. That shows a level of foresight and planning that would get an
insanity defense thrown out of court instantly.

in short Michael was guilty as hell and if you watch the documentary I bet you
a million dollars you will renounce your “MJ truthing. “

------
burger_moon
So where does Jeff Bezos fall in this?

------
jeanlucas
Nice, remember when HBR said the shape of your earlobe can signal how good a
leader you are?

~~~
SketchySeaBeast
That's comparing a physical characteristic to a non-physical one. Not even
apples to oranges, that's apples to communism. There are possibly some
correlations between anatomy and personality characteristics, both those will
be weaker. This is literally comparing ethics to ethics.

------
nvr219
Hang on let me download my “shocked face generator” app

