One sincere honest act will beat a dozen dishonest ones. Sincere displays of honesty and generosity will lull the vigilance of even the most suspicious. When your selective integrity breaks through, you can deceive and manipulate people however you like. A gift presented in time - the Trojan horse - will serve the same purpose.

KEYS TO POWER

The quintessence of deception is distraction. By distracting the people you are about to deceive, you are buying time and space to do something without them noticing. Kind, generous, honest acts are often the most effective distraction, disarming even the most suspicious. This turns them into children, ready to believe any spectacular gesture.

In ancient China, it was called "give before you take" - watching you give, others do not notice how you take. It is a mechanism with countless practical applications. Openly taking something away from someone is dangerous, even for those in power. The victim is inflamed with a thirst for revenge. It is also dangerous to simply ask for what you need, even if very politely: if others do not see it as a benefit for themselves, they may be offended by your request. Learn to give before you take. It sets the stage, softens the reaction to a future request, or simply serves as a distraction. Giving itself can take different forms: a hypothetical gesture of generosity or generosity, a real gift, a nice service, an “honest” recognition - depending on the circumstances.

Partial honesty works best when you're dealing with someone for the first time. We are all children of habit, and our first impression lasts a long time. If someone at the very beginning of your acquaintance believes in your honesty, it will be difficult to convince him otherwise. This will give you room to maneuver.

A one-time show of honesty is sometimes not enough. To create a reputation for honesty, a number of actions must be performed - even if they are quite inconsistent. Once a reputation is established, it, like the first impression, is hard to shake.

In ancient China, the Wu ruler of the Chen kingdom decided it was time to take over the increasingly powerful Chu kingdom. Without informing anyone of his intention, he arranged for the ruler of Chu to marry his daughter. He then called a council and told the ministers, “I'm going to start hostilities. What kingdom do you think we should take?" As he expected, one of the councilors replied, "The Chu Kingdom." The ruler seemed to be angry: “Chu is now a kindred state. How could you suggest attacking him? And he ordered the adviser to be punished for his criminal proposal. The ruler of Chu heard about this and, given the numerous reports of Bu's honesty, as well as his marriage to his daughter, did nothing to protect his borders with the Chen kingdom. A few weeks later, the Chen army entered Chu and handed over power to Wu, so that he would never let go of it again.

Honesty is one of the best ways to dispel suspicion, but it's not the only one. Any manifestation of nobility, a selfless act, an act of self-denial will serve this purpose, but especially generosity. Few people can resist a gift, even from a hardened enemy, which is why it's a great way to disarm people. The gift awakens the child in us, at other times suppressed by wariness. Although we tend to view other people's actions in the most cynical light, we rarely see the Machiavellian underpinnings of a gift, often hidden behind higher motives. A gift is a wonderful object that can hide base, motives.

When using this tactic, you need to be careful: if you are unraveled, then disappointment, unrealized feelings of gratitude and warmth will turn into powerful hatred and distrust. If you cannot give sincerity and warmth to your actions, do not start playing with fire.

Image: Trojan horse. Your cunning is hidden inside a magnificent gift that your opponent cannot resist. The gates open. Once inside, sow havoc.

Authoritative opinion: When the ruler, Xin of the Chen kingdom was about to attack the Yu kingdom, he presented their ruler with jade and a herd of horses. When the ruler of Qi was about to attack Zhou, he presented him with beautiful chariots. Hence the proverb: “When you are going to take, you must give.”

Han Feizi, Chinese Philosopher (II century BC)

FRANCESCO BORRI, COURT CHARLATAN Francesco Giuseppe Borri of Milan, whose death in 1695 almost coincided with the end of the 17th century, anticipated that special type of charlatan, adventurer, impostor - courtier or cavalier ... Real fame came to him when he moved to Amsterdam. There, assuming the title of Medico Universale, he surrounded himself with a huge retinue and rode around in a carriage drawn by six horses ... Patients flocked to him from everywhere, some patients were carried in sedan chairs from Paris to Amsterdam itself. Borri did not charge for his consultations, distributed large sums to the poor, and was known to never receive money by mail or bills of exchange. As he continued to live in luxury at the same time, the rumor soon spread that he owned the "philosopher's stone." Suddenly this benefactor disappeared from Amsterdam. Then it turned out that he had taken with him the money and jewelry that had been entrusted to him for safekeeping.

- [sn], oh, oh; che / walls, honest /, honest / 1) About the properties, qualities of a person: truthful, direct. Honest journalist. ... Although he is an unknown person, but certainly an honest fellow (Pushkin). Synonyms: good-natured / daughter, order / daughter Antonyms ... Popular dictionary of the Russian language

deed- With a positive assessment. Disinterested, fearless, specious, prudent, noble, charitable (obsolete), generous, highly moral, heroic, heroic, civil, humane, kind, soul-saving (obsolete), wonderful ... Dictionary of epithets

fair- oh, oh; ten, tna, tno, honest and honest. 1. Distinguished by the inability to lie, openness, directness (about a person); characteristic of such a person; sincere, truthful (about a person, his character, thoughts, actions). What a nature. CH character. Ch. ... ... encyclopedic Dictionary

fair- oh, oh; ten, tna/, tno, honest/ and honesty. see also to be honest, to be honest, to be honest, to be honest, to be honest… Dictionary of many expressions

fair- oh, oh; ten, tna, tno. 1. Truthful, direct and conscientious. [The sailor] was dutiful and honest, he would not deceive anyone. Herzen, Duty First. There is nothing more insulting to an honest fighter than the enemy's offer to surrender. Novikov Surf, ... ... Small Academic Dictionary

MORAL QUALITIES- the concept of moral consciousness, with the help of which the most typical features of people's behavior are distinguished in public life and characterized from a moral point of view. K. m. (for example, generosity, truthfulness, treachery, stinginess, generosity, arrogance, ... ... Ethics Dictionary

Vasilchikov Alexander Illarionovich- Vasilchikov Alexander Illarionovich, Prince, a well-known Russian public figure and writer, son of Illarion Vasilyevich Vasilchikov. Born October 26, 1818, died in 1881. In 1835, Vasilchikov entered the Faculty of Law ... ... Biographical Dictionary

Vasilchikov, Prince Alexander Ilarionovich- the son of Prince Hilarion Vasilievich, a famous Russian public figure and writer; genus. October 27, 1818, died October 2, 1881. In 1839, V. completed a course at St. Petersburg University with a degree in law. Having the opportunity, as a son… … Big biographical encyclopedia

Vasilchikov Alexander Ilarionovich- (Prince) son of Prince Hilarion Vasilyevich, a well-known Russian public figure and writer; genus. October 27, 1818, died October 2, 1881. In 1839, V. completed a course at St. Petersburg University with a degree in law. Having the opportunity… …

Vasilchikov, Prince. Alexander Ilarionovich- the son of Prince Hilarion Vasilyevich, a well-known Russian public figure and writer, b. October 27, 1818, d. October 2, 1881. In 1839, V. completed a course at St. Petersburg University with a degree in law. Having the opportunity, as a son… … Encyclopedic Dictionary F.A. Brockhaus and I.A. Efron

Vasilchikov, Alexander Ilarionovich- Prince Alexander Ilarionovich Vasilchikov Date of birth: October 26 ... Wikipedia

Books

• Country Sasha, Uzryutova Gala. "I'm that type. I'm like a small country that has its own customs and traditions. Sasha's country." Sasha, didn't you know at the age of sixteen that this is the case with everyone? And the customs and traditions of others ... Buy for 695 rubles
• Country Sasha, Uzryutova Gala. ʻI'm that type. I am like a small country that has its own customs and traditions. Country Sasha`. Sasha, didn't you know at the age of sixteen that this is the case with everyone? And the customs and traditions of others ...

Psychologists have long assumed that the evolution of cooperation and altruism in humans should have led to the development of special adaptations for remembering untrustworthy fellow tribesmen. Experiments, however, have shown that the names and faces of deceivers are no better remembered than the names and faces of honest people. The difference is that facts that damage the reputation of people we know are remembered much better than information about good or neutral deeds.

Cooperation, mutual assistance and altruism play a huge role in the life of human collectives. Long gone are the days when the development of altruism seemed difficult to explain from the standpoint of natural science. Under certain conditions, genes (more precisely, genetic variations - alleles) that provide a tendency to cooperative and altruistic behavior are distributed in the population even if it is more profitable for each individual individual to behave selfishly and not help anyone. About how this happens, "Elements" has already written more than once (see the selection of links in the article Intergroup wars - the reason for altruism?, "Elements", 06/05/2009). Strictly speaking, from the point of view of an individual, selfishness is, by definition, always more profitable than altruism.

However, it is more correct to consider any adaptations from the point of view of their benefit not for an individual, but for distribution of genes, which are responsible for the formation of these adaptations. Natural selection can take place at different levels, but its results are fixed ("remembered") only at the level of genes - and nothing else. The “altruism gene” can literally doom its carriers to death, but it will still spread - for example, thanks to the “kin selection” mechanism (by sacrificing itself, an individual saves its relatives, many of which carry copies of the same “altruism gene "). Selfless parental care for offspring is the most widespread result of kin selection.

Therefore, “altruism genes” usually spread in the gene pool of a population in close collaboration with “anti-deceiver genes” (see: Altruism of social insects is supported by police methods, Elements, 08.11.2006).

Reciprocal altruism implies the ability of individuals to single out from among their relatives those who have proven themselves to be selfish, and not have anything to do with them. Thus, two goals are achieved at once: selfishness is “punished” (the profitability of selfish behavior decreases), and an individual that avoids communication with selfish people increases its chances of not being deceived. Based on these considerations, evolutionary psychologists suggest that natural selection must have developed special psychological adaptations in our ancestors to help identify and remember deceivers. This hypothesis has a number of testable consequences. In particular, she predicts that our ability to remember deceivers may be more developed in us than other similar abilities - for example, to remember people with a good or unknown reputation.

Several studies have already been carried out to test this prediction. In general, it was confirmed; however, some unexpected details were discovered and new questions arose.

“Remembering a deceiver” consists of two parts: first, you need to remember the person himself, and secondly, that he is a deceiver. These are two fundamentally different tasks, which do not necessarily always have to be performed simultaneously and in concert. You can, for example, remember a person's face, but at the same time forget under what circumstances we saw him and what his reputation is. Theoretically, these two aspects of the memory of deceivers can be developed in people to different degrees, although it is not so easy to distinguish between them in the experiment (and so far this has not usually been done).

Recently, German psychologists from Düsseldorf have shown that people remember the faces of deceivers no better and no worse than the faces of respectable citizens. However, information about dishonest deeds committed by deceivers is imprinted in our memory more effectively than information about the good deeds of kind people or the neutral deeds of persons of unknown reputation (see: Axel Buchner, Raoul Bell, Bettina Mehl, Jochen Musch. // Evolution and Human Behavior. 2009. V. 30. P. 212–224). In principle, this makes sense, given that the capacity of our memory is not infinite, and numerous and varied social contacts are vital. If we remembered the bad people first, there would be less room in our memory to remember the people we could deal with. But if, for one reason or another, we remember a certain person, and we know that we cannot trust him, then it is very important to put the appropriate “tick” in our memory so that in the future, if possible, do not contact him.

In an article published June 22 in the journal Evolutionary Psychology, the same authors reported on a new series of experiments in which it was shown that the memorization of people's names, depending on their reputation, is subject to the same pattern as the memorization of faces. Thus, on the one hand, the previously identified regularity was confirmed, on the other hand, an argument was obtained against the popular hypothesis, according to which the mechanism of remembering deceivers has a particularly close specific connection with the face recognition system.

The experiment involved 193 people (111 women and 82 men) aged 18 to 52 years. The same methodology was used as in the previous work, with the difference that instead of faces, the subjects were presented with names. Testing was carried out individually. First, the subject was given a list of 36 common male names to read, with each name accompanied by brief information about the type of activity of this person. A third of the people were described as deceivers, a third as honest people, and neutral information was reported about the remaining third, from which it was impossible to draw a conclusion about the moral qualities of a person. For example, such stories were used as "compromising" information: "HE sells old cars and at the same time often hides information about serious defects in his goods from buyers." An example of a positive characteristic: "He sells cheese, while he always allows customers to try cheese and does not try to sell stale goods."

All features were of the same length (21 words in German) and had all previously been tested in independent tests. It has been shown that "negative" characteristics do cause a negative reaction, positive ones - a positive one.

For each subject, the names and characteristics used were combined randomly. Participants had to indicate, on the basis of a six-point scale, how much they liked the person. As expected, cheaters got the lowest scores, honest people the highest.

At the second stage, the subject was shown 72 names in random order - 36 "old" ones, already familiar to him from the first stage of testing, and the same number of "new" names. The names this time were not accompanied by any additional information. The subject had to indicate whether the given name is old or new. If he believed that the name was old, then the next question was whether this person is a deceiver, honest, or nothing definite can be said about his reputation.

The results obtained were subjected to rather complex statistical processing, which made it possible to divide the act of remembering into two components: remembering the name itself and remembering the moral qualities of its bearer. In this case, of course, the probability of random guessing was taken into account.

It turned out that remembering the names themselves is completely independent of the reputation of their carriers. In other words, the names of deceivers, honest people, and people of unknown reputation were remembered by the subjects with equal efficiency. However, information about the moral character of deceivers was remembered much better than similar information about honest and "neutral" personalities. Thus, we are not inclined to selectively remember deceivers, but if we happen to remember a given person, then the facts that discredit his reputation will be remembered with special care.

The results obtained suggest that the mechanism for remembering deceivers appears to be more universal and less "specific" than previously thought. Some experts suggested that for the selective memory of information about deceivers in the brain, there is a special module that is closely related to the facial recognition system. This was facilitated by the fact that so far in most of these experiments, the subjects were asked to memorize faces. Now, however, it has become clear that the point here is not in the faces - the names "work" no worse. Therefore, if a special "deceiver memory module" exists, it is not strictly tied to the face recognition system and can use other "personal identifiers", including names.

Perhaps the increased efficiency of remembering compromising information about people is due to the fact that such information evokes a stronger emotional response in us (indignation, anger) than information about good deeds. Such a differentiated emotional response, in turn, can also be interpreted as an evolutionary adaptation. It is beneficial for us to react more sharply to antisocial acts than to good ones, and it is better to remember them, because they are more informative. In human society, "good" behavior (cooperative, altruistic) is in many cases simply more beneficial than antisocial behavior. Therefore, even people who by nature are very prone to deceit and fraud, very often behave honestly, pursuing their own selfish interests - this does not say much. Antisocial actions, on the contrary, betray the egoist with his head.

Evgeny Roizman: honest deeds of honest people

The guy wrote in a personal message in the spring: “I have a very important question. I ask for advice ”I say: Write! He replies: “Too serious, I can only say personally.” I say: “OK, come for a run.”

He came, such a serious young fellow, and said: “I have a difficult situation, I work in a bank and we are all being driven to the elections to vote for Putin, the mobilization is the most severe, up to and including dismissal, but I don’t want to vote for Putin! But I'm in a good position, I have profile images and I have a good salary ... "

Well, I began to say to him a cautious tongue twister, like, you are alone in the booth and no one will know who you voted for .... And he suddenly cut me off decisively: “No. I’m not going to prevaricate, I don’t want to lie, wag and hide!” I even felt embarrassed that I offered him an unworthy way out and I said with a light heart: “Go away.” And he, apparently, was already ready and he needed to make it sound.

“…we need honest and principled people…”

And so, somehow I was running along the Plotinka, and the guy on the side was attached. He asks on the run: “Remember, I told you before the elections that we were being driven to vote for Putin in the bank and I asked you what to do?”
- Yeah, I say - and how did you do it?
Like you said, I quit.
- Where now?
- Yes, I got a job in another bank, the position is higher and the salary is higher.
- Wow! And how did it happen?
- Scattered resume. They invited me for an interview, asked why I quit my previous job, I did not lie and told it like it is. They asked me to wait, then the manager came out to me, invited me to his place and said that they would take me. I say: Aren't you embarrassed by the reason why I quit?
And the manager says: This is one of the reasons why we take you. We need honest and principled people.

Evgeny Roizman (C)

Olga Ramazanova
Summary of the lesson "Honesty and lies"

Honesty and lies

Honesty is honest relation to something honest behavior.

Fair a person is a sincere, decent, direct, conscientious person, true to his word. Fair a person is imbued with sincerity and directness, he can be trusted; he is truthful and always sticks to the ground rules honor: to speak only the truth, to express genuine feelings and thoughts, not to hide from other people and from oneself the actual state of affairs.

Lie is a deliberate distortion of the truth (false, deception) and misleading others. A deceitful person is a deceiver, a feigned, insincere, hypocritical, crafty, two-faced, dishonest person. He is deprived honesty. Unfaithful to his word, prone to deceit. A deceitful person deliberately distorts the truth in words, deeds, actions, misleads others; hides true feelings and thoughts, hypocrites.

Theft is an action aimed at stealing and appropriating someone else's.

Be honest- is it good or bad?

Goals: to acquaint children with the moral standard; explain concepts « honesty» , « False» explain why you need to tell the truth; show why people honest deeds.

Lesson progress

1. Introductory conversation with children on issues:

What does it mean to be honest?

What colour honesty?

Is telling the truth good or bad?

Give examples honest deed.

Do you like it when people act honestly?

Do you act honestly?Give examples.

Which of the guys in the group (class) committed honest deeds?

Do you always tell the truth?

What False?

Is telling lies good or bad?

Do you have friends who lie?

What does the proverb say: "Lies have short legs".

Why do people cheat?

Do you like being lied to? Is it possible to deceive others?

Should cheating be punished?

Are there any among you who have never deceived anyone?

What better way to be: false or honest man? Why do you think so?

Generalization of answers by the teacher children:

The truth is when you say what is real, and not what others want to hear from you. The truth is sometimes difficult to tell, often you have to be brave to confess something. But hiding the truth is even worse. Everything hidden becomes clear. Lie does not lead to good people. Sooner or later, everyone will find out what really happened, and then it becomes ashamed.

2. Game "They came to visit us."

The teacher refers to children:

Imagine that two girls came to visit us, whose names are Pravda and Krivda.

They talk about what kind of pagoda is on the street, what they did today, what they will do tomorrow, who they are friends with.

1. What did the girl say True?

2. What did the girl Krivda say?

The teacher offers the children pictures (from a series of tales) who drew Pravda and Krivda. It is necessary to clarify what each girl painted.

1. Was it easy to find drawings of Krivda?

2. How do they differ from Pravda's drawings?

3. Are the girls friends with each other?

3. Reading and analysis of the story by V. Oseeva "What's easier?"

Three boys came to the forest. Mushrooms, berries, birds in the forest. The boys took a walk, did not notice how the day passed. They go home - they are afraid.

It will hit us at home for walking for so long.

Here they stopped on the road and think that it is better: lie or tell the truth?

I will say, - says the first, - as if a wolf attacked me in the forest. The father will be frightened and will not scold.

I'll tell you, - says the second, that he met his grandfather. The mother will be delighted and will not scold me.

And I'll tell the truth, - says the third, - I don't want to deceive my mother.

Here they all went home. As soon as the first boy told his father about the wolf, lo and behold, the forest watchman was coming.

No, - he says, there are wolves in these places.

The father got angry, punished for the first fault, and for lie doubled.

The second boy told about his grandfather, and grandfather is right there, coming to visit. Mom found out the right, punished for the first fault, and for lie doubled.

And the third boy, as soon as he arrived, confessed everything from the threshold. His mother scolded him, and forgave him.

Questions for conversation

1. Which of the boys did you like best? Why?

2. How can you characterize a boy who told his mother the truth? What is he?

3. Why is it necessary to be truthful?

4. Why can't you deceive people?

5. How do people feel about those who always tell the truth?

6. "The truth is purer than the sun, purer than the sky" Is this proverb true?

4. Game "Trust and support"

The teacher explains that, only by trusting a person, you can lean on him in a difficult situation, like acrobats in a circus, when they jump on the arms and shoulders of their partners. The teacher offers a game "Trust and support", during which you can find out whether children can rely on each other, whether they trust each other.

Children imagine that they are acrobats and choose in the class (group) those guys (two people who, in their opinion, are reliable and could always support them when they fall.

Game actions

The child acrobat stands with his back to two children, spreads his arms to the sides. Guys (Support Group) spread your feet shoulder-width apart to take a stable position, and keep your hands in front of you. When a child acrobat begins to demonstrate a fall, the support group tries to slow down his action and slowly return him to his original position.

Questions for the analysis of the game situation

Questions to the children of the group support:

1. How did you feel when you tried to keep a friend?

2. Did you work in concert?

3. Did you cope with your duties?

4. Are you reliable comrades?

5. What is trust built on?

Questions for an acrobat child:

1. What feelings did you experience when you fell?

2. Can you trust the cheerleaders?

3. Who will you choose next time to be supported?

4. What is trust built on?

The teacher leads the children to conclusion: it is very important in any life situation to trust each other, and for this you must always act honestly. A person who lied once is no longer believed.

5. Practical task: "Forgotten Umbrella"

A passenger with an umbrella in his hand gets into a taxi. He tells the driver where he needs to go. When they arrive at the place, the passenger pays, gets out of the car and hides in the entrance of the house. Suddenly the driver notices the umbrella forgotten by the passenger. He takes an umbrella and follows the absent-minded passenger, catches up with him and gives him the umbrella. The passenger thanks the driver.

1. Play the situation.

2. Give an assessment of what is happening.

3. How did the passenger feel when the driver returned the umbrella?

4. Prove why this is the way to do it.

5. Be honest- is it good or bad?

6. Exercise "Deceitful - honest chair»

Children are offered to sit alternately on two chairs, first - on "deceitful", then - on « honest» . A child sitting on a chair is asked any questions that he must answer reply: if sitting on « honest» chair, must speak only the truth if he is sitting on "deceitful" chair - not true.

After completing the exercise, each child shares his impressions, what feelings he experienced, and which chair he liked to sit on. The teacher summarizes what has been said and leads to the main question: be honest- is it good or bad?

7. Making a wish

At the end lessons the teacher asks each child what he wants to be in life - false or honest man? The teacher explains what in life to be it's not easy to be honest, but each person should strive for good deeds, try to be such that people want to be with him, and he is very glad that children want to be fair. He invites the children to close their eyes and whisper the cherished wish: "I want to be honest» . If you really want this and make an effort, then the desire will certainly come true. In conclusion, the children repeat the following after the teacher. quatrain:

Friends, I don't lie

It's bad to be a liar!

And so I know

It's better to tell the truth!