Is Cheating a Matter of Choice or Biology?

The mind is the control of all function, where's the mystery??

Not so fast. It is easy to see that animals (and I contend humans as well) have prewired neuronal functions; instincts, drives, and reflexes. Many are hormonal, but all are part of species survival.

Humans occupy a somewhat unique place in that we have a much higher degree of control of these instincts, drives, and reflexes.

However, there are always individuals that provide excellent examples to the contrary.

The mystery is in explaining everything in detail, which we have not yet mastered the science of the brain nor even less, consciousness.

Is the conscience a process of the mind?

One cannot grow a conscience nor can one out grow a conscience though most have a conscience and those whom don't are considered sociopaths.

Yes humans have a power of reasoning not instinct, the human ability to reason is absent in the animal kingdom.

Cheating is a decision and not open to relativism which is a cop out.

You have the power to reason because all your needs are being met.

When it comes to survival your reasoning will go out the window when you are starving and freezing. You will even kill and eat your buddy, depending on which one of you is stronger, when you are both starving to death.

Your reasoning powers are just your survival tools to over come being eaten by lions. They are just your equivalent to fangs and claws and nothing more.

You still have the instinct of Fight or Flight.

You still have the instinct to reproduce.

You still have the instinct to survive.

You are no more above it then any other predator.

"You have the power to reason because all your needs are being met.

"When it comes to survival your reasoning will go out the window when you are starving and freezing. You will even kill and eat your buddy, depending on which one of you is stronger, when you are both starving to death."

I think the statement that your power to reason goes out the window under the cited conditions is too broad. Even animals will reason under duress. Humans can be cunning and make tactical decisions under extreme conditions of duress.

There have been many cases of groups starving to death and cannibalism did not result. There are documented cases where it did happen, but since both scenarios have been documented you can only postulate that it is a possibility.

"Your reasoning powers are just your survival tools to over come being eaten by lions. They are just your equivalent to fangs and claws and nothing more."

Would you preclude the act of reasoning from art, music, sport, and play? Actually, this statement and the first statement seem to contradict each other if on one hand reasoning is a survival tool and on the other reason is discarded during fight or flight situations; the moment where reasoning can have the best impact for survival.

"You still have the instinct of Fight or Flight."

I agree, although some psychologists argue that humans no longer posses instinct. I think that depends mainly on how you define instinct.

"You still have the instinct to reproduce."

I think reproduction is classified as a 'drive', not an instinct.

"You still have the instinct to survive."

Yes, I agree once again.

"You are no more above it then any other predator."

I think that premiss is challengeable. Let's define other predator as any other non-human species. Humans have unique powers of reasoning and have developed sophisticated languages, art, music, and advanced concepts of past, present, and future substantially beyond other predators' abilities.

Many people like to view humans as a unique demarcation from other species. However, I contend that humans are an extension of other species simply because that all of the attributes we possess are also expressed in other species, albeit in much diminished ways. Still, there is a large gap between abilities of other species and humans. That, in my mind, makes us more than any other predator.

"Yes humans have a power of reasoning not instinct, the human ability to reason is absent in the animal kingdom.

"Cheating is a decision and not open to relativism which is a cop out."

My dog cheats and she does it frequently. Maybe cheating is not so unique to humans?

Is it actual cheating or just finding a solution to her problem in a way you had not thought of or liked?

You presented a problem and had made preconceived ideas of how she should have solved the problem. She however had no self imposed limitations on how to achieve a solution to what had been presented to her.

So was it really cheating or just that she thought outside your preconceived boundaries and limitations as to how to find a solution?

I consider it cheating when the dog is well versed in the rules and willfully violates them for her own end.

You could look at it as problem solving, but she is just being head strong and willfully violates a rule she well understands.

Having a hard time accepting that lower life forms don't see right and wrong by human imposed values systems and therefore can not possibly understand the concepts of cheating as a human may define them?

It sort of brings up a different definition of who is really the master and who thinks they are. If she poops in the middle of your living room you will be very mad. But still who cleans it up in the end? If you poop in the middle of your living room she will care less and you still have to clean it up. So really now if viewed from an unbiased third party who would actually appear to be the master? The pooper or the disgruntled scooper?

Thats largely the whole point of how does anyone define something. Your definition is clearly not the same as your dogs! And Mine would clearly be different than yours as well.

Thats probably the more troubling philosophical dilemmas of how can ones differences in opinion possibly define one perspective as better than the other?

I cant define what is cheating and what is not in every instance so I don't bother trying. Its sort of like me flying by flapping my arms. I know I cant do it so I don't bother continuing to try.

Well, I have a limited understanding of dogs (compared to champion master trainers), but I do have some knowledge in the field.

First, my dog understands many limits and rules of behavior. I have worked many hours with her under the guide of a world class Schutzhund and protection dog trainer. It is a strait-forward process to impart rules and limitations to a dog.

Second, dogs, by genetic nature, are pack oriented animals. Most humans do not understand this drive nor the implications of this drive. For that matter, most dog owners are clueless as well.

The pack drive for dogs is a genetically programmed attribute and is amazingly tenacious. Dogs naturally seek a social order where the pack has only one alpha dog, then a beta dog, then a social hierarchy that follows below that. People underestimate the power of pack drive in dogs.

My German Shepherd Dog has what is know as a dominant-aggressive personality. This manifests itself with the dog attempting to assert itself as the alpha pack member. She will always challenge me for that position unless I assert myself (and the rest of the family) as alpha members. To the trained eye it is very clear who is the alpha pack member (me) when observing a dog with its pack. Most people do not know or understand the signs, but I do. So to finally answer that question of who is master (alpha), the answer is; I am. I know this because I can spot the behavior traits and correct the issue before it escalates. After a year of this training she has happily accepted her rank.

If my GSD does soil the floor, cleaning it up simply reinforces that I am the provider for her. In fact, she sees me as the ultimate provider of everything she needs for existence. This ticks and ties with how a pack operates in nature. The alpha is the provider and protector for the pack, whereas humans see it differently because we think in terms of servant-master. A servant brings the master his food. Yet, for a dog, the alpha will bring or allow a lower pack member to eat only at the alpha's discretion.

I have seen training instances where some dogs are actually picked up by the leash to the point where they nearly asphyxiate and pass out as a form of correction. It seems cruel to the uninformed, but actually it imparts a lesson to the dog so that it understands that everything, and I mean everything, that dog needs to survive comes from the alpha handler. This includes the air they need to breath.

This type of training is reserved for some pretty extreme instances and should never be performed by the uninformed, but my point was that there are very clear demarcations in the canine world for who is alpha and when a trained dog knowingly circumnavigates the rules, they are cheating. Humans have the added ability to deceive, which is not a common characteristic of dogs.

Why must it be a matter of choice OR biology? I see no contradiction in the view that humans have innate drives, but also have complex social structures to prevent those drives from making it hard to live in a group.

I am sure my desire to go in search of sly nookie is innate and biological, and also sure that I restrain myself out of regard for social constructs-like the marriage contract that I have with my wife, and societal expectations-which are felt as conscience in a well socialized individual.

I think that these are sometimes finely balanced, and some individuals are better at controlling themselves than others: maybe their wills are stronger, or maybe their desires less strong. Who can say. But I am sure that both biology AND social consciousness are always in play, not one or the other.

Et tu, Brute?

By saying that there are both biological and social inputs to the decision making process, you've automatically argued for choice. The decision making model that you propose means that an individual chooses between a biological drive and a social authority that are in conflict. Your model does not require that the two be in conflict, but when they are, the final say is based on choice.

Interestingly, Kholberg's theory of moral development suggests that individuals go through. According to his observations, choice governed behavior. As an individual matures, the basis for his choices changed--starting with a reward punishment basis, and progressing to choice governed by abstract moral principles. He postulated a next "trancendent" stage, but couldn't find enough individuals in it to make any observations. Later, a more feminist psychology argued that Kholberg's model applied largely to men as a Morality of Justice. She (Gilligan) developed an alternative Molrality of Nurturing model she thought better fit women. If both are right, then you get a biology (gender) plus choice (based on justice or nurturing) model.

There is no such thing as undetectable cheating - you yourself know that you cheated and it affects your self image. People who consider themselves honest would not have the first impulse to cheat.

I have to agree with you that self image has everything to do with it, but self image is contextual. Unfortunately people often will commit acts against people in "out groups" that they would consider wrong within their own "tribe".

The article doesn't state whether the persons participating in the coin-flip, cash-reward experiment were people who would or would not have any concievable future relationship with the experimenters. And it's not a question of being personally known to, but of knowing other people they may also know. If the participants were students, for instance, they may not want it to get around among faculty that they are cheaters, and if not, maybe they wouldn't care. This wouldn't be a matter of rational analysis. People behave differently depending on social context, instinctively.

You get the feelings or lusts or someone works at seducing you. You have the power to act on it or reject it. The act of cheating is a decision. No one put a gun to your head and made you do it. You gave in to your base desires and betrayed the trust of someone else who was supposed to be your significant other.

This scientific study will only provide people with a cop out.

I agree with your assessment that people have a choice where fidelity is concerned, but the article referenced at the head of the blog post was not about cheating in a adulterous sense. It was a study of people who had the option to cheat on a self-graded "test."

So we need reference the cheating also known as lying and stealing.

In that sense the answer is yes humans are pre-wired to cheat, lie, steal and all other sins of selfishness as detailed in the scriptures, men are predisposed to a sin nature.

Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me Psalms 51:5.

We sin because we have a sin nature. Every human being possesses a sin nature—a corrupt nature inherited from Adam. Our sin nature separates us from God: "The result of one trespass was condemnation for all men" Romans 5:18.

Psalms were written by King David after his transgression of sending a young officer to the front lines of war to get kill so David could get the young officer's wife for himself. He wrote the Psalms as a means to try and make amends for his transgression.

You were not sinful at birth. Babies are innocent. Lying, Cheating and Stealing are things that are learned from the examples set for us when there is a choice to made.

On the other hand, people will lie, cheat and steal as a means of survival. It can be considered a part of our Fight or Flight mechanism.

So there are two sides of the coin to be looked at.

Do you cheat out of necessity or just so you can get something for nothing?

As one who is interested in sources, can you cite some academic sources for your statement about who wrote the Psalms? In other words, who and what sort of analysis was used to conclude what he wrote or didn't write.

Thanks.

"Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me Psalms 51:5."

That judgement that you make is based on a cultural or religious platform. Not everyone see that the same way. From your perspective you would judge that to be wrong. Yet from the opposite side of the fence your statement may be judged to be wrong.

Morals are a product of a society. In the absence of social context, a child raised in the wilderness would simply act based on its nature (if they were to survive), nothing more nor less.

Are you inferring a child raised around others whom display love, affection and order will not need correction or training to become orderly also, the child won't be willful and selfish without instruction?

No I was not, only that a child was raised totally absent of civilization would act purely on its own nature. Judge that nature as you choose. Obviously, that is not a practical case study.

Doesn't Godel's Law mean that no logical system can prove itself, that you have to go outside the system in order for it to at least seem coherent? So thinking doesn't "prove" ourselves, therefore, but thinking does pre-dispose us to sidestep the rules - and we're therefore born to cheat? (Sung to the tune "Born to Lose")

That's too funny. :)

Mathematics is not so much a truth system as a circular logic. When dealing with an algebra, vector space, matrix group, et. al., you are dealing with a group of members whose qualities and relations are predefined. Anything that doesn't fit is discarded. For example, either you have defined a set of vectors such that each can be described through vector addition and scalar multiplication performed on unit vectors, or you don't. If you have it, the rules of a vector space apply, and you might just have a linear algebra. If you don't you may either add or subtract members to achieve a vector space, or you have to play with a different (probably non) mathematical set of rules when evaluating the set. Mathematics is just circular logic, but it often relates well to the observable world. It corresponds perfectly in simple cases like counting (3 oranges – 1 orange = 2 oranges). It corresponds approximately in other cases, e.g. probability distributions nearly describe population distributions or particle behavior. So mathematics itself is neither a truth system nor a source of truth statements, but the statement, "the universe is written in the language of mathematics," is a truth claim, but still a circular one.

If one assumes the universe to be written in mathematical language and, subsequently, to obey mathematically describable laws, then any observation that doesn't fit the pattern perfectly is attributed to something like measurement error, incomplete but soon to be discovered knowledge, or the observation being a 'singularity' (the materialist version of a miracle, e.g. the Big Bang). With this mechanism for discounting "anomalies," the claim that the universe is written in mathematics is immune from invalidation.

I believe it is the nature of truth systems to be circular. Certain foundational assumptions are made, a system of logic for drawing inferences from the assumptions is established, and a truth system is developed. Summa Theologica (relying on the logic of the law of non-contradiction, a couple of assumptions about the trustworthiness of the senses and soruces of revelation, and the Venn diagram of both the overlap and exclusion of revelation and reason) serves as a foundation for a self-consistent Christian truth system. The Origin of Species and subsequent tweaks (relying on the premise that there is no matter/mind duality; all matter obeys discoverable physical laws; the existance and forms of life can be accounted for by these laws; our senses, through peer review, are trustworthy) forms a well-documented and self-consistent materialist truth system. Pragmatic philosophy's assertion that there is no truth and that ideas need to be evaluated in terms of their "cash value" (i.e. do the ideas and the actions they promote get the idea holder what he wants) forms a self-consistent "non-truth" truth system.

Paranoia provides a simple case of the circular truth system. The afflicted soul (or material being, depending on one's preference) says, "Everyone is out to get me." His philosophy is challenged by a well meaning outsider who shows the fellow scientific polling data that indicates everyone says they are not out to get him. His truth system responds, "That's exactly what they would say if they were out to get me just to put me off guard." So he continues in his paranoia, satisfied with the predictive power of his truth system.

Most truth systems explain enough to make people who hold them comfortable with the system's plausibility, but with just enough questions to engender doubt. As Pascal put it, "We have an incapacity of proof, insurmountable by all dogmatism. We have an idea of truth, invincible to all skepticism" (Pensees, 395).

P.S. Descatres' statement (I think therfore I am) is semi-ontological. The truth content becomes, "In order for me to do anything, I must exist." The implication for Descartes in this particualr meditation is that his thought implies his own mind, that he was more than a concept in some other mind and that he was more than just matter.

P.P.S. Check your CR4 e-mail later this eveing. I'm looking forward to taking you up on your invitation to chat philosophy with you. When I get home, I'll fire off a document my wife and I put together to fuel some of our discussions like these. I'm curious how you'll respond to some of the statements we've enjoyed hashing.

GA...

R.C. Sproul

"...the importance of understanding that all scientific theories presuppose certain philosophical premises. The philosophical premises that are the underpinning of scientific inquiry are often taken for granted and never given even a cursory exploration. But in a time when fierce debate rages between science and theology, it is important that we step back and ask questions about the pre-scientific theoretical foundations for the whole enterprise of knowledge."

http://www.crosswalk.com/spirituallife/11616708/

The sin nature idea of Christian theology is closer to contemporary psychology than contemporary psychology likes to acknowledge. They refere to the "old brain" and "new brain," assuming that that one structure is evolutionarily more ancient than the other. It has a fascinating parallel in early Christian theology--the "old man vs. new man" teaching. This perspective views the "old man" as being motivated by the drives that the evolutionary paradigm ties to the "old brain." The "old man" is sensual and driven by appetites (lust, glutony, etc.). The "new man," on the other hand, does not "obey" the drives of the "old man," but instead chooses godliness over the old man's appetites. This parallels the "new brain" idea, where the "new brain' is the seat of decision making that overrides "old brain" impulses. The delay time for the "new brain" to evaluate the coin-flip tests in the article is what the authors were looking for.

The idea of the "new man" does not correlate perfectly with the concept of the "new brain," in that the new man has a spiritual as well as cognitive streak in him.

Those old saints were a couple millenia ahead of their time.

I still maintain that this Choice VS Biology argument is a false dichotomy, and that taking hold of one side of the argument is itself a cop out.

Let me suggest that there are exists a category of innate impulses so strong that they invariably overcome most people's wills. Try not to breathe for a couple of minutes, or see how long you can hold a hot coal in your hand.

Yes, it is possible to overmaster impulses with willpower. But will you?

No. Breathing is necessary for sustaining life. Dropping a hot rock is to prevent injury to yourself. Both are different from engaging in intercourse with someone that is not your spouse when you are married to someone else.

You have someone at home to take care of your sexual needs, you don't need to go out and find others.

To engage with someone else is just plain disloyalty. It's sending the message that your current relationship is over and you want to sow your oats elsewhere.

It's conscientious decision that is made, not compelled upon you.

Maybe you've already cheated on your wife. You're not going to rationalize it away here.

Topics like this are just means for people to find a way out of their feelings of guilt for being disloyal.

"Maybe you've already cheated on your wife. You're not going to rationalize it away here.

Topics like this are just means for people to find a way out of their feelings of guilt for being disloyal."

No, you're well off the mark there, friend.

I've been faithful to my wife since we started dating 11 years ago, we'll celebrate our 7th anniversary next month. I'm 31 years old. I'm not trying to assuage guilt, or any such stupid nonsense. You should mind your mouth.

What I am trying to get across is that I believe that human beings' behavior is a complex interplay between innate drives and acculturation, and that the strength of these motivations varies between individuals and with time.

It's an interesting topic, and I think it is quite valid to think about and discuss such things.

I find it very irritating when people like yourself prove themselves incapable of discussing such things without assigning bad motives to their debating partners. Besides the logical fallacy, it also shows a damnable lack of objectivity.

You're taking my comment too personally and being defensive.

I was already serving in the military when you were born so I'll say what I want when I want.

My statement was not an attack on you. It was hypothetical "Maybe".

You should be a little more Proactive in your responses. Your statement was leaning towards being reactive.

You wrote, in reply to post #58 (mine) : "Maybe you've already cheated on your wife. You're not going to rationalize it away here."

I maintain that you have crossed the line, and also maintain my earlier objection that it is inappropriate to assign bad motives to a debating partner. It is bad form. It does not help to advance a discussion. This applies to old soldiers too.

"My statement was not an attack on you. It was hypothetical "Maybe"."

Lets not play games. An insinuation is as offensive as a statement. If you don't believe me I can furnish you with some good examples.

"Your statement was leaning towards being reactive."

Quite right. Back to the topic. You brushed off my earlier examples of strong impulses by saying that they were necessary for survival, but this says nothing about the actual business of how these decisions are made. There is still the question of motivation, of avoiding pain and seeking reward, and the brain uses that biochemical system no differently if it craves air, water, food, meaningful work, sex or addictive narcotics. The strength of these drives is said to diminish as you head down Maslows hierarchy, but its hard to be sure, when you consider the sacrifices that people will make for goals that are quite tangential to their survival, or even antagonistic towards it. You should read Mat Ridley's Nature via Nurture and then we are likely to enjoy the discussion more.

I think that cheating is always a choice, there may be hardwiring that sways the decision making, but i think that it is reinforced everytime a decision is made either to cheat or not to cheat. There was a study made of people before and after learning to juggle, in which the MRI results showed an increase in either synapse connections or brain density. I can't find the link anymore, but basically a motor control function being learned added hardwiring to the brain, why would the same not be true for decisions? I would be interested to see an MRI study of repeat criminal offenders compared to say members of religious clergy. There may be hardwiring there but I think it is self imposed. For example, a drug addict will have a difficult or impossible time denying a hit, but is that because he/she said yes so many countless times before? was the decision harder the first time? was the decision more influential the first time? I believe so.

-T

"I think that cheating is always a choice, there may be hardwiring that sways the decision making, but i think that it is reinforced everytime a decision is made either to cheat or not to cheat."

There is some truth to that statement, but only if the decision produces a chemical feedback (i.e., secretion of acetylcholine) which in turn produces a pleasurable effect in the brain. This feedback cycle will chemically rewire the brain's neuronal pathways if the activity is repeated enough times. However, it must be a specific activity.

Where your statement begins to fall apart is when you attempt to link to unrelated judgements. For instance, resisting cheating at a card game will have no real impact with resisting cheating at a business deal. They are two different events and do not share a common set of neuronal pathways. Essentially, there is no "moral" lobe of the brain.

"For example, a drug addict will have a difficult or impossible time denying a hit, but is that because he/she said yes so many countless times before?"

Addition is kind of a different thing. Addition is when it runs open loop and you need more and more of a given substance (or even activity) to generate the same levels of pleasurable effects or ACh. It is more of brain chemistry run amok than simply saying yes every time. You can see this with drugs and alcohol very easily where the use of chemicals (drugs or alcohol) physically rewire the brain over time.

Contrast this to other activities we find pleasurable. For instance, I love dark chocolate, but the amount of chocolate I ingest does not change over time to achieve the same level of satisfaction.

I agree after some thought and reading your response that addiction was a poor example. Perhaps a better example would be your love of chocolate, given the choice of milk chocolate or dark chocolate multiple times over a given period we would assume that your choice would be dark each time (or at least the majority,) has your continued choice of dark over milk created "neuronal pathways"? (I use your verbage here because it seems you have a much more vast knowledge of mental biology than I do) Have these pathways made the decision for you? I would think not that in some instances you may choose milk chocolate for a change. My intended point was that the formed pathways would not "lock" a person into a decision, but would facilitate ease of that decision. The first few times you had to choose I assume some thought was involved, but now I imagine a quick decision can be made almost "without thought."

I also realize that morals are a learned notion, usually culturally, religiously, or otherwise. But most people have a reasonable grasp on the difference between right and wrong. (defined culturally/religiously of course) But i was surmising, totally just pondering of course, that each set of pathways, cardplay, business ethics, etc. could be formed reinforced in a "more apt to cheat" or "less apt to cheat" way.

Very interesting thread, thought provoking for me at least.

-T

Many behaviors are the result of Pavlovian conditioning, and it works much as you describe, so far as i understand it, the neural pathways becoming stronger with repeated use. Develop a taste for Stilton cheese, develop a positive association with the smell of your mothers cooking. Respond positively to the stimuli.

The drug question is quite a different category though, it is an addiction. Truly addictive substances, including cocaine and heroin, interfere with the brain's biochemistry, and effectively hijack the motivational system. People can develop an addiction to heroin or crack with very few hits, so it's not a conditioned response, in that sense.

Given the choice between food and cocaine, rats will take the cocaine until they starve to death. Many human addicts, in spite of our species' large brain, seem to do precisely the same.

I believe that you are right that its the choice to take the first hit which is the influential one. Hit VS No Hit is a choice the first time. But if the addict knows that Hit feels better than sex and religious ecstasy combined, and No Hit feels worse than grief? I've seen addicts do such odd things; it isn't rational, they are acting on artificially intense feelings.

If you are interested in the subject of human behavior generally, might I suggest that Dr Mat Ridley's books "Genome" and especially "Nature Via Nurture" are really clear and accessible, and explain a lot of research clearly. Really good science writer, IMHO.

All the bad stuff I do is caused by genetics...all the good stuff is free will.
Obvious innit?
I mean I can't help eating those poor poor mousies <chomp munch burp>
Del

To me the definition of cheating VS finding a better advantage in order to solve or deal with a problem is rather blurry at best.

If I am in a class room and taking a test and I use a high end scientific calculator to do complex math problems I will get the correct solutions and answers but be deemed a cheater. However that class is supposed to teach me how to recognize and deal with that sort of mathematical problems in my job experiences. Yet in my actual job when I do come across that same mathematical problem going out and getting the most advanced tools and equipment needed to make that type of problem easier and faster to solve is not cheating but rather using every resource I have available to get the job done as efficiently and effectively as I can.

Your sewer plugs up. Is the contractor that digs up your yard with a shovel and pick doing it the correct way even though he is charging you the same hourly rate as the guy who would use an excavating machine and could do it in a few minutes? Or is the excavator guy cheating because he found a way to do the same job faster and easier?

Cheating VS being clever and resourceful in order to meet your goal is too circumstantial for me to separate in many instances.

Will you call me a cheater if I do what you couldn't by using different resources or approaches than you used? Or will you just call me an out of the box thinker who gets what he wants done by what means are necessary whether viewed as fair or not by everyone?

If your the shovel and pick guy my excavator is cheating you out of potential work because I can do the same job faster and thusly cheaper or with more profit. If your the customer I am not cheating but working more efficiently and effectively by using better equipment and knowledge in order to get your problem solved faster and easier.

Which view do you take? Cheater or resourceful worker and thinker?

Your first example you cited is still cheating. The intent is not demonstrate how to mindless solve problems by mashing buttons, but that you understand the problem and the means to solve it. That is the difference between a technician and an engineer or scientist.

To me it is nothing more than a question that points out a limitation I have. However that personal acknowledgement of that limitation also allows me to make a choice towards finding a way of how can I overcome that limitation by using a tool or device which is capable of doing what I can not.

We are makers of tools by our very nature. I do not limit my productiveness by adhering to imposed limits set by others who can not overcome there own self imposed limitations. I accept my limitations willingly but I do not limit myself because of them.

Should we only walk because using a vehicle is allowing us to go faster than we are naturally capable of?

Should I not use my computer to do my design work because I can still draw and design proficiently by hand?

Should I not use spell check because with much effort I can in fact spell with reasonable proficiency?

Should every engineer go back to doing all the equations by long hand notation as it was taught to them in grade school?

Do I learn how to do everything relating to everything or do I learn how to find that item or person who can do it for me and then find a way to get that person to work for me? If we all had to learn the exact same things and become proficient at every thing nothing new or advanced would come of it. Its the competition to be faster, or more capable that drive us to create and figure out new ways to expand and improve upon what we can do and can not do.

These are the problems I see with the blurriness of whats cheating and whats using an available resource. Its how each of us perceives the problem. I typically perceive the limitations on how to solve that problem as being caused by other people not by my unwillingness to find a better way.

Greene's and Paxton's testing of "grace" vs. "will" is an interesting idea, but the interpretation of the results left out some important data. Since training (parental, self, or institutional) can change one's physiological responses to behavioral stimuli, it is possible that some or all of the test subjects exhibiting "grace" had actually trained their neurons to handle "pressure to cheat" stimuli.

People can develop physiological and psychological dependence on both psychoactive substances and behaviors. Problem gambling, for example, triggers the same reward pathway and produces the same physiological responses as cocaine (Inaba and Cohen, 2007 Uppers Downers All Arounders. Medford, OR: CNC Publications, Inc). The problem substances or behaviors interfere with normal neurotransmitter functioning. They can overproduce or prevent reabsorption of the chemicals responsible for both physiological and emotional highs, leading to euphoric states. An individual's system can become dependent on either a substance or behavior to achieve highs. As tolerance develops, an individual can come to depend on the substance/behavior just to maintain adequate neurotransmitter levels. Additionally, the reward pathway in the brain can produce a strong signal to keep using a substance or engaging in a particular behavior. This particular pathway operates independently of the cognitive regions in the brain.

Yet just as behavioral choices can establish neurological habits that "bypass" the cognitive brain, the exercise of will or work with counselors can restore an addicted individual's physiological response to temptation. In early stages of recovery, cognitive facilities need to be engaged, but as the individual's neurochemistry is stabilized, that autonomous piece of the nervous system can take over once again. An even more potent physiological response to "temptations" is achieved when the good habit is established up front without having to rework a bad one. So what Greene and Paxton were interpreting as a natural absence of temptation could just as easily be a result of training from parents, self-discipline, or various institutions.

Faith, religion, &or a little of more of both.

Dan Ariely's video sheds some interesting light on that question. http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/dan_ariely_on_our_buggy_moral_code.html

Cheating is a matter of social construct. Biology has two rules; 1)procreate, 2) survive.

So if social constructs aid procreation and survival (which they do), then are social rules rooted in biology? Evolutionary psychology suggests this to be the case.

I like that question!

I would say yes, since social constructs serve humans (or any other creature) and are tailored to the specific needs of that species.

cheating is part of human nature. the natural mind. just like the bible says.

the ten commandments for instance. thou shalt not steal, shows that man has that within him.

we can't truly stop sinning until we accept yahshua (jesus) and the holy spirit is given to us. enabling us to finally have a choice whether we can stop doing something (like cheating) that we don't really want to but can't seem to stop ourselves.

amos

Please. Don't insult the intelligence of other readers.

Many Christians use the bumper sticker phrase, "Christians aren't perfect, just forgiven." Don't imply that you've stopped sinning and are perfect just because you've "accepted" Jesus (as your savior and the Son of God -- omitted on your part). Even Paul mentions the willingness of the Spirt but the weakness of the flesh. If he still had issues after his "conversion", I would be surprised if you didn't also.