What keeps you from cheating?

[music2doc]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Yes, but I have yet to see someone disprove any of Freud's theories lol. You can't disprove something that is either a metaphor or an expression of the mind. Either way, these days Psychodynamic/Psychanalytic theory is really not all that Freudian and to some degree well researched at Universities like Columbia and Maryland ( i.e Hill does a lot of research on Psychodynamic research and Therapist-Patient interactions, and published a lot of good work on it).
But obviously no one is talking about oepdipal complexes, or etc, these days, it's more or less talking about generally the fact that past experiences are important and have affected you and understanding them will help you.

We know that past experiences can influence who you are, absolutely; however, most psychodynamic theories propose mysterious aspects to this and focus on this supposed root of the problem rather than the present issue. Most modern clinical psych programs have gone to a CBT approach for a reason. As for disproving Freud -- there is no need. The burden of proof is on the practitioner stating what Freud said is true, not on the scientific community. It is assumed his theories are B.S. until proven otherwise. About 100 years have gone by and still no credible evidence.

There is definitely a Hollier Than Thou attitude here on SDN. And I see various assumptions being made that are quite frankly incorrect. Those being: cheaters don't study whatsoever and expect to get by, by cheating alone and cheaters simply memorize the answers to old exams, when they are available because they are to lazy to learn the material. All of the premeds that I know (some of whom are my friends) who have cheated don't go around memorizing the answers to old tests. They use the old tests as a study tool, meaning they've done all the reading and homework that has been assigned. I don't consider that cheating in the slightest bit: teachers who don't want that occurring would simply not allow their students to keep their exams, as I've had many of my teachers do. Those that actually try to get by by memorizing old test questions are a minority of cheaters; I've only known one guy like that, a pre-pharmacy guy, who memorized old calc 1 exams and ended up with a B in the class. Needless to say this guy screwed himself over in the end because he's pretty much lost his chances at pharm school based on his success in other classes. I've also had friends who only cheated to "check their answers' after they do the work. So cheating isn't all about not knowing whatsoever going into the test. Many also only cheat to check their work. Anyway, I can proudly say that I have never cheated in college, and more for fear of getting caught than for the morality issues. The morality issues is important to me, don't get me wrong. But the fact that the consequences are so severe makes cheating that much more undesirable. Anyone who says they don't cheat solely out of respect for the moral code is not being honest with themselves. Just saying.

If I were your interviewer for medical school and heard anything indicating an attitude like this, you'd be done, cooked, fried, eaten, ****ted out and rejected. People who cannot understand how someone could have a moral code strong enough to resist temptation on moral grounds alone is likely someone who lacks the moral fiber to resist such misconduct unless being watched. That is not the kind of person I would want as my physician nor as my colleague or classmate.

 

[JPSmyth]

what keeps me from cheating? simple, getting caught

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

We know that past experiences can influence who you are, absolutely; however, most psychodynamic theories propose mysterious aspects to this and focus on this supposed root of the problem rather than the present issue. Most modern clinical psych programs have gone to a CBT approach for a reason. As for disproving Freud -- there is no need. The burden of proof is on the practitioner stating what Freud said is true, not on the scientific community. It is assumed his theories are B.S. until proven otherwise. About 100 years have gone by and still no credible evidence.

Again, I'm not arguing that his theories are not proven. I'm asking how you can disprove them lol. And, most yes, but do you think Columbia University ( It's Clinical Psych program is Psychodynamic) is teaching their clinical psychologists that their patients have Oepdipal complexes? Or do you think that all Psychiatrists use it because they believe the same? No, rest assured psychodyanmic theory this days is nothing like the psychoanalytic theories of Freud, Jung, etc.
So yah, psychodynamic theory today is nothing like it was in the days of the Freudians. Today it it's an important paradigm in psychology and has structured the theortical foundations of both clinical psychology and counseling psychology. Furthermore while CBT has useful qualities, you need to get to the point that you actually understand the person, have established a relationship/ rapport, understood their past, and then discerned from their stories what is actually causing them problems, and then coax them into establishing a plan and choices to change it. Which fundamentally is all Psychodynamic theory applied.

Anyway, Psychodynamic theory of Freud is really a good read. It might not be supported by research, but chances are at least loosely Freud had some really good ideas. I suppose which is why he's one of the top 3 most significant human beings of the last 1000 years.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

If I were your interviewer for medical school and heard anything indicating an attitude like this, you'd be done, cooked, fried, eaten, ****ted out and rejected. People who cannot understand how someone could have a moral code strong enough to resist temptation on moral grounds alone is likely someone who lacks the moral fiber to resist such misconduct unless being watched. That is not the kind of person I would want as my physician nor as my colleague or classmate.

Have you ever read Lord of the Flies? Anyways, as my professor of Behavioral Pharmacology and Drug Addiction says: Society is a farce, it's all due to fear of repercussion. Either way mr. psychoanalyst, this is somewhat of a pretentious statement and very defensive, it implies that you yourself are unsure of your own moral code and fiber.

Applied psychodynamics: If someone all of the sudden becomes uber aggressive or defensive about a topic, then they're probably troubled by it or have had some bad experiences with it.

 

[music2doc]

Have you ever read Lord of the Flies? Anyways, as my professor of Behavioral Pharmacology and Drug Addiction says: Society is a farce, it's all due to fear of repercussion. Either way mr. psychoanalyst, this is somewhat of a pretentious statement and very defensive, it implies that you yourself are unsure of your own moral code and fiber.

Applied psychodynamics: If someone all of the sudden becomes uber aggressive or defensive about a topic, then they're probably troubled by it or have had some bad experiences with it.

Actually, quite the opposite. I have seen in applied to patients with little success and I find the theories to be asinine.

As for society being a farce, you can approach it that way, although it is a very cynical way of approaching it and probably is counterproductive clinically.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

Actually, quite the opposite. I have seen in applied to patients with little success and I find the theories to be asinine.

As for society being a farce, you can approach it that way, although it is a very cynical way of approaching it and probably is counterproductive clinically.

I've seen their application applied and work successfully. Then again, my professors are all counseling psychologists and their paradigm is almost always psychodynamic. And alright, you're allowed to focus your efforts on what ever paradigm fits you best, I personally when I first took psychopathology and clinical psych thought similarly that psychodynamic therapy sucks, but since taking grad level counseling skills lab I've opened up to it a bit and can see it being used properly to inspire exploration of oneself.

Also I don't think society is a farce, I think it is an evolved and emergent property that involved authority, influence, and other factors to drive its collective sustaining. However to assume that this in its entirety is somehow natural like a thermodynamic lattice structure, well that's where the farce is.

 

[ribbondino]

For me it's not so much about morals or consequences as it is pride. My homework/test/quiz answers are mine, from me and my brain. It's my fault if I get a lesser grade, but if you look at it that way, it's also my fault if I get a lesser grade because I could have cheated and I didn't.
I don't know how to describe it really, and it's really late and I'm tired... 😴

I just want my work to by my work, and the person next to me's work to be their work. Morally I know that cheating is wrong, but I also know that a lot of things people do everyday are wrong. I guess I want to be as "pure" as possible in what I do, and cheating takes away from that.

(Feel free to take whatever you want from that, I'm totally aware that it doesn't make sense.)

 

[skiing]

.

 

[BlueCircle]

We know that past experiences can influence who you are, absolutely; however, most psychodynamic theories propose mysterious aspects to this and focus on this supposed root of the problem rather than the present issue. Most modern clinical psych programs have gone to a CBT approach for a reason. As for disproving Freud -- there is no need. The burden of proof is on the practitioner stating what Freud said is true, not on the scientific community. It is assumed his theories are B.S. until proven otherwise. About 100 years have gone by and still no credible evidence.




If I were your interviewer for medical school and heard anything indicating an attitude like this, you'd be done, cooked, fried, eaten, ****ted out and rejected. People who cannot understand how someone could have a moral code strong enough to resist temptation on moral grounds alone is likely someone who lacks the moral fiber to resist such misconduct unless being watched. That is not the kind of person I would want as my physician nor as my colleague or classmate.

Not once did I say that I don't believe they exist; they certainly do. I know ONE such person, a very honest, genuine, sincere man very close to me. I cannot speak for others whom I don't know; but what I can tell you is this, these types of individuals whose moral code ALONE keeps them them from such egoistic acts are a rarity. I believe that most individuals maintain good behavior out of a combination of morality AND fear of consequences. I truly doubt that the demographics of those applying to medical school are statistically significant more "hollier" than the general population. Let's be real here. That is the reason why we have consequences in place, to discourage certain behavior. It's human nature. Without rules and consequences society falls apart. And to believe that somehow the medical school population is full of saints who would never cheat out of ethics ALONE, which I seriously doubt you yourself believe that, then you are in need of a reality check. The moral code is very important to me, I do by best to abide by it. I have very much respect for those who follow it SIMPLY out of respect for the moral code alone, but that is not the case for all more than 99% of humanity.

 

[ribbondino]

Not once did I say that I don't believe they exist; they certainly do. I know ONE such person, a very honest, genuine, sincere man very close to me. I cannot speak for others whom I don't know; but what I can tell you is this, these types of individuals whose moral code ALONE keeps them them from such egoistic acts are a rarity. I believe that most individuals maintain good behavior out of a combination of morality AND fear of consequences. I truly doubt that the demographics of those applying to medical school are statistically significant more "hollier" than the general population. Let's be real here. That is the reason why we have consequences in place, to discourage certain behavior. It's human nature. Without rules and consequences society falls apart. And to believe that somehow the medical school population is full of saints who would never cheat out of ethics ALONE, which I seriously doubt you yourself believe that, then you are in need of a reality check. The moral code is very important to me, I do by best to abide by it. I have very much respect for those who follow it SIMPLY out of respect for the moral code alone, but that is not the case for all more than 99% of humanity.

I know that I personally have extremely strong morals (and no, I'm not religious either). I can definitely say that my morals alone prevent me from doing an force me to do many things. I think that a lot more than 1 percent of people would be good people if there were no consequences. Even if social rules and laws are not introduced to someone, that does not mean that the world would fall apart due to human nature. Even if you have no one telling you that stealing is wrong, you can still understand that it is not right based on the person that was stolen from's negative reaction and feelings.
I wish I were better at explaining my thoughts. 😳

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

I know that I personally have extremely strong morals (and no, I'm not religious either). I can definitely say that my morals alone prevent me from doing an force me to do many things. I think that a lot more than 1 percent of people would be good people if there were no consequences. Even if social rules and laws are not introduced to someone, that does not mean that the world would fall apart due to human nature. Even if you have no one telling you that stealing is wrong, you can still understand that it is not right based on the person that was stolen from's negative reaction and feelings.
I wish I were better at explaining my thoughts. 😳

And yet our ancestors when they were in the tribal band's stage of human society had no problem doing god knows what to people in other bands. Furthermore your example is presumptuous and hinges on other factors of motivation, i.e if you're starving you'll make yourself believe it was a good thing, or if stealing becomes habitual you'll associate it with positive attributes.

Point being: We may see the reaction, but in most cases we will through ego defenses and dissidence reducing mechanisms choose to forget it or justify it through our own experiences. I.e The Lord of the Flies situation easily can occur because society is very fragile and based on repercussion, once that's gone, people will do what they want.

 

[BlueCircle]

I know that I personally have extremely strong morals (and no, I'm not religious either). I can definitely say that my morals alone prevent me from doing an force me to do many things. I think that a lot more than 1 percent of people would be good people if there were no consequences. Even if social rules and laws are not introduced to someone, that does not mean that the world would fall apart due to human nature. Even if you have no one telling you that stealing is wrong, you can still understand that it is not right based on the person that was stolen from's negative reaction and feelings.
I wish I were better at explaining my thoughts. 😳

Thank you for your thoughts. I want to clarify that I am not implying that only 1% of humans are good people. The number is definitely much larger than that. What I am saying is that the reasons behind many human actions (whether you deem the individuals to be good or bad) is usually a mixture of factors, including but not limited to their moral code and their fear of the consequences. The amount of influence each factor has on a person's decision varies from person to person and varies within the same person depending on the situation and circumstances they find themselves in. I don't believe that someone is a bad person simply because their reason for not acting upon something (such as cheating on an exam) is out of fear.

I think many people here would agree to the idea that cheating in school is, on the grand scale, practically morally insignificant when compared to much higher moral crimes such as committing murder or committing other atrocities against humanity (i.e. torturing people etc). Society as it is today is more "flexible" morally when it comes to (what we see as) morally minor things such as cheating on an exam or telling a white lie, and much more stringent over "higher moral issues" such as the examples I gave. Is it right that we hold this perspective? That we have stratified levels of morality? I don't know the answer, but that is the reality. I think we will all agree that murder is a much more serious offense than cheating on an exam. And while we should strive to be moral in all aspects of life, the grand majority of the population holds this stratified view and is more inclined to break the rules on the "smaller stuff" should there not be something else holding them back (such as academic consequences OR being able to have a sense of pride in their own work if they avoid cheating). For the "higher" moral issues, I'm sure that most people would refrain from violating them based predominately or entirely on the moral code alone (given that we are not fighting for the last meal on the planet with children to feed at home). But saying that one refrains from cheating in school based on the morals and integrity alone just sounds so dang silly to me, and I don't buy it. These types of people exists, who maintain their integrity for much less important issues, but they are a rarity, and I'm sure they all don't happen to be on SDN.

 

[Shams al Deen]

Haha 65% are too morally sound to cheat. The people on sdn are either much better human-beings than those you encounter in real life. Or they're lying (would be quite ironic).

 

[currentlypremed]

What constitutes as cheating? Is it having previous exams from a professor or do you mean copying someone's exam?

 

[BABSstudent]

What constitutes as cheating? Is it having previous exams from a professor or do you mean copying someone's exam?

Does the professor supply those tests to the class or do you have access to a material that the rest of the class does not have nor can get?

If it is the second one, I think that counts as cheating and some of my professors agree (as said in the syllabus and hinted at in school policy).

 

[currentlypremed]

The professor gives us previous exams from the year before. But you can make friends with upper class-mans who may have previous years.

 

[BABSstudent]

The professor gives us previous exams from the year before. But you can make friends with upper class-mans who may have previous years.

You be the judge. If the professor uses the older problems word for word, then it is unethical at best.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

You be the judge. If the professor uses the older problems word for word, then it is unethical at best.

If the professor uses old questions word for word that's no more unethical than if you do the practice problems and find that he uses those as well.

Cheating my opinion is the blunt action of either sitting next to someone copying them, having answers tattooed to {insert body part} and well gaining an unfair advantage within the classroom. Having old tests may be bending the rules, but frankly it's the professor's fault for not changing the questions and chances are that plenty of students can get a hold of it if they are sociable.

 

[phunky]

It's honestly not a moral thing or a getting caught thing for me. I just don't do it. It's honestly easier for me to just learn the material than try to cheat. The people near my probably don't know it as well as I do, so there's no reason to cheat off them. I can't really put everything that might be on a test on a cheat sheet, so it's easier just to learn it. Thought has never really crossed my mind.

 

[i5hina]

It's honestly not a moral thing or a getting caught thing for me. I just don't do it. It's honestly easier for me to just learn the material than try to cheat. The people near my probably don't know it as well as I do, so there's no reason to cheat off them. I can't really put everything that might be on a test on a cheat sheet, so it's easier just to learn it. Thought has never really crossed my mind.

Phunky,

your reasoning is spot on with mine, for why I don't cheat. If I don't know the material very well, then how can i expect those around me to know it as well? It may sound quite cocky, but if I don't know the material well, I don't know if I can say that those around me know it either.

 

[BABSstudent]

If the professor uses old questions word for word that's no more unethical than if you do the practice problems and find that he uses those as well.

Cheating my opinion is the blunt action of either sitting next to someone copying them, having answers tattooed to {insert body part} and well gaining an unfair advantage within the classroom. Having old tests may be bending the rules, but frankly it's the professor's fault for not changing the questions and chances are that plenty of students can get a hold of it if they are sociable.

Are the practice problems suggested? From a textbook he/she assigns for the class? Sounds completely fair because it is "supplied" to the class. That is way different than getting it from a source only you have. If you do that, you might as well label yourself a gunner.

 

[princessbooty]

The fact that if they find out, you're in deep doo doo.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

Are the practice problems suggested? From a textbook he/she assigns for the class? Sounds completely fair because it is "supplied" to the class. That is way different than getting it from a source only you have. If you do that, you might as well label yourself a gunner.

Well a textbook is not supplied. You choose to buy it at the beginning of the semester. And there's nothing gunnerish about having prosocial friends either in a professional or Greek frat. I'm sorry but being sociable and having friends is an advantage in life.

That being said my university has no outright rules against using old tests as study material and is encouraged by many professors who sometimes will provide it or other times will tell students to find it on their own. Which is why my opinion is shaped like that.

 

[BABSstudent]

Well a textbook is not supplied. You choose to buy it at the beginning of the semester. And there's nothing gunnerish about having prosocial friends either in a professional or Greek frat. I'm sorry but being sociable and having friends is an advantage in life.

That being said my university has no outright rules against using old tests as study material and is encouraged by many professors who sometimes will provide it or other times will tell students to find it on their own. Which is why my opinion is shaped like that.

Is the syllabus says textbooks required or even recommended, then I say it is fair. That counts as the professor giving out study material even if you have to buy it or choose not to buy it.

That being said, at my school everyone knows the Greeks cheat by using the past exams as "study" material. I have previous friends who took the classes, but I would never ask them for previous tests.

Using old tests is also considered a form of cheating in many classes at my university.

 

[Drrrrrr. Celty]

Is the syllabus says textbooks required or even recommended, then I say it is fair. That counts as the professor giving out study material even if you have to buy it or choose not to buy it.

That being said, at my school everyone knows the Greeks cheat by using the past exams as "study" material. I have previous friends who took the classes, but I would never ask them for previous tests.

Using old tests is also considered a form of cheating in many classes at my university.

Well, I'll be the first to say that it is asinine. Just like how forgetting to cite something as obvious as World War 2 occurred in 1939 ( 1937 technically) to 1945 constitutes a form of academic dishonesty. Or how working together on a lab report with friend is academic dishonesty, but getting a TA to tell you the answer is not.

But like I said, my university has no policy against it and most of the professors encourage it because they change the questions anyway.

 

[Stumpyman]

I forgot if I replied to this thread or not; It's both morals and fear of consequences, but more of the fear of consequences for me. Morals are important, but the repercussions of certain acts sometimes keep you on a much tighter "leash."