By | May 4, 2012 15 Comments

Just what we need – justification for fraud

Researchers say that many people commit fraud unintentionally. And, they commit fraud not because they’re greedy, but because they’re nice! Great now sociopaths will say they’re only being nice!

Read Psychology of fraud: Why good people do bad things, on

So how will the researchers explain this?

Three Shoreline women charged with defrauding victims of more than $1 million in exclusive ‘Gifting Club’ pyramid scheme, on

Links supplied by a Lovefraud reader.

Posted in: Scientific research

Comment on this article

Please Login to comment
Notify of

I found the cartoon illustrations in the first article over the top. I almost gagged on them.

Chapter 5 – We lie because we care (Huh?)

Really, how more sympathic could an article get?

The quote below from the second article is a classic P con, establishing creditability via somebody who sounds like they have authority.

“Einhorn insisted that the club did not involve any criminal intent and that Platt sought help from lawyers about the operation. In March 2010, according to the indictment, Bello sent an email to participants that said leaders had met with a woman “who is a lawyer on our table ” she teaches law also” and she assured them “we are not illegal.”

In statement analysis, one of the things that you look for is too much information. “She teaches law also” is too much information.

I doubt this female lawyer even exists. Pyramid schemes must be one of the first things that they go over in law school.

Look at the ages of these women. Nobody is going to convince me that Ps get less aggressive as they age.

Ox Drover

People commit fraud without realizing it?

Bull poop,

bull doo doo,

bull hockey,

bull splat

male bovine fecal matter

What a crock of shiat!

A lie on a mortgage application is a LIE. It is Illegal. It is a CRIME. He knew this. He CHOSE to do it. He committed FRAUD, he INTENDED TO COMMIT FRAUD. He did NOT intend to get caught!

Yea, the cartoons were pretty bad, G1S. I agree.

You know, I wonder about the PhDs that study psychology sometimes. I wonder if they have any sense at all.

Ox Drover

just for the record:

I do not think that this man was necessarily a psychopath because he chose to fraudulently execute a mortgage…however, he may have been, I can’t say he was NOT a psychopath either as there is not enough evidence either way.


Can’t even stomach reading that article… just sounds like spaths sliming us to believe “they can’t help it!” “they were trying to be empathic and good”… BULL!

Ox Drover

The more I think about this “it ain’t their fault” the madder I get! LOL

They did not intend to GET CAUGHT is the crux of the matter. They thought they’d get away with it JUST THIS ONE TIME….but the bottom line is that if you are willing to lie, cheat and steal then you had better have a better reason than “I didn’t want my business to fail.”

I can see stealing a loaf of bread to feed your hungry kid if that was the only option or let the kid go hungry….but a false loan application is THEFT by FRAUD because you can’t pay it back.


I wonder if that article was written by a P? How stupid does the author think people are? We’re supposed to be so sorry for this guy because he broke his long-ago promise to his daddy?

Did you read the other article? The one about the three women? What did you think of that one?

Their lawyer is total bull, too.



I was thinking the same thing. Actually I’m certain of it! It was incredibly poorly written when it comes to journalistic standards… It’s

a) anecdotal
b) the supposed research to back it up isn’t referenced at all. It’s just called “Reserachers have found”; “They”, etc…
c) part of the story is written as a comic… The comic isn’t just an “extra”… but you need to read it to read the article.

And the spath red flag of course is that the whole article is a PITY-PLAY! The other red flag at the end is that it tries to make corporate business or banks responsible for reminding clients or employees not to engage into criminal activity. Euhm… Nobody is supposed to act criminally, because it is AGAINST THE LAW!

Ox Drover

Most of the time that ARTICLES are written ABOUT a medical research subject, the article is total BULL SHEET! Many newspaper snd magazines use twisted sheet and reference it with “researchers have found…” and unless you are reading the RESEARCH report itself you will frequently find it is BS.

It still makes me mad though that the article was even written.


I’m flabbergasted that they would publish it.

It’s National Public Radio. I know that has a liberal bias, but come on, that article is idiotic.


I am copying a comment posted on the article because it sums up my thoughts better than I could. I am sure some here will argue against the ideas posted because they do not like the implications. It is unfortunate because human nature is what it is and the difference supposedly between us and the animals is we are supposed to apply self control and rise above our natural greed, dishonesty and propensity to have situational ethics. I have failed on this myself as I shall never begin to approach my ideal. I believe this to be true of all but the extent to which this failure continues in our lives – unwillingness to right our wrongs and to own our failings is part of the problem. Claptrap like this article excusing it makes me want to vomit.

Comment by David Haddon (Ox2):

Alix Spiegel’s report on Toby Groves’s business fraud concludes with a flat rejection of an absolute morality such that “right is right and wrong is wrong and people should know the difference.” The reason for this flawed conclusion drawn from the economists and psychologists he talked to is the presupposition that human beings are basically good. This was not the presupposition of America’s founders who built checks and balances into the Constitution because they accepted a Christian anthropology that says we are all sinful and selfish.

Moreover, Christian theology beat the psychologists to the punch when they observe that people overlook their immorality when their interests and those of their friends are in play. Sin, says Christian theology, adversely affects the minds as well as the desires and the wills of human beings. Theologians even have a name for it: the “noetic effects of sin.”

So what is the solution? Checks and balances to be sure, but finally, nothing less than a spiritual conversion that heals the mind will suffice. A loving relationship not merely with a similarly flawed human father but with God the Father brings conscience to life.

Breckgirl, thanks for sharing David’s comment. It says a lot.

I think that rationalizing is a common reason why people make the wrong choices. It is certainly a defense that spaths use.

Rationalizing confuses what is right, with what is fair.

Since many people do the wrong thing, one can rationalize that it “evens the playing field” to also do the wrong thing. Otherwise only the cheaters will win.

I think the key is to not play the game, where cheaters prevail. But that takes wisdom.


A few thoughts about “research”:

1) The author of the first article cites the ethics research of business school professors for an article that is supposedly about the “psychology” of behavior. That’s like quoting a punk rock guitarist’s tastes in music in an article about last night’s oboe recital. Just because someone did legitimate research doesn’t mean that the research is relevant to supporting another issue, no matter how related two topics might be. The *context* of ethics research is different from the context of psychopathy research; generalizations from research on a general population are different from generalizations on a special one percent of the population.

2) Not all “researchers” or “experts” are equally qualified to talk about anything. A “domestic engineer” who once changed a light bulb is not the same as an electrical engineer. A researcher who studies a topic such as psychopathy can talk about things like distributions in the population or signature brain scans of people classified as psychopaths, but that is very different from someone who can talk from the hard road of experience about what it feels like to be the victim of a psychopath. Each is qualified to write a different book.

3) Whenever I see a writer write or a speaker say, “the research shows that” or “the literature proves that,” I suspect that the person is clueless. It’s what you say when you’re clueless but want to bully your reader or listener into submission. A knowledgeable person is specific with regard to exactly who said exactly what. E.g., conclusions from a business school ethics researcher who studies behaviors in general populations are not the same as conclusions drawn in a study conducted by, say, Paul Babiak, who is known for his work on *special* populations in association with corporate psychopathy.

Ox Drover

I think it was Benjamin Franklin (Maybe Thomas Jefferson) said that “things are labeled sin BECAUSE they are bad for you, not bad for you because they are labeled.”

If you look at Christian ethics and most religions for that matter, things that are BAD FOR US are labeled as undesirable…drunkeness, laziness, adultery, murder, theft, and so on.

There are reasons for this, because not only are they bad for the community but they are also bad for the individual. The Bible frequently talks about people WITHOUT A CONSCIENCE, or that their conscience is seared (not functioning) and calls them people with a “reprobate mind”

King David was called a “man after God’s own heart” yet we know that David was a sinful man, he took another man’s wife, arranged for the man to be killed in battle…so why was he called a man after god’s own heart? Not because he didn’t sin, but because he was WILLING TO REPENT.

None of us are perfect, we all “sin” and do things that are bad for the community and bad for ourselves, but the thing is we have to have a conscience and be willing to change our ways. The psychopath has no conscience, therefore no feelings of guilt or shame and WILL NOT/ CANNOT repent. The psychopath cares not for damaging others, for damaging the community and frequently for damaging himself.

sheepinsuits, you make some valid points. “Not all “researchers” or “experts” are equally qualified to talk about anything. ” Second “Whenever I see a writer write or a speaker say, “the research shows that” or “the literature proves that,” I suspect that the person is clueless. “

kim frederick

Yeah Ox, and Dostoyevski wrote that we aren’t punished FOR our sins but BY them.

kim frederick

Okay, good night LF. See ya in the morning.

Lovefraud is being upgraded. Comments and forum posts are temporarily disabled. Dismiss

Send this to a friend