FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[spankyham]

@Spankyham - I don't have a personal vendetta against Ferrari; it's true that I do not like Ferrari for of my own reasons;

Pretty much says it all

Does it? Because I don't like Ferrari doesn't make my views any less valid, I can still be objective!

Could Pik Botha be objective on apartheid? By your own statement you are biased. You can express your view but it will always be a biased view.

Because Ferrari don't agree with the rules; doesn't mean that they don't have to abide by them,

Since when did anyone at Ferrari ever say they don't have to abide by the rules. Regarding Germany, they went on the record immediately stating they accepted the decision. Does following rules mean you can't believe they are bad? Does it mean you cannot oppose or take actions to have the rules changed?

...same goes for any other team, but if it's less obviously implemented, it doesn't do as much (if any) damage to the reputation of the sport.

A good cheat is better than someone openly opposed? As I said before, I'm sure there would be an avalanche of criminals supporting this view!

Nearly every time F1 hits the headlines these days it's for the wrong reasons; and you can not deny Ferrari have been involved in many of the recent scandals in one way or another!

Scandal according to who?
Ferrari is large and attracts a lot of Ferrari-haters - you don't have to look far here to see that. They are entitled to their view, but they will always be just Ferrari haters.
Ferrari attracts a lot of people to F1 and keeps them there - past present and future, all those Ferrari headlines I welcome.

[bud]

Because Ferrari don't agree with the rules; doesn't mean that they don't have to abide by them,

Since when did anyone at Ferrari ever say they don't have to abide by the rules. Regarding Germany, they went on the record immediately stating they accepted the decision. Does following rules mean you can't believe they are bad? Does it mean you cannot oppose or take actions to have the rules changed?

so do you think that theory holds well for say Laws in society? If you dont like a said law just break it because you dont believe in it ?

and Ferrari never went on the record as stating they employed team orders, they gave some BS excuse to the media stating they did not use team orders. This is what pissed most people off.

[nish2280]

Because Ferrari don't agree with the rules; doesn't mean that they don't have to abide by them,

Since when did anyone at Ferrari ever say they don't have to abide by the rules. Regarding Germany, they went on the record immediately stating they accepted the decision. Does following rules mean you can't believe they are bad? Does it mean you cannot oppose or take actions to have the rules changed?

so do you think that theory holds well for say Laws in society? If you dont like a said law just break it because you dont believe in it ?

and Ferrari never went on the record as stating they employed team orders, they gave some BS excuse to the media stating they did not use team orders. This is what pissed most people off.

I think what hes trying to say is that they accepted the punishment. Therefore they do respect the rules as they are prepared to pay the price for breaking them.

[bud]

Because Ferrari don't agree with the rules; doesn't mean that they don't have to abide by them,

Since when did anyone at Ferrari ever say they don't have to abide by the rules. Regarding Germany, they went on the record immediately stating they accepted the decision. Does following rules mean you can't believe they are bad? Does it mean you cannot oppose or take actions to have the rules changed?

so do you think that theory holds well for say Laws in society? If you dont like a said law just break it because you dont believe in it ?

and Ferrari never went on the record as stating they employed team orders, they gave some BS excuse to the media stating they did not use team orders. This is what pissed most people off.

I think what hes trying to say is that they accepted the punishment. Therefore they do respect the rules as they are prepared to pay the price for breaking them.

Ah if they had further sanctions they were going to take it to court... They only accepted the monetary fine because it wasnt punishment at all.

[What's Burning?]

By Jeanna Bryner
LiveScience
updated 11/15/2007 3:07:25 PM ET 2007-11-15T20:07:25

Morally upstanding people are the do-gooders of society, right? Actually, a new study finds that a sense of moral superiority can lead to unethical acts, such as cheating. In fact, some of the best do-gooders can become the worst cheats.

Stop us if this sounds familiar.

When asked to describe themselves, most people typically will rattle off a list of physical features and activities (for example, "I do yoga" or "I'm a paralegal"). But some people have what scientists call a moral identity, in which the answer to the question would include phrases like "I am honest" and "I am a caring person."

Past research has suggested that people who describe themselves with words such as honest and generous are also more likely to engage in volunteer work and other socially responsible acts.

But often in life, the line between right and wrong becomes blurry, particularly when it comes to cheating on a test or in the workplace. For example, somebody could rationalize cheating on a test as a way of achieving their dream of becoming a doctor and helping people.

In the new study, detailed in the November issue of the Journal of Applied Psychology, researchers find that when this line between right and wrong is ambiguous among people who think of themselves as having high moral standards, the do-gooders can become the worst of cheaters.

The results recall the seeming disconnect between the words and actions of folks like televangelist and fraud convict Jim Bakker or admitted meth-buyer Ted Haggard, former president of the National Evangelical Association, an umbrella group representing some 45,000 churches.

"The principle we uncovered is that when faced with a moral decision, those with a strong moral identity choose their fate (for good or for bad) and then the moral identity drives them to pursue that fate to the extreme," said researcher Scott Reynolds of the University of Washington Business School in Seattle. "So it makes sense that this principle would help explain what makes the greatest of saints and the foulest of hypocrites."

Why cheat? Why not?
Why would a person who thinks of himself as honest cheat? The researchers suggest an "ethical person" could view cheating as an OK thing to do, justifying the act as a means to a moral end.

As Reynolds put it: "If I cheat, then I'll get into graduate school, and if I get into graduate school, then I can become a doctor and think about all the people I'm going to help when I'm a doctor."

A competitive playing field, whether at a university or business, can also motivate cheating behaviors.

"Cheating is a way to get ahead in a competitive environment where there are rewards for winning or getting ahead of others," said Daniel Kruger, an evolutionary psychologist at the University of Michigan, who was not involved in the current study. "It seems like there is an increasing desire and expectation in our society to 'be the best.' "

Even if a person doesn't justify his unethical behaviors, "cheating can save lots of time and energy and take advantage of the knowledge and reasoning of others who are more adept, but could be disastrous if one is caught," Kruger said. He added, "I am not surprised that some of the extreme examples of cheating — ripping the relevant pages out of library books so other students cannot see them — happen in intensely competitive environments, law school in this example (of ripping out book pages)."

Cheating basics
Reynolds and University of Washington colleague Tara Ceranic surveyed about 230 college students with an average age of 21 who were enrolled in an upper-level business course. The survey measured moral identity with 12 questions about the importance of certain characteristics — such as generosity, willingness to work hard, honesty and compassion — and whether things like clothing, books, activities and friends were associated with the moral characteristics.

Students were also asked whether they had engaged in each of 13 cheating behaviors, including using cheat sheets (crib notes), copying from another student and turning in work completed by someone else.

Overall, cheating was rampant.

* More than 90 percent reported having committed at least one of the 13 cheating behaviors.
* More than 55 percent reported saying nothing when they had benefited from an instructor's grading error.
* Nearly 50 percent reported having inappropriately collaborated on an individual assignment.
* Nearly 42 percent indicated copying from another student during a test.

Students who scored high on moral identity and also considered cheating to be morally wrong were the least likely to cheat. In contrast, the worst cheaters were the "moral" students who considered cheating to be an ethically justifiable behavior in certain situations.

"If they think it's wrong, they'll never do it," Reynolds told LiveScience. "If they think it's OK, they do it in spades."

The researchers found similar results when they surveyed 290 managers, asking them whether they had engaged in 17 workplace "no-no's," including using company services for personal use, padding an expense account and taking longer than necessary to do a job. The managers with moral identities were also most likely to engage in the sketchy office behavior.

"When people have a strong moral identity, they think of themselves as great moral people, their behavior tends to go to the extremes," Reynolds said.

Cheat-proof tactics
In order to encourage students and managers to forego cheating in exchange for ethical behaviors, Reynolds suggests ethics education. Classes, newsletters and other means of communication should help organizations to communicate which behaviors are morally acceptable and which are not.

The old-school method of rewards and punishments could help. "We learn through rewards and punishments so to the extent that schools crack down when they need to crack down, we'd all be better off," Reynolds said.

For managers recruiting new employees, just because a person identifies himself or herself as honest doesn't mean they won't cut corners.

"If you can recruit people with a moral identity and then train them appropriately, you'll get some of the best behavior you can imagine," Reynolds said.

[What's Burning?]

A Moral Thermostat?
Thursday, April 09, 2009
By Wray Herbert

Much of the immorality in the news these days has to do with greed: Wealthy financiers running Ponzi schemes, presidential aides cheating on their taxes, industrialists spoiling the environment. There appears to be a widespread erosion of any sense of social responsibility.

What’s going on with these people? Are they simply bad people? Are our educational and religious institutions failing? Are the rewards of being a good and honest man simply not enough to curb our darker impulses? Or are we all both sinners and saints, depending on the circumstances?

Psychologists have been looking into these questions, specifically the idea that we all toggle back and forth constantly between righteousness and immorality. Is it possible that we have a set point for morality, much like we do for body weight? Three Northwestern University psychologists recently explored this question in the laboratory, with some intriguing results.

Sonya Sachdeva, Rumen Iliev and Douglas Medin had the idea that our sense of moral self-worth might serve as a kind of thermostat, tilting us toward moral stricture at one time and moral license at another, but keeping us on a steady track. They tested this by priming volunteers’ feelings of moral superiority—or their sense of guilt—and watching what happened.

In one experiment, for example, they had the volunteers write brief stories about themselves. Some were required to use words like generous, fair and kind, while others wrote their stories using words such as greedy, mean and selfish. This was the unconscious prime, well known to activate feeling of either righteousness or regret. Afterward, all the volunteers were given a chance to donate money to a favorite charity; as much as $10 or as little as zero. The volunteers didn’t know their charity was being measured as part of the experiment, and the results were unambiguous. Those who were primed to think of their moral transgressions gave on average $5.30, more than twice that of controls; those who were primed to feel self-righteous gave a piddling $1.07.

These results suggest that when people feel immoral, they “cleanse” their self image by acting unselfishly. But when they have reason to feel a little superior, that positive self image triggers a sense of moral license. That is, the righteous feel they have some latitude to stray a bit in order to compensate. It’s like working in a soup kitchen gives you the right to cheat on your taxes later in the week.

The psychologists wanted to double check these findings, and they did so in the context of the environment. That is, do the same feelings of moral superiority and moral transgression shape the trade-offs we make between self-interest and the health of the planet? They used the same primes, and then had all the volunteers pretend they were managing a manufacturing plant. As managers, they had to choose how much they would pay to operate filters that would control smokestack pollution. They could simply obey the industry standard, or they could do more or less; that is, choose social responsibility or choose to cheat the common good.

The results, reported in the April issue of the journal Psychological Science, were clear. Those who were feeling morally debased were much more communitarian, spending more money for the sake of clean skies. The morally righteous were stingy, and what’s more, they took the view that plant managers should put profits ahead of green concerns. They saw it as a business decision, not an ethical choice.

So it appears that our inner moralist deals in a kind of moral “currency.” We collect chits through our good deeds, and debts through our transgressions, and we spend our chits to pay off our moral debts. That way, we keep the moral ledger balanced.

For more insights into the quirks of human nature, visit “We’re Only Human” at www.psychologicalscience.org/onlyhuman. Excerpts from the blog also appear regularly in the magazine Scientific American Mind and at sciam.com.

[What's Burning?]

Ferrari is large and attracts a lot of Ferrari-haters - you don't have to look far here to see that. They are entitled to their view, but they will always be just Ferrari haters.
Ferrari attracts a lot of people to F1 and keeps them there - past present and future, all those Ferrari headlines I welcome.

You keep justifying your morality Spanky boy. If you were more secure about the positions you take, you wouldn't expend the effort you do to defend them.

[nish2280]

Ferrari is large and attracts a lot of Ferrari-haters - you don't have to look far here to see that. They are entitled to their view, but they will always be just Ferrari haters.
Ferrari attracts a lot of people to F1 and keeps them there - past present and future, all those Ferrari headlines I welcome.

You keep justifying your morality Spanky boy. If you were more secure about the positions you take, you wouldn't expend the effort you do to defend them.

Thats like saying your teacher shouldnt be putting effort into teaching you if she knows what she is teaching is correct.

[f1ea]

Ferrari is large and attracts a lot of Ferrari-haters - you don't have to look far here to see that. They are entitled to their view, but they will always be just Ferrari haters.
Ferrari attracts a lot of people to F1 and keeps them there - past present and future, all those Ferrari headlines I welcome.

You keep justifying your morality Spanky boy. If you were more secure about the positions you take, you wouldn't expend the effort you do to defend them.

Thats like saying your teacher shouldnt be putting effort into teaching you if she knows what she is teaching is correct.

Could we say also:
if Ferrari were so inmoral we wouldnt need the effort of... to show they are inmoral?

[myownalias]

@Spankyham - I don't have a personal vendetta against Ferrari; it's true that I do not like Ferrari for of my own reasons;

Pretty much says it all

Does it? Because I don't like Ferrari doesn't make my views any less valid, I can still be objective!

Could Pik Botha be objective on apartheid? By your own statement you are biased. You can express your view but it will always be a biased view.

Just because I don't agree with you doesn't make me any less objective; it certainly doesn't make me a Ferrari hater. I used to like Ferrari when I started watching F1 back in 1992; but over the years for various reasons I have grown to dislike Ferrari for numerous incidents over the years. For the record I don't support any specific team!

Because Ferrari don't agree with the rules; doesn't mean that they don't have to abide by them,

Since when did anyone at Ferrari ever say they don't have to abide by the rules. Regarding Germany, they went on the record immediately stating they accepted the decision. Does following rules mean you can't believe they are bad? Does it mean you cannot oppose or take actions to have the rules changed?

I believe their actions speak louder than any words; making the switch in Germany indicates that they don't believe the rules apply to them regardless of what they said after the race; $100,000; for a team like Ferrari that's not even worth appealing against; if they had lost all their Germany race points, I'm sure they'd appeal!

...same goes for any other team, but if it's less obviously implemented, it doesn't do as much (if any) damage to the reputation of the sport.

A good cheat is better than someone openly opposed? As I said before, I'm sure there would be an avalanche of criminals supporting this view!

I don't agree with team orders but yes I would rather a team be covert and at least maintain the illusion that it didn't happen than have one driver pull aside for another. Basically the Germany incident was equivalent to Ferrari sticking two fingers up to the governing body.

Nearly every time F1 hits the headlines these days it's for the wrong reasons; and you can not deny Ferrari have been involved in many of the recent scandals in one way or another!

Scandal according to who?
Ferrari is large and attracts a lot of Ferrari-haters - you don't have to look far here to see that. They are entitled to their view, but they will always be just Ferrari haters.
Ferrari attracts a lot of people to F1 and keeps them there - past present and future, all those Ferrari headlines I welcome.

Ferrari are a big part of F1 but not irreplaceable; they will be missed for a few season should they make good on their threat to leave; which they have done at least twice before. And I'm sure viewing figures will drop initially but they will recover; Ferrari are not Formula 1; and I wish that the FIA/FOM would grow some balls and stand up to them instead letting them get away with it; in regards to the team orders in Germany, they should have been found guilty at minimum of bringing the sport into disrepute and had points deducted at minimum. To use a everyday analogy; you're in traffic doing 80mph (10mph over the speed limit); and you get pulled over; "well, everyone else was doing it" as an excuse doesn't cut it; why should it be an excuse in F1? you're the one that has been stopped/caught and have to face the consequences. As I said before; if teams are proven to have used team orders this season; they they should have their points retroactively revoked; regardless of whether it's Ferrari; McLaren or Red Bull; or any other team, let's create a rule that dictates that if a team is caught cheating; they will instantly lose any points earned at that GP, simple, fines are no deterrent for the big teams!

[What's Burning?]

Ferrari is large and attracts a lot of Ferrari-haters - you don't have to look far here to see that. They are entitled to their view, but they will always be just Ferrari haters.
Ferrari attracts a lot of people to F1 and keeps them there - past present and future, all those Ferrari headlines I welcome.

You keep justifying your morality Spanky boy. If you were more secure about the positions you take, you wouldn't expend the effort you do to defend them.

Thats like saying your teacher shouldnt be putting effort into teaching you if she knows what she is teaching is correct.

Could we say also:
if Ferrari were so inmoral we wouldnt need the effort of... to show they are inmoral?

Morality is a moving target with lots of factors... culture, situation, conditions. So if Ferrari and their fans agree that they're doing nothing immoral, then that's all that matters to them.

In this case, there was no need to show it since it was made so painfully obvious. In the F1 scheme of things, I'd much rather be talking about other topics than team philosophy/ethics. Things like racing for instance.

If only we could just support the teams we like without simultaneously feeling the need of bashing the teams we don't like.

You've been the only one to actually say that what Ferrari did was painful... not wrong, but painful, so at least we share common ground there. I can accept team orders, and I can accept that Ferrari did what they did in that instance, but I can't accept being sold that in their blatant disregard for rules, Ferrari is being more "honest" than teams that are doing the same thing but in a covert way.

Do Tifosi have to feel that their team is better in every way, including showing blatant disrespect for rules, the sport and the fans? Or does there come a point when you say, hey I support my team, but I think that what they did was wrong?

It's seemingly easier for Ferrari fans to question everything else in the world of F1 except Ferrari's actions.

[vaptin]

; Ferrari are not Formula 1; and I wish that the FIA/FOM would grow some balls and stand up to them instead letting them get away with it; in regards to the team orders in Germany, they should have been found guilty at minimum of bringing the sport into disrepute and had points deducted at minimum. To use a everyday analogy; you're in traffic doing 80mph (10mph over the speed limit); and you get pulled over; "well, everyone else was doing it" as an excuse doesn't cut it; why should it be an excuse in F1? you're the one that has been stopped/caught and have to face the consequences. As I said before; if teams are proven to have used team orders this season; they they should have their points retroactively revoked; regardless of whether it's Ferrari; McLaren or Red Bull; or any other team, let's create a rule that dictates that if a team is caught cheating; they will instantly lose any points earned at that GP, simple, fines are no deterrent for the big teams!

All are equal under the law, the FIA can't selectively apply the rules only stick to the wording, which makes no reference to how blatant the breach of the rule was, the fact that Ferrari could point to other unpunished instances means that the FIA would be obliged (quite possibly legally by Ferrari's court case) to back log punishments, can of worms there.

[f1ea]

If only we could just support the teams we like without simultaneously feeling the need of bashing the teams we don't like.

Hmmm i think that should be said about... actually, i dont recall Ferrari fans seriously bashing on other teams.

You've been the only one to actually say that what Ferrari did was painful... not wrong, but painful, so at least we share common ground there. I can accept team orders, and I can accept that Ferrari did what they did in that instance, but I can't accept being sold that in their blatant disregard for rules, Ferrari is being more "honest" than teams that are doing the same thing but in a covert way.

Well, yeah. It was perhaps as painful as Sauber dropping de la Rosa, as painful as HRT dropping Chandhok. But to the team... a necessity. It could be as painful as having to watch the last 10 laps of a race after a save fuel/hold station call. Not what we would LOVE to see... but as much part of the sport as a move or crash on the track.

When people say Ferrari are being more honest about it, its maybe not from a moral pt of view but perhaps because Ferrari has been for a longer time, and have seen the same or simmilar done throughout history. Maybe they are not necessarilly more HONEST about it, but more open and direct about it.

Do Tifosi have to feel that their team is better in every way, including showing blatant disrespect for rules, the sport and the fans? Or does there come a point when you say, hey I support my team, but I think that what they did was wrong?

It's seemingly easier for Ferrari fans to question everything else in the world of F1 except Ferrari's actions.

Hmmm again, i think you have your teams/fans behaviours mixed up.

For example, sure, i would support the team... but what they did in Hockenheim was right. That has nothing to do with support.

Most Ferrari fans, when the team or a Ferrari drivers loses... slam a TV or something... and go on with life or think about next yr. Rarely will you ever hear a Ferrari fan taking away the merit of an F1 champion, or stating the moral supperiority of the team's approach to validate a loss and diminish the winner.

The only episode i think deserved any rue-ing was the SC issue in Valencia... that was lame procedured and ill handled by the FIA. But that was it. The issue was more with the FIA and as to why the SC was implemented so poorly, and why were the penalties issued with such delay. No conspiracy, no sci fi articles about some secret covenant...

And even then, dont think ferrari people would go about bringing that up for yrs to come, unlike the fans who will bring out the hockenheim issue (and countless other) forever... and ever.... and ever....

[What's Burning?]

All it takes to get the pot stirring is the rarely you mention.

It's a catch 22 isn't it? It's the reason things go on forever and ever. Most people is not all people, and the most vociferous folks aren't always the most rational.

I think everyone is arguing different sides of the same coin, but the point is, we race first and change rules in the off season. Not thumb our noses at rules we don't like. Most people support a driver even if that driver moves to a different team you still support them, so team support is almost a by product. I think in the end arguing for one team or another is an exercise in futility.

[myownalias]

; Ferrari are not Formula 1; and I wish that the FIA/FOM would grow some balls and stand up to them instead letting them get away with it; in regards to the team orders in Germany, they should have been found guilty at minimum of bringing the sport into disrepute and had points deducted at minimum. To use a everyday analogy; you're in traffic doing 80mph (10mph over the speed limit); and you get pulled over; "well, everyone else was doing it" as an excuse doesn't cut it; why should it be an excuse in F1? you're the one that has been stopped/caught and have to face the consequences. As I said before; if teams are proven to have used team orders this season; they they should have their points retroactively revoked; regardless of whether it's Ferrari; McLaren or Red Bull; or any other team, let's create a rule that dictates that if a team is caught cheating; they will instantly lose any points earned at that GP, simple, fines are no deterrent for the big teams!

All are equal under the law, the FIA can't selectively apply the rules only stick to the wording, which makes no reference to how blatant the breach of the rule was, the fact that Ferrari could point to other unpunished instances means that the FIA would be obliged (quite possibly legally by Ferrari's court case) to back log punishments, can of worms there.

I would rather have a can of worms than allow such actions to stand; it's the way that Ferrari went about implementing team orders that irks me. The general lack of respect for rules and regulations; even after the fact; which is why I brought up the speeding analogy, millions break the law by speeding every day; you're just unlucky if your the one stopped; I simply don't believe that others have employed team orders is a good enough defence; Ferrari clearly brought the sport into disrepute and they should be punished for that; a $100,000 fine is pitiful; to a team like HRT that'd be a sufficient punishment but for a team like Ferrari; it's pocket change. If these rules are to exist; then they need to be enforced; clear punishments if the stewards find a team or driver guilty; no appeals dragging the whole affair out for months, this applies to all teams not just Ferrari; if people want to believe I am a Ferrari hater; that's their choice, but I know different; I just want to see good racing and fair play. I do wonder if McLaren (for example) were to blatantly use team orders in the same manner as Ferrari; would the WMSC be so lenient? I would bet not give the track record of WMSC hearings on McLaren indiscretions; Ferrari have always gotten preferential treatment in the past 20 years, of course this is my personal opinion!