How refusal to lie and intolerance for double standards are trained out early. 🎒 Schooling 1) Grading as truth-substitute (Goodhart) - What’s rewarded: output matching a rubric on time. - What’s punished: process integrity that diverges (asking “why is the rubric wrong?”, challenging the premise, refusing to parrot). - Result: kids learn grade-seeking > truth-seeking. Rubrics become “truth”, so lying-by-omission (performing to the rubric while ignoring contradictions) is rational. 2) Standardized tests as obedience drills. - Incentive: time-boxed answers, one right bubble. - Cost of dissent: zero points + stigma for “arguing the question”. - Outcome: ambiguity intolerance (the world must fit the key), and early self-censorship (“I know it’s wrong, but I’ll mark it to pass”). 3) Group projects and collective guilt/credit. - Incentive: smooth group dynamics, teacher praise for “teamwork”. - Double standard: slackers free-ride; conscientious kids carry them. - Lesson installed: fairness < stability. You’re taught to accept hypocrisy because “making a fuss” is punished as anti-social. 4) “Zero tolerance”, attendance, tardy rules (rule formalism). - Incentive: follow the rule even when it’s dumb. - Double standard: teachers break rules with impunity (phones, lateness, tone). - Internalization: authority > consistency. Kids learn consistency is negotiable for the powerful. 5) “Character education” as performance. - Incentive: praise for displaying virtues (posters, essays), not living them when costly. - Result: impression management replaces integrity. You learn to signal honesty while practicing selective honesty. 6) Plagiarism vs. sanctioned copying. - Hypocrisy: punished for copying text; rewarded for copying structure and answers that mirror the teacher’s notes. - Install: form-over-substance morality - don’t get caught; align style with authority. So truth as lived practice is priced out by truth as graded performance. Dissent feels wrong because its payoff is negative and it jeopardizes your status. 📏 The hidden curriculum - Loyalty to process > loyalty to reality. - Consistency is optional for authorities; mandatory for you. - Signal the virtue; don’t practice it when expensive. - If a rule is dumb, follow it anyway - or be punished for “tone”. - Don’t ask “is it true?”; ask “will this get me through?” Over time, refusing to lie feels antisocial; pointing out double standards feels like aggression. That’s not a belief shift - it’s incentive shaping. A few of questions you can ask. 1. What’s actually rewarded here - smoothness or accuracy? 2. Who can violate consistency with impunity? (If the answer is “leadership only”, truth-telling must be surgical.) 3. What exit options do I have? (Dissent without exit = martyrdom.) Systems pay for compliance and fine dissent until your body associates honesty with social pain. The cure is rewiring incentives and defaults so truth becomes the path of least resistance again. You can only do this in your circle, not at scale. Of course, refusal to lie and intolerance for double standards are trained out of people almost everywhere in society. 1) In most debates, both sides are scripted (Overton fencing). - Incentive: acceptable dissent within the pre-set frame; real contradictions get no airtime. - Payoff: access, platform growth; punishment: de-boosted reach, advertiser pullbacks. - Lesson: stability > truth. You can dissent, but only decoratively. 2) Influencer economy = variable rewards. - Incentive: likes/algos reward engagement, not coherence. - Double standard: platforms preach “authenticity” while punishing off-narrative authenticity. - Outcome: narrative-conforming white lies are profitable; truth that lowers CTR dies. 3) Corporate PR as moral theater. - Incentive: say the words (DEI, "sustainability", "safety"), don’t rock revenue. - Double standard: rules for customers/employees ≠ rules for executives. - Internalization: performative virtue is the norm; hypocrisy is normalized as “strategic”. View quoted note →