In one of the documentaries about NXIVM (I watched related to forensics investigation into tech used to commit crime, as one Anthem Data Breach Actor worked for Bronfman), Raniere talks about cheating, and I believe he is coming from his experience in Poker. He stated that cheaters always win, unless/until they're caught.
What do you think? True, untrue, something in between, something different?Would you ever cheat?
AND, let's dig into cheating a little bit, by defining it. What is your definition?
CHEATING RE: LAW / INTEGRITY
For example, I would never cheat and have never cheated (never with people, relationships, neither childhood board games). I'm honest to a fault.
I have had to learn to withhold that which is not immediately relevant; which has proven to be a necessary strategy in work & socially.
(Unless it's a legal requirement to withhold, where it's easy to refrain since it's data & protecting IP; it otherwise can be difficult but necessary, to omit, as it feels like lying by omission to me. I'm a whole brain thinker, knowing the inter-connected parts & how they relate. This type of data, is generally too much for most people, unless they're science minded or a whole brain thinker too.)
I view cheating as breaking the rules in any way that would be illegal, threaten the safety of a person, or integrity of an entity/structure. How would you state it?
CHEAT, SHORT-CUT, OR HACK?
If you change the dynamic to be cheating regarding process steps, then you enter a different zone, which is not black-and-white, and I'm curious what it is, for you.
For example, in physical fitness sports training, it's important to follow the routine; i.e. leg/back, arms/core. If you skip steps or "cheat" when it comes to nutrition, water, work-out, repair, your body suffers. Anyone who trains, knows this. In this world, there is a huge difference between skipping steps, cheating, and actual chemistry + fitness hacks that work to help you get too & maintain, your edge.
NEXT LEVEL HACKS, INVALIDATION OF RESULTS OR CRIMINALITY?
In work, there are various hacks. For example, in accounting, there are usually 3-4 ways to get to the same result in QuickBooks. In Tax Law, there are generally 2-4 ways to do something, legal when planned in advance, but illegal if done after the fact.
In work, "hacks", for productivity, performance, end-result, could be viewed as "beneficial". But if work is a science experiment, there are strict regulations, and all hacks and deviation from process steps, if found out, would be viewed as illegal, invalidating the experiment, therefore project, therefore funding, corporate integrity, relationships with others. Certain hacks, in certain industries, are always illegal, and carry a huge weight for the person who commits them, all people they're connected to. (All people who cheat, I hope corporations let them go.)
Where do you draw the line?
What would and wouldn't you do?
Is it simple for you? Or is it complicated?
