<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>GoodGuysDontPlayFair on behaviorengineering.ai</title><link>https://behaviorengineering.ai/tags/goodguysdontplayfair/</link><description>Recent content in GoodGuysDontPlayFair on behaviorengineering.ai</description><generator>Hugo</generator><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Thu, 16 Jul 2026 01:00:00 +1100</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://behaviorengineering.ai/tags/goodguysdontplayfair/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>😇 Good guys make the rules</title><link>https://behaviorengineering.ai/human-condition/2026-07-16-good-guys-make-the-rules/</link><pubDate>Thu, 16 Jul 2026 01:00:00 +1100</pubDate><guid>https://behaviorengineering.ai/human-condition/2026-07-16-good-guys-make-the-rules/</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;We can cheat, because we are the &lt;strong&gt;good guys&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;h3 id="look-fair-then-cheat"&gt;Look fair. Then cheat.&lt;/h3&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In Monin and Miller&amp;rsquo;s studies, people first rejected a blatantly sexist statement, then chose a man over a woman for a job labeled male. Looking fair on the first screen made the biased hire on the next one easier to live with.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Brown&amp;rsquo;s team ran a simpler version. People rated how generous they would be on soft charity dilemmas, such as donating an inheritance. Then they faced a math screen that showed the answer unless they hit a key in time. People who had just rated their own virtue &amp;ldquo;forgot&amp;rdquo; that key more often than people who rated an acquaintance. Researchers call that pattern &lt;strong&gt;moral credentialing&lt;/strong&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>