CEOs Who Cheat In Bedroom Will Cheat In Boardroom, Study Shows (bloomberg.com) 72
Finance professors at the University of Texas at Austin and Emory University found a strong correlation between adultery and workplace misconduct by corporate executives and financial advisers. "[The researchers] were able to examine customers of Ashley Madison, a dating site for married people looking to have affairs, or 'discreet encounters' as it puts it," reports Bloomberg. "That's because a computer hack in 2015 exposed the names and personal data of more than 30 million users." From the report: Researchers examined four groups of users specifically -- a total of 11,000 brokers, corporate executives, white-collar criminals and police officers. Cross-checking against public records, they found that those Ashley Madison customers generally were more than twice as likely to have violated professional codes of conduct compared with a control group, according to authors John Griffin, Samuel Kruger and Gonzalo Maturana.
The results were fairly consistent across the four occupations. For example, the study found that 4.1% of individuals accused of violating securities laws by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission between 2010 and 2015 had paid accounts at Ashley Madison. That compared to 1% of the control population, which consisted of people with similar work histories but no misconduct charges. CEOs and CFOs who had accounts were twice as likely to have engaged in a financial misstatement or be the focus of a class action securities lawsuit between 2008 and 2014. Cheating brokers were more likely than the control group to have black marks on their records maintained by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority. The findings are to be published next week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
The results were fairly consistent across the four occupations. For example, the study found that 4.1% of individuals accused of violating securities laws by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission between 2010 and 2015 had paid accounts at Ashley Madison. That compared to 1% of the control population, which consisted of people with similar work histories but no misconduct charges. CEOs and CFOs who had accounts were twice as likely to have engaged in a financial misstatement or be the focus of a class action securities lawsuit between 2008 and 2014. Cheating brokers were more likely than the control group to have black marks on their records maintained by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority. The findings are to be published next week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Thank you Captain Obvious (Score:5, Informative)
If you have no morals, that is true wherever you are.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
As if the tangerine tantrum is the only example. The English have elected a serial adulterer and liar as their prime minister.
Re: (Score:1)
I think you will find that it was the Conservitive Party, rather than the British Electorate, that elected BoJon.
Re: (Score:2)
Like I said, the English. Toraidhe aren't really big in Scotland and are non-existent in Northern Ireland.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or perhaps it is about intelligence. How stupid do you have to be to register with your real name on an adultery site?
Re:Thank you Captain Obvious (Score:5, Insightful)
Sanders would have beaten Trump even with Russian and Cambridge Analytica trying to throw the election to Trump.
Re: (Score:1)
Do you know it is pretty much illegal to talk about Russiagate in a court of law now, act verbotten, after it was proved 'ALL' the accusations are bullshit and the Russian troll farm, which the court declared nothing more than a troll farm click baiting and has tossed out the lie. In fact the US shows itself as a lying sack of shit for not rolling back the sanctions claiming election interference but hey, we all knew and clearly the US government knew, they were lying. Now they just look like sack of shit p
Re: (Score:1)
Do you know it is pretty much illegal to talk about Russiagate in a court of law now, act verbotten, after it was proved 'ALL' the accusations are bullshit and the Russian troll farm, which the court declared nothing more than a troll farm click baiting and has tossed out the lie..
Cite or shut up.
for me, I'll stick with the 32 indictments still outstanding.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Pussy grabber in chief?
Are you aware that Trump's comment about 'grabbing them by the pussy' was in reference to the groupies who surrounded him while he was a reality TV star? Not women in general.
No, I know you weren't. Another media distortion that has been rather successful.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Pussy grabber in chief?
Are you aware that Trump's comment about 'grabbing them by the pussy' was in reference to the groupies who surrounded him while he was a reality TV star? Not women in general.
No, I know you weren't. Another media distortion that has been rather successful.
First off your "distinction" even if true matters why?
Secondly I reviewed the transcript and you're a partisan cock gobbling lying piece of shit.
Go ahead, show me where they're talking about groupies: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/1... [nytimes.com]
Away with your bullshit.
Re: (Score:1)
The entire context of the transcript was the place Trump found himself as a reality TV star.
It doesn't matter that a completely partisan fuck like you with his head in Hillary's colosotomy bag disagrees.
And where do your gratuitous homerotic slurs come from? Are you a homophobe?
Re: (Score:2)
People often make this kind of comment when there's research that confirms an "obvious" conclusion. But just because something seems obvious and common sense doesn't mean it's true. A huge amount of ground-breaking science has been about proving that people's intuitive, common sense ideas about the world are false. You always need to check.
This is why you should not date bad boys. (Score:3, Interesting)
It is a social cliché that most men think with their dicks, but most women do the same. They turn their noses up at nice guys and date the bad boys instead because bad boys make them hot.
Then they marry one. Then they learn that bad boys gonna be bad.
Of course, this applies to bad girls too, and then men who stupidly fall for them.
If you are going to make an emotional investment in someone you really shouldn't be doing it due to a wild lust spike. If you want someone who is going to be there for you
Re:This is why you should not date bad boys. (Score:5, Funny)
Then they marry one. Then they learn that bad boys gonna be bad.
But imagine what kind of an ego boost it would be to be the one in a million woman who successfully 'reforms' the bad boy.
Re: (Score:1)
nice is overrated (Score:2)
I read an entire chapter on this subject just last night in The Ape That Understood the Universe (2018).
Jordan Peterson says that what women mainly want from men is a competence signal. (Theo de Raadt is a prickly SOB who gets the job done. Can we simply move on, already, and discuss the actual issues?)
Competence can be nea
This is why military officers can be kicked out (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
And Here He Is. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
I agree. Mike Pence is the only cleanskin.
Re: (Score:1)
He covered for a nazi the entire time, there's no way he's coming out completely clean lol. He wouldn't have done it if they didn't have something on him too. Let's face it, if one goes they probably go as a package unless 25th'ed.
Besides, Pelosi would make a great Republican President anyway.
Re: (Score:1)
Cheating is just the very best way of saying out loud "I am not your property"
Always hire a CEO in a open relationship? (Score:1)
This is true (Score:1)
CEO of ex wifes company was screwing her. He was also cooking the books. She got served with papers and he was fired.
Ross Perot was right (Score:5, Informative)
Ross Perot, then CEO of EDS, famously made this point years ago when he fired two of his executives who were having an affair with each other while both of them were married to other people. He is quoted as saying, "If your spouses can't trust you, how can I?" He was right then, and it's still right now.
Re: (Score:2)
Although I won't out any companies or CEOs here, I know more than a few (in high-trust businesses) that use exactly this justification for tacitly refusing to ever hire homosexuals - anyone who will put their own deviant sexual desires above (traditionally) their religion, laws (though not recently), and the morals of the society they live in simply cannot be trusted to do the right thing when that's difficult. This is a big part of the reason homosexuals are considered a far bigger risk for security clear
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Although I won't out any companies or CEOs here, I know more than a few (in high-trust businesses) that use exactly this justification for tacitly refusing to ever hire homosexuals - anyone who will put their own deviant sexual desires above (traditionally) their religion, laws (though not recently), and the morals of the society they live in simply cannot be trusted to do the right thing when that's difficult.
Gay people don't choose to be gay. They just are. They are not deviant, irreligious, unlawful or immoral just because they happen to be gay and have no choice about it. (I'm straight and I had no choice about that.)
If the consequences of being outed as gay are severe, then who can blame gays for being discreet? Times are changing, and gays generally don't need to hide anymore. But being gay has nothing to do with their character or trustworthiness. The unnamed CEOs you mention are homophobic dinosaurs, on t
Science (Score:4, Insightful)
No matter how obvious something is, there is a difference between anecdotes and intuition on the one hand and actual evidence and statistics on the other, so analysing this sort of data is important.
Still, this is something we've known for thousands of years.
Difficult to say there is a real correlation here (Score:1)
Isn't this the same as saying that CEOs who breathe oxygen are more likely to cheat in the boardroom?
Re:Difficult to say there is a real correlation he (Score:4, Funny)
All this time I thought the the sulphur-breathing CEOs were the ones we really needed to watch out for.
Shocking (Score:2)
"...were more than twice as likely to have violated professional codes of conduct compared with a control group....
Wow, who could have guessed that people who are willing to cheat on their partners would have deficits in their personal morals or ethics?
Amazon, anyone? (Score:1)
That explains the flagrant labor violations.
Ugh... (Score:2)
This shit has got to go. Who cares. I'm sure in all cases you can find 20% of whomever that did X and therefore is an ass.
--
You are never alone. You are eternally connected with everyone. - Amit Ray
All psychopaths, some just dumber than others (Score:2)
CEOS/traders/... that were naive enough to use an identifiable email address for a subscription to Ashley Madison, are more likely to have been caught for their misbehavior in the boardroom as well.
Could this not be a more valid interpretation of the findings made with this data set?
Re: (Score:2)
Never sign a contract... (Score:2)
Those are just the dumb ones (Score:2)
Theyâ(TM)re easy enough to catch. Thereâs probably an even larger number that are a bit smarter.
I found a co-worker in the AM dump that later cheated on his wife and mother of two kids with another co-worker.
They are still together though.
GDPR? (Score:1)
OK, this isn't in Europe, but does no-one have a qualm about this sort of research - trawling for dirt on a list of names from essentially a news item?
Is the study flawed by survivorship bias? (Score:1)
I am not debating the principle that "if you do bad things in one part of your life, then you are likely to do bad things in another part of your life". However, I do have a concern with the article's overview of the study.
In particular, what is to stop survivorship bias (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias) from invalidating the study? Isn't the study really showing, "if you get caught doing bad things in one part of your life, then you are likely to get caught doing bad things in another part
"CEOs who cheat in the bedroom"? (Score:2)
Hilariously, the summary equates the subset of "CEOs who cheat in the bedroom" with "CEOs who had an account on Ashley Madison".
Virtually *none* of Ashley Madison's clients were able to find a side-piece through their website, since just about all of the women on the site were fake accounts created by the website to drum up business.
Some of the Ashley Madison clients must have had affairs with women that they met by other means, of course. But we have no way to know whether they did so more frequently or l
Re: (Score:2)
Whether or not these CEOs were successful at cheating on their wives by using Ashley Madison, it is clear that they intended to cheat on their wives through Ashley Madison. While this is only a subset of cheaters, it's pretty clear that these were not faithful spouses who innocently got suckered into creating accounts in their quest for love on the side.
Does that apply to politicians, too? (Score:2)
In other words, every Tory politician that was caught in the men's room with his pants down and bent over for a rather unusual prostate exam is a crook? Not just to his voters but in general?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, yes and no. Politicians in general are crooks, whether or not they get caught with their pants down.
"Cheat in boardroom" (Score:2)
So no honor among thieves then? (Score:1)