[1] See e.g., https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39703638 from yesterday
But a priori, you'd expect someone studying honesty* to personally care about honesty, and thus to be less likely to give in to these sorts of pressures. That's the thing that needs to be explained; the "man bites dog" aspect.
* EDIT s/honestly/honesty/g;
I'm not so sure you can automatically assume this. You can definitely assume that the subject interests them.
But it's also possible that someone studying honesty/dishonesty might start seeing the subject in academic/technical terms instead of moral terms. Which may give them much less of a disincentive to be dishonest than the average person.
Which is to say that repeated studying and analysis of instances where people are dishonest may break down the gut reaction people have to being dishonest.
You give an alternate explanation, but it's still an explanation; one which wouldn't be needed (and indeed wouldn't apply) to a chemistry researcher.
A variation on your explanation might be: Dishonesty researchers discover just how easy it is for dishonest people to cheat the system, and how little consequence there is, and so is more tempted to be dishonest.
But then, why study honesty if you already know what it is?
For me, this sort of thing - an honesty expert - is in the same realm as 'ethics panels'.
These folk are there to abuse edge case arguments (think "trolley problem") in order to provide moral cover for corporations to act dishonestly, unethically. And they will provide documentation in support. CEOs will just do what they wanted, but call it "moral" tm.
People using their skills dishonestly is the theme of the story
The headline is just making fun of theory and practice. If some is a murder expert, is that some one who understands murder or someone highly qualified to kill people?
Therefore, the title is about a "dishonesty expert" matching the practice, not about a "honesty expert", which could be replaced by any other field.
Surely not marketing and sales!
Chances of being caught are close to zero (I have contacted many times authors of papers who's work I was unable to replicate - most of the time zero reply, sometimes "yeah it was a honest mistake, oops"), super high competition (only a few tenured positions in all world's high visibility institutions per year), full control over student's future and being able to force them to do fraud (and later blame on them).
Obviously, not all, blah blah - but many academic scientists are the last people that should be doing science.
The job has often been to come up with a marketable theory; to design experiments and write papers to imply that that theory is true without quite proving it; and to avoid the possibility, through any means, that someone will weaken or disprove the theory.
Sure, it's easy for us to think "I would never do anything like that, no matter what others around me are doing". But as someone who has lived in multiple countries, trust me - the vast majority of the things we do are simply a reflection of what we see other people doing.
People who go into psychology are more interested in what's going on in other people's heads and more importantly manipulating other people. It's more about controlling others than controlling oneself. It's why psychology was founded in the first place.
> people who lack a native impulse to be honest / ethical and are curious about people who do.
Ethics isn't about studying people. It's about studying principles. IE what does ethics mean. What makes an act ethical vs non-ethical. So on. You can delve into the ethics of gods, god, AI or even animals. Are ethical principles universal or not. So on and so forth.
What are you referring to here? Which specific founder(s) wanted to (or did) manipulate people?