One sincerely honest act will beat a dozen dishonest ones. Sincere displays of honesty and generosity will lull even the most suspicious. When your selective integrity breaks down, you can deceive and manipulate people as you wish. A timely gift - the Trojan Horse - will serve the same purpose.
KEYS TO POWER
The quintessence of deception is distraction. By distracting the people you are trying to deceive, you buy yourself time and space to do something without them noticing. Kind, generous, honest actions are often the most effective way to distract attention, as they disarm even the most suspicious. This turns them into children, ready to believe any spectacular gesture.
In ancient China it was called “give before you take” - while watching you give, others do not notice how you take. It is a mechanism with countless practical applications. Openly taking something away from someone is dangerous, even for those in power. The victim will be inflamed with a thirst for revenge. It is also dangerous to simply ask for what you need, even very politely: if others do not see it as a benefit to themselves, they may be offended by your request. Learn to give before you take. This sets the stage, softens the response to a future request, or simply serves as a distraction. Giving itself can take different forms: a hypothetical gesture of generosity or generosity, an actual gift, a kind favor, an “honest” recognition - depending on the circumstances.
Partial honesty works best if this is your first time dealing with someone. We are all creatures of habit, and our first impressions last a long time. If someone believes in your honesty at the very beginning of your acquaintance, it will be difficult to convince him otherwise. This will give you some wiggle room.
A one-time demonstration of honesty is sometimes not enough. To create a reputation as an honest person, you must perform a number of actions - even if they are completely inconsistent. Once a reputation is established, it, like the first impression, is difficult to shake.
In ancient China, Lord Wu of the kingdom of Chen decided that it was time to take over the kingdom of Chu, which was becoming increasingly powerful. Without informing anyone of his intention, he arranged for the ruler of Chu to marry his daughter. He then called a council and told the ministers: “I am going to start hostilities. What kingdom do you think we should conquer?” As he expected, one of the advisors replied, “Kingdom of Chu.” The ruler seemed angry: “Chu is now a sister state. How could you suggest attacking him? “And he ordered the adviser to be punished for his criminal proposal. The ruler of Chu heard about this and, taking into account numerous reports of Bu's honesty, as well as his marriage to his daughter, did nothing to protect his borders with the Chen kingdom. A few weeks later, the Chen army entered Chu and transferred power to Wu, so that he would never let it out of his hands.
Honesty is one of the best ways to dispel suspicion, but not the only one. Any manifestation of nobility, a selfless act, an act of self-denial will serve this purpose, but especially generosity. Few people can resist a gift, even from a bitter enemy, which is why it is a great way to disarm people. A gift awakens the child in us, otherwise suppressed by wariness. Although we tend to view other people's actions in the most cynical light, we rarely see the Machiavellian motive behind a gift, often hidden behind higher motives. A gift is a wonderful object that can hide base motives.
When using this tactic, you need to be careful: if you are figured out, then disappointment, unrealized feelings of gratitude and warmth will turn into powerful hatred and mistrust. If you cannot give sincerity and warmth to your actions, do not play with fire.
Image: Trojan horse. Your cunning is hidden within a magnificent gift that your opponent cannot resist. The gate opens. Once inside, wreak havoc.
Authoritative opinion: When the ruler, Xin of the Chen kingdom, was about to attack the Yu kingdom, he presented their ruler with jade and a herd of horses. When King Qi was about to attack Zhou, he gave him beautiful chariots. Hence the proverb: “When you are about to take, you must give.”
Han Fei-tzu, Chinese philosopher (19th century BC)
FRANCESCO BORRI, COURT CHARLATAN Francesco Giuseppe Borri from Milan, whose death in 1695 almost coincided with the end of the 17th century, anticipated that special type of charlatan, adventurer, impostor - courtier or cavalier... Real fame came to him after he moved to Amsterdam. There, having assigned himself the title Medico Universale, he surrounded himself with a huge retinue and rode around in a carriage drawn by six horses... Patients flocked to him from everywhere, some patients were carried in sedan chairs from Paris to Amsterdam. Borri did not charge for his consultations, gave away considerable sums to the poor, and was known to never receive money by mail or by bills of exchange. As he continued to live in luxury, a rumor soon spread that he owned the “philosopher’s stone.” Suddenly this benefactor disappeared from Amsterdam. Then it was discovered that he had taken with him money and jewelry that had been entrusted to him for safekeeping.
Psychologists have long assumed that the evolution of cooperation and altruism in humans should have led to the development of special adaptations for remembering fellow tribesmen who are not trustworthy. Experiments, however, have shown that the names and faces of deceivers are no better remembered than the names and faces of honest people. The difference is that facts that discredit the reputation of personalities known to us are remembered much better than information about good or neutral actions.
Cooperation, mutual assistance and altruism play a huge role in the life of human groups. Long gone are the days when the development of altruism seemed difficult to explain from a natural scientific perspective. Under certain conditions, genes (more precisely, genetic variations - alleles) that provide a tendency towards cooperative and altruistic behavior spread throughout the population even if it is more profitable for each individual individual to behave selfishly and not help anyone. Elements has already written more than once about how this happens (see the selection of links in the note Intergroup wars - the cause of altruism?, Elements, 06/05/2009). As a matter of fact, from the point of view of an individual, egoism is simply by definition always more profitable than altruism.
However, it is more correct to consider any adaptations from the point of view of their benefits not for the individual, but for gene spread, which are responsible for the formation of these adaptations. Natural selection can occur at different levels, but its results are recorded (“remembered”) only at the level of genes - and nothing else. The “altruism gene” can literally doom its carriers to death, but will still spread - for example, thanks to the mechanism of “kin selection” (by sacrificing itself, an individual saves its relatives, many of whom carry copies of the same “altruism gene” "). The selfless care of parents for their offspring is the most widespread result of kin selection.
Therefore, usually “genes of altruism” are distributed in the gene pool of a population in close collaboration with “genes for fighting deceivers” (see: Altruism of social insects is supported by police methods, “Elements”, 11/08/2006).
Reciprocal altruism presupposes the ability of individuals to single out from among their relatives those who have proven themselves to be selfish, and not have anything to do with them. In this way, two goals are achieved at once: selfishness is “punished” (the profitability of selfish behavior decreases), and an individual who avoids communicating with egoists increases its chances of not being deceived. Based on these considerations, evolutionary psychologists suggest that natural selection should have developed in our ancestors special psychological adaptations that helped identify and remember deceivers. This hypothesis has a number of testable implications. In particular, she predicts that our ability to remember deceivers may be stronger than other similar abilities, such as remembering people with good or unknown reputations.
Several studies have previously been conducted to test this prediction. In general it was confirmed; however, some unexpected details were discovered and new questions arose.
“Remembering a deceiver” consists of two parts: firstly, you need to remember the person himself, and secondly, that he is a deceiver. These are two fundamentally different tasks, which do not necessarily have to always be performed simultaneously and in concert. It is possible, for example, to remember a person’s face, but at the same time forget under what circumstances we saw him and what his reputation is. Theoretically, these two aspects of deceiver memory may be developed to varying degrees in people, although distinguishing them experimentally is not easy (and has not generally been done so far).
Recently, German psychologists from Dusseldorf showed that people remember the faces of deceivers no better and no worse than the faces of respectable citizens. However, information about dishonest acts committed by deceivers is imprinted in our memory more effectively than information about the good deeds of kind people or the neutral acts of persons with an unknown reputation (see: Axel Buchner, Raoul Bell, Bettina Mehl, Jochen Musch. // Evolution and Human Behavior. 2009. V. 30. P. 212–224). In principle, this makes sense, given that our memory capacity is not infinite, and numerous and varied social contacts are vital. If we remembered bad people first, there would be less memory space to remember those we can deal with. But if, for one reason or another, we remember a certain person, and we know that we cannot trust him, then it is very important to put the appropriate “tick” in our memory so that in the future, if possible, we do not contact him.
In an article published June 22 in the magazine Evolutionary Psychology, the same authors reported a new series of experiments in which it was shown that remembering people's names, depending on their reputation, follows the same pattern as remembering faces. Thus, on the one hand, the previously identified pattern was confirmed, on the other hand, an argument was obtained against the popular hypothesis, according to which the mechanism for remembering deceivers has a particularly close specific connection with the face recognition system.
The experiment involved 193 people (111 women and 82 men) aged from 18 to 52 years. The same technique was used as in the previous work, with the difference that instead of faces, the subjects were presented with names. Testing was carried out individually. First, the subject was given a list of 36 common male names to read, with each name accompanied by brief information about the person's occupation. A third of the people were characterized as deceivers, a third - as honest people, and neutral information was reported about the remaining third, from which it was impossible to draw a conclusion about the moral qualities of the person. For example, the following stories were used as “compromising” information: “HE sells old cars and at the same time often hides information from buyers about serious defects in his product.” An example of a positive characteristic: “He sells cheese, but he always allows customers to try the cheese and does not try to sell stale goods.”
All features were of the same length (21 words in German) and all had previously been tested in independent tests. It has been shown that “negative” characteristics actually cause a negative reaction, while positive ones cause a positive reaction.
For each subject, the names and characteristics used were randomly combined. Participants had to indicate, on a six-point scale, how much they liked the person. As you might expect, deceivers received the lowest scores, honest people the highest.
At the second stage, the subject was shown 72 names in random order - 36 “old” ones, already familiar to him from the first stage of testing, and the same number of “new” ones. The names this time were not accompanied by any additional information. The subject had to indicate whether the given name was old or new. If he believed that the name was old, then the next question was: is this person a deceiver, honest, or nothing definite can be said about his reputation.
The results obtained were subjected to rather complex statistical processing, which made it possible to divide the act of memorization into two components: remembering the name itself and remembering the moral qualities of its bearer. Naturally, the probability of random guessing was taken into account.
It turned out that remembering the names themselves does not depend at all on the reputation of their bearers. In other words, the names of deceivers, honest people and people with an unknown reputation were remembered by the subjects with equal efficiency. However, information about the moral character of deceivers was remembered much better than similar information about honest and “neutral” individuals. Thus, we are not inclined to selectively remember deceivers, but if it so happens that we remember a given person, then the facts that discredit his reputation will be remembered with special care.
The results suggest that the mechanism for remembering deceivers appears to be more universal and less “specific” than previously thought. Some experts have suggested that to selectively remember information about deceivers, there is a special module in the brain that is closely related to the facial recognition system. This was facilitated by the fact that until now, in most of these experiments, subjects were asked to remember faces. Now, however, it has become clear that it’s not about faces - names “work” just as well. Therefore, if a special “deceiver memory module” exists, it is not strictly tied to the facial recognition system and can use other “personal identifiers,” including names.
Perhaps the increased efficiency of remembering compromising information about people is due to the fact that such information evokes in us a stronger emotional response (indignation, anger) than information about good deeds. Such a differentiated emotional response, in turn, can also be interpreted as an evolutionary adaptation. It is beneficial for us to react more sharply to antisocial actions than to good ones, and to remember them better because they are more informative. In human society, “good” behavior (cooperative, altruistic) in many cases is simply more profitable than antisocial behavior. Therefore, even people who are naturally very prone to deception and fraud often behave honestly, pursuing their own selfish interests - this doesn’t say much. Antisocial actions, on the contrary, betray a selfish person.
Olga Ramazanova
Lesson summary “Honesty and lies”
Honesty and lies
Honesty is honest attitude towards something honest behavior.
Honest a person is a sincere, decent, straightforward, conscientious person, true to his word. Honest the person is imbued with sincerity and directness, you can trust him; he is truthful and always sticks to the basic rules honor: speak only the truth, express true feelings and thoughts, do not hide the real state of affairs from other people and from yourself.
Lie is a deliberate distortion of the truth (not true, deception) and misleading other people. A deceitful person is a deceiver, a feigned, insincere, hypocritical, crafty, two-faced, dishonest person. He is deprived honesty. Untrue to his word, prone to deception. A deceitful person deliberately distorts the truth in words, deeds, actions, and misleads others; hides true feelings and thoughts, is a hypocrite.
Theft is actions aimed at stealing and appropriating someone else's property.
Be honest- Is this good or bad?
Goals: familiarize children with moral standards; explain the concepts « honesty» , « lie» , explain why you need to tell the truth; show why people honest actions.
Progress of the lesson
1. Introductory conversation with children issues:
What does it mean to be honest?
What colour honesty?
Is telling the truth good or bad?
Give examples honest act.
Do you like it when people act Honestly?
Are you doing Honestly?Give examples.
Which of the guys in the group (class) committed honest actions?
Do you always tell the truth?
What's happened lie?
Is telling lies good or bad?
Do you have friends who lie?
What does the proverb say?: "Lies have short legs".
Why do I deceive people?
Do you like being deceived? Is it possible to deceive others?
Should cheating be punished?
Are there those among you who have never deceived anyone?
Which one is better to be: deceitful or an honest man? Why do you think so?
Generalization of answers by the teacher children:
Truth is when you say what really is, and not what others want to hear from you. Sometimes it’s difficult to tell the truth; often you have to be brave to admit something. But hiding the truth is even worse. Everything secret becomes clear. Lie does not lead to good people. Sooner or later everyone will find out what really happened, and then it becomes embarrassing.
2. Game “They came to visit us.”
The teacher addresses children:
Imagine that two girls came to visit us, whose names are Pravda and Krivda.
They talk about what pagoda is on the street, what they did today, what they will do tomorrow, who they are friends with.
1. What did the girl say? True?
2. What did the girl Krivda say?
The teacher offers the children pictures (from a series of fables) which were drawn by Truth and Falsehood. It is necessary to clarify what each girl drew.
1. Was it easy to find Krivda’s drawings?
2. How do they differ from Pravda’s drawings?
3. Are the girls friends with each other?
3. Reading and analysis of the story by V. Oseeva “Which is easier?”
Three boys came to the forest. There are mushrooms, berries, birds in the forest. The boys went for a walk and didn’t notice how the day passed. They go home - they are afraid.
We'll end up at home for taking so long.
So they stopped on the road and thought that better: Should I lie or tell the truth?
“I’ll say,” says the first, “that a wolf attacked me in the forest.” The father will be afraid and will not scold.
“I’ll tell you,” says the second, that I met my grandfather. My mother will be happy and will not scold me.
“But I’ll tell the truth,” says the third, “I don’t want to deceive my mother.”
So they all went home. As soon as the first boy told his father about the wolf, lo and behold, the forest guard was coming.
No, he says, there are wolves in these parts.
The father got angry, punished for the first guilt, but double lie.
The second boy told about his grandfather, and his grandfather was right there, coming to visit. Mom found out the right, punished for the first guilt, and for double lie.
And the third boy, as soon as he arrived, confessed everything right away. His mother scolded him and forgave him.
Questions for conversation
1. Which of the boys did you like best? Why?
2. How can you characterize the boy who told his mother the truth? What is he like?
3. Why should you be truthful?
4. Why shouldn’t you deceive people?
5. How do people feel about those who always tell the truth?
6. “The truth is purer than the sun, purer than the sky”- is this proverb true?
4. Game "Trust and support"
The teacher explains that only by trusting a person can you lean on him in a difficult situation, like acrobats in the circus when they jump on the arms and shoulders of their partners. The teacher offers a game "Trust and support", during which you can find out whether children can rely on each other, whether they trust each other.
Children pretend they are acrobats and choose in class (group) those guys (two people who, in their opinion, are reliable and could always support them if they fall.
Game actions
A child acrobat stands with his back to two guys, spreading his arms to the sides. Guys (Support Group) spread your feet shoulder-width apart to take stable position and keep your hands in front of you. When a child acrobat begins to fall, the support group tries to slow down his action and slowly return him to his starting position.
Questions for analyzing a game situation
Questions for the children of the group support:
1. How did you feel when you tried to hold on to your friend?
2. Did you work in harmony?
3. Have you coped with your responsibilities?
4. Are you reliable comrades?
5. What is trust built on?
Questions for a child acrobat:
1. How did you feel when you fell?
2. Can you trust the cheerleaders?
3. Who will you choose to support you next time?
4. What is trust built on?
The teacher leads the children to conclusion: it is very important to trust each other in any life situation, and for this you need to always act Honestly. People who lie once are no longer believed.
5. Practical task: "Forgotten Umbrella"
A passenger gets into a taxi with an umbrella in his hand. He tells the driver where he needs to go. When they arrive at the place, the passenger pays, gets out of the car and disappears into the entrance of the house. Suddenly the driver notices an umbrella forgotten by a passenger. He takes the umbrella and follows the distracted passenger, catches up with him and gives him the umbrella. The passenger thanks the driver.
1. Replay the situation.
2. Assess what is happening.
3. How did the passenger feel when the driver returned the umbrella?
4. Prove why this is the right thing to do.
5. Be honest- Is this good or bad?
6. Exercise "Deceitful - honest chair»
Children are asked to sit alternately on two chairs, first on "deceitful", then - to « honest» . The child sitting on the chair is asked any questions that he must answer. answer: if sitting on « honest» chair, must speak only the truth if sitting on "deceitful" chair - not true.
After completing the exercise, each child shares his impressions, what feelings he experienced, and which chair he liked to sit on. The teacher summarizes what has been said and brings to the main point question: be honest- Is this good or bad?
7. Making a wish
At the end classes the teacher asks each child what he wants to be in life - deceitful or an honest man? The teacher explains what to be in life it's not so easy for honest people, but every person should strive for good deeds, try to be such that people want to be around him, and he is very glad that children want to be fair. He invites the children to close their eyes and whisper their cherished words. wish: "I want to be honest» . If you really want it and put in the effort, your wish will definitely come true. In conclusion, the children repeat the following after the teacher: quatrain:
Friends, I don't deceive
It's bad to be a liar!
And that's why I know
It's better to tell the truth!
Psychologists have long assumed that the evolution of cooperation and altruism in humans should have led to the development of special adaptations for remembering fellow tribesmen who are not trustworthy. Experiments, however, have shown that the names and faces of deceivers are no better remembered than the names and faces of honest people. The difference is that facts that discredit the reputation of personalities known to us are remembered much better than information about good or neutral actions.
Cooperation, mutual assistance and altruism play a huge role in the life of human groups. Long gone are the days when the development of altruism seemed difficult to explain from a natural scientific perspective. Under certain conditions, genes (more precisely, genetic variations - alleles) that provide a tendency towards cooperative and altruistic behavior spread throughout the population even if it is more profitable for each individual to behave selfishly and not help anyone. Elements has already written more than once about how this happens (see the selection of links in the note Intergroup wars - the cause of altruism?, Elements, 06/05/2009). As a matter of fact, from the point of view of an individual, egoism is simply by definition always more profitable than altruism.
However, it is more correct to consider any adaptations from the point of view of their benefits not for the individual, but for gene spread, which are responsible for the formation of these adaptations. Natural selection can occur at different levels, but its results are recorded (“remembered”) only at the level of genes - and nothing else. The “altruism gene” can literally doom its carriers to death, but will still spread - for example, thanks to the mechanism of “kin selection” (by sacrificing itself, an individual saves its relatives, many of whom carry copies of the same “altruism gene” "). The selfless care of parents for their offspring is the most widespread result of kin selection.
Therefore, usually “genes of altruism” are distributed in the gene pool of a population in close collaboration with “genes for fighting deceivers” (see: Altruism of social insects is supported by police methods, “Elements”, 11/08/2006).
Reciprocal altruism presupposes the ability of individuals to single out from among their relatives those who have proven themselves to be selfish, and not have anything to do with them. In this way, two goals are achieved at once: selfishness is “punished” (the profitability of selfish behavior decreases), and an individual who avoids communicating with egoists increases its chances of not being deceived. Based on these considerations, evolutionary psychologists suggest that natural selection should have developed in our ancestors special psychological adaptations that helped identify and remember deceivers. This hypothesis has a number of testable implications. In particular, she predicts that our ability to remember deceivers may be stronger than other similar abilities, such as remembering people with good or unknown reputations.
Several studies have previously been conducted to test this prediction. In general it was confirmed; however, some unexpected details were discovered and new questions arose.
“Remembering a deceiver” consists of two parts: firstly, you need to remember the person himself, and secondly, that he is a deceiver. These are two fundamentally different tasks, which do not necessarily have to always be performed simultaneously and in concert. It is possible, for example, to remember a person’s face, but at the same time forget under what circumstances we saw him and what his reputation is. Theoretically, these two aspects of deceiver memory may be developed to varying degrees in people, although distinguishing them experimentally is not easy (and has not generally been done so far).
Recently, German psychologists from Dusseldorf showed that people remember the faces of deceivers no better and no worse than the faces of respectable citizens. However, information about dishonest acts committed by deceivers is imprinted in our memory more effectively than information about the good deeds of kind people or the neutral acts of persons with an unknown reputation (see: Axel Buchner, Raoul Bell, Bettina Mehl, Jochen Musch. // Evolution and Human Behavior. 2009. V. 30. P. 212-224). In principle, this makes sense, given that our memory capacity is not infinite, and numerous and varied social contacts are vital. If we remembered bad people first, there would be less memory space to remember those we can deal with. But if, for one reason or another, we remember a certain person, and we know that we cannot trust him, then it is very important to put the appropriate “tick” in our memory so that in the future, if possible, we do not contact him.
In an article published June 22 in the magazine Evolutionary Psychology, the same authors reported a new series of experiments in which it was shown that remembering people's names, depending on their reputation, follows the same pattern as remembering faces. Thus, on the one hand, the previously identified pattern was confirmed, on the other hand, an argument was obtained against the popular hypothesis, according to which the mechanism for remembering deceivers has a particularly close specific connection with the face recognition system.
The experiment involved 193 people (111 women and 82 men) aged from 18 to 52 years. The same technique was used as in the previous work, with the difference that instead of faces, the subjects were presented with names. Testing was carried out individually. First, the subject was given a list of 36 common male names to read, with each name accompanied by brief information about the person's occupation. A third of the people were characterized as deceivers, a third - as honest people, and neutral information was reported about the remaining third, from which it was impossible to draw a conclusion about the moral qualities of the person. For example, the following stories were used as “compromising” information: “HE sells old cars and at the same time often hides information from buyers about serious defects in his product.” An example of a positive characteristic: “He sells cheese, but he always allows customers to try the cheese and does not try to sell stale goods.”
All features were of the same length (21 words in German) and all had previously been tested in independent tests. It has been shown that “negative” characteristics actually cause a negative reaction, while positive ones cause a positive reaction.
For each subject, the names and characteristics used were randomly combined. Participants had to indicate, on a six-point scale, how much they liked the person. As you might expect, deceivers received the lowest scores, while honest people received the highest.
At the second stage, the subject was shown 72 names in random order - 36 “old” ones, already familiar to him from the first stage of testing, and the same number of “new” ones. The names this time were not accompanied by any additional information. The subject had to indicate whether the given name was old or new. If he believed that the name was old, then the next question was: is this person a deceiver, honest, or nothing definite can be said about his reputation.
The results obtained were subjected to rather complex statistical processing, which made it possible to divide the act of memorization into two components: remembering the name itself and remembering the moral qualities of its bearer. Naturally, the probability of random guessing was taken into account.
It turned out that remembering the names themselves does not depend at all on the reputation of their bearers. In other words, the names of deceivers, honest people and people with an unknown reputation were remembered by the subjects with equal efficiency. However, information about the moral character of deceivers was remembered much better than similar information about honest and “neutral” individuals. Thus, we are not inclined to selectively remember deceivers, but if it so happens that we remember a given person, then the facts that discredit his reputation will be remembered with special care.
The results suggest that the mechanism for remembering deceivers appears to be more universal and less “specific” than previously thought. Some experts have suggested that to selectively remember information about deceivers, there is a special module in the brain that is closely related to the facial recognition system. This was facilitated by the fact that until now, in most of these experiments, subjects were asked to remember faces. Now, however, it has become clear that it’s not about faces - names “work” just as well. Therefore, if a special “deceiver memory module” exists, it is not strictly tied to the facial recognition system and can use other “personal identifiers,” including names.
Perhaps the increased efficiency of remembering compromising information about people is due to the fact that such information evokes in us a stronger emotional response (indignation, anger) than information about good deeds. Such a differentiated emotional response, in turn, can also be interpreted as an evolutionary adaptation. It is beneficial for us to react more sharply to antisocial actions than to good ones, and to remember them better because they are more informative. In human society, “good” behavior (cooperative, altruistic) in many cases is simply more profitable than antisocial behavior. Therefore, even people who are naturally very prone to deception and fraud often behave honestly, pursuing their own selfish interests - this doesn’t say much. Antisocial actions, on the contrary, betray a selfish person.
Back forward
Attention! Slide previews are for informational purposes only and may not represent all the features of the presentation. If you are interested in this work, please download the full version.
Target: to contribute to the education of such a moral quality of the individual as honesty, which is necessary not only for relationships between people, but, above all, for the individual himself.
Tasks:
- To form in children an idea of honesty (to be honest with everyone, to be able to admit and correct their mistakes, to follow the rules).
- Encourage children to demonstrate honesty in deeds, actions, and statements.
- Develop the ability to reason, express your point of view, and participate in discussion.
Preparatory work:
- Class hour presentation
- Selection of materials (“Deniska’s stories” by V. Dragunsky, situations for discussion in groups, videos).
Equipment: board, computer.
Progress of the event
1. Org moment.
Hello guys! Today we have many guests, and one of them is our old friend (excerpt from the film “Deniska’s Stories”).) Slide2
2. Goal setting.
Teacher: Where is this character from? (from the work of V. Dragunsky “Deniska’s stories”). (shows the book) Slide 3
Teacher: Deniska is a child like you. He does things, sometimes good, sometimes not so good. Here's what Deniska said:
(reads an excerpt from the story “20 years under the bed) Slide4
“Mishka called on the phone and called me to his place, I immediately got dressed and rushed to him. It was light and warm there and a lot of people had gathered, Alenka came, followed by Kostya and Andryushka. We played all the games and it was fun and noisy. And at the end Alenka suddenly said:
Now go hide and seek! Let's go hide and seek!
And we started playing hide and seek. It was great, because Mishka and I were constantly adjusting things so that it would be up to the little ones to lead: Kostya or Alenka, while we ourselves hid all the time and generally led the kids by the nose.”
Teacher: What did the boys do towards Alenka and Kostya? (they did something wrong, they were led by the nose)
Teacher: How can their action be called differently? (dishonest act)
Teacher: What human quality did the boys not show? Take small yellow pieces of paper with letters and put the word together (shows an envelope, children collect the word H E S T N O S T).
Teacher: What word did you get? Check (the word on the slide). Slide5
Teacher: What is honesty? (children explain in their own words)
Teacher: What will we talk about at our fellowship hour? (About honesty...)
Teacher: Not just about honesty, but about honest action.
3. Updating knowledge
Teacher: What is an honest act? (children explain the definition in their own words)
4. Generalization and systematization of knowledge
Teacher: Look carefully at the plot from the movie “The Amazing Adventures of Denis Korablev” and tell me who behaved honestly and who behaved dishonestly. (discuss with the guys what we saw in the story) Slide6
Teacher: How honestly should Tolik have acted? (don’t change seats, tell Deniska the truth) Slide7
Teacher: Let's rest a little and do some physical education:
Fizminutka
Teacher: Now try to figure out in the groups who acts honestly and who doesn’t. Take colored sheets with excerpts from Deniskin’s Stories by Dragunsky. Remember the text in pairs and prepare an answer from the group according to the following plan (on the board there is an answer plan:
1. Title of the story
2. Actions of heroes
3. Your attitude towards these actions)
Teacher: 2 minutes for discussion.
Teacher: What kind of work is this?
(Illustrations of stories on the board:)
Situation 1: excerpt from the story “Dymka and Anton” Slide9
Situation 2: excerpt from the story “Main Rivers” Slide 10
Situation 3: excerpt from the story “Everything secret becomes clear” Slide 8
(children express their opinions)
5. Application of knowledge and skills in a new situation
Teacher: You have a good understanding of the actions of Deniska and his friends. Slide 11
What would you do in the following situations: (children discuss in groups
Situation 1: You have a beautiful vase at home that your parents value, but you accidentally broke it. What will you do in this case? Slide 12
Situation 2: Mom allowed you to play on the computer for 30 minutes, and she left. What will you do when the 30 minutes are up? Slide 13
Situation 3: You found someone else's cell phone at school. Do you like him, what will you do? Slide14
(video with an honest act from life) Slide 15
6. Control of assimilation, discussion of mistakes made and their correction.
Teacher: Do you think it is easy to do an honest act? (no) Slide16
Teacher: Why act honestly then? (for peace of mind; to become warmer and brighter in the soul)
Teacher: Have you done honest things? (1 person from the group tells their honest deeds)
Teacher: Write on a piece of paper an honest deed if you have committed one. If not, think about where you could act honestly, show your honesty.
7. Reflection (summarizing the lesson)
Teacher: Each of you is a bright sun. And every sun has its rays. Your honest actions will be your rays. (video “Sun in the Rays”) Slide 17
There are different ways to live in life.
It is possible in sorrow and in joy.
Eat on time and drink on time.
Do nasty things on time.
Or you can do this: get up at dawn
And, thinking about a miracle,
With a burnt hand, reach for the sun
And give it to people!
(Sergey Ostrovsky)
Teacher: Our hour of communication has come to an end. You will attach your rays of honesty to your sun. Thank you for your honest communication!
DYMKA AND ANTON
And we had a dog called Dymka. Her tail is curled and shaggy, and she wears woolen riding breeches on her legs.
When I looked at Dymka, I was surprised that she had such beautiful eyes. Yellow-yellow and very intelligent. I gave Haze sugar and she always wagged her tail at me. And two houses away lived the dog Anton. He was Vankin. Vanka’s last name was Dykhov, and so Anton was called Anton Dykhov. This Anton had only three legs, or rather the fourth leg did not have a paw. He lost it somewhere. But he still ran very fast and kept up with everything. He was a tramp, he disappeared for three days at a time, but always returned to Vanka. Anton loved to steal whatever came his way, but he was extremely smart. And that's what happened one day.
My mother gave Dymka a big bone. Dymka took it, put it in front of her, squeezed it with her paws, closed her eyes and was about to start gnawing, when suddenly she saw Murzik, our cat. He didn’t bother anyone, he walked home calmly, but Dymka jumped up and ran after him! Murzik wanted to run, and Dymka chased him for a long time until she drove him behind the barn.
But the whole point was that Anton had been in our yard for a long time. And as soon as Dymka was busy with Murzik, Anton quite deftly grabbed her bone and ran away! I don’t know where he put the bone, but only a second later he hobbled back and sat there, looking around: “Guys, I don’t know anything.”
Then Dymka came and saw that there was no bone, but only Anton. She looked at him as if asking: “Did you take it?” But this impudent one only laughed at her in response! And then he turned away, looking bored. Then Smoky walked around him and looked him straight in the eyes again. But Anton didn’t even bat an eyelid. Haze looked at him for a long time, but then she realized that he had no conscience and walked away.
Anton wanted to play with her, but Dymka completely stopped talking to him.
THE SECRET BECOMES CLEAR
I heard my mother say to someone in the hallway:
The secret always becomes clear.
And when she entered the room, I asked:
What does this mean, mom: “The secret becomes clear”?
“And this means that if someone acts dishonestly, they will still find out about him, and he will be ashamed, and he will be punished,” said my mother. - Got it?.. Go to bed!
I brushed my teeth, went to bed, but did not sleep, but kept thinking: how is it possible that the secret becomes apparent? And I didn’t sleep for a long time, and when I woke up, it was morning, dad was already at work, and mom and I were alone. I brushed my teeth again and started eating breakfast.
First I ate the egg. This is still tolerable, because I ate one yolk, and chopped the white with the shell so that it was not visible. But then mom brought a whole plate of semolina porridge.
Eat! - Mom said. - Without any talking!
I said:
I can’t see the semolina porridge!
But mom screamed:
Look who you look like! Looks like Koschey! Eat. You must get better.
I said:
I'm choking on her!..
Then my mother sat down next to me, hugged me by the shoulders and asked tenderly:
Do you want us to go with you to the Kremlin?
Well, of course... I don’t know anything more beautiful than the Kremlin. I was there in the Chamber of Facets and in the Armory, I stood near the Tsar Cannon and I know where Ivan the Terrible was sitting. And there’s a lot of interesting stuff there too. So I quickly answered my mother:
Of course, I want to go to the Kremlin! Even more!
Then mom smiled:
Well, eat all the porridge and let's go. In the meantime, I'll wash the dishes. Just remember - you have to eat every last bit!
And mom went into the kitchen.
And I was left alone with the porridge. I spanked her with a spoon. Then I added salt. I tried it - well, it’s impossible to eat! Then I thought that maybe there was not enough sugar? I sprinkled it with sand and tried it... It got even worse. I don't like porridge, I tell you.
And it was also very thick. If it were liquid, then it would be a different matter; I would close my eyes and drink it. Then I took it and added boiling water to the porridge. It was still slippery, sticky and disgusting. The main thing is that when I swallow, my throat itself contracts and pushes this mess back out. It's a shame! After all, I want to go to the Kremlin! And then I remembered that we have horseradish. It seems you can eat almost anything with horseradish! I took the whole jar and poured it into the porridge, and when I tried a little, my eyes immediately popped out of my head and my breathing stopped, and I probably lost consciousness, because I took the plate, quickly ran to the window and threw the porridge out onto the street. Then he immediately returned and sat down at the table.
At this time my mother entered. She looked at the plate and was delighted:
What a guy Deniska is! I ate all the porridge to the bottom! Well, get up, get dressed, working people, let's go for a walk to the Kremlin! - And she kissed me. ....
MAIN RIVERS
And I was so busy with this kite and space that I completely forgot about everything in the world. I was so interested in playing that I stopped even thinking about any lessons. It completely slipped my mind. But it turned out that there was no way to forget about your affairs, because it turned out to be a shame.
I slept a little in the morning, and when I jumped up, there was just a little time left... But I read how deftly firefighters dress - they don’t have a single extra movement, and I liked it so much that I spent half the summer practicing how to dress quickly . And today, as soon as I jumped up and looked at my watch, I immediately realized that I had to dress as if there was a fire. And I got dressed in one minute and forty-eight seconds, all properly, only I laced my laces through two holes. In general, I got to school on time and also managed to rush to class a second before Raisa Ivanovna. That is, she walked quietly along the corridor, and I ran from the locker room (there were no more guys). When I saw Raisa Ivanovna from afar, I ran at full speed and, not reaching the classroom some five steps, walked around Raisa Ivanovna and jumped into the classroom. In general, I won her a second and a half, and when she came in, my books were already in the desk, and I myself was sitting with Mishka as if nothing had happened. Raisa Ivanovna came in, we stood up and greeted her, and I greeted her the loudest so that she could see how polite I was. But she didn’t pay any attention to this and said as she walked:
Korablev, to the board!
My mood immediately deteriorated because I remembered that I had forgotten to prepare my homework. And I really didn’t want to get out from behind my desk. It was as if I was glued straight to her. But Raisa Ivanovna began to rush me;
Korablev! What are you doing? Am I calling you or not?
And I went to the board. Raisa Ivanovna said:
So that I can read the poems that are assigned. But I didn’t know them. I didn’t even know very well what the tasks were. Therefore, I instantly thought that Raisa Ivanovna, too, might have forgotten what was asked and would not notice that I was reading. And I cheerfully started:
.......................................
Everyone laughed. Raisa Ivanovna said:
Enough, Korablev!.. Don’t try, it won’t work. If you don’t know, don’t be ashamed. - Then she added: - Well, what about your horizons? Do you remember that yesterday we agreed as a whole class that we would read interesting books beyond the curriculum? Yesterday you decided to learn the names of all the rivers in America. Have you learned?
Of course I didn't learn it. This snake, damn it, completely ruined my whole life. And I wanted to confess everything to Raisa Ivanovna, but instead I suddenly, unexpectedly even for myself, said:
Of course I learned it. But of course!
Well, correct this terrible impression that you made by reading Nekrasov’s poetry. Tell me the largest river in America and I'll let you go.
That's when I felt bad. Even my stomach hurt, honestly. There was amazing silence in the class. Everyone was looking at me. And I was looking at the ceiling. And I thought that now I would probably die. Goodbye, everyone! And at that second I saw that in the last left row Petka Gorbushkin was showing me some kind of long newspaper strip, and on it there was something scrawled in ink, thickly scrawled, he probably wrote with his finger. And I began to peer at these letters and finally read the first half.
And here Raisa Ivanovna again:
Well, Korablev? What is the main river in America?
I immediately had confidence and said:
Misi-pisi.
