So, where does my profession rank on this list?

I know all you huuuundreds of contributors to this thread are just DYING to know where I would put myself!

So grab a beer and make sure you are comfortably seated, coz here’s the answer…..

Right at the bottom. Bottos and geos and other scientists of their filthy ilk are dirty rotten sleazy money-grabbing rip-off merchants who don’t do anything useful for the economy or society and should be right on the bum-end of the list!

And as for environmentalists….. well…. they should be exactly where Roy Morgan has put them - out of sight off the bottom end of the page!!

A botanist who is a flagellate – or at least a self flagellator.

Now that's funny, Ludwig!

Isn't it quality not quantity that is important in these threads? And it's not important where you place yourself but where others want to stick you…

Of course the poll was rating ethics and honesty not usefulness. So does your 'sincerely held opinion' create the paradox of rating youself very high for honesty?

I always find this poll interesting. What's particularly interesting to me is that we're talking about ethics and honesty in the context of work. Some groups are always going to poll higher than others because they have nothing to gain from dishonesty, and they tend to come unstuck if they behave unethically. Some probably rate better because of our limited contact with them and, consequently, our limited exposure to the 'bad' ones.

I suspect, for example, that nurses outrank doctors for two reasons:
1) We tend to have more exposure to doctors, so are more likely to have bad experiences
2) Nurses' work tends to focus on care rather than advice. It's hard for a nurse to be dishonest because it's a nurse's job to DO rather than SAY. Of course, a nurse might pretend to have done some duties, which would be dishonest, but how would we know this happened? When we're in hospital, we expect our doctors to be accountable for our wellbeing. The nurses are there to help.

Professions that involve advocacy - lawyers, salespeople (including financial planners and stockbrokers), politicians and so on - have jobs that require a different set of ethics and different standards of honesty. A salesman who told the whole truth would be out of a job pretty quickly, as would an advertiser and a lawyer. That's not to say that dishonesty is necessarily acceptable or justified - simply that it's to be expected from an effective practitioner.

The sad part of this is our leaders are near the bottom of the list and is the most accurate measure of the level of democracy in this country you will find (i.e 10%).

The "level of democracy" is a very accurate description of the problem, phooey

>>The sad part of this is our leaders are near the bottom of the list and is the most accurate measure of the level of democracy in this country you will find (i.e 10%).<<

We have a vote at election time, which is supposed to be the hallmark of a fair democratic process. At least, we are told, it is preferable to the alternative.

But that system has been totally perverted by the political system (not to be confused with democracy) in which politicians are permitted to tell the electorate bare-faced lies, in order to "win their business".

Much as we come to expect, it would appear, from used-car salesmen.

Except that...

Used-car salesmen are at least bound by the normal rules of commerce, in which an outraged buyer can drive back onto the lot, and make a scene until he gets his money back.

We poor voters, on the other hand, are required to sit back and see our precious, democratic vote trashed beyond recognition by a bunch of venal, self-obsessed sleazebags, whose idea of a successful political career has nothing to do with looking after our interests, and everything to do with a featherbedded life of superannuated splendour.

At our - and democracy's - cost.

Do we sometimes create a myth about certain profession/jobs. Do we view certain people through 'rose coloured glasses'. Our general perception of farmers for example, as we view these people through our minds eye, as most likely the average farmer is unknown to the average Australian. Is the perception of the farmer as a roughed individual, battling drought and flood, fighting natures elements at every turn to bring in the harvest, 'The Man from Snowy River' type, or are they akin to the Little House on the Prairie and the Ingalis family, is this reality or is this a myth.
I only give this as an example, I find nothing wrong with farmers. could this be how a persona may be developed about certain sections of society which may well be some distance from reality. Is it possible the used car salesman in reality is a nice guy who suffers from a bad press thus a somewhat tarnished image.
Has Florence Nightingale given nursing too much of a good name? Are not bankers in reality philanthropic persons who have devoted their lives to humanitarianism, giving away any thought of profit to bring joy and comfort to their fellow citizens.
In a recent survey conducted amongst businesses along Parramatta Road Sydney from about Croydon to Parramatta it was fond that used car salesmen were judged to be the number one profession for honesty and integrity when it come to dealings with the general public.