Slashdot Mirror
Why Winners Become Cheaters (washingtonpost.com)
JoeyRox writes: A new study from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem reveals a paradoxical aspect of human behavior — people who win in competitive situations are more likely to cheat in the future. In one experiment, 86 students were split up into pairs and competed in a game where cheating was impossible. The students were then rearranged into new pairs to play a second game where cheating was possible. The result? Students who won the first game were much more likely to cheat at the second game. Additional experiments indicated that cheating was also more likely if students simply recalled a memory of winning in the past. The experiments further demonstrated that subsequent cheating was more likely in situations where the outcome of previous competitions was determined by merit rather than luck.
Winning is a natural high, right? People steal to get high. Why not cheat?
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
From what I read Bernie Madoff had a compulsion for consistency. When he played golf (and he was pretty good) he would apparently turn in an 80 every time. So I suspect that the vagaries of the market just went against his grain. This then begs the question. Did he run a Ponzi scheme because he was a crook, or did he pretty much have the wrong compulsion for the wrong industry.
I am pretty sure that I see this in other areas. For instance I was at an industrial company some years ago where an IT guy cut himself on the inside of a computer to the point where it may or may not have needed stitches. The company people freaked out. They were hinting that they would even bribe him not to report it. This got my curiosity going thinking that this injury would cause their worker's compensation rates to go up, or that it would spawn some kind of outsized investigation, but then a secratary said something like, "No, Dougie is obsessed with the fact that it has been 400 days accident free." I asked if that were true and she said it wasn't and that now for any minor injury he would hand out a week's vacation to not report it. So there was a huge sign that said 400 days accident free and everyone knew it was a lie except for Dougie's superiors.
So like most things in life I suspect that most people lie somewhere on a spectrum ranging from, "I couldn't give a shit about cheating, to, look at me the most consistent winner in the universe."
So while Madoff might have been scared that a bad report would result in fewer sales and higher redemptions, it was probably a situation where he would feel that he had somehow personally failed if he were to have to say that this year was 11% instead of 12%.
Perhaps it's just a matter of intelligence. The first game was won by the smart players. In the second game the smart ones saw the cheating opportunity and took it (perhaps even correctly deducig that that was the point of the experiment).
The stupid players saw no opportunity and no point.
So the experiment is interesting but the conclusions could be all wrong,..
I can say that I've noticed this desire in myself, although never acted on it... But in games where I know I have a skill advantage, and have won before, the temptation to cheat, as a short cut measure, becomes strong. The mentality is one of "well, I know I'm capable of getting to that point, so is it really cheating if I just skip to that part?" Yes, yes it is. And I have to remind myself of that each. freaking. time.
I thought It was just me, but it turns out to be human nature I guess?
Reporting bias occurs when the opposite result isn't ever reported. So you either see an article or you don't. If you see the article, that's because the result was "surprising". If you don't see the article, that's because it wasn't "interesting".
Trouble is, every possible result, no matter how "surprising", can occur just by chance if you do enough experiments, even if the truth isn't "interesting". Statistics works like that.
So if you keep doing all sorts of different experiments until you find one that randomly happens to look "surprising", then publish it, but never talk about all the other experimental ideas that didn't pan out, you've got yourself a case of reporting bias.
Ask yourself this: what legitimate scientific question is being answered here, and what journal and media outlets are likely to publish the opposite finding?
They should have made also an experiment changing the order. That is, play the game where palyers can cheat, first, and the game where they can't cheat, second.
Maybe the results would be "The ones who cheat in the first game also win in the second game where cheating is impossible".
My theory is that skillful persons find ways to win playing by the rules, where cheating is just rules with certain risk–benefit ratio. They will find out all the rules, legal and cheating, and the best way to use both.
That's my theory, but I need the experiment above to verify it ;-)
Several African cultures practice backdoor polygamy, a built-in form of cheating.
This is why you should consider several cultures. Other languages might have separate words for cheating in a game and cheating in a relationship. The usage of cheating for both is fairly specific to English I would think.
In my native language it would be very unnatural to even bring up cheating in a relationship together with cheating in a game. They are two completely different concepts that has completely different words.
Apply this to why the rich get richer. Once they attain the means to cheat, they do and it becomes their main MO.
It's important, but it's also rather depressing. Competition is the premise upon which the entirety of US society is built upon, and the study suggests that it inexorably leads to rigged results in favor of the few on top. The current state of the country supports this, but it's sad to think that this is not a flaw of the system, but rather an inevitable conclusion from it.
Ah, but that is in our current world of consequences. Example, a friend is a teacher. Recently, a girl pulled a knife on another girl and threatened to slice her neck. Punishment = 2 day suspension. He jokingly said if she would have killed her that would have up'ed it to a 4 day suspension. So when I was in school, knife = expulsion. Another example, a pregnant girl disappeared when I was in school and may or may not have returned due to shame. Now, again, my friend is a teacher and I could not believe it, but now, the class will often go en mass to the hospital after delivery to have a party for the young mother. Oh, and of course child care at the school. So we went from shame to be a pregnant high school girl to lets have a party, and I have my badge of honor. Guess what, more high school moms. Who would have thought?
Because if cheating is done right, it is hard to proove. Most competitions allow a degree of "Failure" in the game. So if you are running a race, while you are not suppose to come in contact with the person you are racing with. However most judges will not be hardass enough to discredit an accidental hit. However if you are going to cheat, you may "Accidentally" hit your biggest threat just to get him off his stride.
Now this is cheating, however it is hard to prove.
That and sportsmanship lesson one, was to publically not be a sore loser. So saying he cheated is often the call of a sore loser.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Competitive cycling, cross country skiing and biathlon are exceptions. Cheating is required to be competitive.
I recall one Olympic where the results in cross country skiing were overturned after the samples were retested using new tests to find 'undetectable' steroids. The gold medal went to the guy who crossed the finish line almost last. The Silver went to last place. They didn't give a bronze. All the earlier finishers (and some later ones) having been disqualified.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'