Selection effects on dishonest behavior

Re:Selection effects on dishonest behavior by mc32 on Wednesday March 31, 2021 @12:15PM (#26649111)

Maybe? To me it seems they either don’t have enough $ability to do things the accepted way, or they want to do things an easier way, so one way for them to do well is to use a shortcut (cheating), either for lack of ability or out of laziness (not wanting to put in the hard work). But, it’s not all bad. ‘Cheaters’ the lazy type are innovators, they look to make things easier to achieve, so they will employ automation and the like to get out of drudgery, which leads to discoveries and progress, right?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Selection effects on dishonest behavior by throwaway0a5e on Wednesday March 31, 2021 @01:09PM (#26649926)

Define "cheating".

Is it cheating or just being savvy if a farmer wires his new building to the 1999 NEC instead of the 2021 NEC since a copy of the 1999 one is $20 on eBay and omits some grounding requirements that are onerous for outbuildings.

Is it cheating or just following the spirit of the rule if a middle manager avoids a problem be skipping the process-required approval for a time sensitive change to something when it's exactly the kind of thing the higher up would approve in a heartbeat?

Cheating vs non-cheating isn't a binary thing. People have degrees to which they're willing to fudge stuff.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Selection effects on dishonest behavior by watwut on Wednesday March 31, 2021 @05:27PM (#26653385)

I don't think there is dichotomy between ability and cheating. The dichotomy is just too make us feel better if we lose against cheater.

Highly skilled people cheat to get little bit more advantage against other highly skilled people. And it is harder to catch them, because the ability demonstrated in some situations means everyone will go out of way to excuse them.

Highly skilled people cheating also means that only cheaters can rise to the top of competition.

[ Parent | on HN ]