TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Winning a competition predicts dishonest behavior

91 点作者 pavornyoh超过 9 年前

10 条评论

dmichulke超过 9 年前
Applied to democracy, this means that politicians are more dishonest once voted into office.<p>Maybe there is a reason why the ancient Greeks drew their leaders randomly from their population<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Athenian_democracy" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Athenian_democracy</a>
评论 #11074498 未加载
评论 #11071834 未加载
评论 #11072731 未加载
评论 #11075105 未加载
raymondh超过 9 年前
It would be interesting to do a parallel study so with the follow-up game being more winnable by extra effort instead of by cheating.<p>My hypotheses is that winning begets a desire to continue winning -- if the only way to win is cheating, the winners are more likely to cheat; however, if the only way to win is to try harder, perhaps winners would do that too.<p>That would be an interesting outcome because it would suggest a model where the likelihood of cheating by winners is primarily governed by whether the only way to win is to cheat (i.e. the dice game used in the study)
davidovitch超过 9 年前
ars technica reviewed the article a couple of days ago: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;arstechnica.com&#x2F;science&#x2F;2016&#x2F;02&#x2F;winners-act-as-thick-as-thieves&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;arstechnica.com&#x2F;science&#x2F;2016&#x2F;02&#x2F;winners-act-as-thick-...</a>
6stringmerc超过 9 年前
Wow, this is really relevant to some experiences I&#x27;ve dealt with, in watching contests that seemingly could only (most easily?) be &quot;won&quot; through dishonest means. I&#x27;m specifically thinking about &quot;music contests&quot; where an initial threshold is basically a view-count. Could using dishonest means have down-the line effects on a band or music act?<p>Here&#x27;s some sample text from the Vince Gill contest being put on by Guitar Center:<p>&gt;<i>ROUND ONE:During the Contest Period, the Contest platform will track each Submission’s popularity using a proprietary ranking algorithm (&quot;online activity&quot;). Online activity tracking will be measured weekly throughout the Contest Period. Each week during the Contest Period, the Contest platform will identify the ten (10) Entrants with the highest online activity during that week (the &quot;Top Ten Weekly&quot; and the &quot;Weekly Ranking&quot; respectively). Each Entrant who’s Submission (i) is in the Top Ten Weekly (in the highest Weekly Ranking) as determined by Administrator and (ii) also meets the Submission Requirements is guaranteed to have at least one (1) Submission be reviewed by the Judging Panel in the Finalist Round. In the event that an Entrant has a Top Ten Weekly ranking in the Weekly Ranking on more than one occasion, the Judging Panel shall also review the next highest ranked Entrant so that there are a total of one hundred (100) Entrants that are guaranteed to have their Backing Track video in their Submission be reviewed by the Judging Panel in the Finalist Round, additional Submission videos, may or may not be reviewed. Any attempt by a Designated Agent or an Entrant and&#x2F;or his or her family&#x2F;friends to use fraudulent mechanisms to unfairly affect the outcome, as determined by Sponsor in its sole discretion, shall give Sponsor the right to disqualify the Entrant. Entrants will not be notified if they are being judged in the Finalist Round.</i><p>I participated in a similar contest earlier using the same platform (Zedd if you&#x27;re at all curious). There was rampant click fraud being done by numerous contestants, most of it simple click-for-click type stuff, but there were obvious attempts to get way ahead.<p>Considering how frequently I come across &quot;services&quot; that guarantee listens&#x2F;likes&#x2F;clicks through different platforms (Twitter, SoundCloud, DatPiff, YouTube, etc) I&#x27;m highly skeptical of how well such contests are policed.<p>In returning to the OP article, if dishonest means were the method to winning, and it follows that dishonesty will rise again, I wonder how that plays out in the music environment.
linhchi超过 9 年前
The thing is how long does that effect last?<p>Maybe the winning triggers a bit of feel-good hormone so that the participant finds himself in a situation of enjoying a little bit risk.<p>There are many behavioral experiments these days. And they&#x27;d like to produce &quot;common sense&quot; results.<p>These results can&#x27;t be generalised and i think it&#x27;d be even amoral to use it to justify hating people. Like, seriously, ethical doings are not that clearly defined anymore. The world has changed so much.
jcl超过 9 年前
The paper isn&#x27;t explicit about it, but I&#x27;m guessing &quot;...among Ivy League college students&quot; is an implicit part of the title.<p>Drawing from a population that has spent most of their lives competing and winning may skew the results somewhat, relative to other populations...
Frenchgeek超过 9 年前
So... I must be the most honest man in the world.
评论 #11072322 未加载
brlewis超过 9 年前
The study used individual competition. I wonder if they would observe the same phenomenon with team competition.
micwawa超过 9 年前
This says so much about the dangers of winner-take-all economics.
rurban超过 9 年前
I smell bullshit when even the first sentence of the abstract is not convincing. But it&#x27;s not really bullshit, it&#x27;s only common sense.<p>&gt; &quot;Competition is prevalent. People often resort to unethical means to win (e.g., the recent Volkswagen scandal).&quot;<p>The recent &quot;Volkswagen scandal&quot;, where the authors probably mean the recent Bosch&#x2F;Audi scandal who got caught cheating the diesel emission tests, had nothing to do with competition. When everyone is cheating these tests since centuries (starting with the US companies in the 90ies, and then the other car makers later), it is a purely political problem, but has nothing to do with competition. All the engines are using the cheating device, everybody cheats, there&#x27;s no competition, the game is rigged.<p>So when everyone cheats, just as also in competitive cycling, swimming, athletics, or in politics, it&#x27;s more a scenario how to play the game properly and just avoid getting caught.<p>But here we went full-cycle, and declare favorable dishonest behavior based on an environment where everyone cheats. The problem is not the winner as declared in this paper, the problem is the whole game, at least the cabal of the top 10 who mostly conspire to keep quiet. But in reality not only the players of the game, also the whole training staff, the media, the judges, the federation.<p>The rest of the paper wants to disprove the false image of the &quot;good sport&quot;, which is sometimes based on unfairness. And the new finding is that winning a competition will favor dishonesty, and not only the other way round. Which explains &quot;corruption&quot;.
评论 #11072894 未加载
评论 #11072823 未加载