Is this concept in play here? (Quoted from Tom's link)
"Guadagno found that "achievement" players were less likely to trust and
cooperate with other players, while "social" players exhibited higher
levels of self-disclosure. Her study further demonstrated that players are
more trusting of other players who are part of their guild—a group of
players who share a common chat channel, group identifier and play together
regularly, relative to players who belong to other guilds or are not in a
guild."
On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 09:43 Tom Frenaye <frenaye@pcnet.com> wrote:
>
> Yes, I agree with Hans. Contesters probably cheat less than others when
> it comes to ham radio activities, at least this study on a related subject
> suggests it.
>
> http://phys.org/news/2016-08-explores-online-gamers-psychology.html
>
> -- Tom
>
> At 01:53 AM 8/24/2016, AB7E wrote:
>
> >Fine for you to defend your friends, Hans, and you may be right.
> >
> >But you've gone over into some stark raving fantasy world when you claim
> that 99.99% of contesters don't cheat. There isn't any segment of humanity
> anywhere that honest, and I find it hilarious that anybody would think that
> hams are somehow more honest than the average human.
> >Studies, tests, and observations over decades by LOTS of different
> sociologists prove that you aren't even close in your opinion. Deny it all
> you want, but humans are wired to seek every advantage they can in almost
> all situations, and it is only our learned behavior boundaries that hold us
> back from breaking rules.
> >
> >In real life people lie, they cheat, they dishonor, they fudge ... to one
> degree or another depending upon the situation. And that's out in the open
> with real stakes involved. What on earth makes you think that an
> essentially random slice of the population (ham radio contesters) operating
> with almost zero external scrutiny in an event with virtually no jeopardy
> is going to magically be different??
> >
> >And for heaven's sake quit with the neighborhood crap. Absolutely none
> of my comments bear any relation to any contester I know because my
> comments derive from reading I've done on the subject and observations I've
> made during my 69 years on this earth involving people I've met in over 30
> countries.
> >
> >It would be interesting for someone to create a truly anonymous survey of
> active contesters with the simple question "in all of your years of
> contesting, can you honestly claim that you've never knowingly violated any
> rule, no matter how trivial?" One of us is going to be very surprised by
> the result.
> >
> >Dave AB7E
> >
> >On 8/23/2016 2:39 PM, Radio K0HB wrote:
> >>My "neighborhood" of contesting and DX'ing friends are guys like NØAT,
> >>KØKK, KØTO, KØIR, KØKX, KTØR(SK), KØFVF(SK), KØRC, KØSR, KØAD,
> WØAIH, KØMD,
> >>NØIJ, WØGJ, K4IU, KØMPH, etc.
> >>
> >>There is NOBODY in that group, and hundreds more that I know now, and
> have
> >>known over my 50-some years in DX and Radio-sporting, that I can imagine
> >>being outside the rules, even just a smidgen.
> >>
> >>The interminable jeremiads crying "cheat" on CQ-Contest, mostly by noted
> >>hams whose credentials I otherwise admire, is loutish and Ill-mannered.
> It
> >>insults the community of hams, 99.99% of who play by the rules.
> >>
> >>If you know a cheater, well then turn him in; but don't condone the
> >>widespread internet trashing of hams in general. We are better than that.
> >>Your neighborhood may vary.
> >>
> >>73, HB
> >
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> e-mail: frenaye@pcnet.com YCCC --> http://www.yccc.org/
> Tom Frenaye, K1KI, P O Box J, West Suffield CT 06093 Phone: 860-668-5444
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|