I would say that they impement the rule-changing-heuristic, which is not automatically thought of as an instance of the cheater-heuristic, even if it evolved from it. Changing the rules makes people feeling unsafe, people who do it without good reason are considered dangerous, but not automatically cheaters.
This behavior is repeated in scenarios where the rules are not being changed or there aren’t “rules” in the sense of a game and its rules. These examples are significantly fuzzier which is why I chose the poker example.
The lottery ticket example is the first that comes to mind.
EDIT: And also, from your description it seems that you have deliberately broken a rule without giving any reason for that. It is suspicious.
Why wouldn’t the complaint then take the form of, “You broke the rules! Stop it!”?
Why wouldn’t the complaint then take the form of, “You broke the rules! Stop it!”?
Because people aren’t good at telling their actual reason for disagreement. I suspect that they are aware that the particular rule is arbitrary and doesn’t influence the game, and almost everybody agrees that blindly following the rules is not a good idea. So “you broke the rules” doesn’t sound as a good justification. “You have influenced the outcome”, on the other hand, does sound like a good justification, even if it is irrelevant.
The lottery ticked example is a valid argument, which is easily explained by attachment to random objects and which can’t be explained by rule-changing heuristic. However, rule-fixing sentiments certainly exist and I am not sure which play stronger role in the poker scenario. My intuition was that the poker scenario was more akin to, say, playing tennis in non-white clothes in the old times when it was demanded, or missing the obligatory bow before the match in judo.
Now, I am not sure which of these effects is more important in the poker scenario, and moreover I don’t see by which experiment we can discriminate between the explanation.
This behavior is repeated in scenarios where the rules are not being changed or there aren’t “rules” in the sense of a game and its rules. These examples are significantly fuzzier which is why I chose the poker example.
The lottery ticket example is the first that comes to mind.
Why wouldn’t the complaint then take the form of, “You broke the rules! Stop it!”?
Because people aren’t good at telling their actual reason for disagreement. I suspect that they are aware that the particular rule is arbitrary and doesn’t influence the game, and almost everybody agrees that blindly following the rules is not a good idea. So “you broke the rules” doesn’t sound as a good justification. “You have influenced the outcome”, on the other hand, does sound like a good justification, even if it is irrelevant.
The lottery ticked example is a valid argument, which is easily explained by attachment to random objects and which can’t be explained by rule-changing heuristic. However, rule-fixing sentiments certainly exist and I am not sure which play stronger role in the poker scenario. My intuition was that the poker scenario was more akin to, say, playing tennis in non-white clothes in the old times when it was demanded, or missing the obligatory bow before the match in judo.
Now, I am not sure which of these effects is more important in the poker scenario, and moreover I don’t see by which experiment we can discriminate between the explanation.
This is the best synopsis of the “true rejection” article I have ever seen.
That works for me. I am not convinced that the rule-changing heuristic was the cause but I think you have defended your position adequately.