lizardwhoskis

It's not just about being hacked or using un-approved software.

For example, Google Chrome allows itself to be installed to a user account, bypassing administration requirements which may be that "vulnerability." The install is not particularly big, 50MB or so, so when Little Johnny Hacker does it it may not seem like a big deal. When 20,000 students install it that's almost 1TB, before we even consider them actually saving school work! (If you don't have 20,000 students in your school lets assume your IT resources and staff are appropriately scaled.)

You might ask, when you've got 20,000 people who want a piece of software why wouldn't you just make it available to them? So, let's say your school uses some web tools like Blackboard Learn and somewhere along the line--maybe in Chrome, maybe in BbLearn, maybe in Java, maybe somewhere else--there's a bug and students can't upload their homework to BbLearn with Chrome.

Now you've got 20,000 student freaking out and swarming the help desk trying to figure out what to do, teachers are upset they have to change their plans since it's not the students' fault, and IT is flustered because this is an emergency and not something they can research and test and find an appropriate solution for their environment.

And all this because, clearly, the students know "what good software is for them" and IT is just a bunch of old hacks who can't keep up.

When you work in any collaborative or networked environment some sacrifices will be made to fit everyone in. It's an IT department's job to figure out what technology will make the cut and what won't. Some of those decisions will be good, some will be bad, and some decisions won't actually be in the IT department's control. If you don't like a decision that was made (or wasn't made), you should talk to IT about it. They may tell you to bugger off, or they may make an exception for you or even launch an investigation to launch of complete solution.

Most likely. As another poster pointed out, what this shows is that our reason--given time to work--can override more instinctual desires to cheat. Part of rationalizing is considering situations, real and unreal, that may influence the outcome. E.g. I may be being observed and if they think I am cheating they may discard me from the pay group.

Without that time you wouldn't consider that "chosen at random" may be a lie. So, to the automatic mind your odds of getting paid are the same whether you pick 3 or 6 but the reward for lying is significantly higher. A simple heuristic the automatic mind may use would be (roll)x(payout): 6 x 10 = 60 vs 3 x 10 = 30

I'd be interested if the money incentive might have influence lying in the other direction, however. E.g. I did roll a 6, but if I say the maximum number they may not pay me; if I say a lower number they may be more likely pay me. This could lead to a new rational heuristic including a chance of being paid: 6 x 10 x 0.10 = 6 vs 3 x 10 x 0.50 = 15