Here's an idea. If someone says that system isn't all that important to them, and that their ambivalent or indifferent to which system is being played, why don't you take them at their word instead of coming up with a bizarre theory in which you state that people simply aren't owning up to reality?
I would say, largely, because it has been accepted since Freud that most people are not consciously aware of all of their motives all of the time. If a person's behaviour does not conform to what they are claiming, it is reasonable to suspect that said person is not being fully honest, either intentionally or because they do not fully understand their own motives.
For example, if I claim not to care about whether I receive A or B, but I have to pay $40 for A, and nothing for B, and I consistently choose A, then there is reason to assume that I do, indeed, care about receiving A over B, regardless of what I say or even what I may believe.
Similarly, if I claim that system doesn't matter, but spend countless hours tweaking the system or discussing system features, and how to get the most out of the system, either here on EN World or elsewhere, then one might suspect that, despite protestations to the contrary, system does matter to me.
There is often a very wide gulf between what people profess, and what they actually do. If you want to know what people say they prefer, go with what they say. If you want to know what people actually prefer, go with what they do. Every time.
RC