Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Saturday July 15 2017, @10:41PM   Printer-friendly
from the status-quo dept.

Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:

Human beings largely object to income inequality and are willing to correct injustice—unless, of course, it rattles their status quo.

That's the conclusion of a recent study looking at how far people would go to redistribute resources between the haves and have nots. Participants fiercely objected to "when winners become losers and losers become winners," researchers note in the paper, published in the latest issue of Nature Human Behaviour.

Researchers initially recruited Indian, American, and Chinese participants take part in an experimental game they called "the redistribution game." The gist of the game was simple: Participants were given a number of scenarios that would redistribute a fixed sum from a richer person to someone poorer. Participants were told the original standing of wealth was assigned randomly.

In the first scenario, participants had to decide if they wanted to transfer two coins from person A (who already had four coins) to person B (who had one). Researchers note the "transfer would reduce inequality," (as there's less of a gap between them), but person B would end up one coin richer than person A, reversing their status.

In the second version of game, participants were asked whether they'd transfer one coin to person B (where person A ended up with three coins and person B with two coins). Researchers ran a third and fourth scenario that allowed participants to transfer coins from person A to B, where the outcome still left person A with significantly more coins.

-- submitted from IRC


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by leftover on Sunday July 16 2017, @03:17AM

    by leftover (2448) on Sunday July 16 2017, @03:17AM (#539768)

    All the talk about RE-distributing wealth misses the point. It presumes that all wealth actually belongs solely to the holders of capital. That is an entirely artificial definition. What happens if we instead structure the creation of wealth as a mix of capital and well-applied labor? Then part of the wealth intrinsically belongs to the workers and the idea of redistribution is moot. Several generations of BA majors have been indoctrinated with a fallacious exaggeration of "capitalism" as though it was a natural law like gravity. It is no such thing, even according to Smith.

    Also, the so-called "tragedy of the commons" can be revealed as the "travesty of the commons". Under which set of insane conditions is raping and pillaging considered as adding value?

    Individual people can be magnificent but our behavior in large groups is wearying.

    --
    Bent, folded, spindled, and mutilated.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Interesting=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3