SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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
(Score: 1) by nicdoye on Saturday July 15 2017, @11:07PM (8 children)
In Europe, the left have traditionally cared more about the poor than identity politics, so I suspect a different result would happen over here. Well, until our political system becomes completely infected by the madness we see over the pond. (Which is certainly happening in the UK).
I code because I can
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 15 2017, @11:41PM
Um, where is "here", and whose "our" are you talking about? And, which pond: the little one, or the big one, or that down-undy one?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 15 2017, @11:42PM
They coached the results by making the resource quantity odd, and not allowing the odd coin to be shared equally between the two parties. The result of this was 'somebody' had to end up rich, rather than each side actually ending up evenly dispensated.
While not everyone would, many people, even in america, might have chosen a different result if neither side ended up being 'richer' than the other. But OF COURSE if somebody ended up richer they would rather retain that extra wealth themselves, than just flip it to the other side. It is not that different from the current Right vs Left 'PC' conflict going on: When one side demands 'more' rights/privileges so the balance of power is reversed, instead of reaching equilibrium, of course both sides are going to want the OTHER side to be disadvantaged rather than themselves. The trick is to do what you need to to ensure both sides feel evenly treated/represented and benefitted. Hard in the real world, but nobody really tries to, because everybody is trying to push a fucking angle.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by looorg on Saturday July 15 2017, @11:45PM (3 children)
That stopped quite some time ago. It's been all about the identity politics for about a decade now in the euro-mainland. It's probably turning a bit now since it has utterly fucked up and failed in every possible way. They seem a bit lost now as to what to pick instead.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by julian on Sunday July 16 2017, @01:14AM (1 child)
It's the worst thing the left could have done. We needed to stick to an economic message targeted at the working class. The immigration question is also killing us. Mass immigration from Africa and the Middle East/Asia is unsustainable given the type of society we want to have at home; liberal, individual rights, gender equality, social safety net. It's a tragedy, but reaching your hand out to a drowning person often results in two people drowning instead of just one.
We need to drop the gender/sex hysteria and get real on immigration/refugees and the left will start to win again. The West is worth preserving and improving and we can't let the far right (which often attracts people who are motivated by actual racism) be the only group that can get away with saying it.
(Score: 2) by Yog-Yogguth on Monday July 17 2017, @07:18AM
But supposing "you" actually started to talk and act sensibly now... in general they're nowhere close to doing that around these parts, I know since I live right smack in the middle of it all. On rare occasions there are outliers like yourself but the public and official examples here can be counted on a single hand with fingers to spare, and that is over the span of the last four decades! That count includes those who are dead now (because for some people terminal illness is the only source of enough courage to state the truth).
...but let's say they did then why should anyone trust you/them now after at the very least forty years of madness and destruction? Of the vast majority those too old do not truly care any longer and those too young have nothing to compare and contrast the present to. Even fools like me don't see much point in it any longer; writing comments like this one. Those calling it genocide aren't entirely wrong (and it's kind of crazy that those people are the closest to being sane although still entirely deluded).
I live in one of those Nordic countries and (almost "of course") I've been to the rest of them as well as plenty of others. As just about everyone knows these countries are or at least used to be very closely related, almost a single culture (when seen from the outside) but not quite. I was born here at the time when the earliest motions of this madness were being implemented, as I grew up I was raised and indoctrinated to buy into and indeed bought all the lies.
I hate to say it but with each passing year it seems more and more likely to me that everything at least from WWII onwards is fabricated, but quite likely long before that too. So much for historical facts, and don't get me wrong: this includes everything ordinary and uncontroversial that one wants to be true. There is no reason to trust any of it nor any of the alternative narratives as far as I am concerned.
Every political party that has ever been in parliament here is some version of socialist or communist, even the so-called "conservatives" and the so-called "far right" admit to being somewhat "socially democratic". I will no longer vote for any of them, they are nothing but a distraction and an insult and likely deserve a fate worse than any human or country is able to give them. Out of spite I will perhaps vote for a tiny microscopic party which has no chance of winning but I can hardly convince myself that it is worth the bother because it really isn't and in a way not voting in any way actually has more impact.
The second largest voter block in this country is that of those who do not vote at all. Back when I believed all the lies I couldn't comprehend it but now I can.
The social experiment didn't start with migration that's for sure, it started with mass manipulation and mass conditioning, at the very least in the fifties but likely much earlier. It worked on your grandparents, it worked on your parents, and it worked and is still working on you and still me as well despite me writing something like this.
I haven't read "Quiet weapons for quiet wars" yet but I really ought to, maybe it will prove insightful and explanatory (or maybe it will be a shit pile of the usual nonsense, it's a toss-up).
Now I really ought to stop reading and writing and get my ass moving as I don't really have the time for this —sorry for venting, nothing personal :D
Bite harder Ouroboros, bite! tails.boum.org/ linux USB CD secure desktop IRC *crypt tor (not endorsements (XKeyScore))
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 16 2017, @01:40AM
The problem is that non 1st world immigrants demands western level of healthcare, schools and infrastructure but will not perform as high salary nor be employed in the corresponding rate to contribute their share. Which means that the native population is setup to sponsor them forever without any gain.
Secondly they bring a lot of social, health, crime and general disorder problems. For which again their is no gain to the native population.
It's a net negative both in the short term and the long term. It's unlikely to be sustainable and the resolution is unlikely to be pretty. But responsible leadership can mitigate a lot of the uglier possibilities. But when such leadership is lacking, policies will be reactive or simple have no bearing in realities. The honeymoon is running out in a non-linear time.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 15 2017, @11:50PM
It's the same book, same play as always. A broken refrain of Facts vs MAH FEELZ. Except in countries that suffered result of MAH FEELZ, aka Communism. You will be hard press trying to parrot that bullshit there, because there is only one place it will lead you to, your own place dangling from a tree branch.
(Score: 2) by mth on Sunday July 16 2017, @02:11AM
I doubt the results would have been very different. While there is far less opposition to wealth redistribution in Europe compared to the US, I don't know of any party in Europe arguing that wealth should be redistributed in such a way that current rich people would end up with less than current poor people.