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This discussion has been archived.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: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 15 2017, @11:42PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 15 2017, @11:42PM (#539697)

    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.