Remember folks, we cannot cherry pick from the failed science of psychology even when it appears to be interesting.
Sounds like we should be less generous to CS findings, not more generous to other fields. (And yes, we should be skeptical of findings in CS as well.)
> given the hardware to do so is limited to such few entities...
That said - what research is happening in CS that needs specific hardware? The theoretical stuff can still happen on chalk boards, and interesting algorithmic or technical advances tend to propagate quickly precisely because someone will reproduce them.
We really shouldn't.
> given the fact that we cannot reproduce many findings in our own field (computer science)
Computer science isn't a "science". Computer science is really a branch of mathematics. For example, when you study computation theory, you prove theorems (deduction). You don't generate a hypothesis and test it.
> given the hardware to do so is limited to such few entities...
Unless you are talking about computer engineering, which isn't really science either but engineering. Computer science isn't done in "hardware". Maybe you should go learn what computer science is.
"Analyzing fairness ideals, we find that MBA students are less likely to be strict meritocrats than the broader population"
You can't escape 3+ billion years of evolution through natural selection.
Yes, everyone looks after their own interests, but some more than others, like in this example the students above: > implement substantially more unequal earnings distributions than the average American
I.e., unequal earnings distribution looks better and better as you climb the social ladder because you benefit more and more. On the other hand, if you are at the bottom you may strongly support more equal distibution because that can only benefit you.
Same reasoning as to why workers unions emerged from the bottom, not the top.
The group that maximizes their long-term reproduction is the one that inherits the earth.
> The group that maximizes their long-term reproduction is the one that inherits the earth.
Yes, that's an interesting paradox in a world where the poorer tend to have more (surviving) children that the richer. But it emerged only very recently on evolutionary scales.
1. Total compensation varies obscenely within the organization. It correlates moderately with intelligence and in no way with effort. Some of the most useless articles you work with make the most money.
2. Leadership really, really, really does not want peers sharing compensation info. I have been offered seven figure equity boosters on the condition of absolute confidentiality. This is the “efficiency” metric of the linked paper. If it is hard for leadership to distribute compensation in ways that would be seen as non-meritocratic, they lose an enormous amount of power over the management team.
Sunshine is the best disinfectant.
Many people born into or groomed for an elite status (via inherited wealth, rich families, strong support systems, etc) are rationally self preservationists. They were born on third base and know it. Many subconsciously know they do not belong there and cannot live up to the level of performance, intellectualism and hard work that laid the foundation for their current state or that others had to endure. Thus, they need support from the system to preserve their current state.
People who became elite in nature, are far more likely to value meritocracy. They lacked support, didnt know there was a "system" to be leveraged (eg getting unlimited time for an SAT score with a doctors note), had a chip on their shoulder, grinded their way to be top of their class, were the most productive, knocked on more doors, took risks others would consider irrational, etc.
At every level they've had to fight for what they have in a world where the criteria is often opaque. Being genuinely competent, they don't have an innate imposter syndrome, and thus, they value a system that has a clear and objective criteria for them and others, because they are confident they will operate fine within it.
EDIT 1: to add: With the above in mind, the more useful analysis in my opinion would be to assess the extent to which ethical frameworks and the role of fairness and meritocracy differ between those who were self-made (eg 1st of their generation to go to an IVY or get an MBA) vs not in "elite" positions of wealth or power.
EDIT 2: I'm not suggesting all people born rich don't deserve their success or do not possess these qualities of hard work, etc.
This topic is important and the study interesting, but exhibits the same generalizability bias as the famous Dunning-Kruger study.
The referenced MBA students -- and by extension the elites -- only reflect 271 students, all from the same university.
Without reproduced results across unbiased populations, we risk misguided discourse on a sensitive subject.
@dang
"In the efficiency cost treatment, the winner was determined by a coin flip and redistribution incurs an “adjustment cost” that reduces the total earnings available to participants. For every $1.00 reduction in the winner’s earnings, the loser’s earnings increase by only $0.50"
So out of $6, the average MBA of the 271 sampled redistributed $1.30 to the loser who was not obligated to receive any of it. So 22% redistribution. Less if the redistribution has costs. Seems fair?
davidw•46m ago