4 ms·

There are a lot of studies that prove the mentality exists. I forget where I read it, but they did a study where they gave the participant two choices: they get

There are a lot of studies that prove the mentality exists. I forget where I read it, but they did a study where they gave the participant two choices: they get $140 and their neighbor gets $160, or they get $120 and their neighbor gets $100. A significant portion chose the latter option.

dexterdog 11y ago
Define significant.
jdreaver 11y ago
I think the word "prove" is very strong when it comes to a psychological study that measures something indirectly. I agree with your parent comment. I doubt the author was even thinking of such studies when they wrote that part of the article.
hodwik 11y ago
And they should, the value of the dollar is relative to the total in the economy. I suspect, because the question was even asked, the participants read into the study as a question of economics. I would have done the same thing. Assuming the two people make up the total economy; $120 out of a total $220 is a greater amount of money than is $140 out of $300.
- stdbrouw 11y ago
  That seems a little far-fetched. You ask someone about distributing cash between them and their neighbor and of course the participant will assume that what you're talking about is their wealth relative to the sum total wealth of the entire world or the effects of large-scale inflation?
  - hodwik 11y ago
    The inflationary nature of money is heavily tied into our subconscious experience of it. If you ask the same question , but about things rather than dollars, people will make the rational choice. "Would you rather have a yacht if your neighbor has two yachts, or a dingy, and your neighbor doesn't have a boat?" Everyone will answer yachts, because yachts aren't subconsciously inflationary. "Would you rather have ten books and your neighbor has fifteen, or five books and your neighbor has three?" "Would you rather own three pairs of shoes and your neighbor owns four, or two pairs of shoes and your neighbor owns one?" Also, the very fact they're asking the question in a study causes people to answer differently than they would normally -- that's the problem with this sort of 'science' to begin with. It's always this sort of Gotcha! science. People are used to that. As a result, most people, when they're answering questions in a study are thinking "These are trick questions. I won't be a guinea pig. What is the underlying trick here?" --- Addendum: The study may also be dealing with a cultural difference in the use of the phrase "your neighbor". In the southern Christian tradition "your neighbor" is a catch-all for people that you are not related to (from Mark 12:31).
    - stdbrouw 11y ago
      You do see the irony in criticizing a study for its imperfection when you yourself rely on nothing more than your personal guesstimate of what "most people" think and a just-so story about the possible influence of an obscure biblical interpretation, right? I agree with your general point, many of these kinds of psychological studies lack all external validity (they don't measure what they think they measure). It just surprised me that instead of "you know, I have my doubts" your original post went straight for "this empirical research is wrong because my unsubstantiated theorizing is right."
      - enraged_camel 11y ago
        >>It just surprised me that instead of "you know, I have my doubts" your original post went straight for "this empirical research is wrong because my unsubstantiated theorizing is right." It shouldn't. Most people make up their minds first, and then decide what facts and evidence to accept and reject afterwards. And when the facts and evidence are overwhelmingly against them, they rely on unsubstantiated theorizing to hand-wave them away.
        hodwik 11y ago
        >"And when the facts and evidence are overwhelmingly against them, they rely on unsubstantiated theorizing to hand-wave them away." Facts can't be 'against' something. That's silly, anthropomorphism. Facts must necessarily be interpreted, they are themselves meaningless until we choose to apply them toward some argument, which must, axiomatically, require some amount of unsubstantiated theorizing. Have you no sense of the history of the philosophy of science at all?
      - hodwik 11y ago
        >"this empirical research is wrong because my unsubstantiated theorizing is right." The empirical research isn't "wrong", that doesn't even make sense. Data is just data, it stands for nothing but itself, it must be interpreted for one to make a grander statement about reality. I'm saying your and enraged_camel's interpretation of the data is wrong -- which is no less scientific a position, and no more unsubstantiated. We're both examining the data, which itself has no opinion, and making predictions about what that data represents given a number of imperfect heuristics. That's how science works.
- Qwertious 11y ago
  If I were offered a free $20, my first thought would not be "should I turn this money down because it's metaphorical for the economy?". Also, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimatum_game https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimatum_game
golergka 11y ago
1) It's certainly not the same logic as "When we raise the bottom, this thinking goes, it gets harder to move to the top.". 2) Still, the author didn't even link these studies in his post.
goodJobWalrus 11y ago
Right. Also, I read that most people that object minimum wage increase are those that are just a little above it themselves. That exactly explains what Godin talks about here. Those people won't have anyone to feel superior to if they lose their tiny wage differential.
- hodwik 11y ago
  Who is better positioned to tell you about the dis-incentivization of minimum wage than those who have recently worked hard to get above it?
  - goodJobWalrus 11y ago
    Yeah, right, I am sure they only have society's best interest at heart, after the careful consideration of 'dis-incentivization of minimum wage'....although I'm not sure why you think they have all 'recently worked hard to get above it'. I would think it's more likely these are two distinct classes that don't intersect that much.
mjirv 11y ago
Studies also show that people are happier when their income makes them relatively most wealthy compared to their peers, so this seems reasonable.

dexterdog 11y ago

Define significant.

jdreaver 11y ago

I think the word "prove" is very strong when it comes to a psychological study that measures something indirectly. I agree with your parent comment. I doubt the author was even thinking of such studies when they wrote that part of the article.

hodwik 11y ago

And they should, the value of the dollar is relative to the total in the economy. I suspect, because the question was even asked, the participants read into the study as a question of economics. I would have done the same thing. Assuming the two people make up the total economy; $120 out of a total $220 is a greater amount of money than is $140 out of $300.

stdbrouw 11y ago
That seems a little far-fetched. You ask someone about distributing cash between them and their neighbor and of course the participant will assume that what you're talking about is their wealth relative to the sum total wealth of the entire world or the effects of large-scale inflation?
- hodwik 11y ago
  The inflationary nature of money is heavily tied into our subconscious experience of it. If you ask the same question , but about things rather than dollars, people will make the rational choice. "Would you rather have a yacht if your neighbor has two yachts, or a dingy, and your neighbor doesn't have a boat?" Everyone will answer yachts, because yachts aren't subconsciously inflationary. "Would you rather have ten books and your neighbor has fifteen, or five books and your neighbor has three?" "Would you rather own three pairs of shoes and your neighbor owns four, or two pairs of shoes and your neighbor owns one?" Also, the very fact they're asking the question in a study causes people to answer differently than they would normally -- that's the problem with this sort of 'science' to begin with. It's always this sort of Gotcha! science. People are used to that. As a result, most people, when they're answering questions in a study are thinking "These are trick questions. I won't be a guinea pig. What is the underlying trick here?" --- Addendum: The study may also be dealing with a cultural difference in the use of the phrase "your neighbor". In the southern Christian tradition "your neighbor" is a catch-all for people that you are not related to (from Mark 12:31).
  - stdbrouw 11y ago
    You do see the irony in criticizing a study for its imperfection when you yourself rely on nothing more than your personal guesstimate of what "most people" think and a just-so story about the possible influence of an obscure biblical interpretation, right? I agree with your general point, many of these kinds of psychological studies lack all external validity (they don't measure what they think they measure). It just surprised me that instead of "you know, I have my doubts" your original post went straight for "this empirical research is wrong because my unsubstantiated theorizing is right."
    - enraged_camel 11y ago
      >>It just surprised me that instead of "you know, I have my doubts" your original post went straight for "this empirical research is wrong because my unsubstantiated theorizing is right." It shouldn't. Most people make up their minds first, and then decide what facts and evidence to accept and reject afterwards. And when the facts and evidence are overwhelmingly against them, they rely on unsubstantiated theorizing to hand-wave them away.
      - hodwik 11y ago
        >"And when the facts and evidence are overwhelmingly against them, they rely on unsubstantiated theorizing to hand-wave them away." Facts can't be 'against' something. That's silly, anthropomorphism. Facts must necessarily be interpreted, they are themselves meaningless until we choose to apply them toward some argument, which must, axiomatically, require some amount of unsubstantiated theorizing. Have you no sense of the history of the philosophy of science at all?
    - hodwik 11y ago
      >"this empirical research is wrong because my unsubstantiated theorizing is right." The empirical research isn't "wrong", that doesn't even make sense. Data is just data, it stands for nothing but itself, it must be interpreted for one to make a grander statement about reality. I'm saying your and enraged_camel's interpretation of the data is wrong -- which is no less scientific a position, and no more unsubstantiated. We're both examining the data, which itself has no opinion, and making predictions about what that data represents given a number of imperfect heuristics. That's how science works.
Qwertious 11y ago
If I were offered a free $20, my first thought would not be "should I turn this money down because it's metaphorical for the economy?". Also, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimatum_game https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimatum_game

golergka 11y ago

1) It's certainly not the same logic as "When we raise the bottom, this thinking goes, it gets harder to move to the top.". 2) Still, the author didn't even link these studies in his post.

goodJobWalrus 11y ago

Right. Also, I read that most people that object minimum wage increase are those that are just a little above it themselves. That exactly explains what Godin talks about here. Those people won't have anyone to feel superior to if they lose their tiny wage differential.

hodwik 11y ago
Who is better positioned to tell you about the dis-incentivization of minimum wage than those who have recently worked hard to get above it?
- goodJobWalrus 11y ago
  Yeah, right, I am sure they only have society's best interest at heart, after the careful consideration of 'dis-incentivization of minimum wage'....although I'm not sure why you think they have all 'recently worked hard to get above it'. I would think it's more likely these are two distinct classes that don't intersect that much.

mjirv 11y ago

Studies also show that people are happier when their income makes them relatively most wealthy compared to their peers, so this seems reasonable.