3 ms·

It's hard to understand in a lot of detail what the experiment was doing. It seems like an alternate explanation is that people don't like to artificially pick

It's hard to understand in a lot of detail what the experiment was doing. It seems like an alternate explanation is that people don't like to artificially pick winners and losers, but they're willing to lessen the gap between winners and losers if it's too big. There are philosophical concerns about justice and utility in messing with organic selection mechanisms. Perhaps a fear of instability plays into it, but it seems like there are more nuanced narratives that can be applied as well.

mehwoot 9y ago
It seems like an alternate explanation is that people don't like to artificially pick winners and losers, but they're willing to lessen the gap between winners and losers if it's too big. Isn't that the same thing, just rephrased?
- humanrebar 9y ago
  I think the value implication in the analysis is different. An aversion to rank reversal applies value to rank stability itself. An aversion to picking winners and losers applies value to the selection process. You could argue that the signal is still strong if the winners made twice what others made, but that it's lost if wealth is wholesale shifted from the unfavored to the favored.
  - meric 9y ago
    It's notable this was a experiment from a Chinese university - in the 1950's and 1960's there was significant role reversals in Chinese society - landlords had their land confiscated, and those who resisted were rounded up and killed. This was followed up by the Great Leap Forward movement which ended up with millions dying from starvation.
amluto 9y ago
It could be even more nuanced than that. I'd be averse to a top marginal tax rate over 100% (which would reverse ranks) but not to a big tax cleanup that would remove silly incentives to engage in certain types of business, even though the latter would surely also reverse ranks. The study seems to be looking at the former type of social policy to the extent that it's looking at a social policy at all.

mehwoot 9y ago

It seems like an alternate explanation is that people don't like to artificially pick winners and losers, but they're willing to lessen the gap between winners and losers if it's too big. Isn't that the same thing, just rephrased?

humanrebar 9y ago
I think the value implication in the analysis is different. An aversion to rank reversal applies value to rank stability itself. An aversion to picking winners and losers applies value to the selection process. You could argue that the signal is still strong if the winners made twice what others made, but that it's lost if wealth is wholesale shifted from the unfavored to the favored.
- meric 9y ago
  It's notable this was a experiment from a Chinese university - in the 1950's and 1960's there was significant role reversals in Chinese society - landlords had their land confiscated, and those who resisted were rounded up and killed. This was followed up by the Great Leap Forward movement which ended up with millions dying from starvation.

amluto 9y ago

It could be even more nuanced than that. I'd be averse to a top marginal tax rate over 100% (which would reverse ranks) but not to a big tax cleanup that would remove silly incentives to engage in certain types of business, even though the latter would surely also reverse ranks. The study seems to be looking at the former type of social policy to the extent that it's looking at a social policy at all.