4 ms·
Yes, the incentives this sets up could be bad for subsequent rounds; that is absolutely a real problem. But this passage seemed to be suggesting that trading,
by Sniffnoy 9y ago
Yes, the incentives this sets up could be bad for subsequent rounds; that is absolutely a real problem. But this passage seemed to be suggesting that trading, in and of itself, harmed students who were not involved in the trade, and that's not correct.
- cortesoft 9y agoSomething being unfair is not the same as something harming someone else. Lets say I have a cookie, and there are 10 kids in front of me who like cookies. If I give any kid a cookie for any reason, it doesn't HARM the kids who don't get a cookie; they are no better or worse off than if the cookie never existed. However, suppose I decide to give the cookie to the tallest kid - even though none of the other kids are harmed, this is still not a 'fair' situation. You can do no harm and still be unfair. Whether that is bad or not is subjective, but it is still unfair (in the sense that every kid has an equal chance at the cookie).
- Sniffnoy 9y agoSorry, I just realized that I failed to point out which part I was saying was "a straight-up error"; it's kind of buried in the sentence. My mistake! With emphasis this time: >By trading places, students could get another shot at a place. At schools for which they already had a go in the lottery. This would give them better chances. At the expense of students that don’t (or can’t) trade. This is unfair. The emphasized part is what I'm objecting to. Sorry about that.
- cortesoft 9y agoOk, I think we are having the exact same discussion in two threads. I will stop responding to this thread since I answered your objection in the other one :D
- Retric 9y agoLet's say there is a lotto for concert tickets. If I pay 1,000 people to take part in that lotto who don't want the tickets then I get an 'unfair' advantage. The logic is similar for the school lotto as people would target schools based on their ability to trade not necessarily their actual preference. This would lower the odds of people who otherwise had fewer options. AKA, if only bob or sam want a spot sam's odds are 50/50%. But, of ted joins but would always give his spot to bob then sam's odds are 1/3 and bob's odds are 2/3.
- averagewall 9y agoActually it does harm the ones who don't get it. Beyond basic necessities of life, everything else we get is pretty much only good because it's better than what someone else gets. That's the essence of why discrimination is worse that just everybody being poor, and why high wealth inequality is bad even though most people have as much money as they need. It's emotional, not purely practical.
- maehwasu 9y agoSo one obvious solution, consistent with your ethics/social goals, is to engineer society such that no one knows how badly they're getting fucked.
- Trundle 9y agoAbsolutely yes. Educating and informing increases suffering. Anyone involved in making information more accessible and the world more connected is enriching themselves at the expense of humanity as a whole.
- air7 9y agoThis is quite literally why we can't have nice things. Fairness in this context (and often) is a highbrow word for unacknowledged, uncontrolled jealousy.
- Spooky23 9y agoSure it does. The students with low social and political capital won't fare as well in the post-lottery marketplace. It also gives folks an incentive to pressure others to make specific choices, and empowers the informal network of people in the know.