7 ms·
Are elites meritocratic and efficiency-seeking? Evidence from MBA students
- davidw 1y agoThe so-called 'elite' in the US, from politicians to journalists to venture capitalists and business leaders, are not looking all that great right now from my point of view, with a few exceptions.
- YeCKqkhM 1y agoThis post feels like a political statement but is too vague to discern any specific point from it. Sounds like something a bad guy in a Call of Duty game would say
- davidw 1y agoHi random letters new account guy: The point is that 'merit' and the 'elite' in the US feel like they're an ocean apart right now in a lot of cases.
- kelseyfrog 1y agoYawn. Call me back when it's been reproduced. Remember folks, we cannot cherry pick from the failed science of psychology even when it appears to be interesting.
- KittenInABox 1y agoI think we should be more generous, given the fact that we cannot reproduce many findings in our own field (computer science) given the hardware to do so is limited to such few entities...
- yjftsjthsd-h 1y ago> given the fact that we cannot reproduce many findings in our own field (computer science) 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.
- hearsathought 1y ago> I think we should be more generous 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.
- js8 1y agoNot true, have seen many CS papers that run experiments lately. And arguably experimental mathematics is a science.
- eirikbakke 1y agoCS theory is indeed closer to mathematics. But other areas--database systems, computer architecture, networking, user interface design etc., is in fact evaluated via experiments, which is what makes it "science". For example, if you propose some new technique to make databases faster (e.g. "store tuples column-wise instead of row-wise"), you'll implement it and run various workloads with and without the technique enabled. That gives you a quantitative measurement of the merit of the technique.
- bryanrasmussen 1y agoI believe that falls under what the OP called engineering, which is fair as in engineering one often has to run experiments to determine if what one thinks will work in the particular case actually works.
- eirikbakke 1y agoNo, it's a whole scientific field, with experiments, lit review, publications, peer review and everything. The engineering artifact is just a by-product. More often than not, the code is thrown away or never used again, once the experiments have been run and the paper has been published.
- lostmsu 1y agoHave you actually tried training a 10MB MoE (that would train in a few days on 3090)? I came to an opinion that most of the current AI research can be easily reproduced on the small scale. CoT is possibly the only exception as it sounds like it requires certain emergent behavior, but even there I am not sure it is impossible to retrofit to tiny models.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- derbOac 1y agoBy that metric all of science has failed, or at least the biomedical fields. Psychology looks like particle physics compared to fields like dentistry, and not a lot different from a lot of biomedical fields. Psychology is just the messenger — meta-science goes under the radar but it's probably its biggest contribution to science at large. I agree about replication in any case (not just psychological studies), but I have to say this seems like it probably would. If anything I think it underrepresents the phenomenon it studies because support for corruption and unethical behavior is likely to be underestimated in this kind of setting/design.
- kelseyfrog 1y ago> By that metric all of science has failed, or at least the biomedical fields. How much should we weaken our epistemic standard in order to avoid difficult conclusions?
- josefritzishere 1y agoThis paper contorts itself to reclassify greed as efficiency. Can greed cut costs? Well sure, but isn't that beside the point? It's like measureing GDP by the amount of dollars in circulation.
- immibis 1y agoGDP is literally a measure of the amount of dollars and how many times they're in circulation.
- biofox 1y agoKey sentence: "Analyzing fairness ideals, we find that MBA students are less likely to be strict meritocrats than the broader population"
- mytailorisrich 1y agoPeople, animals, everyone look after their own interests and the interests of their offsprings. Any studies that might be conducted will, shockingly not, come to that conclusion. You can't escape 3+ billion years of evolution through natural selection.
- Romario77 1y agoBut the experiment compares MBA Ivy league students to the general population. 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
- mytailorisrich 1y agoIf you are, or consider yourself, part of the top "performers" you have a self-interest incentive to favour this because you expect to be among the "winners" and don't want to share with the "losers". 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.
- mihaic 1y agoHuman evolution actually escaped the trap of this short term thinking twice: first some 100k years ago, when altruism bloomed (see E O Wilson), and some 2500 years ago with the universal moralistic religions. The group that maximizes their long-term reproduction is the one that inherits the earth.
- crmd 1y agoThis paper perfectly demonstrates two HR axioms I have observed in a 20 year tech journey from IC system engineer to retired unicorn CTO: 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.
- nemomarx 1y agoHow enforceable is a condition like that?
- lostmsu 1y agoIt is illegal in several US states, including WA.
- crmd 1y agoIt was never written down for me. Handshake.
- bryanrasmussen 1y agosurely that depends on the jurisdiction and provability.
- jldugger 1y agoDepends on how willing you are to drive a Lamborghini to work.
- crmd 1y agoLegally enforceable? I have no idea. But if the CEO loses trust in you there’s no way to come back from that, hence the dark power of secrecy.
- lefstathiou 1y agoMy two cents, I believe there is an nuance worth deliniating, specifically differentiating between being elite "in status" vs being elite "in nature." Painting broad strokes here for the sake of this post (so take with a grain of salt)... 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.
- busterarm 1y agoMost of the social sciences would have you believe that if you are white and/or male, that you are automatically in the former category even if you had to do all of those things mentioned by those in the later category.
- bcrosby95 1y agoNah, social sciences don't say that. It's a common misconception - borne out of people who don't want to engage with what they're actually saying, or from engaging with people who don't know what social sciences actually say. All they really say is some people have an advantage. It doesn't mean they have it easy. We get advantages from all parts of life, and refusing to engage with recognizing them is a decision, but I don't find it particularly healthy. Due to various reasons outside of my control, my life has been objectively easier than others. It doesn't mean it was easy. Just easier. If even one or two of those things changed my life could have ended up very different.
- panabee 1y agoA more accurate title: "Are Cornell Students Meritocratic and Efficiency-Seeking? Evidence from 271 MBA students and 67 Undergraduate Business Students." This topic is important and the study interesting, but the methods exhibit the same generalizability bias as the famous Dunning-Kruger study. The referenced MBA students -- and by extension, the elites -- only reflect 271 students across two years, all from the same university. By analyzing biased samples, we risk misguided discourse on a sensitive subject. @dang
- datadrivenangel 1y ago"On average across worker pairs, spectators implemented a Gini coefficient of 0.56 and redistributed $1.30 of the winner’s earnings to the loser. " "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?
- FloorEgg 1y agoI imagine that how the students behaved and what "seems fair" is heavily biased by the cultural context. I agree that 22% redistribution seems about fair, but I'm biased by a lifetime of rates of taxation. Something I'm very curious about is what should we be trying to optimize for (economic growth, sense of well-being, energy output, raising the economic floor, etc.?) and then what gini coefficient optimally produces that outcome. I understand it's outside the scope of this study, but my bias is my curiosity for what should we be aiming at and what principles will optimally produce the result, so then at least we know in theory what we should be trying to do.
- slt2021 1y ago[dead]
- awesome_dude 1y agoAre elites meritocratic? No. How do you tell? We need laws to stop people discriminating against whole swathes of people for reasons that have zero to do with merit.
- bitwize 1y agoOf course, because meritocracy is a lie the elites use to control you and appropriate your output. The elites know this; the rank and file don't. https://postmeritocracy.org/ https://postmeritocracy.org/
- bikenaga 1y agoThis paper by Gilens and Page (2014) is referenced in the original paper and is interesting in its own right (if someone has a better link, please post): https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/abs/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-poli... "Each of four theoretical traditions in the study of American politics—which can be characterized as theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy, Economic-Elite Domination, and two types of interest-group pluralism, Majoritarian Pluralism and Biased Pluralism—offers different predictions about which sets of actors have how much influence over public policy: average citizens; economic elites; and organized interest groups, mass-based or business-oriented. A great deal of empirical research speaks to the policy influence of one or another set of actors, but until recently it has not been possible to test these contrasting theoretical predictions against each other within a single statistical model. We report on an effort to do so, using a unique data set that includes measures of the key variables for 1,779 policy issues. Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism."
- snapplebobapple 1y agoIsnt that the expected outcome and why there is a second amendment? When the elite leeching gets too bad the constitutiin says you are supposed to kill them all and let god sort them out no?
- jjk166 1y agoGiven that the second amendment was put in place by those very elites; that seems unlikely.
- snapplebobapple 1y ago