
The Evolution of Fairness - brudgers
http://www.sarah-brosnan.com/research/the-evolution-of-fairness
======
frgtpsswrdlame
>Recent evidence indicates that chimpanzees (and likely other cognitively
advanced social species) also change their behavior when they get more than a
partner, at least when their partner has some recourse.

I wonder if this is our current problem with inequality today. The poor don't
have any real recourse against the rich and the rich know that. Sometimes I
wonder if all this is a result of the decrease in church attendance (Note: I
am not religious). We used to have a communal meeting ground where people
across class came together once a week and were able to mingle, speak with and
over long time periods form strong relationships/friendships with those who
were not of the same class. We're much more socially stratified today.

~~~
groby_b
If you go and visit a church, you will realize that no, you don't have a
communal meeting ground across class. Class and geography is strongly
correlated, so that pre-sorts already. Within that church, people self-select
according to the smaller sub-strata of class they belong to.

As placeholder for class, here's an interesting stat on racial diversity:
[http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/07/27/the-most-
and...](http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/07/27/the-most-and-least-
racially-diverse-u-s-religious-groups/)

Most of the large denominations are quite homogenous. The same shakes out
across individual churches, and across class. We tend to sort, as humans.

(Then again, having a recourse does not rely on mingling)

~~~
irrational
It depends on the church. In the LDS church each congregation covers a
specific geographical area (everyone that lives between main street on the
north and elm street on the south and maple street on the west and beach
street on the east will to go such-and-such congregation). Almost nobody goes
to a different congregation than the one they live within. The boundaries
never have to do with where the rich and poor live, but rather how big do they
have to make the boundaries to encompass enough people to achieve a minimum
sustainable congregation. If too many people move into the congregation's
boundaries, then it is split. If too many move out than the boundaries of
surrounding congregations will be realigned until there is a sufficient number
in each congregation. The result is that rich and poor are in the same
congregation. I am LDS and the south half of our boundaries are multi-million
dollar homes and the north half are low-income apartment complexes. In between
are middle-class neighborhoods. Probably about 1/3 of the congregation comes
from the three different areas. We have people that are CIOs of major
corporations and people who are very poor all meeting and serving together.

~~~
groby_b
I think it's probably fair to say that in Utah, there is fairly strong social
pressure to be a member of LDS. (58% of all denominations are LDS) Which gets
you as close to a single church as you can be in a democratic society.

Combine that with the fact that LDS always seems to take a very pragmatic
approach to things (little "vanity" churches, congregations are need-based),
and I wouldn't be surprised if this is a fairly unique outcome.

But... I don't know. And I can't really find much data on income distribution
in individual congregations. Well, one paper from Pew, and it confirms that
the LDS split is quite close to the national split:
[http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/10/11/how-
income-v...](http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/10/11/how-income-
varies-among-u-s-religious-groups/)

But still, nothing about how individual congregations sort.

~~~
irrational
I don't live in Utah (never have). I live in Oregon. But I've also live in
Washington, Florida, Indiana, California, Colorado, Texas, and Puerto Rico and
I've found that same congregation dynamics in all of those places.

------
usgroup
It was an insight for me to realise the central role beaurocracies play in
successful countries. Rule based governanance. Continuity. Fairness As just
categorically applied rule according to some distribution.

~~~
matt4077
I'd add something else to that list that is closely connected: trust.

It's a concept that so permeates our culture that it often goes overlooked. So
much is dependent on people simply behaving "good", even when it's not in
their best interest at that very moment, and even when nobody's looking.

Societies are like one big, endless game of Scissors/Paper/Stone played over a
slow connection: everyone has boundless opportunities to cheat, but either by
training, habit, morality, or good analysis, they almost always take the high
road. Because if only say 1% start to think only in terms of self-advancement,
they, and everyone else, will soon run out of partners to play.

~~~
emmelaich
Indeed, without _some_ trust bureaucracies can do as much harm as good.

With total trust you don't need rules in fact. And bureaucracy would function
merely as an info broker and agent.

Back to the original meaning of bureaucracy!

