
Rank-reversal aversion may be causing more social problems than we realize - pmoriarty
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/07/intriguing-experiment-reveals-a-fundamental-conflict-in-human-culture/
======
AnthonyMouse
This doesn't touch the real problem. Nobody intentionally creates a policy
that will take $20K from someone with $40K and give it to someone with $10K.
When that happens at all it's unintentional (e.g. 20 programs to transfer $1K
that weren't expected to overlap) and people who discover that outcome find it
outrageous.

Because that was never the problem with income inequality to begin with.

The problem isn't that one person makes $10,000 while another makes $40,000.
Those people are both struggling. The problem is that one person makes $10,000
(or $40,000) while another makes $10,000,000.

Reversal never even enters into it. If you took $9,900,000 of the richer
person's money and split it between 1000 poorer people, the richer person
would _still_ have more money. Even though that would imply a 99% tax rate.

~~~
Kenji
>The problem is that one person makes $10,000 (or $40,000) while another makes
$10,000,000.

Explain to me, how is that a problem. Suppose someone invents a method to make
lots of clean renewable energy very cheaply. They make a company and earn
$10,000,000. Did they not deserve the fruit of their labour? Is that a
problem?

~~~
naasking
Ignoring the 10,000 externalities your scenario completely ignores, why should
such a person enjoy any more compensation than any other job? Everyone is
enjoying the "fruits of their labour" from their wage. What makes you think
this deserves more compensation?

~~~
falcolas
> What makes you think this deserves more compensation?

The idea that we live in a meritocracy, and intelligence and novelty are
rewarded more than being a corporate drone.

We don't live in a meritocracy, but it's an ideal that many (probably a lot of
folks who work in startups) would rather push towards: replace the "lucky"
rich with the "deserving" rich.

~~~
naasking
> The idea that we live in a meritocracy, and intelligence and novelty are
> rewarded more than being a corporate drone.

But this argument assumes that financial incentives actually encourage and
yield good work. Studies have shown this to be false. When you provide
monetary incentives to achieve a goal, the outcomes are _worse_ than the
outcomes from people who pursued the same goals for no financial incentives.

Without financial incentives, people do work that gives them purpose and
meaning, which ends up helping other people more than any financially
incentivized goals.

------
interfixus
" _When the researchers tested children, they found that rank-reversal
aversion doesn 't develop until children are 6-10 years old, which suggests
that this aversion is learned culturally as the child grows up_"

" _In addition, the Tibetan herders who participated in the study had a
markedly higher level of rank-reversal aversion than other subjects. This also
suggests the trait is cultural_ "

An all too common kind of sloppy thinking, which generally kills my desire to
read any further. No such thing is suggested. The trait may be learned, or it
may be completely hardwired, kicking in action between ages six and ten.
Different populations may have evolved different inbred attitudes to equality.

~~~
danieltillett
Just like male facial hair - it doesn’t start appearing until the teenage
years so its appearance must be cultural :P

When you have a preformed ideological conclusion then logic is the first
causality in any study.

~~~
colordrops
> logic is the first causality

Probably the opposite of your intended meaning heh

~~~
danieltillett
LOL. Yes that should be casualty :)

------
humanrebar
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
_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
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
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.

------
venning
Another way of interpreting the results:

\- 76.87% of subjects accepted a 25% tax rate intended for redistribution.

\- 44.80% of subjects accepted a 50% tax rate intended for redistribution.

It's hard to infer much beyond that.

Perhaps they need to test for a larger number or more fine-grained tax levels
between 25% and 50% and see if there is indeed a step change (or other sharp
decline) in acceptability when it "reverses social order". Or if there is a
smooth distribution curve based on tax rate, not relative position.

\---

Even if you take the results as intended, that subjects were considering
social order and not tax rate, you still have to concede that this could be
about "fairness" and not "rank". It shouldn't be surprising that a majority of
people dislike redistributing more than is necessary to achieve equality. That
helps explain the results with the children. Ages 6-10 is about where they
start to understand "fairness" from the perspective of both parties [1].

Additionally, taking the tax perspective into account, "Person B" appears to
be subject to a lower tax rate than "Person A" despite ending up with more
money, which subjects would likely see as unfair.

[1] [https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2015/11/how-
fair...](https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2015/11/how-fairness-
develops-in-kids-around-the-world/416520/)

------
arieskg
Instead of overthinking and assume that people don't want to upset social
hierarchy, I suggest the researchers to take a step back and consider that
people prefer symbiotic over the antibiotic scenario. In this "game", we may
not know how A came to wealth, but we would be certain how A lost wealth.
Similarly in the second scenario, while we know B is still less wealthy
compared to A, at least B is wealthier than before. Value creation vs Value
transfer. (Entrepreneur v. Investment Banker)

~~~
caseysoftware
I was wondering about this too.. when I got to the part about how the Tibetan
herders were even more against rank reversal, it reinforced it for me.

When someone is a herder, the only way to earn wealth is by working long
hours, busting your butt day in day out, and being careful about what you
have.

I'd wager their mindset is that they know the pain, effort, and time it takes
to accumulate wealth so they're loathe to take it from someone else.

~~~
pmoriarty
_" they know the pain, effort, and time it takes to accumulate wealth so
they're loathe to take it from someone else"_

Except that the scenario was explicitly designed to make clear that the wealth
in question was _not_ a result of effort but was acquired purely randomly.

~~~
unclebucknasty
Yeah, but not sure that simple statement is enough to completely undo
generations of cultural belief/experience regarding how wealth is earned.

------
unclebucknasty
Not sure why they draw the conclusion that the aversion is about not wanting
to upset the social hierarchy. That's an amorphous statement in any case and
carries different connotations.

Seems a more succinct conclusion is that it's about fairness. Most view the
economy as a zero-sum game, and we generally measure our standing in society
relative to others. So, the idea of redistributing wealth to the point where
relative fortunes are being inverted may violate our sense of fairness.

------
failrate
I assume that it has less to do with upsetting the social hierarchy than it
does with the possibility that _my_ wealth might be redistributed to someone
else.

~~~
spaceseaman
Directly in the article:

"What's especially intriguing is that this study reveals that people didn't
like to see other people's fortunes reversed. So this isn't about selfishness
or protecting what's yours. It's some kind of fear of upsetting the hierarchy
that goes beyond greed."

The article then goes on to present possible hypothesis for this behavior.

~~~
failrate
I disagree with the thesis.

~~~
throwaway842875
This is anecdotal, but I've seen it in my own life. People treat you
completely differently if they think you come from a privileged background (or
a disadvantaged one), and one of those differences is their willingness to
grant you opportunities, and how much they're willing to pay you.

The fact that I come from a broken abusive home and a really messed up
difficult childhood is a secret I guard pretty closely. The day I started
wearing nice collared shirts and very subtly encouraging/allowing people to
assume I come from privilege like they do (like almost everyone reading this
does), I experienced an incredible reversal in career momentum. It completely
turned my life around.

Not only that, but it totally changes the calculus of what people are willing
to pay you. If someone has nothing and is desperate, that means they'll be
willing to work for less, and anything higher would be charity. Your
expectation is that they will be happier with less, and that they will be
thankful for it.

If you think someone's parents own a nice lakefront house and a yacht, and
they're young and white and wear nice shirts like you do and live in the bay,
well clearly that person wouldn't accept less than $140k base. Your
expectation is that not only will they demand fair and competitive pay, but
also that dollar figures all seem low to them because they've been around
money their whole life, so you better offer them more.

I don't know if it's as simple as "rank-reversal aversion." I think it's much
bigger and more complicated than that.

In the broadest possible terms: People as a whole profile and categorize each
other, and those categorizations are reflected in nearly every aspect of how
people interact with each other. Part of the outcome of that is a tendency to
reinforce success in the already-successful, and a tendency to reinforce
failure in the already-failing.

~~~
naasking
> The day I started wearing nice collared shirts and very subtly
> encouraging/allowing people to assume I come from privilege like they do
> (like almost everyone reading this does), I experienced an incredible
> reversal in career momentum. It completely turned my life around.

Sorry to hear that, but do you really think it's the perception of privilege?
Isn't it more likely that you just started projecting the image of a competent
pro that has his shit together, and people just responded to that? The only
way to know for sure is to maintain your image while divulging your
background. If your fortune changes, then you were right. Personally, I
suspect people will respect you even more because you're even more competent
and accomplished than your false image.

------
pizza
arrow's theorem can be used to point out problems with social rank-reversal
aversion, too, imo

~~~
tom_mellior
Can you explain?

------
beeeebo
This article makes me uncomfortable

------
logicallee
if we could only get over these pesky biases we might finally start
introducing 150% marginal tax rates and let the middle class taste life at the
upper middle class level. (by taking it from them, exchanging their places.)

as it stands the middle class really has no way of "trading places" with the
upper middle class, who can always out-earn them.

a marginal tax rate above 100% would close this loophole.

yes this comment is sarcastic.

------
mempko
Most seem to miss the bigger picture with this study. People don't like rank
in general, even when it's reversed. In other words most people, in there
heart of hearts are communists and would prefer a classes society.

~~~
barry-cotter
Egalitarianism is not Communism. Humans have had agriculture for about 5,000
years and states with hierarchy about the same amount of time. Before that
behaviourally modern humans were around for ~200,000 years. They lived in
bands and tribes that may occasionally have gotten as big as 200 people,
almost all of whom would have been either related or in a relationship with a
relative.

Humans are egalitarians and would prefer a classless society. Ants are
Communists.

On human egalitarianism

[http://www.overcomingbias.com/2012/05/forager-vs-farmer-
mora...](http://www.overcomingbias.com/2012/05/forager-vs-farmer-
morality.html)

~~~
Banthum
Humans have and have always had social status structures, reaching back into
evolutionary time. This is why such a huge portion of our psychology is
devoted to dealing with status issues.

Animals have status too. Various primates form stable status hierarchies in
their bands. Chimps are a great example. Canine species do this as well. And
other animals, too - all the way down to lobsters. Basically any animal with
any intraspecies interaction has some concept of status hierarchy.

And like the animals, humans _like_ their hierarchies - the hierarchy fulfills
a psychological need, the way being in a herd makes a herd animal feel safe.

People like knowing where they stand. They like having a role to play and
knowing others are playing their roles. Without a clear hierarchy people feel
nervous, the way a dog acts out from anxiety when the humans don't take
charge.

Some people are driven to climb the hierarchy but most just want a stable
existence somewhere in the middle of the pack where they can "camouflage
against the herd" and avoid being noticed too much.

Most people like security and dislike responsibility for hard choices. Having
others of higher status to take on those challenges absolves them of the need
to make such decisions.

Egalitarianism is definitely also a part of human nature, but it's as a
psychological counterpoint to the status hierarchy. People want the hierarchy
to exist - but they want it to seem fair and legitimate and they want people
to deserve their positions. People only dislike a hierarchy that seems
illegitimate according to their mental heuristic.

So no, humans would not prefer a classless society, and such a society can
never exist. If it existed for a moment, it'd cease to exist the next since
classes would instantly form along the various dividing lines between groups
of different personalities, proclivities and capacities. Level everyone's
wealth and you quickly just end up with the same distribution as before, as
we've seen after various bloodbaths in China, Russia, etc.

~~~
barry-cotter
Having social status structures doesn't mean having social class. I don't see
anything in what you wrote that I'm not in agreement with. Violent agreement
for all.

------
mnm1
This says nothing about why people don't support realistic measures to
alleviate income inequality which don't upset the social order. I'd say almost
all if not all realistic programs and solutions proposed do not upset said
order so why aren't they supported by over 70% of the population? Or maybe
they are and our representatives just ignore us. I'm not talking about stupid
ideas like communism but things like raising the minimum wage.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
> I'm not talking about stupid ideas like communism but things like raising
> the minimum wage.

The minimum wage is an old rally flag, but it affects the bottom 1% when the
problem is the top 1%. It's not the difference between the 1st percentile and
the 25th, it's the difference between the 25th (or even the 90th) and the
99.9th.

The policies to fix _that_ aren't the "help the poorest" ones, they're the
ones that help small businesses and help consumers. Trust busting, lower
housing costs (especially middle class housing), reducing regulatory
compliance (paperwork) costs on small business, government spending on
infrastructure, municipal fiber, patent-free basic research funding, etc.

Minimum wage is a distraction from the things that would actually help.

~~~
labster
> The minimum wage is an old rally flag, but it affects the bottom 1%

I was skeptical when you suggested that it was that small, but the most recent
Pew study says that only 2% of workers earn the federal minimum wage in the
U.S. [1] But they go on to point out that 30% of American workers earn "near-
minimum wage" i.e. ≤ $10.10/h. If minimum wage were increased to $9/h, that
would probably affect the earnings of nearly all of those people.

[1]: [http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/09/08/who-makes-
mi...](http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/09/08/who-makes-minimum-
wage/)

~~~
AnthonyMouse
That is missing the point. Even assuming all of them went from $15K/year to
$19K/year, that doesn't bring back the middle class.

It's not enough to get the people at the 5th percentile to where the people at
the 25th percentile are. We need to get the people at the 25th percentile to
where the people at the 50th percentile are now, and the people at the 50th
percentile to where the people at the 75th percentile are now etc.

Trying to lift up _only_ the bottom is what hollows out the middle. We need to
lift up the middle too.

------
log_base_login
There is a lot to be said for not wanting to piss off the people who control
the money that flows to you. I am not as certain that people would choose to
keep things the way that they are if they also weren't keenly aware (as say,
someone might especially be in China) that the State might be monitoring their
answers.

It's also very important to remember that most people who manage wealth well,
on the other hand, do so in a way that benefits those who do not, and as such
retain their responsibilities as money managers because they are one half of a
financially symbiotic system of exchange.

There are also a lot of social factors to consider that didn't necessarily
(and understandably so) make it into the studies dependent or independent
variable sets. The attractiveness of each party needs to be controlled for, as
there is a definite bias to give money to those we find attractive. The age of
someone is another control variable that needs to be accounted for, as the
elderly are generally (and correctly, generally speaking) more adept at
managing money, for how else would they have survived so long?

All in all, I think mostly what this tells us is that we are cautiously
optimistic about the belief that those who have less in our social hierarchy
are capable enough to have more, but that it's important to preserve and honor
the way in which wealth flows because it flows in a way that has kept us
progressing for millenia.

I would be much more interested in reading about _how_ much wealth they
believed should be distributed rather than simply _if_ it should. That would
give us more than a binary response from which to extrapolate data.

------
graycat
On the OP Web page, the lines commonly have about 96 characters. On my 14"
screen with a Web browser magnification that lets a whole line show at once,
the text is so small it is totally unreadable.

With more magnification from my Web browser, there are still 96 characters per
line so have to use the horizontal scroll bars twice on each line to read it.

So, since I was interested in the article, I selected all of the text, copied
it to my system clipboard, pasted it into a new e-mail in my e-mail program
that reflowed the lines and used a larger font, and then read some of the
article.

With 96 characters per line, apparently the Web site is determined, feet
locked deep in reinforced concrete, with iron-clad rigidity, to discourage as
many readers as they can.

Ah, since the OP is about psychology, the 96 characters per line and the whole
OP is really just a psychology experiment?

Curious that a Web site would want to work so hard to discourage readers.

~~~
mercer
I also find text to often be uncomfortably small. I can highly recommend using
a 'readability' or 'read later' bookmarklet (InstaPaper offers a decent one),
as it will clean things up and allow larger font sizes with one click.

~~~
graycat
I can get larger font sizes, plenty large, with just one keystroke to my Web
browser, Ctrl-+. But for the Web page I mentioed, that keystroke doesn't solve
the problem because the lines still have 96 or so characters. Then, as I
mentioned, I have to use the horizontal scroll bar twice for each line to be
read.

Apparently the default in HTML is to have the window width fixed and let
Ctrl-+ increase the font size AND reflow the text to fit in the same, fixed
window width. If the window does fit on my screen, then I can just hit Ctrl-+
a few times and have fonts nicely large so that I can lean back and read the
text. So, it takes some work in HTML and/or JavaScript to ruin this good
default behavior.

The Web page I mentioned is only one; the Web is awash with people using tiny
fonts and packing a single page with all sorts of stuff. With the layout the
page has, to have the fonts large enough to read would need a screen, say, 4
feet wide. Any wider and, then, instead of scroll bars would have to walk side
to side to read the screen.

Newspapers partially solved this problem long ago: Newspaper columns commonly
have only about 40 characters per line. For the Web, 50-60 is about the upper
limit. 96 characters per line is too many, way, Way too many, for newspapers,
books, PDF files, Web pages, or anything else.

I'd think that by now Web sites would notice that 96 characters per line was
too darned many and cut it back, permit Ctrl-+ to reflow the lines, etc.

So, I tried to make an issue of the 96 here. People with screens 4 feet wide
won't agree with me.

