- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
What are some ways you see "inequity aversion" play out in real life?
Posted on 4/19/25 at 8:38 pm
Posted on 4/19/25 at 8:38 pm
quote:
Inequity aversion refers to the human tendency to dislike situations where resources are distributed unequally, even if they are in a favorable position. This preference for fairness and resistance to inequality can lead individuals to make choices that benefit others even at a personal cost, according to a study by Fehr and Schmidt.
Key aspects of inequity aversion:
Disadvantageous Inequity Aversion:
This refers to the tendency to dislike situations where others receive more than oneself, even if one is already receiving a fair or high reward.
Advantageous Inequity Aversion:
This refers to the tendency to dislike situations where one receives more than others, even if the inequality is favorable to oneself.
Social Comparison:
Inequity aversion is often seen as a result of social comparison, where individuals assess their outcomes relative to others.
Experimental Games:
Inequity aversion has been studied extensively through experimental games like dictator, ultimatum, and trust games.
Real-World Applications:
The concept of inequity aversion has been applied to various real-world scenarios, including business and marketing, such as understanding consumer responses to exclusive price promotions.
Example: In the Ultimatum Game, a player (the proposer) is given a sum of money and can propose how to divide it with another player (the receiver). If the receiver rejects the proposal, neither player receives anything. Individuals with inequity aversion, especially those with advantageous inequity aversion, might reject a proposal even if it offers them a personal gain, if they perceive it as unfairly advantageous compared to the receiver.
In essence, inequity aversion highlights the human preference for fairness and the desire to avoid situations where inequality seems unjust, as explained in a paper by Fehr and Schmidt.
One example that comes to mind for me is NIL. I think many people were in favor of college athletes being compensated in some form for universities making millions off their efforts, but now that these students are being paid obscene amounts of money and turning mercenary, a sizeable number of fans would rather see college sports collapse, even if they, too, lose out as fans.
12
Posted on 4/19/25 at 9:17 pm to shutterspeed
That's enough student loans for you to inject critical theory nonsense, you're cut off.
Posted on 4/19/25 at 9:30 pm to calcotron
quote:
game theory
Posted on 4/19/25 at 9:35 pm to shutterspeed
I don’t know what version it would be but I don’t really care for the nepotistic hiring practices at the local mill. I feel like it’s created two classes of people. It also ruins the aesthetic of the town. I also know it probably allows a lot of money to flow through the town which is a good thing. It just doesn’t benefit me because I don’t have the familial connections to work there.
Posted on 4/19/25 at 9:51 pm to shutterspeed
quote:
think many people were in favor of college athletes being compensated in some form for universities making millions off their efforts
Maybe, but they got lied to that scholarships weren’t really compensation…
It seems like “inequity aversion” is a bleeding heart liberal thing. It doesn’t do me any good to begrudge Lebron James’ billion dollars for being better at basketball than me. He earned it
Posted on 4/19/25 at 10:17 pm to chalmetteowl
quote:
It seems like “inequity aversion” is a bleeding heart liberal thing.
It can but it doesn't have to be. You can take a number of sides. For example, If you're a taxpayer perceiving many able-bodied, non-working adults receiving government subsidies that you don't qualify for, would you rather receive a smaller portion of the subsidies or eliminate them altogether?
Posted on 4/19/25 at 10:41 pm to shutterspeed
quote:
One example that comes to mind for me is NIL. I think many people were in favor of college athletes being compensated in some form for universities making millions off their efforts, but now that these students are being paid obscene amounts of money and turning mercenary, a sizeable number of fans would rather see college sports collapse, even if they, too, lose out as fans.
They had a right to get paid. I had a right to not like the product as much. Free market
Posted on 4/19/25 at 11:13 pm to shutterspeed
Is this some of that new-fangled sociology nonsense where Marxist dimwits try to make people feel bad about being a little more prosperous than the next sap in the rat race?
Posted on 4/19/25 at 11:30 pm to Saint Alfonzo
It's more about how people and animals react when confronted with a perceived lack of fairness at play and why such behaviors evolved among social groups. Also touches on altruism and how people behave toward groups anonymously. The research can be interpreted for many different purposes. I'm more interested in the psychology behind why people tend to do what they do. Experiments that have students, employees, etc anonymously redistribute or veto benefits within a particular framework for the group are especially interesting to me.
This post was edited on 4/19/25 at 11:30 pm
Posted on 4/20/25 at 5:48 am to shutterspeed
I seem to recall seeing a TV program about chimps sharing food and resources. The idea is that sharing benefits the group as a whole which in turn benefits the individual.
Posted on 4/20/25 at 6:13 am to Saint Alfonzo
quote:
Is this some of that new-fangled sociology nonsense where Marxist dimwits try to make people feel bad about being a little more prosperous than the next sap in the rat race?
Whether intended or not, it certainly sounds like some therapist made up "affliction" that condones, or at least excuses, those in favor of wealth redistribution. A "scientific" reason. We must "trust the science". Sure seems Marxist to me.
Posted on 4/20/25 at 6:23 am to shutterspeed
It’s unsurprising that nobody likes to get the short end of the stick.
The first example that came to mind for me of the other direction is golf. If you’re good at golf and playing someone who says they’re a -12 handicap but you know that’s bs and they’re more of a -18, you’d give them more strokes to keep the round fun. I don’t know if that’s considered altruism, because you’re benefitting as much as the high handicapper.
It’s a different story if meaningful amounts of money are involved. Easily replenishable ‘things’? Sure. But IMO if real money is involved in any situation, this whole theory goes out the window.
The first example that came to mind for me of the other direction is golf. If you’re good at golf and playing someone who says they’re a -12 handicap but you know that’s bs and they’re more of a -18, you’d give them more strokes to keep the round fun. I don’t know if that’s considered altruism, because you’re benefitting as much as the high handicapper.
It’s a different story if meaningful amounts of money are involved. Easily replenishable ‘things’? Sure. But IMO if real money is involved in any situation, this whole theory goes out the window.
Posted on 4/20/25 at 6:33 am to Gee Grenouille
I don't like nepotism in any form, and it's hard for me to look past it.
This is probably due to father-figure/male role model issues or seeing most family in and out of jail. I never had a single connection that was worth anything until I was in HS and I befriended people who had those connections. I remember making friends with well connected people and I was shocked. A town of 50k and it was like these people lived in a completely different world.
It made me see the value in connections, but seeing some of the people in that world, most of them great people, some of them were wholly undeserving of the opportunities they had. At least that was my first thought before I realized the word "deserve" is almost meaningless. There is and there isn't and it has little to do with merit.
Nobody does anything alone, but some people get a fantastic head start. And as much as it makes me feel like a hypocrite to say, because nepotism does make me extremely bitter, being born in a country with running water and a functioning sewage system puts you ahead of 80% of people on Earth.
This is probably due to father-figure/male role model issues or seeing most family in and out of jail. I never had a single connection that was worth anything until I was in HS and I befriended people who had those connections. I remember making friends with well connected people and I was shocked. A town of 50k and it was like these people lived in a completely different world.
It made me see the value in connections, but seeing some of the people in that world, most of them great people, some of them were wholly undeserving of the opportunities they had. At least that was my first thought before I realized the word "deserve" is almost meaningless. There is and there isn't and it has little to do with merit.
Nobody does anything alone, but some people get a fantastic head start. And as much as it makes me feel like a hypocrite to say, because nepotism does make me extremely bitter, being born in a country with running water and a functioning sewage system puts you ahead of 80% of people on Earth.
Posted on 4/20/25 at 6:40 am to shutterspeed
Watching your CEO get a 23% raise when the entire company was only given a baseline raise to average 2%.
Why the raise - “great” company performance
why did the staff only get 2% - poor company performance.
Why the raise - “great” company performance
why did the staff only get 2% - poor company performance.
Posted on 4/20/25 at 6:51 am to shutterspeed
quote:
It's more about how people and animals react when confronted with a perceived lack of fairness at play and why such behaviors evolved among social groups. Also touches on altruism and how people behave toward groups anonymously. The research can be interpreted for many different purposes. I'm more interested in the psychology behind why people tend to do what they do. Experiments that have students, employees, etc anonymously redistribute or veto benefits within a particular framework for the group are especially interesting to me.
So like I said, a bunch of sociology bullshite.
Posted on 4/20/25 at 6:58 am to shutterspeed
If I have a full cart at the grocery store check-out, I will let someone behind me who only has a few items pay for my groceries.
Posted on 4/20/25 at 7:05 am to chalmetteowl
quote:
Maybe, but they got lied to that scholarships weren’t really compensation…
Yes, I always had a huge issue with this. The argument being a scholarship wasn't real money. Which is and was preposterous.
Posted on 4/20/25 at 7:13 am to shutterspeed
quote:
Game Theory
The problem with pop psychology, the beloved discipline of those born after 1995, is that it is too often a rebranding of older better ideas.
Game theory is an paraphrase of Husserl’s Throwness Doctrine. Throwness is the hypothesis that we are thrown into a world with predetermined outcomes and processes. Don’t hate the player hate the game. He didn’t make the game he just plays it.
Posted on 4/20/25 at 7:21 am to chalmetteowl
quote:Scholarships are the jelly of the month club to many athletes. Sure, they are "compensation," but not the compensation they want, and not a fair representation of their revenue-producing value (at least for many G4 FB and MBB players).
Maybe, but they got lied to that scholarships weren’t really compensation…
Posted on 4/20/25 at 9:28 am to Gravitiger
quote:
Sure, they are "compensation," but not the compensation they want, and not a fair representation of their revenue-producing value (at least for many G4 FB and MBB players).
I guess society is no longer allowed to have “take it or leave it” offers… who cares if it’s not what they want? They could just choose to not play college sports and someone else could fill that spot
It’s a fair representation of their value because the pool of willing players in that age group at big universities is endless. Since there never has been a college players Union, they haven’t been able to band together and negotiate the benefits they think they want. If such a union was formed, colleges would be within their rights to shut it all down. In the real world thats what happens if a union gets too egregious
This post was edited on 4/20/25 at 9:38 am
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News