"..according to a study I just came across, voters have no idea how unequal their country is, whether inequality has been rising or falling, or where they are in the income distribution. It’s hard to see how rising inequality could shape political outcomes if nobody is aware of it. Am I missing something?"
Yes, I think you are missing things. I think inequality can easily affect politics without citizens having clear ideas about levels of inequality.
At a macro level, one way it can happen is for inequality to impact on asset prices (super rich people = high demand for assets with good returns). This can in turn make, for instance, house prices more expensive than people think they should be. That can be a political issue in and of itself, and can also trigger overt populism, if populists start blame immigrants etc for rising house prices.
At a micro level, people may not have any clear idea of levels of inequality but they can perceive, even if only tacitly, that some people have much, much more than they do. And they might quickly infer attitudes of snobbery etc even if those attitudes are not actually present. The perception that "they look down on us" can easily impact politics in turn.
I’d buy this story if there was evidence for the inequality —> housing prices —> perceived changes in housing prices —> political attitudes (e.g., blaming immigrants). Do you know of any? (Incidentally this would be a better argument for deregulating the housing market—which would have a much more direct effect on housing prices—than it would be for reducing inequality). And yes, there is certainly evidence that people envy and resent people who are richer or higher-status than them. But I don’t see evidence that increasing or decreasing inequality (as opposed to simply getting people to act less snooty) would have much of an impact on this basic aspect of our psychology.
Meh! Burden of proof isn’t with me :) That is, I’m not saying the above hypotheses are right (although I think they have good plausibility). Just, your question seemed to imply that if people aren’t aware of levels of inequality then it would be surprising if levels of inequality shaped politics. I think that logical leap is too fast, and I was just sketching some ways that A could cause B.
Thanks for that. Enjoyed the CW interview. AI Doomerism was magisterial. (maybe you will like Hinton's recent talks? - him throwing darts at lifetime of his detractors is never not fun 😂) Amused to read Shakespeare used as example, 😊 as for me the S-predicament is literal: I find Shakespeare impossibly boring. Almost everything about my adopted UK/British/English culture I like or love. Shakespeare being the one exception. (tbf theatre is not something I find super interesting in general)
Perhaps populism is caused by a combination of rising employment precarity, failure to achieve life goals your parents achieved much earlier in life, and perceived injustice. Favoring blacks, gays, immigrants etc. over poor hardworking citizens can be perceived as injustice and may have a higher weight than inequality.
Interesting, enjoyable article as always. And I appreciate for the shout-out for my CBSR paper! If I could ask a favor, though. The link to my Corporate BS Receptivity scale goes to an old version of the paper from 8 months ago. Could you replace it with the link to the most recent version? It contains substantial changes compared to the older one. https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/gfn85_v4
Found you here thanks to this interview. Didn't know you were the creator of cards against humanity (so many fun times). When I heard you referencing Daniel Dennett's Deepities, and your discussion around happiness (I have a master's in applied positive psychology), I had to subscribe to learn more. Happy to find you & I appreciate all you're doing!
“We suggest that most theories about political effects of inequality need to be reframed as theories about effects of perceived inequality.”
I find this easy to buy. Wasn’t there a survey going around 10 years ago where Americans actually *perceived* that their society was more egalitarian than in actuality? I wonder if anyone has recently replicated that work?
The trouble with statements like Shakespeare is the greatest writer is that he has such a cultural reputation that people are reluctant to criticize him. His output and influence on later writers make it tough to say he is not actually that great. But some of his plays are pretty mediocre. Other writers have written better plays so it’s literally not true that he’s the best. I think it would be better to say that despite his obsolete language and subject matter, he still tells amazing stories and has coined a lot of expressions we still use. Thanks for a thoughtful piece 😎
Oof - preach more! V.glad to read of another soul that finds his plays not that impressive. 😁 I found most of them boring, not that big a deal. I'm not saying he's unimportant. I trust others judgement that he is. Just that I was personally unimpressed by the plays, and esp given the hype.
I am assuming medieval peasants in various uprisings and 18th century French revolutionaries did not have access to sophisticated statistical analyses of social inequality in their milieus and yet somehow it does seem to have impacted their political behavior.
"Ego" isn't even a word in "Eastern spirituality". Buddhism don't care about virtue, wisdom, or " ego". Buddhism care about one thing and one thing only: the end of suffering. And yeah, It is probably a game, but surely not a status game.
Regarding AI "superpersuasion" -- "persuasion" (in the sense they use it in that paper) is bullshit. (Remember that opinion is bullshit, and arguing is bullshit.) People don't really change opinions based on reading 200-word one-off texts. If this was a thing, I'd expect there to be human superpersuaders that work in such a cramped medium, but really there aren't. We have people with super math ability, super writing ability, super chess ability, etc.; and such people are readily identified. If there were read-a-paragraph superpersuaders, we'd know.
I think AI will be kind of superpersuasive, in that it will employ tactics that actually persuade people, in particular the sense that a belief is high status or at least popular. So, AI could be superpersuasive in the following ways: that it can blanket the entire landscape of mass media (and also not-so-mass media) with its chosen memes. That it may be really funny and/or really fun to watch perform. (Cf. Trump.) That it can offer up high status references to support its arguments. That it can fill a medium with arguments much faster than humans (that is, superhuman writing speed, which it already has.) That in a one-to-one conversation, it can personalize arguments to each and every one of us.
"..according to a study I just came across, voters have no idea how unequal their country is, whether inequality has been rising or falling, or where they are in the income distribution. It’s hard to see how rising inequality could shape political outcomes if nobody is aware of it. Am I missing something?"
Yes, I think you are missing things. I think inequality can easily affect politics without citizens having clear ideas about levels of inequality.
At a macro level, one way it can happen is for inequality to impact on asset prices (super rich people = high demand for assets with good returns). This can in turn make, for instance, house prices more expensive than people think they should be. That can be a political issue in and of itself, and can also trigger overt populism, if populists start blame immigrants etc for rising house prices.
At a micro level, people may not have any clear idea of levels of inequality but they can perceive, even if only tacitly, that some people have much, much more than they do. And they might quickly infer attitudes of snobbery etc even if those attitudes are not actually present. The perception that "they look down on us" can easily impact politics in turn.
I’d buy this story if there was evidence for the inequality —> housing prices —> perceived changes in housing prices —> political attitudes (e.g., blaming immigrants). Do you know of any? (Incidentally this would be a better argument for deregulating the housing market—which would have a much more direct effect on housing prices—than it would be for reducing inequality). And yes, there is certainly evidence that people envy and resent people who are richer or higher-status than them. But I don’t see evidence that increasing or decreasing inequality (as opposed to simply getting people to act less snooty) would have much of an impact on this basic aspect of our psychology.
Meh! Burden of proof isn’t with me :) That is, I’m not saying the above hypotheses are right (although I think they have good plausibility). Just, your question seemed to imply that if people aren’t aware of levels of inequality then it would be surprising if levels of inequality shaped politics. I think that logical leap is too fast, and I was just sketching some ways that A could cause B.
Thanks for that. Enjoyed the CW interview. AI Doomerism was magisterial. (maybe you will like Hinton's recent talks? - him throwing darts at lifetime of his detractors is never not fun 😂) Amused to read Shakespeare used as example, 😊 as for me the S-predicament is literal: I find Shakespeare impossibly boring. Almost everything about my adopted UK/British/English culture I like or love. Shakespeare being the one exception. (tbf theatre is not something I find super interesting in general)
Perhaps populism is caused by a combination of rising employment precarity, failure to achieve life goals your parents achieved much earlier in life, and perceived injustice. Favoring blacks, gays, immigrants etc. over poor hardworking citizens can be perceived as injustice and may have a higher weight than inequality.
Interesting, enjoyable article as always. And I appreciate for the shout-out for my CBSR paper! If I could ask a favor, though. The link to my Corporate BS Receptivity scale goes to an old version of the paper from 8 months ago. Could you replace it with the link to the most recent version? It contains substantial changes compared to the older one. https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/gfn85_v4
Happy to update the link, but when I click on this one it says "page not found."
Huh, that's weird. No idea why it's doing that (could be because I privated the rest of the project files for blinded review? Or PsyArxiv just sucks). This one works, tho: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/382308213_The_Corporate_Bullshit_Receptivity_Scale_Development_validation_and_associations_with_workplace_outcomes
Thanks, it is now updated.
Found you here thanks to this interview. Didn't know you were the creator of cards against humanity (so many fun times). When I heard you referencing Daniel Dennett's Deepities, and your discussion around happiness (I have a master's in applied positive psychology), I had to subscribe to learn more. Happy to find you & I appreciate all you're doing!
“We suggest that most theories about political effects of inequality need to be reframed as theories about effects of perceived inequality.”
I find this easy to buy. Wasn’t there a survey going around 10 years ago where Americans actually *perceived* that their society was more egalitarian than in actuality? I wonder if anyone has recently replicated that work?
https://www.npr.org/2010/10/07/130395070/americans-underestimate-u-s-wealth-inequality
The trouble with statements like Shakespeare is the greatest writer is that he has such a cultural reputation that people are reluctant to criticize him. His output and influence on later writers make it tough to say he is not actually that great. But some of his plays are pretty mediocre. Other writers have written better plays so it’s literally not true that he’s the best. I think it would be better to say that despite his obsolete language and subject matter, he still tells amazing stories and has coined a lot of expressions we still use. Thanks for a thoughtful piece 😎
Oof - preach more! V.glad to read of another soul that finds his plays not that impressive. 😁 I found most of them boring, not that big a deal. I'm not saying he's unimportant. I trust others judgement that he is. Just that I was personally unimpressed by the plays, and esp given the hype.
I am assuming medieval peasants in various uprisings and 18th century French revolutionaries did not have access to sophisticated statistical analyses of social inequality in their milieus and yet somehow it does seem to have impacted their political behavior.
Yes it was very vibe driven in the olden days! No data analysis needed , just bust out your pitchforks and revolt 😆
"Ego" isn't even a word in "Eastern spirituality". Buddhism don't care about virtue, wisdom, or " ego". Buddhism care about one thing and one thing only: the end of suffering. And yeah, It is probably a game, but surely not a status game.
Regarding AI "superpersuasion" -- "persuasion" (in the sense they use it in that paper) is bullshit. (Remember that opinion is bullshit, and arguing is bullshit.) People don't really change opinions based on reading 200-word one-off texts. If this was a thing, I'd expect there to be human superpersuaders that work in such a cramped medium, but really there aren't. We have people with super math ability, super writing ability, super chess ability, etc.; and such people are readily identified. If there were read-a-paragraph superpersuaders, we'd know.
I think AI will be kind of superpersuasive, in that it will employ tactics that actually persuade people, in particular the sense that a belief is high status or at least popular. So, AI could be superpersuasive in the following ways: that it can blanket the entire landscape of mass media (and also not-so-mass media) with its chosen memes. That it may be really funny and/or really fun to watch perform. (Cf. Trump.) That it can offer up high status references to support its arguments. That it can fill a medium with arguments much faster than humans (that is, superhuman writing speed, which it already has.) That in a one-to-one conversation, it can personalize arguments to each and every one of us.