Apr 01, 2020 20:00:00

Is it easy for you to think that 'winners' are their strengths, not 'luck or chance, but your ability?'

There are people who have made efforts to achieve a high position, and the idea is that it is due to luck, which is due to the talent that they have had by chance and the environment in which they can work. The sociological research team at

Cornell University in New York is about whether it is easy to assume that 'winners' with wealth and fame are not aware of such inequalities such as luck and ability and that 'my success is due to my ability' 'Is the winner of the structured game able to see through the fact that 'this game was unfair'?'

It's not just how the game is played, it's whether you win or lose | Science Advances
https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/7/eaau1156

As an experiment, the sociology research team at Cornell University asked the subjects to play a simple two-player card game 'Swap'. In the swap, two players are dealt nine random cards, and each player alternately gives out a card with a higher number than the cards in play. The point is that the first player can put out a card of any number on the field. If you don't have a card with a number larger than the field card in your hand, declare a 'pass'. If one player declares a pass, the player throws a card in the field, the other player puts the card he/she likes from the hand again into the field, then plays another card with a higher number, and finally the hand first. The winner is the one with no.

In the experiment, we will add two points to this 'swap game'. First, player A, who is the first turn, can put the card into play first in all seven rounds. At the very beginning, any card can be put into play, so the first move has a considerable advantage.

And at the start of the next round, there will be a 'Regressive Extension'. This means that the winner of Round 1 exchanges the two cards with the lowest number (weak) in his hand for two random numbers, and the loser of Round 1 has the two cards with the highest number (strong) in his hand. Will be exchanged for 2 random cards. In most cases, the winner of the previous round will have a stronger hand, and the loser of the previous round will have a weaker hand. Contrary to the 'progressive exchange,' which penalizes the strong and gives support to the weak, it is a rule in which the strong become stronger and continue to win, and the weak become weaker and difficult to reverse. In addition, the exchanged cards will be public information, so strategic advantages and disadvantages will be clear.

After completing all seven rounds, the player has undergone a three-item survey. The normative question of whether the game was fair, the perception of where the inequality was, if any, and the emotional reaction of satisfaction. Together, a hearing was conducted as to what are the most and least important factors that determine the outcome of the game.

In most cases, the first player kept winning. Players who took the initiative and won the game with favorable conditions responded to the questionnaire survey that the game was inequality, such as 'This game was fair in principle' and 'It was due to my skill that I won (defeated)' He said that he answered twice as many answers that he was unaware of, compared to the losers.

The paper sees the winner as being sensitive to the reallocation of fairness, which says 'if the game is unfair, then the prize money earned should be shared.' In this way, the so-called “winners” are less likely to notice the inequality that they are starting from a favorable situation, and with Bill Gates, the asset owners who appealed for equality by calling for tax increases to the wealthy people The name is called ' Warren Buffett effect'.

While making the results of this experiment meaningful, the paper states that 'the dissatisfaction with game inequality may come from the perspective that the game should be fair rather than inequality itself.' It may be considered that the game is bad because there is little intervention and difficult to reverse,'' he said, it is necessary to be careful to draw conclusions of socioeconomic inequality from the results of card games. ..