经济与社会科学2022science.org
平等受阻于“平等会损害优势群体”的误判
Equality is prevented by the misperception that it harms advantaged groups
入门 · 约 45 分钟读完前置知识：社会心理学基础、实验设计基础
导读
这篇论文研究为什么促进平等的政策难以推行，核心假设是：优势群体误以为平等化政策会损害自身利益，从而加以阻挠。作者通过多组实验让被试阅读向弱势群体增加资源、同时不减少优势群体资源的政策描述，发现纠正这种'零和'误解后，人们对平等政策的支持度会提高。
HN 关注点：HN 读者围绕'平等政策是否真的是非零和'展开激烈争论，不少人质疑实验设计预设了结论、数据呈现方式有误导性。
HN 评论精选
这几条评论里：质疑 3 补充 1
质疑质疑实验预设'不损害优势群体'的前提不成立，额外资源必有成本
你不能直接宣称某个局面不是零和的，然后指望被试相信你。这项研究恰恰就是这么做的：在研究 1 到 5 中，被试阅读各种促进平等的政策——给弱势群体（如拉丁裔、残障人士、女性、重刑犯释放人员）提供额外资源（如工资和工作），同时不改变优势群体（白人、无残障者、男性、非重刑犯）获得的资源。可问题是：支付这些额外工资和工作岗位的钱到底从哪来？
teakettle42查看英文原文
You can’t simply declare a zero-sum situation to not be, and then expect your study participants to believe you. That’s what this study did: > In studies 1 to 5, participants read various equality-enhancing policies that would provide additional resources (e.g., salary and jobs) to a disadvantaged group (e.g., Latino Americans, people with a disability, women, and ex-felons) without changing the resources provided to the advantaged ingroup (e.g., white Americans, people without a disability, men, and non-felons). Where, exactly, does the money to pay for their additional salary and jobs come from?
质疑指出论文引用数据不合常理、未按人口归一化，且把政策误述为帕累托改进
论文称种族不平等使美国经济损失约 16 万亿美元 GDP，但美国 GDP 总量才约 21 万亿美元，这数字看起来不可信。另外，给被试看的差距描述中，白人购房者获得约 3864 亿美元房贷而拉丁裔仅约 126 亿美元，却根本不按人口比例归一化。而'将拉丁裔房贷总额增加 73 亿美元、白人不变'被当作不损害优势群体的'促进平等政策'，这被错误地包装成帕累托改进——房贷总量变化显然会影响房价，通胀可不是不存在。
cato_the_elder查看英文原文
> Racial inequality costs the U.S. economy an estimated $16 trillion in lost gross domestic product (GDP) The entirety of US GDP is about $21 trillion. Based on that, this just looks implausible. > "According to a recent report, in 2018, White homebuyers received roughly $386.4 billion in mortgage loans from banks, while Latino homebuyers only received around $12.6 billion in mortgage loans overall" So in the "descriptions of the disparity" given to the participants, they don't even bother to normalize by population. > "Several banks propose increasing the total amount of mortgage loans to Latino homebuyers by $7.3 billion and not changing the total amount of mortgage loan funding to White homebuyers" They use this as both an example of an "equality-enhancing policy", which doesn't "harm advantaged groups". But they are misrepresenting this as a Pareto improvement. Changing the amount of loans offered obviously effects the price of homes. Inflation be damned.
质疑认为论文混淆了机会平等与结果平等，用结果定义平等本身就有争议
问题在于用结果来定义平等，这本身就有争议、并无共识。我认为多数人会认同追求机会平等是普遍目标（尽管难以衡量、也许不可能完全实现），而许多人认为拉平结果更像反乌托邦噩梦。当今世界，机会平等、公平（equity）和结果平等常常被混为一谈。
roody15查看英文原文
The problem is using outcomes to describe equality. This in and of itself is controversial and not agreed upon (IMO). I suggest that most humans would agree striving for equal opportunity is a universal goal (although hard to measure and perhaps impossible to fully achieve) I suggest that many humans see equalized outcomes as more a dystopian nightmare. In todays world it seems equal opportunity, equity.. and equalized outcomes often conflated with one another.
补充用常春藤录取数据佐证'优势群体误判受损而阻挠平等'，同时指出研究对优势群体的定义可能影响结论
这可以解释为何拒绝为非犹太裔白人保留部分常春藤录取名额——亚裔和犹太学生误以为会损害自己利益而加以阻止。参考 2019 年数据：犹太学生占常春藤 17.2%（美国人口 2.4%，比值 7.16），亚裔 19.6%（5.3%，比值 3.71），非犹太白人 33.1%（59.1%，比值 0.56）。不过该研究对'优势群体'的定义与此很不同，不知道这是否会影响结果，值得做后续研究对比。有趣的是，亚裔相对拉丁裔和黑人学生有 173 和 250 分的 SAT 优势并因此受益，而非犹太白人虽有 98 和 175 分的优势却奇怪地毫无帮助。
car_analogy查看英文原文
This explains the refusal to set aside some Ivy League admissions for non-Jewish whites - Asian and Jewish students misperceive that they would be harmed, and so they prevent it. For reference, the non-international student body of the Ivy League, circa 2019 (source: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30338742): Ivy League US ratio mean SAT* Jewish 17.2% 2.4% 7.16 n/a Asian 19.6% 5.3% 3.71 1216 White (incl. Jewish) 50.3% 61.5% 0.82 1148 Hispanic 11.4% 17.6% 0.65 1043 Black 7.8% 12.7% 0.61 966 White (non-Jewish) 33.1% 59.1% 0.56 ~1141 On the other hand, the study defined "advantaged group" very differently. I wonder if this would affect their results? They should do a follow-up study and compare. *Source: https://www.ednc.org/eraceing-inequities-the-influence-of-race-on-sat-scores/ - estimate for non-Jewish white SAT calculated by assuming the Jewish score is a generous 200 points higher, and adjusting that they are only ~4% of all white students. I.e. the true value is likely closer to 1148. While Asian students benefit greatly from their 173- and 250-point leads over Hispanic and Black students, non-Jewish whites are, bizarrely, not helped at all by 98- and 175-point leads over those groups.
相关资源
从这篇论文所有 HN 讨论帖的全部评论里整理出来的链接。
历次讨论
- 2022Hacker News 讨论帖210 分 · 404 评
同领域还值得读
一切的回报率，1870–2015
The Rate of Return on Everything, 1870–2015
利用1870–2015年多国的长期数据，估算股票、住房等各类资本的回报率，并将其与经济增长率进行比较。
经济与社会科学2019 · 487 分 · 260 评进阶 · 约 100 分钟编辑精选一切资产的回报率，1870–2015
The Rate of Return on Everything, 1870–2015
构建了 1870–2015 年 16 个国家的长周期资产回报数据集，覆盖股票、住房、政府债券和短期票据，系统比较各类资产的真实回报与波动性。
经济与社会科学2018 · 215 分 · 151 评进阶 · 约 120 分钟编辑精选一切资产的回报率，1870–2015（2019）
The Rate of Return on Everything, 1870–2015 (2019)
这篇发表于《经济学季刊》的论文构建了 1870–2015 年间 16 个主要发达国家的股票、债券、房地产等资产收益率的长周期数据库。
经济与社会科学2024 · 190 分 · 148 评进阶 · 约 80 分钟编辑精选想法是否越来越难找？
Are ideas getting harder to find?
探讨“想法是否越来越难找到”：通过衡量多个领域的“研究生产率”，发现维持相同的增长需要投入指数级增长的研究资源，即研究效率在持续下降。
经济与社会科学2016 · 182 分 · 106 评入门 · 约 60 分钟编辑精选比特币与区块链的经济极限
The Economic Limits of Bitcoin and the Blockchain
芝加哥大学 Eric Budish 的论文从经济学角度分析比特币与区块链的根本限制：核心论点是只要攻击网络（双花或砸盘做空）的收益超过挖矿成本，51% 算力攻击就有利可图，而挖矿…
经济与社会科学2018 · 176 分 · 37 评进阶 · 约 90 分钟编辑精选