Comments on: Looking Too Good

By: Jordan

Jordan — Tue, 10 Aug 2010 17:39:24 +0000

I like luzhin’s explanation more. Maybe being the type of guy who will let co-workers treat you like dirt also gives you a good work ethic. We need a little more useful prediction before we can put this to rest as actual evidence of anything.

By: luzhin

luzhin — Wed, 04 Aug 2010 18:04:00 +0000

alternative hypothesis: those most likely to become the most competent at explicit rule-based and/or procedural tasks are those least likely to internalize and observe the complex web of implicit social norms regulating interpersonal relationships. this post displays the same sort of naive reasoning that leads clever Nerds to erroneously conclude that their peers dislike them because they're good at solving math problems.

By: lemmy caution

lemmy caution — Mon, 02 Aug 2010 21:28:17 +0000

The company was Lincoln Electric. The workers trusted the company due to past behaviour. I can’t find the whole story on it in “managerial dilemmas” from google books or amazon search, but some of the things it did was:

-no layoffs in recessions
-high level of worker input on governance
-big bonus pool

By: Oligopsony

Oligopsony — Mon, 02 Aug 2010 21:01:14 +0000

Do you recall how they were able to send that signal? Direct contracts, union representation in managerial decisions…?

By: lemmy caution

lemmy caution — Mon, 02 Aug 2010 19:35:17 +0000

According to the book “Managerial Dilemmas”, If the workers become more productive, the bosses will just reduce the piece rate making the workers worse off.

The bosses generally can not credibly signal that they won’t lower the piece rate. The book mentioned one company that was able to signal that the piece rate would remain stable and the workers became very productive and paid more than most of the managers.

By: TGGP

TGGP — Mon, 02 Aug 2010 05:59:42 +0000

Though I myself am a rabid carnivore, I think this explains some of the animosity vegetarians (and environmentalists/hippies/Jesus-freaks) get. James D. Miller, I think the literature on the subect commonly references the "social capital" tradeoff faced by Italian-American youths of the past. daedalus2u, don't revolutions tend to result from disaffected intelligentsia? One common framing (admittedly on the internet, from marginal figures) I've heard of the Bolshevik revolution was that it was class warfare of the intelligentsia against the peasantry! Later on revolutions do tend to "eat their own" because those near the top are viewed as possible threats. About U.S animosity: the IR theory of "balancing" is that rather than a "bandwagon effect", nations gang up on those seen as "too big for their britches". One's views on this may depend on whether you see 20th century Germany and 19th century France as threats to world peace or upstarts against the Vampire of the Continent. daedalus2u, there was no shortage of poor people. Conservatives hate FDR because he was a very popular (four-term) liberal president who permanently changed the small-c constitution of the country. Some of them also respect him for WW2 and wish Democrats would go back to being like him, Truman & Kennedy (not that they've been antiwar since McGovern either), but I dissent from that view and dislike him for conniving the country into war.

By: Robin Hanson

Robin Hanson — Sun, 01 Aug 2010 19:50:39 +0000

People may respect you for being typically generous, i.e., as and similarly generous as many other generous people. Then they can accept you into their club, as an equal. If you are unusually generous, giving a larger fraction of your income than most do, they may well resent you for trying to make them look bad. They may retaliate by belittling you on other margins. if you give to unusual causes, and claim that your causes are much more effective than the usual causes, they may also resent you for trying to make them look bad. In this case they can belittle you by saying you are a fool for believing that your cause is that much more effective.

By: Jayson Virissimo

Jayson Virissimo — Sun, 01 Aug 2010 19:31:22 +0000

I think it is much more likely that FDR is disliked for increasing the duration of Great Depression and imprisoning Japanese people, than for “helping the poor”.

Where could I look for evidence that would verify or falsify your hypothesis?

By: daedalus2u

daedalus2u — Sun, 01 Aug 2010 18:37:08 +0000

If you want to gain status by helping the poor, if there are no poor to help because someone else has beat you to it, then your quest for status will fail.

I wonder if that is why so many conservatives hate FDR? By helping the poor to be not so destitute, he has made the “cost” of buying status through philanthropy that much more expensive.

By: andrew kieran

andrew kieran — Sun, 01 Aug 2010 17:57:51 +0000

regarding charity vis-a-vis status.

there’s a guy whose house me and my boss have been working on for the last few weeks. he’s proper minted, and he’s on the rotary committee. which is sort of a local philanthropic organisation, the members of which are all similarly rich people.

that’s all good. i don’t have a problem with the rich being rich, fair play to him. what i do have a problem with is a man who spend a great deal of time and energy getting his face in the paper to show everyone what a grand, great, big man he is, but when it comes time to pay the boys he stalls and mutters and moans.

this could indicate that he’s not concerned with what people of my social class think about him. he can’t imagine any positive impact i could have on him. but he is very concerned with appearing good and great to all the other local worthies, the people of his own social class, that he feels he could benefit from