vladimerk1
10 HN mentions · mentioned in 10 months, 2013–2026
0:58 · 1.7M views · Apr 13, 2012
A one-minute clip from Frans de Waal's TED talk showing two capuchin monkeys given unequal rewards (cucumber versus grape) for the same task. The monkey receiving the lesser reward reacts with protest.
HN uses it as shorthand for the innate human and primate sense of fairness in threads on pay, wealth and inequality.
10 comments from Hacker News
In other words, envy that someone else has something you want. That's all that's going on. Envy is hardwired into our ape-brains. Tests show chimpazees get resentful and angry when a neighboring chimpanzee is given a better treat than what they were given (say a grape versus a cucumber). They will shriek and throw their treat away and start jumping up and down. This is modern journalism. this video But that type of ape-morality can't support civilization, which requires large complex organizations and hirearchies. In those hirearchies, you have enormous inequality. The bigger the hierarchy, the greater the inequality. Moreover the gains in any effort are primarily driven by a small productive core. 80% of gains are provided by 20% of people. 80% of those gains are provided by 20% of those people. etc. Advancement and civilization was only possible when we obtained social technology to short-circuit the ape brain, most often religion. With religion, we are taught that the future (or past) life balances out the present life, so there are no real inequalities. We are taught to respect hierarchy and authority, be thankful for what we have, and to pray for the king. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's . Then civilization can develop. But there is always that animal-morality lurking in the background, waiting to break out in people
I mean, it seems pretty obvious, no? Wealth is concentrated and can skew the averages, but happiness, even if rated on a scale, is not particularly able to skew the number up... so as wealthy americans got spectacularly rich, pulling up the "rich" side, maybe making them equisitely happy... a more widespread shift in sentiments are pulling down the average. And a lot of this makes sense... Wealth doesn't add much happiness over a certain threshold. A naive happiness maximizing algo would probably do something like cap someone around that number and redistribute the wealth to those below it. Plus there's the monkey grape/cucumber experiment - this video ... Humans are social status sensitive, meaning we're likely to have bad feelings (and make irrational choices) when we feel our place in the herd is falling or below someone else's. Eg: People living near lottery winners are more likely to go bankrupt than similar people who don’t have a winning neighbor, presumed to be a "keeping up with the joneses" kind of issue.
The only way I've seen this been well handled is to break out the value adding concepts to "bonuses" or add'l comp for details like: "we give people and extra $24k per year if they do oncall rotation" and we give "x% more to those who work more and contribute more" otherwise once it becomes public it turns into infighting of "we're both L3s, why do they get more?" (ignoring that one of them leaves early 2-3x a week to care for their child, or is a single worker with nothing better to do than contribute and thus does more than others) ... They're simple concepts, but hard to get people to be grown ups about. this video Also people psychologically overestimate their contributions and underestimate others... Has a lot of application in both the workplace and in intimate relationships.
> "Philosophically True" because it's something repeated and believed in order to bolster a philosophical position, such that it has a truth value even if it's factually wrong because some people are just that resistant to changing their minds. I like that a lot. Also explains why people get extremely testy when you try to point out it's not factual. Because then they feel you're attacking their moral center. > If you believe that external cultural indoctrination is absolutely required for people to develop a moral sense, you have to believe that people are blank slates at birth. This is not true, in that even toddlers have a sense of fairness Reminds me of this. Capuchin monkey fairness experiment. this video
I'm always reminded of the video where one monkey is rewarded with a cucumber and one with a grape[1]. Certainly getting a cucumber is infinitely better than not having a cucumber, and yet the monkey protests. Despite having higher cognitive functions, that impulse still exists and can only be suppressed for so long and so far. No one has infinite capacity to maintain what they see as unfairness indefinitely, especially when it seems that humans make their own rules. 1. Capuchin monkey fairness experiment, total duration: 57s, this video