Thank you. Finally someone said it. This was not the least bit counterintuitive to anyone familiar with randomness.
We're they trying to imply that people should assume the distribution would remain uniform?. That strikes me as more "insane" than intuitive.
It's simply a function of how the tokens are being exchanged that would almost require some actors get the short straw, and since this is happening 100 times per round, that randomness ensure some actors get progressively shorter straws over time, because randomness is neither fair, not even. It's randomness.
No, they're making a simple digital model that conclusively disproves the notion that 'because disparity in wealth exists, meritocracy exists'. Knowingly or not, that's the point being made.
If you want an even more insanely staggered distribution, let people with resources increase their chances of being given a dollar. This establishes that even in the complete absence of merit, a striking distribution will arise and stably persist, and it's created out of the mechanical behavior constraint of 'possibly being broke and having no dollar to give'. That alone creates what looks like a 'meritocracy' with 'high performers'.
Add literally any form of actual merit, and this gets more extreme still. The funny thing is, the merit-less distribution is not wildly out of line with what people think the distribution should be WITH merit.
We're they trying to imply that people should assume the distribution would remain uniform?. That strikes me as more "insane" than intuitive.
It's simply a function of how the tokens are being exchanged that would almost require some actors get the short straw, and since this is happening 100 times per round, that randomness ensure some actors get progressively shorter straws over time, because randomness is neither fair, not even. It's randomness.