Thread by @s_r_constantin

overcomingbias.com/2019/05/simple… @robinhanson's explanation for why people prefer discretion to simple rules is overconfidence -- everyone assumes *they'd* be the one to have special pull with decision-makers, or wants to pretend they are. "Let's play fair" is a loser's position.

I can think of alternative explanations though.
1.) Low trust: nobody believes a "fair" rule would actually be applied fairly, they aren't considering the possibility of a genuinely impartial rule (and sometimes they're right)

2.) Ignorance or lack of intelligence: the idea of fair, impartial rules is a bit abstract, and has to be taught, and not everybody gets taught and not everybody copes well with abstraction.

(I sometimes think that if civics isn't taught in schools people will eventually grow up without actually grokking the idea of "checks on power" being a good thing *independent* of who's in power.)

3.) Power. Often we have a discretionary rather than rule-based system not because *most* people like it that way, but because the *powerful* people like it that way. (as @TheZvi also said.) It's TurboTax lobbyists, not regular people, who prevent automatic tax filing.

4.) Price discrimination. Often, you can get a better deal if you ask for a favor (or bargain) face to face than if you follow procedure. The average person isn't overconfidently estimating their charm: they're *correct* that askers do better than nonaskers on average.

Orgs may rationally choose to allow "squeaky wheels" to get favors because they care more. So, e.g. airlines give their customer service reps leeway to offer discounts, so they can charge the price-insensitive people more than the hagglers.

5.) "Copenhagen interpretation of ethics" = condemnation of intentional but not unintentional harm. This makes some sense as a legal standard, but it's crazy when you expand it to policy, as many do.

Most people prefer policies with large, harmful unintended consequences over policies which explicitly admit to causing some, smaller harms. This seems like a result of confusing the question of "would this be a good world to live in?" with "should these people be punished?"

6.) There's a weird thing where justice/rationality/impersonal principle is coded as "mean" while making exceptions is coded as "nice." A "judgmental" person is one who makes *harsh* judgments -- even though judgments can be good as well as bad.

This may just be loss aversion or pessimistic bias: the fear of being punished for our failings is more salient than the hope of being rewarded for our merits.