Are elites meritocratic and efficiency-seeking? Evidence from MBA students

> given the fact that we cannot reproduce many findings in our own field (computer science)

Sounds like we should be less generous to CS findings, not more generous to other fields. (And yes, we should be skeptical of findings in CS as well.)

> given the hardware to do so is limited to such few entities...

That said - what research is happening in CS that needs specific hardware? The theoretical stuff can still happen on chalk boards, and interesting algorithmic or technical advances tend to propagate quickly precisely because someone will reproduce them.

If you are, or consider yourself, part of the top "performers" you have a self-interest incentive to favour this because you expect to be among the "winners" and don't want to share with the "losers".

I.e., unequal earnings distribution looks better and better as you climb the social ladder because you benefit more and more. On the other hand, if you are at the bottom you may strongly support more equal distibution because that can only benefit you.

Same reasoning as to why workers unions emerged from the bottom, not the top.

My two cents, I believe there is an nuance worth deliniating, specifically differentiating between being elite "in status" vs being elite "in nature." Painting broad strokes here for the sake of this post (so take with a grain of salt)...

Many people born into or groomed for an elite status (via inherited wealth, rich families, strong support systems, etc) are rationally self preservationists. They were born on third base and know it. Many subconsciously know they do not belong there and cannot live up to the level of performance, intellectualism and hard work that laid the foundation for their current state or that others had to endure. Thus, they need support from the system to preserve their current state.

People who became elite in nature, are far more likely to value meritocracy. They lacked support, didnt know there was a "system" to be leveraged (eg getting unlimited time for an SAT score with a doctors note), had a chip on their shoulder, grinded their way to be top of their class, were the most productive, knocked on more doors, took risks others would consider irrational, etc.

At every level they've had to fight for what they have in a world where the criteria is often opaque. Being genuinely competent, they don't have an innate imposter syndrome, and thus, they value a system that has a clear and objective criteria for them and others, because they are confident they will operate fine within it.

EDIT 1: to add: With the above in mind, the more useful analysis in my opinion would be to assess the extent to which ethical frameworks and the role of fairness and meritocracy differ between those who were self-made (eg 1st of their generation to go to an IVY or get an MBA) vs not in "elite" positions of wealth or power.

EDIT 2: I'm not suggesting all people born rich don't deserve their success or do not possess these qualities of hard work, etc.

Not true, have seen many CS papers that run experiments lately. And arguably experimental mathematics is a science.

"On average across worker pairs, spectators implemented a Gini coefficient of 0.56 and redistributed $1.30 of the winner’s earnings to the loser. "

"In the efficiency cost treatment, the winner was determined by a coin flip and redistribution incurs an “adjustment cost” that reduces the total earnings available to participants. For every $1.00 reduction in the winner’s earnings, the loser’s earnings increase by only $0.50"

So out of $6, the average MBA of the 271 sampled redistributed $1.30 to the loser who was not obligated to receive any of it. So 22% redistribution. Less if the redistribution has costs. Seems fair?