That fits with George Lakoff's argument that liberals rely on the ideals of the Enlightenment, using rationality to solve problems, while conservative take a more embodied perspective, relying on visualization and personal experience. Or, the left/right dichotomy could be unrelated to the abstract/concrete dichotomy; there are other factors at play, such at the caretaking vs hands-off approaches to governance (also touched on by Lakoff, incidentally.)

I suspect results for a concrete example on something other than art, such as working a loading dock, might be different.

Do Frieman and Nichols introduce the left-right political interpretation? I don't immediately see that interpretation. Nothing about policy implications is inherent in the presentation.

Rather, it could just be a question of applying the mental schema for fairness, which generally requires a balancing of things and a consideration of whether the output is justified by the input. In the abstract case the subject is asked to balance a random genetic 'gift' and a positive reward of more money. Considered as a fairness issue, an unearned gift does not merit a positive reward.

In the concrete case, the subject is give the chance to mentally balance the positive reward against an actual positive service provided. Even though the concrete case is just an elaboration which fully fits inside the abstract case, in the concrete case the subject is able to view the higher quality performance of the one singer as something which can merit the positive reward.

Contrary to Robin Hanson, I don't think art has anything to do with the result. I think we'd get the same result in a concrete case with a bigger, stronger dockworker - due solely to genetic endowment - getting paid more.

Their difference in ability given to them is unfair, while the difference in what other members of society reward them appears to be reasonable given the circumstances.

To put this in another context, look at the laws of probability. The probability of X and Y is equal or less than the probability of X, _given_ Y. In terms of fairness, the whole story of ability and reward is unfair, but _given_ the background of their differing abilities, it is fair that they receive differing rewards.

Whereas X is unfair, and X&Y unfair, Y given X is fair. It would seem that in the "abstract" scenario, we are told that the fairness of X determines the fairness of X&Y, which is false. ("because they have genetic advantages") In the "concrete" case, we are given explicit description of the non-genetic factors involved in the rewards they got, which tells us correctly that X and Y are independent.

Did Freiman & Nichols do anything to verify that subjects were interpreting the abstract case how they wanted them to? Some subjects might have thought that people making more money "solely because they have genetic advantages" meant being paid more because of irrelevant genetic differences. That means that they wouldn't have thought that the abstract description was referring to cases like the concrete Beth & Amy case, where genetic advantages lead to better work which leads to higher pay.

The results seem very intuitive to me in the sense that people do seem to be idealistic (left in the abstract), but once you tie things to reality, they move to the right. What I would like the world to look like is uber-left BUT the changes really should be made gradually. So it already LOOKS like I am more conservative in the concrete, but it is a practical concern that changing things immediately to the best end-state can be more damaging than helpful (creates instability and unexpected problems...). The changes must be made gradually, but I still hold those uber-left beliefs.

I was also thinking something (KIND of) like Brad. When you ask if it is fair that they are paid more, people say no, but if they attract more customers, it is fair. The fairness seems to come with some authority or organized being GIVING more money while being aware of the genetic advantage. Random people (who just know the music is better) are allowed to let her get more money. So in the second case it is fair. So problem solved, make sure all money comes from above and they can take ability into account and pay everyone with respect to effort alone. Everyone should think that is fair, right? (I'm actually not sure, so I'm not saying this with a RIGHT answer in mind.)