Wealth creates narcissism

[kalm]

And a tendency towards cheating according to this study...

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... narcissism" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[travelinman67]

Two words...

Cap'n Cat

[JohnStOnge]

I think we discussed that study on this board quite some time back. Maybe like a year ago.

I can't even remember if I looked up the actual study to evaluate it but I think I'll try. Needless to say I'm pretty skeptical and suspect that what we have here is an egalitarian that's not interested in objective assessment but is instead interested in showing how the "rich" are greedy, self centered, etc.

To me it kind of flies in the face of things we hear and generally accept to be true all the time. One example is the generally accepted association between poverty and "personal" face to face crime where people do things like beat people up to take their money, etc. We're blaming "poverty" as "causing" crime all the time.

Another thing is that I have no doubt that cheating to take advantage of public programs for the poor is rampant. Remember this:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXlvpmQ_ip8[/youtube]

That's the real world. Wasn't rich people doing that.

[JohnStOnge]

Ok I found a paper (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/ ... l.pdf+html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;).

First of all, they didn't start off by saying, "We want to see if higher social class means higher likelihood of unethical behavior." They started off by saying "We think higher social class causes unethical behavior and we're going to prove it."

Secondly, they never actually measured social class in anybody. By that I mean they never set out some objective criteria for what constitutes high, low, or middle social class then applied it to classify any of their subjects.

But we're going to have to live with this. All the media know is that some researches from a highly regarded institution (Cal Berkley) have "proven" that upper class people are more unethical than lower class people are.

Another thing is that, in the linked paper, they didn't describe their methods sufficiently to evaluate their validity. It could be that they also did individual papers on each study in which they did a better job of describing their methods. But, for instance, there are questions about whether or not they took adequate steps to control investigator bias in the observational studies (1 and 2) involving observing vehicles.

Meanwhile the whole real world around them suggests otherwise. But that's not going to matter.

We have a serious, serious problem with academia in this country. A very serious problem with liberal/progressive bias. The linked paper absolutely reeks of it.

[Baldy]

And a tendency towards cheating according to this study...

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... narcissism" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Not surprising:

George Soros
Peter Lewis
David Gelbaum
John Kerry
Larry Paige
Sergey Brin
Larry Ellison
Tom Steyer
Nick Hanauer

Just to name a few.

[Ivytalk]

This is balls-on accurate. As soon as I made partner at Ivytalk Steinmetz, I realized that my favorite movie clip ever was the "fuck the poor" scene from History of the World Part I.

[JohnStOnge]

In the first paragraph of the study, we find this quote:

On the one hand, lower-class individuals live in en- vironments defined by fewer resources, greater threat, and more uncertainty (2, 3). It stands to reason, therefore, that lower-class individuals may be more motivated to behave unethically to in-crease their resources or overcome their disadvantage.

The researchers then set about showing that line of reasoning is incorrect. OK. So now that this team of researchers have shown us that the idea that people living "in environments defined by fewer resources, greater threat, and more uncertainty... may be more motivated to behave unethically" we can expect Liberals/Progressives to quit telling us that the reason we have a high crime rates in certain area is because the irresponsible society has neglected to fix poverty problems in those areas. And I guess we can expect to stop seeing articles like this one:

http://www.poverties.org/poverty-and-crime.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

We can now look forward to having liberals/progressives or whatever they are calling themselves nowadays stop insisting that the reason, for instance, there are problems in Detroit is that the larger society has irresponsibly neglected those poor people and consigned them to a life of poverty, etc. We all now know that consigning them to a nice, lower class existence means they'll be more ethical and crime will go down!

Problem solved.

I'm sure we can now conclude that this is a rich guy:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLoUqlJsU4I[/youtube]

[JohnStOnge]

I've been Googling stuff like "Relationship between crime and poverty" and "Relationship between crime and class" and I think I see what's going on here. What I've noted is that there is a clear "wish" among some (probably many) in the communities of psychologists and sociologists to believe that the obvious is not true. They don't want to believe that lower class/poor people are more likely to rob, steal, assault and kill other people in spite of overwhelming data showing that such is the case.

Sometimes they get downright confusing. Like I saw a link to a paper titled, "The Myth of Social Class and Criminality Reconsidered." So I'm thinking "OK this is one where the author or authors is going to argue that there's not REALLY an association between class and criminality whereby lower class people are more likely to commit crime."

But then I go to the paper and the second sentence in the abstract is:

It is concluded that class is one of the very few correlates of criminality which can be taken, on balance, as persuasively supported by a large body of empirical evidence.

This is a literature review of a large number of studies, and down on page 38 (of the journal it's in, not the document, see page numbers at top left), you find this:

Of the 53 studies of class and juvenile crime reviewed here, 44 showed lower class juveniles to have substantially higher offense rates than middle class juveniles. Among adults, all 46 studies found lower class people to have higher crime rates. Juveniles who lived in lower class areas were found to have higher juvenile crime rates in all 57 studies; for adults this was the case in all 13 studies.

So what was the myth? It appears to be associated with a particular kind of study referenced as "self-report" studies.

I hadn't thought of this one before but I think what we have in the study described at the start of this thread, people, is another manifestation of the egalitarian bias that afflicts today's practice of the social and psychological sciences.

I know I do long posts and this is another one but please read on to see how the investigators did things.

In one experiment they "treated" people with "the experience of higher social class." Note that they didn't actually identify these people as being of any particular class. They gave them the "experience" of being high class by having them compare themselves to other people who had less money, less education, and less respected jobs. So they were attempting to manipulate people into a mindset in which they were feeling superior at the time of the experiment.

Then they put them in a room where they didn't know what was going on. After a while an experimenter presented them with a jar of individually wrapped candies while saying they were for children in a nearby laboratory but telling them they could have some. So they manipulated people into feeling good about themselves then concluded that they were more "unethical" because they, on average, took more pieces of candy out of a jar of candy they were told they could have some of than people who were manipulated into feeling bad about themselves did. Then they made the leap to saying that means higher class people are less ethical. If you don't believe me go to the paper at http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/ ... l.pdf+html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and see the right hand side of page 2 (Study 4).

I wonder if they could do an experiment where they test how likely lower class people are going to clean out the shelves at Wal Mart if they find out there has been an error so that there's no limit on their Electronic Benefits Cards (Food Stamp Cards). SO ethical. Brings a tear to my eye.

[kalm]

So you think the narcissistic wealthy are just born that way?

[DSUrocks07]

So you think the narcissistic wealthy are just born that way?

Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and those who gain power desire only one thing, more power.

And water is w...you see where I'm going with this.

Those who have more money than others will become narcissistic about those who have less than them. Those who are employed are narcissistic to those who are unemployed.

Its human nature. No one is immune.

[JohnStOnge]

Had to go back and read a methods section at the end of the paper (normally they're at the beginning). Just read it but have to go do something else. Back later.

[Ivytalk]

I'd written a detailed critique but just saw that there is a detailed methods description after the bibliography so I have to read that. More later.

John, please don't.

[JohnStOnge]

I'd written a detailed critique but just saw that there is a detailed methods description after the bibliography so I have to read that. More later.

John, please don't.

Sorry, but I will. Suffice to say that if the peer review process was a serious quality control process the paper would not have been published. You can opt not to read why that is so when I write it up. But I'm going to write it up.

[kalm]

I'd written a detailed critique but just saw that there is a detailed methods description after the bibliography so I have to read that. More later.

John, please don't.

[Baldy]

I'd written a detailed critique but just saw that there is a detailed methods description after the bibliography so I have to read that. More later.

John, please don't.

This.

Because nobody will read it.

[JohnStOnge]

Because nobody will read it.

That's fine. I'll write it anyway and if you happen to be interested in the truth maybe you'll read it after all.

The paper would not have been published if the peer review process was a serious quality control mechanism because the conclusion as stated by the opening sentence of the abstract is not substantiated by the studies described.

That statement is:

Seven studies using experimental and naturalistic methods reveal that upper-class individuals behave more unethically than lower- class individuals.

Six of the seven studies are observational with respect to the thing the researchers were trying to show. None were based on "scientific" (probability) samples of larger populations. Each of the two vehicle studies involved having someone observe a single intersection in San Francisco. Class was assumed based on an observer's judgement with respect to the make and condition of each vehicle. Two of the other observational studies involved people responding to an on line survey hosted by Amazon.com. Another involved people responding to an advertisement on Craigslist then receiving an invitation to respond to an on line survey for a chance to win a $50 gift certificate. Finally, one involved Cal Berkley students who responded to an offer to earn course credit.

That's not "scientific sampling" that can support a statement such as that which opened the abstract, people. There is also a problem in that the investigators did not establish criteria for upper, middle, or lower class then objectively assign each subject to a class. Instead, they did this self perception thing where they asked people to look at a picture of a ladder with 10 rungs with the top rung representing people who are best off and the bottom rung representing people who are worse off. Then they were asked to indicate which rung they thought they were at. So this study that purports to show that "upper class" people aren't as ethical didn't even really measure the class level of the people the investigators were studying.

The seventh study (numbered in the paper as study 4} was an experiment. And it did show a cause and effect relationship. What it did was show that if you put people through an exercise that you expect to make them feel better about themselves they will take more candy, on average, from a jar that they are told they can take candy from than they will if you put them through an exercise that you expect to make them feel worse about themselves. Yes, the estimates were that they will take 1.17 pieces of candy from the jar if they're feeling good about themselves and 0.60 pieces of candy from the jar, on average, if they're feeling bad about themselves. Obviously, that does not tell you whether or not being upper class "causes" unethical behavior. Taking candy from a jar you're told you can take candy from is not unethical behavior; and I would hardly characterize taking one or two pieces as "greedy." Also, the "cause" demonstrated wasn't class. It was a person feeling good about their relative position in life.

There is more, but I will stop at this point. That is sufficient to demonstrate that the study would not have been published if "peer review" was what people think it is. Actually just the fact that the observational studies did not involve "scientific sampling" along with the fact that the experiment didn't even involve unethical behavior is enough but I couldn't restrain myself THAT much. I could not resist pointing out that they did a study about class and didn't even actually measure class.

There is no way…none…that the set of seven studies really supports the statement made in first sentence of the abstract or the statements being reported in the media. It's a classic example of the problem we have with egalitarian bias in academia combined with a completely corrupt "peer review" journal process that people perceive as something it's not.

[JohnStOnge]

Those who have more money than others will become narcissistic about those who have less than them. Those who are employed are narcissistic to those who are unemployed.

I think it's very reasonable to assume that people who are successful generally feel better about themselves than people who are not.

But this thing about lower class people being more ethical than upper class people is total crap. Gaming the poverty program system is rampant in this country and we had kind of an informal experiment on the issue when people eligible for food stamps found out there was a system glitch that would allow them to go load up way beyond their allotted benefits at Wal Mart. It was a friggin' stampede.

Don't give me that "lower class people are more ethical" nonsense. Especially don't do it then turn around and tell me it's society's fault that there's such a high crime rate in Detroit because we don't do enough about the poverty that causes the crime. And that's the kind of thing progressives do. On one hand they want to tell us that negative behavior of poor people is because of them being poor then on the other hand they want to tell us they've got research showing that poor people are less likely to lie and cheat and steal. Can't have it both ways, people.

[JohnStOnge]

Speaking of Wal Mart, here's another good one:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sb1HhyYE1Ug[/youtube]

How many rich folks do you think are in those videos? I have a good guess: Zero.

[JohnStOnge]

More of those upper class people behaving badly. You see those upper one per cent types doing this all the time. You can tell it's those rich folks by the clothes, don't you know.


[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xL8rE9DT4g[/youtube]

[Ivytalk]

Kalm, damn you, you allowed JSO to hijack this thread. Take ownership of yer own goddam thread!

[Baldy]

Because nobody will read it.

That's fine. I'll write it anyway and if you happen to be interested in the truth maybe you'll read it after all.

The paper would not have been published if the peer review process was a serious quality control mechanism because the conclusion as stated by the opening sentence of the abstract is not substantiated by the studies described.

That statement is:

Seven studies using experimental and naturalistic methods reveal that upper-class individuals behave more unethically than lower- class individuals.

Six of the seven studies are observational with respect to the thing the researchers were trying to show. None were based on "scientific" (probability) samples of larger populations. Each of the two vehicle studies involved having someone observe a single intersection in San Francisco. Class was assumed based on an observer's judgement with respect to the make and condition of each vehicle. Two of the other observational studies involved people responding to an on line survey hosted by Amazon.com. Another involved people responding to an advertisement on Craigslist then receiving an invitation to respond to an on line survey for a chance to win a $50 gift certificate. Finally, one involved Cal Berkley students who responded to an offer to earn course credit.

That's not "scientific sampling" that can support a statement such as that which opened the abstract, people. There is also a problem in that the investigators did not establish criteria for upper, middle, or lower class then objectively assign each subject to a class. Instead, they did this self perception thing where they asked people to look at a picture of a ladder with 10 rungs with the top rung representing people who are best off and the bottom rung representing people who are worse off. Then they were asked to indicate which rung they thought they were at. So this study that purports to show that "upper class" people aren't as ethical didn't even really measure the class level of the people the investigators were studying.

The seventh study (numbered in the paper as study 4} was an experiment. And it did show a cause and effect relationship. What it did was show that if you put people through an exercise that you expect to make them feel better about themselves they will take more candy, on average, from a jar that they are told they can take candy from than they will if you put them through an exercise that you expect to make them feel worse about themselves. Yes, the estimates were that they will take 1.17 pieces of candy from the jar if they're feeling good about themselves and 0.60 pieces of candy from the jar, on average, if they're feeling bad about themselves. Obviously, that does not tell you whether or not being upper class "causes" unethical behavior. Taking candy from a jar you're told you can take candy from is not unethical behavior; and I would hardly characterize taking one or two pieces as "greedy." Also, the "cause" demonstrated wasn't class. It was a person feeling good about their relative position in life.

There is more, but I will stop at this point. That is sufficient to demonstrate that the study would not have been published if "peer review" was what people think it is. Actually just the fact that the observational studies did not involve "scientific sampling" along with the fact that the experiment didn't even involve unethical behavior is enough but I couldn't restrain myself THAT much. I could not resist pointing out that they did a study about class and didn't even actually measure class.

There is no way…none…that the set of seven studies really supports the statement made in first sentence of the abstract or the statements being reported in the media. It's a classic example of the problem we have with egalitarian bias in academia combined with a completely corrupt "peer review" journal process that people perceive as something it's not.

tl;dr

[JohnStOnge]

Kalm, damn you, you allowed JSO to hijack this thread. Take ownership of yer own goddam thread!

My posts in this thread are all on topic. Some attention spans may be too short to absorb them but they are on topic. The studies referenced in the article linked at the start are crap. They really are.

[FCS PATRIOTS]

No, JSO just proved a point. I don't anybody that wants to be poor no matter how bad the democrats want them to stay that way. I just love people like Jim Carrey complain about wealth when his no talent ass nets 15 million for one movie. REALLY....................................

[Ivytalk]

Kalm, damn you, you allowed JSO to hijack this thread. Take ownership of yer own goddam thread!

My posts in this thread are all on topic. Some attention spans may be too short to absorb them but they are on topic. The studies referenced in the article linked at the start are crap. They really are.

John, my attention span is plenty long enough, but my patience is not. Why must you pull out all the algorithmic stops on these stupid-ass studies? You're a smart guy, but Nobody give a good god damn! Think of all the nutria that lived to breed again in your back yard while you fucked around with this shit? Enough already!

[Pwns]

There's bad behavior due to narcissism and there's bad behavior related to poor impulse control. IMO 2 different things.