For a scientific study it's really lacking facts which makes this is little more than fluff journalism/science.
It states that someone driving a BMW is more likely to cut someone off then someone driving an economy car. However did they try giving the economy car driver a BMW and see if there was any change in his driving habits?
For example I have an Infiniti(G35), a Lexus(IS250) and a Nissan Economy Box (Versa) and I can tell you from experience I Don't drive the same way in the 120HP Versa that I do in my 300HP (G35 Coupe)
So with that said I could spin the story/data in a different way and have it be equally as true "Sports car owners more likely to cut people off" Well thanks Einstein we really needed a study to prove that one.
The logic is so flawed I don't even know where to begin. They know the difference between correlation and dependence? Venn diagrams? Is seems they took a set a statistics and molded it into the conclusion they wanted without establishing a clear cause/effect relationship based on logic. Everything looks like a nail when all you have is a hammer, and in this case they set out to prove that wealthy people where unethical so that's what they found.
> For a scientific study it's really lacking facts
How so? All you've read is one blog post about it. If you want numbers, there's some freely available in the supplemental information that goes along with the published study (at the bottom of [0]). Full-text is probably available through a local library.
Regardless, there's 7 total studies, of which you mentioned one, and the least interesting one in my opinion. Additionally, it's never described as a causal relationship (despite the Ars headline), and there's no reason it needs to be. "X predicts Y" does not say anything about whether X causes Y. There's nothing illogical about it.
Unless you want to imply they doctored the numbers or don't know how to calculate a simple correlation, I see no reason to question their motives just because you didn't like the results they found.
"For a scientific study it's really lacking facts which makes this is little more than fluff journalism/science."
Did you actually read the study, or just the piece on ars? There's a link at the bottom of the article to the actual study, but I don't have a PNAS login so I can't confirm/deny your assertion. If you're basing your criticism entirely off of the ars piece, though, I would tell you to pump your brakes a bit. They summarized the study, which is typical for this sort of journalism, and in my opinion worthwhile -- as long as the summary matches the actual findings of the study.
"For example I have an Infiniti(G35), a Lexus(IS250) and a Nissan Economy Box (Versa)"
I'd probably be able to take your response a little more seriously if you didn't immediately establish that you likely have a higher SES (owning three cars, two of which are "luxury" brands), and then fired off what seems to be a series of kind of defensive attacks on the study.
Headline is completely false. Ars Technica made the mistake, and the submitter copied it. Editors, please fix.
The cited research shows that wealth is a predictor of unethical behavior. There were no exeperiments investigating the direction of causality, or whether becoming wealthy correlates to increased unethicality.
Also, the article closes with a complete non-sequitur about Bill Gates, one the most famously greedy individuals of the 20th Century, whose philanthropy (which has what to do with ethics, anyway)? only appeared after he accumulated more money than God.
... or does having no respect for authority and social constraints make you wealthy?
It's got a dark side, but there's also a side that's quite defensible. A lot of the social constraints that are placed upon us by society are idiotic: dumb rules made by and for dumb people. A lot of it is also predatory. A lot of the rules and recommendations in our society are designed to put you into debt and servitude. Examples: you must have a college degree (and $50k in debt), you must buy a home, you need a credit card when you're 18 to establish credit, etc.
In my experience: do what you're told and you get screwed.
So maybe people with less respect for rules, customs, fads, etc. are more likely to get ahead?
TFA doesn't say anything about education and background here. I'm curious about whether these results are reproducible for people who earned their wealth through mostly honest businesses, through inheritance, through various dealings in third-world countries, for people who majored in philosophy, for lawyers, for MBAs, for bankers, for hackers, for immigrants, etc.
I'd say it's certainly unethical to hoard wealth, because you've taken money out of the pool, so no one else can access it, and you really have no use for it (except maybe as an instrument to acquire more wealth). However, I don't think that becoming wealthy is necessarily an unethical act, because you could use that wealth to do ethically justifiable things.
Aside from the idiotic title (maybe some people are simply jerks, but rich jerks are less scared of consequences of their jerkiness, so they do more of it), this article describes mostly the studies/experiments that have nothing to do with real ethics.
Cutting of pedestrians? Cheating at an exam for $4 (I doubt that the cash prizes were more than $5)? Lying at a role-playing job interview? Hardly behavior that deserves to be qualified as unethical.
Would you call a surgeon who does a pro-bono medical procedure on some poor child, but cuts of pedestrians, unethical?
Does being not greedy, not taking candy, make a serial killer ethical?
I was once part of an experiment on risk aversion. We could choose to take the sure bet, and get $3, or a risky bet, and get either $0 or $6 (with 50% chance for each), and the bet would be repeated twice. I chose to take the risky bet. I mean, it's just $3, who cares, lets risk for fun! However, if it were $30,000, I would sure as hell take the sure bet. Lesson of the story: contrived psychological experiments don't tell you a lot about real life.
I think the study merely predicts that BMW drivers are more likely to be arsehats.
Make of car is not a good indicator of genuine wealth in America. If you're looking for a heuristic, then a two year old second hand domestically manufactured vehicle would be a better indicator. See Thomas Stanley and William Danko http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Millionaire_Next_Door
I think Tyler Cowen has the best critique of this study:
We need to be cautious in our interpretation of these results. Of the seven tests, two of them showed that people driving more expensive cars are more in a hurry and more likely to cut off others or not yield. That’s not praiseworthy, but hardly a major moral condemnation. Several of the tests involved people being asked to imagine they were high class, not actual “high class” people themselves. To that extent we are testing the lower class view of the upper classes, noting that I would not use those terms as given. One of the tests showed that social class did not matter once we adjust for a person’s attitude toward greed. A positive attitude toward greed is positively correlated with social class, but it was also easy enough to “prime” the lower class individuals to feel the same way, suggesting that extreme context dependence will hold here.
Many people think BMW drivers are jerks because they are rich. The reality is that BMW drivers are jerks because of the precision and power the vehicle communicates to the driver -- which lets you be more confident about making decisive and sudden movements in it.
Maybe the status has some effect as well, but a lot less than the fact that the BMW just drives better than a Honda Accord and over time you can become very aggressive because of it.
Ask any long time BMW (or precise sports car) driver and they'll likely confirm this.
16 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 53.4 ms ] threadFor example I have an Infiniti(G35), a Lexus(IS250) and a Nissan Economy Box (Versa) and I can tell you from experience I Don't drive the same way in the 120HP Versa that I do in my 300HP (G35 Coupe)
So with that said I could spin the story/data in a different way and have it be equally as true "Sports car owners more likely to cut people off" Well thanks Einstein we really needed a study to prove that one.
The logic is so flawed I don't even know where to begin. They know the difference between correlation and dependence? Venn diagrams? Is seems they took a set a statistics and molded it into the conclusion they wanted without establishing a clear cause/effect relationship based on logic. Everything looks like a nail when all you have is a hammer, and in this case they set out to prove that wealthy people where unethical so that's what they found.
How so? All you've read is one blog post about it. If you want numbers, there's some freely available in the supplemental information that goes along with the published study (at the bottom of [0]). Full-text is probably available through a local library.
Regardless, there's 7 total studies, of which you mentioned one, and the least interesting one in my opinion. Additionally, it's never described as a causal relationship (despite the Ars headline), and there's no reason it needs to be. "X predicts Y" does not say anything about whether X causes Y. There's nothing illogical about it.
Unless you want to imply they doctored the numbers or don't know how to calculate a simple correlation, I see no reason to question their motives just because you didn't like the results they found.
[0] http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/02/21/1118373109.abst...
Did you actually read the study, or just the piece on ars? There's a link at the bottom of the article to the actual study, but I don't have a PNAS login so I can't confirm/deny your assertion. If you're basing your criticism entirely off of the ars piece, though, I would tell you to pump your brakes a bit. They summarized the study, which is typical for this sort of journalism, and in my opinion worthwhile -- as long as the summary matches the actual findings of the study.
"For example I have an Infiniti(G35), a Lexus(IS250) and a Nissan Economy Box (Versa)" I'd probably be able to take your response a little more seriously if you didn't immediately establish that you likely have a higher SES (owning three cars, two of which are "luxury" brands), and then fired off what seems to be a series of kind of defensive attacks on the study.
The cited research shows that wealth is a predictor of unethical behavior. There were no exeperiments investigating the direction of causality, or whether becoming wealthy correlates to increased unethicality.
Also, the article closes with a complete non-sequitur about Bill Gates, one the most famously greedy individuals of the 20th Century, whose philanthropy (which has what to do with ethics, anyway)? only appeared after he accumulated more money than God.
It's got a dark side, but there's also a side that's quite defensible. A lot of the social constraints that are placed upon us by society are idiotic: dumb rules made by and for dumb people. A lot of it is also predatory. A lot of the rules and recommendations in our society are designed to put you into debt and servitude. Examples: you must have a college degree (and $50k in debt), you must buy a home, you need a credit card when you're 18 to establish credit, etc.
In my experience: do what you're told and you get screwed.
So maybe people with less respect for rules, customs, fads, etc. are more likely to get ahead?
Cutting of pedestrians? Cheating at an exam for $4 (I doubt that the cash prizes were more than $5)? Lying at a role-playing job interview? Hardly behavior that deserves to be qualified as unethical.
Would you call a surgeon who does a pro-bono medical procedure on some poor child, but cuts of pedestrians, unethical?
Does being not greedy, not taking candy, make a serial killer ethical?
I was once part of an experiment on risk aversion. We could choose to take the sure bet, and get $3, or a risky bet, and get either $0 or $6 (with 50% chance for each), and the bet would be repeated twice. I chose to take the risky bet. I mean, it's just $3, who cares, lets risk for fun! However, if it were $30,000, I would sure as hell take the sure bet. Lesson of the story: contrived psychological experiments don't tell you a lot about real life.
[0] http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2012/02/how...
Make of car is not a good indicator of genuine wealth in America. If you're looking for a heuristic, then a two year old second hand domestically manufactured vehicle would be a better indicator. See Thomas Stanley and William Danko http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Millionaire_Next_Door
We need to be cautious in our interpretation of these results. Of the seven tests, two of them showed that people driving more expensive cars are more in a hurry and more likely to cut off others or not yield. That’s not praiseworthy, but hardly a major moral condemnation. Several of the tests involved people being asked to imagine they were high class, not actual “high class” people themselves. To that extent we are testing the lower class view of the upper classes, noting that I would not use those terms as given. One of the tests showed that social class did not matter once we adjust for a person’s attitude toward greed. A positive attitude toward greed is positively correlated with social class, but it was also easy enough to “prime” the lower class individuals to feel the same way, suggesting that extreme context dependence will hold here.
http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2012/02/how...
Many people think BMW drivers are jerks because they are rich. The reality is that BMW drivers are jerks because of the precision and power the vehicle communicates to the driver -- which lets you be more confident about making decisive and sudden movements in it.
Maybe the status has some effect as well, but a lot less than the fact that the BMW just drives better than a Honda Accord and over time you can become very aggressive because of it.
Ask any long time BMW (or precise sports car) driver and they'll likely confirm this.