Upper Classes more likely to break the law, lie, and cheat.

[Jacobtm]

“Occupying privileged positions in society has this natural psychological effect of insulating you from others,” said psychologist Paul Piff of the University of California, Berkeley. “You’re less likely to perceive the impact your behavior has on others.

''Upper- and lower-class individuals do not necessarily differ in terms of their capacity for unethical behavior, but rather in terms of their default tendencies toward it.''

“This work is important because it suggests that people often act unethically not because they are desperate and in the dumps, but because they feel entitled and want to get ahead.”


http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/02/income-and-ethics/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+wiredscience+%28Blog+-+Wired+Science%29

These studies should be unsurprising to anyone who's lived a day of their lives, or who paid one iota of attention during the recent financial crash.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I understand that the Pope may well be a Catholic.

[Napoleon]

This is just dumb.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

I'm looking forward to the next article on the toiletry habits of bears.

[© tweed]

that's how they got there, somewhere in their lineage.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I'm skeptical of the idea that laboratory ethics are relevant to real life.

[minionofmidas]

Oh, it's been observed in real life before. And by these authors too.

[John Dibble]

“Occupying privileged positions in society has this natural psychological effect of insulating you from others,” said psychologist Paul Piff of the University of California, Berkeley. “You’re less likely to perceive the impact your behavior has on others.

''Upper- and lower-class individuals do not necessarily differ in terms of their capacity for unethical behavior, but rather in terms of their default tendencies toward it.''

“This work is important because it suggests that people often act unethically not because they are desperate and in the dumps, but because they feel entitled and want to get ahead.”

I'm skeptical. In the first and second parts he seems to be saying that being upper class is causative, but what has been done to show this? I'm not saying it's implausible, but what if people who are willing to do anything to get ahead are more likely to be upper class in the first place? I do remember hearing somewhere that there is a statically greater number of sociopaths among CEOs, for instance.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

...said psychologist Paul Piff of the University of California, Berkeley...

nuf said

[Insula Dei]

Conceptual Analysis could have thaught them that much.

[Person Man]

I guess this would explain other social issues as well. It would be interesting to see what kind of people commit sexual violence. Desperate incel loners or studs who forgot what "no" sounds like?

[Alcon]

Can someone actually upload the study?  I don't know -- for some reason that seems, uh, important and stuff.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

...said psychologist Paul Piff of the University of California, Berkeley...

nuf said

UC Berkeley is one of the best universities in the world. Is your problem with the name 'Paul Piff'?

[John Dibble]

Can someone actually upload the study?  I don't know -- for some reason that seems, uh, important and stuff.

You can get it here, but you'd have to pay for it.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/02/21/1118373109.abstract

[All Along The Watchtower]

...said psychologist Paul Piff of the University of California, Berkeley...

nuf said

UC Berkeley is one of the best universities in the world. Is your problem with the name 'Paul Piff'?

No, his problem is with "University", "California", and "Berkeley." That's a triple threat of Godless Commies.

[Alcon]

Can someone actually upload the study?  I don't know -- for some reason that seems, uh, important and stuff.

You can get it here, but you'd have to pay for it.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/02/21/1118373109.abstract

My university actually seems to have free access.

It seems to be a meta-study of seven experiments.  They related to obedience of traffic laws (2); likelihood to self-identify as engaging in theft of unethical benefit; taking offered candy from a jar that would later be given to children; lying to a job candidate about job stability; willingness to lie about dice rolls in a rigged game; and self-expressed attitudes toward greed.

I don't know how representative these studies are, and I can see a lot of criticisms already, although if they are representative, I wouldn't necessarily dismiss the studies outright.  This all is just from a quick scan, though.

I'd be willing to send it to anyone who's especially interested.

[tpfkaw]

Upper-class public-sector college professor (in the pseudoscientific field of psychology) envious of those who actually produce things people are willing to pay for, compiles several cherry-picked and ridiculously-pseudoscientific* "studies" that suit his ideological agenda, news media reports on it at 11.

*(Driving a "flashy" car is "indicative" of "high socio-economic status," and 2 hours of grad students making subjective observations at a San Francisco intersection is "indicative" of "moral character" - that sure sounds like the scientific method!)

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Upper-class public-sector college professor (in the pseudoscientific field of psychology) envious of those who actually produce things people are willing to pay for, compiles several cherry-picked and ridiculously-pseudoscientific* "studies" that suit his ideological agenda, news media reports on it at 11.

*(Driving a "flashy" car is "indicative" of "high socio-economic status," and 2 hours of grad students making subjective observations at a San Francisco intersection is "indicative" of "moral character" - that sure sounds like the scientific method!)

Science isn't ahistorical anyway. I also don't think your practice of pop psychology on this professor is acceptable even by the, in your (bizarre) opinion, 'lowered' standards of, uh, psychology.

[tpfkaw]

Upper-class public-sector college professor (in the pseudoscientific field of psychology) envious of those who actually produce things people are willing to pay for, compiles several cherry-picked and ridiculously-pseudoscientific* "studies" that suit his ideological agenda, news media reports on it at 11.

*(Driving a "flashy" car is "indicative" of "high socio-economic status," and 2 hours of grad students making subjective observations at a San Francisco intersection is "indicative" of "moral character" - that sure sounds like the scientific method!)

Science isn't ahistorical anyway. I also don't think your practice of pop psychology on this professor is acceptable even by the, in your (bizarre) opinion, 'lowered' standards of, uh, psychology.

I'm glad you caught (sort of?) the sarcasm, but my point is that these "studies" go below even the realm of Dr. Phil-style pop psychology and into that of a segment you might see on Jay Leno.

And yes, psychology (unlike psychiatry) is a pseudoscience, as it relies on starting from a set of nondisproveable assumptions and coming to conclusions based on those assumptions.  It's essentially philosophy with elements of anthropology.  Of course, that doesn't mean it's totally worthless as a subject of study - economics is also a pseudoscience and is my preferred field.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Upper-class public-sector college professor (in the pseudoscientific field of psychology) envious of those who actually produce things people are willing to pay for, compiles several cherry-picked and ridiculously-pseudoscientific* "studies" that suit his ideological agenda, news media reports on it at 11.

*(Driving a "flashy" car is "indicative" of "high socio-economic status," and 2 hours of grad students making subjective observations at a San Francisco intersection is "indicative" of "moral character" - that sure sounds like the scientific method!)

Science isn't ahistorical anyway. I also don't think your practice of pop psychology on this professor is acceptable even by the, in your (bizarre) opinion, 'lowered' standards of, uh, psychology.

I'm glad you caught (sort of?) the sarcasm, but my point is that these "studies" go below even the realm of Dr. Phil-style pop psychology and into that of a segment you might see on Jay Leno.

I'm not quite sure where the 'sarcasm'  per se was, but I saw the irony in what you were doing, yes. This study was pretty clearly a waste of time, as most of its conclusions are either highly questionable or obvious.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Thank you for this. I dislike having to defend psychology/anthropology/those kinds of fields to people who insist that everything being 'scientific' to be of value so it's always good to see that there remain people who don't think this way. I would submit, though, that it might be more instructive to use 'non-science' rather than 'pseudoscience' considering that 'pseudoscience' to most people implies derision.

[© tweed]

...said psychologist Paul Piff of the University of California, Berkeley...

nuf said

UC Berkeley is one of the best universities in the world. Is your problem with the name 'Paul Piff'?

haha, I didn't even pick up on that.  just wrote jmf's comment off as right-wing anti-rationalism... a kid from my high school who sold weed used to go by the name 'Paulie Piff'.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

...said psychologist Paul Piff of the University of California, Berkeley...

nuf said

UC Berkeley is one of the best universities in the world. Is your problem with the name 'Paul Piff'?

haha, I didn't even pick up on that.  just wrote jmf's comment off as right-wing anti-rationalism... a kid from my high school who sold weed used to go by the name 'Paulie Piff'.

'Anti-intellectualism' works better than 'anti-rationalism' in this context because, as wormyguy and I were just discussing, psychology isn't necessarily an entirely 'rationalist' field anyway (though it does have internal logic). That doesn't mean it's not an 'intellectual' field, which it obviously is.

[© tweed]

...said psychologist Paul Piff of the University of California, Berkeley...

nuf said

UC Berkeley is one of the best universities in the world. Is your problem with the name 'Paul Piff'?

haha, I didn't even pick up on that.  just wrote jmf's comment off as right-wing anti-rationalism... a kid from my high school who sold weed used to go by the name 'Paulie Piff'.

'Anti-intellectualism' works better than 'anti-rationalism' in this context because, as wormyguy and I were just discussing, psychology isn't necessarily an entirely 'rationalist' field anyway (though it does have internal logic). That doesn't mean it's not an 'intellectual' field, which it obviously is.

well said.  any thoughts on Paulie Piff?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

...said psychologist Paul Piff of the University of California, Berkeley...

nuf said

UC Berkeley is one of the best universities in the world. Is your problem with the name 'Paul Piff'?

haha, I didn't even pick up on that.  just wrote jmf's comment off as right-wing anti-rationalism... a kid from my high school who sold weed used to go by the name 'Paulie Piff'.

'Anti-intellectualism' works better than 'anti-rationalism' in this context because, as wormyguy and I were just discussing, psychology isn't necessarily an entirely 'rationalist' field anyway (though it does have internal logic). That doesn't mean it's not an 'intellectual' field, which it obviously is.

well said.  any thoughts on Paulie Piff?

Freedom Name, but I highly doubt it's the same guy.

[© tweed]

lmao.  I'm just trying to get you to lighten up dude, you're mad serious all of the time.  the thought of the Paulie Piff from high school having ascended to PhD level clinical psych or whatever at the age of 20 is hilarious.