Mar 15, 2023 07:37 PM
(This post was last modified: Mar 15, 2023 07:45 PM by C C.)
Motivated reasoning is one of the things you won't see highlighted with respect to the invalid science that riddles the social sciences or human-related research in general. The pre-existing personal biases, political agenda preferences, and hand-picked standards of scholars, scientists, and regulating administrators don't simply affect the way the data of their studies is interpreted, but the very way the experiments are setup beforehand.
To believe you could extract such grand and sweeping moral conclusions about a population group from traffic behavior and the cars people owned was an astounding rocket ride into the stratrosphere of idiocy and unbridled inference to begin with.
Back in the days of its tyrannical glory and influence, the Church likewise had its own network of intelligentsia who reciprocally bolstered each other's claims -- from its philosopher apologists to intimidated or still devout scientists, all looping about and trailing back to justifying Church canon or dogma. Given the long success of that former religious regime, no surprise that in its copycat manner the secular, ideological Church of the Left Narrative has since the early 20th-century strategically and incrementally built-up its own inter-cooperating racket in the humanitarian academic and social sciences communities.
Are rich people really less ethical?
https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article...ss_ethical
EXCERPTS: About a dozen years ago, this question launched a series of studies by Paul Piff and his colleagues [...] The findings overall led to the conclusion that wealthier people are less likely to act generously (and more likely to act selfishly and unethically) when given a chance. Other studies seemed to corroborate this idea.
This news made headlines, with articles claiming that the rich were less empathic, were more motivated by greed [...] But do the findings hold up? A new study aimed to find out.
[...] After analyzing the results, the authors found no relationship between the make of the car and unethical behavior. The driver’s estimated social status had no bearing on whether they tried to cut another person off or whether they stopped to let a pedestrian pass. This was true in spite of traffic conditions and the apparent sex and age of the driver.
These new findings call into question the presumed connection between wealth and unethical behavior. “We did [the observations] many times, very carefully, and we just never found this original effect,” says coauthor Paul Smeets of the University of Amsterdam.
Though this may seem surprising to some, Smeets had anticipated this possibility, given that some prior studies looking at how wealth affects unethical behavior had not found any connection. Even other studies that had tried to replicate Piff’s exact procedures or reanalyze his original results were unsuccessful in showing that socioeconomic status affects our generosity, trust, and morality. Plus, some of Smeets’s graduate students had done field studies in busy intersections in European cities and found no connection between car make and driving behavior.
“I was surprised when we didn’t see it at first,” he says. “But then when we didn’t see it many times, I was less surprised.” (MORE - details)
To believe you could extract such grand and sweeping moral conclusions about a population group from traffic behavior and the cars people owned was an astounding rocket ride into the stratrosphere of idiocy and unbridled inference to begin with.
Back in the days of its tyrannical glory and influence, the Church likewise had its own network of intelligentsia who reciprocally bolstered each other's claims -- from its philosopher apologists to intimidated or still devout scientists, all looping about and trailing back to justifying Church canon or dogma. Given the long success of that former religious regime, no surprise that in its copycat manner the secular, ideological Church of the Left Narrative has since the early 20th-century strategically and incrementally built-up its own inter-cooperating racket in the humanitarian academic and social sciences communities.
Are rich people really less ethical?
https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article...ss_ethical
EXCERPTS: About a dozen years ago, this question launched a series of studies by Paul Piff and his colleagues [...] The findings overall led to the conclusion that wealthier people are less likely to act generously (and more likely to act selfishly and unethically) when given a chance. Other studies seemed to corroborate this idea.
This news made headlines, with articles claiming that the rich were less empathic, were more motivated by greed [...] But do the findings hold up? A new study aimed to find out.
[...] After analyzing the results, the authors found no relationship between the make of the car and unethical behavior. The driver’s estimated social status had no bearing on whether they tried to cut another person off or whether they stopped to let a pedestrian pass. This was true in spite of traffic conditions and the apparent sex and age of the driver.
These new findings call into question the presumed connection between wealth and unethical behavior. “We did [the observations] many times, very carefully, and we just never found this original effect,” says coauthor Paul Smeets of the University of Amsterdam.
Though this may seem surprising to some, Smeets had anticipated this possibility, given that some prior studies looking at how wealth affects unethical behavior had not found any connection. Even other studies that had tried to replicate Piff’s exact procedures or reanalyze his original results were unsuccessful in showing that socioeconomic status affects our generosity, trust, and morality. Plus, some of Smeets’s graduate students had done field studies in busy intersections in European cities and found no connection between car make and driving behavior.
“I was surprised when we didn’t see it at first,” he says. “But then when we didn’t see it many times, I was less surprised.” (MORE - details)