3 ms·

maybe its the other around - being unethical makes you wealthy

by andylei 15y ago

kenrikm 15y ago
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.
- nollidge 15y ago
  > 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. [0] http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/02/21/1118373109.abstract http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/02/21/1118373109.abst...
- jordan0day 15y ago
  "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.

maybe its the other around - being unethical makes you wealthy

by andylei 15y ago

maybe its the other around - being unethical makes you wealthy

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.

nollidge 15y ago
> 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. [0] http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/02/21/1118373109.abstract http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/02/21/1118373109.abst...
jordan0day 15y ago
"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.