tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post5441917549649976343..comments2024-03-25T11:49:21.281-07:00Comments on The Splintered Mind: On Whether the Rich Are JerksEric Schwitzgebelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11541402189204286449noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-28445150411413472182014-06-12T14:05:05.330-07:002014-06-12T14:05:05.330-07:00I totally agree with that, JonJ! Can't random...I totally agree with that, JonJ! Can't randomly assign people to wealth.Eric Schwitzgebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11541402189204286449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-13091142297817971742014-06-11T22:57:55.861-07:002014-06-11T22:57:55.861-07:00There's always the confounding variables of ca...There's always the confounding variables of cause and effect, too, even if the findings are valid: it may not be that richer people have become less moral, but rather that less moral people become richer.Jon Jermeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12802157835972797573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-76770689554794575722012-05-28T19:36:56.547-07:002012-05-28T19:36:56.547-07:00I agree with that point, Anon.I agree with that point, Anon.Eric Schwitzgebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11541402189204286449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-41045902719745466742012-05-28T11:51:11.087-07:002012-05-28T11:51:11.087-07:00I haven't read the article but let me throw ou...I haven't read the article but let me throw out a from the hip thought stimulated by reading your summary and critique.<br /><br />The referenced studies seem to look for statistical behavioural differences between Rich/Non-Rich in moral test situations.<br /><br />But to get to conclusions about morality (at least all things considered morality) another step seems to be at work: data that show no Rich/Non-Rich behavioural differences in the test situations are taken as evidence for the groups being equally moral.<br /><br />But wait. How is that last part justified? Compare: in some scenarios it would seem to me more all things considered morally flawed of Rich (compared to Non-Rich) to not give resource aid to a needy person. More flawed because Rich has more surplus resources to spend. <br /><br />So if a test on such situations show Rich/Non-Rich aiding to an equal degree then I'd take that as evidence for Rich being less moral.<br /><br />Such reasoning might be extendable to any test situation where the behavioural cost to the subject can at least later be compensated for by the subject spending economic resources.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-74749373653430470942012-04-03T14:48:58.083-07:002012-04-03T14:48:58.083-07:00Ok, now I see re: study 7. Thanks!Ok, now I see re: study 7. Thanks!Anonymoushttp://fauxphilnews.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-15214525762820714192012-04-03T10:52:06.011-07:002012-04-03T10:52:06.011-07:00Ben, thanks for your comment. In fact, I misstate...Ben, thanks for your comment. In fact, I misstated the results of Study 4 in the original post, which I have now amended. Whoops! On Study 7, the researchers' hypothesis is that the opinion that greed is good is the mediating variable. When primed to think that the greed is good, the lower SES people start to act like higher SES people -- who, I guess, are assumed to already think that greed is good, since the greed-is-good prompt doesn't change their behavior. I'm pretty dubious about this, but that's the thinking, anyway.Eric Schwitzgebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11541402189204286449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-48920381782863460592012-04-02T16:32:39.773-07:002012-04-02T16:32:39.773-07:00I must be missing something. Putting aside Eric&#...I must be missing something. Putting aside Eric's cogent criticisms, studies 4 and 7 seem to support the opposite conclusion as is drawn by the researchers. The overall conclusion is that the rich act more immorally, but in study 4 those primed to think of themselves as low SES stole more candy (assuming self-report is accurate) and in study 7 the connection between listing positive features of greed and reporting immoral hypothetical behavior was stronger for low SES subjects. So even if there were no methodological problems, why would the researchers think that studies 4 and 7 support the conclusion that the rich are jerks?Ben Bronnerhttp://fauxphilnews.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-4723638011539995342012-03-31T11:13:27.728-07:002012-03-31T11:13:27.728-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Baron Phttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04138430918331887648noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-60744982029794433592012-03-31T09:48:07.137-07:002012-03-31T09:48:07.137-07:00I see your point, Hagop. It's hard to know ex...I see your point, Hagop. It's hard to know exactly what's going on given how thinly the results are reported. Here are two possibilities: SES is measured in part by educational attainment. More educated participants might be more likely to think critically about the validity of the psychological study. Also SES relates with undergraduate major. Certain majors (e.g., business and econ) might take a very different attitude toward the experimental set up than other majors (e.g., English). Those are just two of the more obvious possibilities.Eric Schwitzgebelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11541402189204286449noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26951738.post-7506873216614886682012-03-31T07:32:55.775-07:002012-03-31T07:32:55.775-07:00Great comments, Eric! I find your criticisms of s...Great comments, Eric! I find your criticisms of study 6 least convincing, though. Even if we grant what you say, why the difference between rich and poor in this case? Put another way, why wouldn't *everyone* lie to improve their chances at the gift certificate? DISCLAIMER: I haven't read the study.hagop sarkissiannoreply@blogger.com