[ExI] experiment regarding ethical behaviors vs status:

[spike]

.

>.It does not defy my intuition at all. People don't achieve status by being
nice, they achieve status two ways: by being ruthless or by inheriting it
from somebody who was. 





This isn't what the study shows however.  Correlating anything with economic
status derived from self-identified economic status is an unreasonable
extrapolation, and is misleading, untrustworthy.  However it does suggest
some interesting studies.  I can imagine an effect where the physical
attractiveness of the test administrators directly impacts the delta between
a test subject's economic status and the subject's self-identified economic
status.

 

Note that in every case where sociological studies are done, they are
*always* studying something else besides the overt subject.  An apparent IQ
test for instance, might actually be studying the correlation between the
test subjects' shoe style and the probability that the test subjects will
keep or return the pen offered for them to take the test.  This covert
deception is a requirement actually, for the subjects and test
administrators would otherwise impact the variable under study.  This is the
sociologists' equivalent to the medical community's double blind test.  So:
all sociologist are liars, by requirement.  This is harsh of course: we
don't like to think of car sales staff, advertising agents and lawyers as
professional liars, they merely present a client in the best available light
while telling the truth.

 

Of course if the test administrators and test subjects are told nothing,
then we do not lie.

 

Back to my suggested example.  We do a test where we are apparently testing
for IQ, political attitudes, or clothing style preferences for instance.  We
don't actually tell them this is what we are studying, rather we let the
test subjects assume whatever they infer, for I want to be an honest amateur
sociologist.  Then without telling either the test administrators or the
test subjects, we study their self-identified economic status with the
physical attractiveness of the test administrator, under the theory that
perhaps we unwittingly pose as more economically healthy in the presence of
an attractive potential mate.  This is tricky, for even the test
administrators cannot know what we are really studying.  (Otherwise, try to
imagine explaining, "Miss Goodbody, you are to be the foxy babe test
administrator, and Miss Flabbercrombie you are to work with the control
group.")

 

Now we can measure the amount of dishonesty more directly by comparing the
self-identified economic status of the test subjects with their own answers
on the other test.  We do not need, nor can we even find out, their actual
economic status.  But we can compare their answers with themselves.  Theory:
in the presence of Miss Goodbody, we will stand up straighter, comb our hair
more carefully, and possibly even imagine ourselves economically healthier
than we do in the presence of Miss Flabbercrombie.

 

Here's one signal that seems to always shine through: headlines explaining a
study will always distort by oversimplification the real findings of a
study.  In this case, the headline was "Shame on the Rich."  The study
didn't say "Shame on Those Who Self-Identify as Rich."

 

spike

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20120326/011f0c1e/attachment.html>