<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><div><div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>…</span><o:p></o:p></p></div><blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC 1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in'><p class=MsoNormal><span style='color:#1F497D'>>…</span>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<span style='color:#1F497D'>…</span> <o:p></o:p></p></blockquote><div><p class=MsoNormal><br><br><o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>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.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Note that in every case where sociological studies are done, they are *<b>always</b>* 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.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Of course if the test administrators and test subjects are told nothing, then we do not lie.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>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…”)<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>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.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>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.”<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>spike<o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div></div></body></html>