Print

[Frenchfry]

Why did you neglect to post the Wired article? 

Greed Isn’t Good: Wealth Could Make People Unethical
By Brandon Keim

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/02/income-and-ethics/

The fourth experiment probed the underlying dynamics. Test-takers were asked to imagine themselves being very rich or poor, then given an opportunity to take candy from a jar that would next be delivered to children in another lab. Students who’d pretended to be rich took more candy, suggesting that “the experience of higher social class has a causal relationship to unethical decision-making and behavior,” wrote Piff’s team.

I started to post it when I saw this:
The material on this site may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used

I stay away from those.

You're taking the study out of context.
Volunteers reported their social class using the MacArthur Scale of Subjective Socioeconomic Status.

[excelsior]

I started to post it when I saw this:
The material on this site may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used

I stay away from those.

You're taking the study out of context.
Volunteers reported their social class using the MacArthur Scale of Subjective Socioeconomic Status.

I still cannot find that warning that you cited.   Where's it listed on the site?

There were 7 separate experiments cited in this study.  Each had a different population and design of experiments.

I posted the paragraph verbatim from article that you cited.  How did I remove the context of this paragraph?

[Frenchfry]

I still cannot find that warning that you cited.   Where's it listed on the site?

There were 7 separate experiments cited in this study.  Each had a different population and design of experiments.

I posted the paragraph verbatim from article that you cited.  How did I remove the context of this paragraph?

That warning is in the black box all the way at the bottom of the page.

The site you chose to quote only gave you part of the story.

Look at the others I posted for more information or delve into it yourself but factually you're misrepresenting the basic parameters of the study.

[ducksoup]

Except the study does not include any actual wealthy people.

The study is comprised of assumptions by students role playing in ways they presume a wealthy person would behave, getting folks from Craigslist to pretend they are rich or judging a person's net worth by the kind of car they drive.

Small oversight to include these facts in these news reports. 

This study says more about the students' bias than the results they purport.

I predict this "study" will fail the peer review and this Ph.D. candidate can pretend he earned his doctorate degree.

LGW, You said it would not pass peer review, but PNAS will only publish if it meets peer review already.

PNAS Submission Guidelines
Direct Submission. The standard mode of transmitting manuscripts is for authors to use Direct Submission. Authors must recommend three appropriate Editorial Board members, three NAS members who are expert in the paper's scientific area, and five qualified reviewers. The Board may choose someone who is or is not on that list or may reject the paper without further review. Authors are encouraged to indicate why their suggested editors are well qualified to handle the paper. A directory of PNAS member editors and their research interests is available at http://nrc88.nas.edu/pnas_search. The editor may obtain reviews of the paper from at least two qualified reviewers, each from a different institution and not from the authors' institutions. For Direct Submission papers, the PNAS Office will invite the reviewers, secure the reviews, and forward them to the editor. The PNAS Office will also secure any revisions and subsequent reviews. The name of the editor, who is to remain anonymous to the author until the paper is accepted, will be published in PNAS as editor of the article. Direct Submissions are published as “Edited by” the responsible editor and have an identifying footnote.

All manuscripts are evaluated by the Editorial Board. The Board may reject manuscripts without further review or may subject manuscripts to review and reject those that do not meet PNAS standards. Manuscripts rejected by one member cannot be resubmitted through another member or as a Direct Submission. When revisions are requested prior to final decision, revised papers must be received within 2 months or they will be treated as new submissions.

http://www.pnas.org/site/misc/iforc.shtml

[LetsGoWings]

LGW, You said it would not pass peer review, but PNAS will only publish if it meets peer review already.

PNAS Submission Guidelines
Direct Submission. The standard mode of transmitting manuscripts is for authors to use Direct Submission. Authors must recommend three appropriate Editorial Board members, three NAS members who are expert in the paper's scientific area, and five qualified reviewers. The Board may choose someone who is or is not on that list or may reject the paper without further review. Authors are encouraged to indicate why their suggested editors are well qualified to handle the paper. A directory of PNAS member editors and their research interests is available at http://nrc88.nas.edu/pnas_search. The editor may obtain reviews of the paper from at least two qualified reviewers, each from a different institution and not from the authors' institutions. For Direct Submission papers, the PNAS Office will invite the reviewers, secure the reviews, and forward them to the editor. The PNAS Office will also secure any revisions and subsequent reviews. The name of the editor, who is to remain anonymous to the author until the paper is accepted, will be published in PNAS as editor of the article. Direct Submissions are published as “Edited by” the responsible editor and have an identifying footnote.

All manuscripts are evaluated by the Editorial Board. The Board may reject manuscripts without further review or may subject manuscripts to review and reject those that do not meet PNAS standards. Manuscripts rejected by one member cannot be resubmitted through another member or as a Direct Submission. When revisions are requested prior to final decision, revised papers must be received within 2 months or they will be treated as new submissions.

http://www.pnas.org/site/misc/iforc.shtml

Wow I am out of town on a business trip for a week and see that there is a conspiracy that I am the same person as excelsior. I am not sure how this rumor came about, but I can assure you that I would not be able to have two accounts and keep them straight. Please refer to excelsior by excelsior and me by whatever you want. All one has to look at is the previous edit on posts. My posts have a lot of edits and I do not copy and paste very much. I guess you can believe what ever you want though.

[excelsior]

LGW, You said it would not pass peer review, but PNAS will only publish if it meets peer review already.

PNAS Submission Guidelines
Direct Submission. The standard mode of transmitting manuscripts is for authors to use Direct Submission. Authors must recommend three appropriate Editorial Board members, three NAS members who are expert in the paper's scientific area, and five qualified reviewers. The Board may choose someone who is or is not on that list or may reject the paper without further review. Authors are encouraged to indicate why their suggested editors are well qualified to handle the paper. A directory of PNAS member editors and their research interests is available at http://nrc88.nas.edu/pnas_search. The editor may obtain reviews of the paper from at least two qualified reviewers, each from a different institution and not from the authors' institutions. For Direct Submission papers, the PNAS Office will invite the reviewers, secure the reviews, and forward them to the editor. The PNAS Office will also secure any revisions and subsequent reviews. The name of the editor, who is to remain anonymous to the author until the paper is accepted, will be published in PNAS as editor of the article. Direct Submissions are published as “Edited by” the responsible editor and have an identifying footnote.

All manuscripts are evaluated by the Editorial Board. The Board may reject manuscripts without further review or may subject manuscripts to review and reject those that do not meet PNAS standards. Manuscripts rejected by one member cannot be resubmitted through another member or as a Direct Submission. When revisions are requested prior to final decision, revised papers must be received within 2 months or they will be treated as new submissions.

http://www.pnas.org/site/misc/iforc.shtml

Calling me LetsGoWings or referring to LetsGoWings as Excelsior is a: