richardhutnik said:
Kasz216 said:
Actually would have to see the study. Often times studies like this generally are weighted specifically go get such kinds of answers.
So it depends on the questions and the definition of morality.
I wouldn't be too surprised though, since you'd think assertiviness and ehtics are tied together in someway, and assertiveness is tied to success.
I sorta doubt being unethical leads to more success though, because there is a HUGE hammer if your unethical and fail during most of your life.
Although I suppose it could be due to relative population size differences.
IE, people who bet their lifesavings one blackjack hand once in their life are probably disproportionatly rich. Even though more then half of them would fail at the game. Simply because the sample size of "rich" is lower then the normal set sample size.
|
It is worth more study to find out exact details. Not all rich people act that way of course, and not all poor people are saints. One would have to see if the person with more money inherited it, or actually earned it and has an ethics set which causes them not to cheat. It is possible there is a correlation between assertiveness and being unethical? In this, the more a person is willing to be assertive and aggressive, the more they get, and the more they are likely to bend social norms to get somwhere (thus unethical). And then, if after all this, it is a matter of which causes which. Do people become more unethical when they become wealthier?
And then, after all these filters, there is another level of what it all means, and outcome as a result. It would be pushing it severely to use things as they are now to say that the way to address the issues is to suddenly redistribute wealth. Make rich poor and then ethics go up.
|
Well ther definitly is a correlation between assertiveness and unethical behavior.
Part of acting unethical is not giving a shit what other people thing.
A big cause for people not being assertive is worry about what people think.
As it is, i'd be interested in seeing the full results, since most of the study seems pretty poorly conceived.
For example... the first test in the study... seeing if people in nicer cars cut people off more often.
People in nicer cars on average work more hours... and more likely have somewhere to be. Therefore, even with equal "ethics" it seems pretty obvious that people in nicer cars are going to cut people off more often.
The unemployed guy heading up to his friends house to kill some time isn't in a hurry.
Furthermore, people not in nice cars, are more likely to NOT have insurance, and also more likely to not be able to afford an accident, which again would mean more defensive driving would be standard.
I mean, take two identical people, make one have somewhere to go, and car insurance vs the other, nowhere to go, and if his car breaks down he's riding the bus....
Seems pretty obvious.
As it is... the study doesn't seem to be worth much based on the Ars Technica breakdown of it. 3 and 7 seem like the only ones that COULD be valid... and 3 seems to only be in regard to ethical issues which specifically involve money. Which again, is pretty odd.
Do greedy people have more money?
Well yeah... because they care more about money... and work harder to get it.
Are greedy people more likely to have poorer ethics when money is involved?
Well yeah... because they care more about money... therefore it's worth more to them.
It doesn't actually mean someones ethics are "lower" though. It could be that both actions have the same "Ethical" cost... but money is just more highly valued.
Example. Take 2 children, both who think it's wrong to steal about equally.
Offer a sitatution where you can steal a barbie, and the kid that likes barbies more is more likely to steal it while the other isn't.
Offer a situation where you can steal a Gi joe, and maybe the other kid is willing to steal it while the other isn't.
Neither has worse ethics. It's just based off of what your "offering".
