No, that's what the title says, but it is click bait.
What the actual article says is that in social groups with well defined hierarchies, higher ranking members tend to contribute more than average to the common good (though this might be biased due to their role in defense against external threats). This old fashioned notion that the rich are expected to hit above their weight level is called Noblesse Obligue, and it's almost the exact opposite of Gecko's doctrine.
What reasons there might be to have come up with such a title/conclusion given the information available? I can only think of one: Assholeness apologetics.
Slight nitpick: "noblesse oblige" not "noblesse obligue"
French locution Noblesse oblige ~ En raison de leur caractère noble ~~ Because of their nobility
What the actual article says is that in social groups with well defined hierarchies, higher ranking members tend to contribute more than average to the common good (though this might be biased due to their role in defense against external threats). This old fashioned notion that the rich are expected to hit above their weight level is called Noblesse Obligue, and it's almost the exact opposite of Gecko's doctrine.
What reasons there might be to have come up with such a title/conclusion given the information available? I can only think of one: Assholeness apologetics.