It would be nice to see some standard deviations reported here! Nominal p-values would be a start too. Since N = 2000 it wouldn’t be hard to find atleast a few interesting findings. Although the bias from study design would make it hard to know if we can believe the outcomes.
"Gold" tops the list of car colours correlated with psycho behaviour, and I thought, well, that makes sense - but then the one at the very bottom is "red".
I'm having trouble arranging this into some consistent mental image of the correlation.
Red tends to be a no cost paint option (along with white) - I expect there's an underlying factor of psychopaths choosing the high end options when kitting out the car.
Huh, didn't know that actually. I considered it a "royal" look-at-me colour sort of like gold (which takes it up a notch, but within the same vibe). Interesting.
The psychopath is their own worst enemy here. Never buy a gold car. Gold is hard to see, especially peripherally (which is why it's so hard to find a gold ring if you drop it).
Why would Benzes be so behind BMW and Audi? I’d prefer if they focused on sociopathy and narcissism versus psychopathy since I don’t feel like psychopaths are as common as the other two.
Someone please do this study with programming languages, I have my suspicions.
Mercedes-Benz probably still has a reputation that it's a luxury car for people who like it, and while BMW and Audi also target this market, most of their market is people looking for performance, i.e. speed.
Stereotypically, Merc buyers won't brag about their 0-60 times, while BMW/Audi buyers would. Merc has been trying to target that market though, e.g. with their A class (beginning from the 3rd gen, the 1st and 2nd gen were probably targetting old ladies...).
Statistically speaking, (and assuming no flawed data) that would suggest that the highest scoring electric vehicle drivers are biased heavily towards other brands.
Or, there were no drivers from electric-only brands in the group.
What a lot of commenters are missing is that the premise of the question is flawed/garbage to begin with.
To infer that a self-reported psychopathy test is somehow indicative of mental disease and to further infer that this directly translates into driving style is ludicrous and doesn't pass several simple smell tests.
One commenter mentioned horsepower, and they may be onto something. Certainly a better prediction than a simple quiz, which might as well be a horoscope or something.
Since everyone is saying BMW - which is the most stolen car? Since supposedly the chance of criminals being sociopaths is significantly higher than the rest of the population.
I say supposedly because I have strong reservations about how worthwhile the definitions of sociopath are, as well as reservations about the parts of the field of psychology that deal with identifying personality traits in order to make value judgments.
Iirc there was also a finding that learning about economics makes people score higher on those tests, so I worry they are more of an ideological tool than science. They may simply have categorized behaviors they don't like as "psychopath". I don't trust them.
That’s just the reality of normalizing casual psychiatric evaluations now days. I’m pretty sure there were Standford (or Princeton) psych professors casually diagnosing Trump with clinical narcissism on major news networks. If anyone has a any kind of spaz out moment, they are automatically bipolar to many people.
It’s the true meta form of cancelling someone, it just hasn’t caught on just yet (not to that level at least). There’s a contingent that has already started diagnosing Biden as senile. It’s one more way to categorize people, usually to discredit them.
Don’t get along with your parents? Welp, head on over to /r/raisedbynarcissists, simple as that. Don’t like your ex? Boss sucks? Again, narcissist, sociopath, etc.
If you think people live in a media or news bubble, wait till you dig into their amateur psych eval bubble of a life they got going on (seriously, visit some of those subreddits). Check those bubbles out, there is never a single ounce of objectivity in those subreddits/forums, just intense confirmation bias.
I don't know how to put it without sounding like a conspiracy theorist, but I think eventually society really needs to reevaluate its attitude to science in general. Scientists have this elevated status, and naturally people try to exploit it. But everybody can call themselves a scientist, and even getting credibility by attaching to supposedly reliable institutions is not that hard anymore.
It seems to me people are not sufficiently aware yet of "scientific studies" being used as a political tool. Maybe if they read a news article in some magazine, they may be aware it could be ideologically tainted. For "studies", that seems to be much less the case so far.
Psychology also seems like an immediately scary example to me. I worry for example that "experts" can simply bypass the legal system by diagnosing people as "mentally ill" and having them locked away. Is there legal recourse for such a thing?
They will straight say certain things without any fear that someone might sue them for libel/character defamation. That link is a little topical due to the Rittenhouse case, but for many years they labeled Trump a variety of things on one side, and the right-wing labeled their targets in the same fashion on the other side. I’m pretty sure they also said Joe Rogan was taking horse medicine, which was a low blow. Well, not as low of a blow as insinuating Trump took part in Golden Showers (him pissing on girls, or vice versa, actual pee, if anyone needs to ask) in Russian hotels.
They don’t give a shit, and that’s just the media. Your average person now uses the same appeal to authority attack tactics in every day encounters.
What can you do if someone says you are toxic or __insert psychotic tendency here__ at work, in a relationship? The way we communicate seems to have shifted to the label being thrown out first, versus objectively walking through issues.
I don’t know, I have no answers honestly, and generally find this too exhausting to even try to dissect. I guess only Peter Thiel successfully launched a counter attack:
All kind of lies and misinformation is propagated via mainstream media. But that doesnt mean that the professionals in their respected fields are agreeing with some outlier giving a questionable interview on mainstream tv
One parameter that I feel is missing is horsepower.
In any case I have friends and family members with obvious psychopathic tendencies and while a fraction of them is ineed reckless as drivers, the majority is actually exceptionally cautious.
As a Renault driver i can confirm that it takes a certain amount of psychopathy to even think about going out in the streets with a 20 year old 58 HP Clio. Not all the way, just the right amount.
