The UC Berkeley Study of the Greedy 1% Is A Lot of Class Warfare & A Whole Lot Less Science

0
Share

Paul K. Piff who is working towards his Ph.D. at UC Berkeley is making the grade at the expense of the rich. He recently published his unscientific study entitled, Higher social class predicts unethical social behavior.

It has been published throughout the lamestream media and the leftist blogs are sending it like a meteor throughout the blogosphere because they say it proves that the rich are unethical and the poor are far more ethical.

Piff knows, as do we all, that publishing anything radical, especially if it aligns with popular thought, will get him his Ph.D. and a good job. I’m not saying he doesn’t believe what he says or this is what is in his heart, but he knows it just the same.

His “study” demonizes the rich as he jumps into the class warfare currently dividing our country.

I am not rich but I have been poor. I have worked with the very rich and the very poor. I can come up with as many unethical people in the lower classes as the upper and the reverse is also true. The language of Piff, and our President, appear to further an agenda of the 99% against the 1%.

We are so lucky to be living in this country. Even the poor are helped more than in any other country and we continually try to do that better. Everyone has opportunity here and we are so graced with freedoms and financial successes unknown to any other civilization.

The 99% against the 1% is a myth fostered by the leftists and iterated by Obama. Piff’s study sets out to prove that the 1% are unethical as he furthers the myth.

Piff’s study asked questions of a meager 1,000 people supposedly covering the rich and the poor but I cannot find the exact number from each category or any indication of how they were selected. The questions are questionable. The only thing I would assume from the responses is that the rich are more honest.

The first two studies were “naturalistic field studies.” The evaluators appear to have hung out at four-way intersections and watched the Mercedes going by. I have known plenty of people who own fancy cars and have not a spittoon to spit in. It is unclear they did anything else from what I have seen posted.

The third study set up scenarios with questions that are supposedly indicative of a person’s character. The entire line of questioning is subjective and reminded me of the way they used to test IQ’s. They mis-measured people, and still do, ruining self-images and incentive in people for generations with their false pronouncements based on subjective measures.

The fourth study looked for empathy in people who ranked and compared themselves along a social ladder. At the end they were told they could take candies from a jar and the remaining candies were to be given to children. Of course the wealthy felt entitled and grabbed too much candy. Maybe someone could explain why the lower classes are grabbing up entitlements like it was going out of style.Even if I trusted Piff to report the results accurately, I don’t know how he can call this scientific. I would like to see a tape of what they actually said and how they said it.

The fifth test required participants to answer questions which tested positive attitudes towards greed.

The sixth test looked at cheating behavior in a “game of chance.” Who even believes that wealth determines how a person will deal with a game of chance?

By the seventh test, they knew the upper class were more unethical and greedier. This was the most obviously biased of the “studies” and I use that word ‘studies” loosely. They expected that upper-class individuals’ to exhibit unethical behavior but wanted to see if people of all classes could be primed to have a more positive attitude towards greed.

The results were as expected – lower class individuals could learn the unethical behavior. The evaluators primed people to the positives of greed (set the participants up) and then asked them to list three good things about greed. First of all, a scientist never assumes results before the test and secondly, it might prove people can be sheeple, nothing more.

The tests were based on the premise that the rich are more unethical so is it any surprise that the results of their subjective measures proved their point? In all the tests, they allegedly accounted for variables such as sex, religiosity, ethnicity and political orientation – that isn’t even possible.

The class warfare being perpetrated by the left, this test being one more nail in the coffin, reminds me of the types of things that occurred prior to the French Revolution, which is something the OWS have called for. They have repeatedly called for a new French Revolution.

For one example, Marie Antoinette was never the person she was made out to be. She never said “Let them eat cake.” That was merely something all royalty were accused of saying, starting hundreds of years before. She actually ran to the guillotine, stepped on her executioners foot, and asked his pardon.

She was a child when she was married and knew no other life. One of the things she enjoyed was reading romance novels but, for that innocent pleasure, the media of the day portrayed her as a lover of porn and a whore. The media won and the people went from loving her to hating her.

Marie Antoinette had a library of romance novels and when the “poor,” who were not so nice despite the above test, charged into the room, they tore through the books like maniacs and proclaimed her guilt based on these frivolous books. The torture her, her family and many of the upper class, at the hands of the ethical lower class, is well-documented and it was vile.

Robespierre and so many of the players in the Revolution were lower class and they were evil. Many among the upper class were good people. I remember one of the books I read about the revolution and it had a quote from one of the participants in the beheadings of the upper class – he said, Not all poor are nice people. In fact, many are not. Being poor, doesn’t make you a good person.

The French Revolution was not like our revolution in that it was never a battle, it was a genocide of the upper class. The Marxists who were behind the revolution saw the rich as venal parasites. It was a war of Marxist ideas spun in part by the media of the day. Sadly, the revolution actually worsened the conditions of the poor.

Piff is an occupier who trashed the 1%, his study is unscientific and his evaluators manipulated the results by setting up the participants.

Meanwhile, does anyone care that our military are having their health benefits cut and soldiers in Afghanistan can’t get combat pay unless they get shot at? Why aren’t we talking about his instead of these inane “studies?”

Read about this study out of UC Berkeley: Manufactured evidence?

Share