People in higher social class have an exaggerated belief that they are better
eurekalert.org
eurekalert.org
>Furthermore, all three forms of social class were positively associated with actual rank, indicating that those with relatively high social class did objectively better on the flashcard game relative to their lower-class counterparts
Looking at the table of correlations on page 7 in some cases shows the exact opposite of what the article constantly hints at: that performance was in no way correlated with social/financial class. Glad to see quality reporting as usual. (Edit: Yes, the general effect still exists, just look at the paper. It's still bad reporting)
If you're interested in learning, ignore articles like this and glance over the actual papers instead: https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/psp-pspi0000187.p...
> Furthermore, all three forms of social class were positively associated with actual rank, indicating that those with relatively high social class did objectively better on the flashcard game relative to their lower-class counterparts (rs range = .04 to .20, all ps < .001).
in line with the article.
The paper reported on statistical or percentile rank. Are you perhaps confusing it for colloquial "ranking"?
Well, I think it is clear from the title alone that it is not making that argument.
The title and article constantly refer to higher self-expectations as "an exaggerated belief that they are better than others", with the first sentence of the page stating "Overconfidence can be misinterpreted by others as greater competence, perpetuating social hierarchies, study says".
The authors take every chance they can to attempt to convince the reader that there is no actual positive correlation: "Those from a higher social class thought that they did better than others; however, when the researchers examined actual performance, it was not the case", "these inequalities will continue to perpetuate if people do not correct for their natural human tendency to conflate impressions of confidence with evidence of ability."
After unfortunately having read the article for a second time, its dishonesty is only saddening. There is actual science being done and yet it is reported on so inaccurately that it does a net-harm to peoples' beliefs (not to imply that this isn't the standard).
The 'relative overplacement' in the first table (the extent that participants over-estimated their own performance) is a correlation of 0.04, while the 'actual rank' is a correlation of 0.13, both in comparison to 'subjective social class'. There are a lot of correlations of higher magnitude than 0.04, so it's disappointing that the article attempts to focus on nothing else.
Narcissism involves a kind of fraudulent, artificial self-image. Claiming something is trivial and then not being able to follow through on that is exactly the kind of bluster I'd expect from a narcissist. The slacking off fits the profile, and the "gets mad" is also a narcissistic trait.
To return to my original point: this is not about class origins, it sound's like it is about having a chip on one's shoulder about intellectual achievement. There are many other things that can play that role in narcissism, including coming from an underprivileged background.
It's really important to develop a proper analysis of these personality problems. The typical engineer has a blind spot in this area—they can see when there's an obvious problem but they don't try to build up a deeper intuition for the dynamics behind it.
Wealth is power, power gets to your head.
Besides, it's not a bad idea to study things that seem obvious. Sometimes you get surprising results.
probably.