Why do so many bad drivers have luxury cars? A new study blames disagreeable men
thestar.com
thestar.com
> In a representative sample of Finnish car owners (N = 1892) we connected the Five‐Factor Model personality dimensions to driving a high‐status car. Regardless of whether income was included in the logistic model, disagreeable men and conscientious people in general were particularly likely to drive high‐status cars. The results regarding agreeableness are consistent with prior work that has argued for the role of narcissism in status consumption. Regarding conscientiousness, the results can be interpreted from the perspective of self‐congruity theory, according to which consumers purchase brands that best reflect their actual or ideal personalities. An important implication is that the association between driving a high‐status car and unethical driving behaviour may not, as is commonly argued, be due to the corruptive effects of wealth. Rather, certain personality traits, such as low agreeableness, may be associated with both unethical driving behaviour and with driving a high‐status car.
There is also this...interesting sentence in the paper's discussion section:
> The present study was motivated by the authors' everyday experience of most traffic violations being committed by male drivers of high‐status cars.
Here's an idea -- because it's all p-hacked nonsense.
The abstract leaves out 1) how this population of 1892 was acquired. 2) what the definition of a high status car is -- is it equivalent to the cost or is it an arbitrary split on make/model? 3) the actual statistical tests and their results. While we see N at 1892, what were the sub-populations. Presumably N[high_status] is low relative to N, which would go along way to explaining the high 'conscientious' result -- that they are both meaningless statistical artifacts.
> The present study was motivated by the authors' everyday experience of most traffic violations being committed by male drivers of high‐status cars.
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman
This is bad work.
This bad and unsafe behavior by these drivers is usually more pronounced toward a pedestrian or cyclist.
I've never heard this stereotype of Tesla drivers. I normally associate aggressive driving (and not signalling) with really big, high above the ground cars and trucks.
Really? Tesla drivers are like 2% tech enthusiasts and 90% the kind of people seeking the latest and greatest flashy car.
My car isn't my status symbol. My bank account is enough that I don't worry about downturns too much and I'll be able to retire to a nice life in the future (assuming civilization doesn't collapse)
For reference, I live near Palo Alto.
That said, come to a freaking stop.
Also, if a bunch of cars make rolling stops, then the vehicles behind them keep crawling along the whole time (instead of coming to a complete stop and having the engine cut). I wonder what the cumulative effect is?
Being rich is directly correlated with a loss of empathy, so this study is no surprise.
My guess is that the higher the loan value is when compared to the driver's income, the worse the driver will be. Ex: $20k/yr guy driving $45k loan V8 Mustang would be a much worse driver than $100k/yr guy who owns his BMW outright.
Side-note: I do not drive a luxury car, for those about to presume.
Disagreeable people tend to get what they want more often. The most disagreeable people tend to be men.
Also luxury car drivers tend to be worse drivers just by driving those cars alone.
When you're disagreeable, people will tend give you what you want to get you out of their hair, but in parallel to that, their minds begin forming ideas about how to avoid or minimize future interactions with you.
And that's going to have the effect of you not getting what you want from those people any more; you will have find new people to get what you want.
People also talk: if you're disagreeable to someone, that will not remain a secret that is just between you and then. They will likely be sharing their experience with others, which will warn those others about interacting with you.
So, if we take that into account, being disagreeable no longer seems like a clear-cut optimization of getting what you want as a long-term strategy.
Thus, although the "squeaky wheel gets a greasing", we also have it that "you catch more flies with honey".
From what I understand "agreeableness" is personality dimension where people tend to sacrifice their immediate well being for long term gains for others on one side and the inability to sacrifice the same for the same. This, of course, is subject to their intelligence and ability to monitor and change their own behavior.
One can be low on agreeableness and get along well with others.
Brake checking was a popular thing to do in my state before dashcams were so popular and affordable (assumes the person behind is at fault, but brake checking is also illegal). Someone with money is clearly able to afford dashcams, hence, don't brake check rich people thinking "they have more to lose than I do" because you just think it's only your car that's at stake.
In other words, it's a period of high job growth. I've noticed this in my dad and many men - when they have a job, they are like this. Women have it too, but there is less ego driving the entirety of their personality.
Many academic papers have been written on correlations between old age and bad driving. Yet when The Star writes about those papers, it chooses to blame the "transportation gap."
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2016/10/24/transportation-g...
The root article of this thread is just a bunch of virtue signaling nonsense that falls under the umbrella of a cultural attack on men.
Don't be disingenuous.