I wasn’t attempting to.
Except it did have a major impact in the examples I laid out. Compassion can sometimes cloud our thinking and make us do things that are, in the end, worse. That’s why I said I don’t know what the right amount of compassion to have is. Do you?
It certainly is when that other behaviour is your only control.
Yes, that’s right, just as poor people think it is all right for them to be inconsiderate to others because they make less money than others.
That was precisely my point. Thank goodness you got it.
Looking at Google, first hits:
“a car or a person moved precipitously into my path so I couldn’t continue as I wished”
“I would take it to be more forceful and mean that they blocked my way - I could not reach the place that I needed to, for example: I tried to take the slip road for Birmingham but a red van cut me off and so I had to take the next exit.”
“When you change lanes to go faster and then the person in front of you starts slowing down, and for no observable reason?”
And so on and so forth.
As I said, the term is very subjective. For you it means risking an accident, for someone else it means they couldn’t continue as they wished, yet another that the person in front starts slowing down.
The question is then how the researchers defined it and how they standardised their observations.
That isn’t more plausible at all. And without the most basic control being applied the conclusion is worthless.
It’s junk science. There’s no excuse for not having the most basic control.
I’m not trying to do anything frantically. I am pointing out rather obvious flaws with the study.
If you honestly don’t think that a scientific study should have a basic control, and you honestly don’t think that appetite or body image might have some effect on eating then that’s fine. Nobody expects you to believe what I write.
The question is whether you have ability to critically analyse a study, or whether you simply accept it because it has been published.
Simple quetsion: would you have conducted thse experiments in this manner, ie without controls? If so, why break with standard protocol? If not, why do you think these researchers did so when the controls seem so easy to implement? If do you believe that the lack of controls is a legitimate criticism to make of a scientific study?
The assumption that cheaper car correlates to lower income seems questionable to me. Plenty of higher-income people might choose to drive a Prius or a Mini, for instance, for reasons having nothing to do with their affordability.
Real rich people don’t drive. They have people to do that. 
I thought the implication went the other way.
Where are you getting this “a great many people?” I think that, sure, but I’m just one person. All I ever hear about on this board is how evil rich people are, and how they’re all backstabbers, and how they’d eat your babies if paid to do so. So it’s hardly “a great many people.”
Second, wealth is just one virtue out of many possible ones. If a person gets wealthy by selling cocaine, they’re not a virtuous person. So I don’t know why you expect to end some imagined hero-worship by pointing out vices.
Third, while luxury car owners are probably wealthy, there’s no evidence that the wealthy are luxury car owners. You’re committing a base rate fallacy. It’s like saying I found you in the Yankees dugout (I found you speeding), people in the Yankees dugout tend to be baseball fans (speeders tended to be rich luxury car owners), therefore baseball fans are usually in the Yankees dugout (therefore the rich tend to be speeders). Of course, most baseball fans are in their living rooms or stadium seats, not in the Yankees dugout.
Finally, it’s altogether humorous to hear people like you argue “Those rich people are so greedy, we should take all their money for ourselves.” It’s threads like this that remind me how evil liberalism is.
I have never in my life heard anyone suggest that wealth was a virtue.
Thank god this study was done. Now that we finally know that some rich people are greedy and lack compassion the world can now magically change. The rich people will now start giving all their money away and stop being greedy. Government will now cut all programs that help rich people and businesses and give all that money to the poor.
Truely a blessed day.
I think I have a new favourite poster. 
How is being wealthy any kind of virtue at all? It isn’t inherently so, nor is it a reliable indicator.
This reminded me of a great Cracked piece that isn’t so much funny as smart and true:
You know what is infinitely worse than liberalism? Hearing what you want to hear to justify your point of view. In this case, I refer to the highlighted portion above. I confess I have not read every word of every post in this thread, so perhaps you can direct me to where you noticed someone saying this, using these or any other words that mean the same thing. Not words that you inferred meant this, but words which actually convey this meaning.
I’ll be waiting, but I won’t be holding my breath. (And jokes don’t count…unless of course you were just joking about finding liberalism evil?)
I meant that, even if we assume that the people in the luxury cars are rich, we don’t know the income level of the people in the non-luxury cars.
Blake, your posts remind me of another libertarian i’ve encountered. All he ever does is ask for specifics ad nauseum. You guys are apparently unaware that we have legislators who can work out such details like exactly how high a campaign spending limit should be. You apparently think that unless a bill or proposal is already perfect and has existed for thousands of years, it shouldn’t be passed and can’t be updated or adjusted. You libertarians come on like realists, but you do not live in the real world. Your utopia is a fantasy.
Given the frequently-documented fact that most millionaires drive non-luxury cars that are several years old, it’s not merely questionable, it’s extremely dubious. The guy in the newish luxury car is the kind of guy who wants to be seen as rich (whether he is or not), and I don’t think anyone’s surprised to know he’s a dickbag.
Horseshit from sociologists is still horseshit.
+1.
Posted without comment.
Fail.
Do you not know the definition of the word “fail”?
You asked, “Show me where someone said “Those rich people are so greedy, we should take all their money for ourselves”. You don’t have to find someone who used the exact same wording, but that that was the meaning”. I quoted “And taxing away most of their money and re-investing it in the economy would be a good idea, yes”. Note this part: “taxing away most of their money”. Yes, Der Trihs said “Reinvesting it in the economy” as opposed to “Take it for myself” but that’s a nitpick, since if re-investing the money is his decision, he took it for himself.
So no, that is not a fail. I believe the proper term is a “success”.
You haven’t considered the possibility that the rich people in the study candy were doing their best to compassionately fight the obesity epidemic. The same way that they realize (being experts at having money) that money is the root of all evil and compassionately try to keep it all for themselves.
You lucky ducks just don’t know how much better off you are to be removed from all of the burdens of being rich. Now get out of my way, my time is way more valuable than yours.
Why do talks about wealth generation eventually devolve into subjective things like :better or worse?
Only if you think warping the meaning of words is a success.
“taxing most” does not mean “taking all” and “re-investing it in the economy” does not mean “for ourselves”
I specifically cautioned against inference.
I personally think that we should take all of every rich person’s money. Every last dime. Even reducing them to the level of only being able to afford a cardboard box if they timeshare it, that is still leaving them too much. Because clearly reducing them to income parity isn’t sufficient - we’re not satisfied to disincentivize ambition, dammit; we’re punishing them for the sheer meanness of it!
And remember, when we do take all their money, we need to give it all to some other person’s country. Because if we kept it in our own country that would effect our economy and that’s right out.
.
.
.
Der Trihs is a charming and erudite fellow, but he can get a little excited sometimes.