Testing people's honesty...

Great Debates
21

[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
I am bothered by the insistence that not returning the wallet is the same as stealing it. The wallet was found, not stolen.

For all we know, the people who did not return the wallet simply threw it in the trash.
[/QUOTE]

My thoughts exactly.

Given the (relatively) small amounts of cash involved and the complete lack of what i’ll call, for want of another term, valuable content (credit or debit cards primarily, maybe personal photos etc. as well) i can see a lot of people just not thinking its worth the hassle to themselves or the owner.

I’ve found several wallets so far in my lifetime and returned them all. One even had a significant amount of cash in it (about $800 in your mickey-mouse money :D).

With the exception of the cash, however, in each case the wallet and cards they contained (credit/debit) were already useless.

Twice this was because the owner had already reported them missing and had the cards cancelled immediately, once this was because, lacking any other ID for the wallet’s owner, i popped it into the nearest branch of their bank, who promptly cancelled the cards then and there.

Whilst i’d still pick up and attempt to return a wallet if i found one again, i’d be doing it more to prevent someone else from getting their mits on the personal info it contained rather than because i expected the owner to be screwed without it.

Finally, with regards to his use of the word stolen, this (from the site) is pretty telling to me:

Given that the gift certificate is the only thing in there that could conceivably have any value, i’d say that only three people can genuinely be said to have “stolen” the wallet. The rest, at worst, are guilty of nothing more than wanting to avoid the hassle of returning it, or even just simple forgetfulness.

22

[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
I am bothered by the insistence that not returning the wallet is the same as stealing it. The wallet was found, not stolen.

For all we know, the people who did not return the wallet simply threw it in the trash.
[/QUOTE]

I absolutely agree with this. I didn’t have time to go through each individual circumstance but we don’t know that. The wallet contained no money (to speak of) no credit cards, no drivers license and was cheap. In essence, it really had no value to the person that lost it other than two dollars and ten cents. How many people would be willing to go out of their way for something that seems to have no value to the person that lost it?
Personally, I would walk it in the closest shop but I wouldn’t condemn another who didn’t want to be bothered.
I think it would be a more accurate test of honesty if it contained what a wallet would normally contain. ID, debit card, credit card(s) and cash.

23

[QUOTE=Blake]

Which simply confirms that you have absolutely no understanidng of probability, science or logic.
[/QUOTE]

Wow…This is one of the most unintentionally ironic statements I have seen on these messageboards given how royally you screwed up your analysis.

The results you got don’t even pass the most basic consistency checks (for example, how can we expect only 12 of 49 men to be honest on the basis of age considerations when a majority of people in all of the age groups…even the youngest…were honest) and yet you blindly believed them!

24

I bet that if the wallet belonged to “Melissa Kinsella” instead of “Paul Kinsella,” a significantly higher percentage of men would have returned it.

25

[QUOTE=jshore]
The results you got don’t even pass the most basic consistency checks (for example, how can we expect only 12 of 49 men to be honest on the basis of age considerations when a majority of people in all of the age groups…even the youngest…were honest)
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, something’s fishy there.
Let’s see: If honesty were solely determined by age, the study predicts that 56% of young, 81% of middle-aged, and 88% of old people would be honest.

Then we’d expect 56% of the 22 young men, 81% of the 14 middle-aged men, and 85% of the 13 old men, to be honest: a total of around 35 men (out of the 49 men in all) being honest. Instead, only 30 of the men were honest.

26

Note that it is possible to cook up a situation in which Blake’s objection actually holds true.

Suppose they tested 50 men and 50 women, but 40 of the men were young (and the other 10 old), while 10 of the women were young (and the other 40 old).

Suppose it turned out that 22 of the 40 young men were honest (55% honest), while 4 of the 10 young women were honest (40% honest), and 8 of the 10 old men were honest (80% honest) while 30 of the 40 old women were honest (75% honest).

But, if you compare all men to all women, 30 out of the 50 men were honest (60% honest), while 34 out of the 50 women were honest (68% honest).

Then the data would “prove” that young men are more honest than young women (55% vs. 40%) and that old men are more honest than old women (80% vs. 75%) but that, overall, women are more honest than men (68% vs. 60%).

27

[QUOTE=Thudlow Boink]
Note that it is possible to cook up a situation in which Blake’s objection actually holds true.
[/quote]

I agree. Like I said before, I think his basic point is a good one, but there is a problem with his math.

28

Hmmm…

If I found a wallet with $2.10 in it…and no credit cards or drivers license or other items that would inconvenience the owner I wouldn’t bother to return it…heck, it’s only $2.10. I get the feeling the M/F split is affected by this somewhat.

The $50 gift card would cause me to spend some effort to return it, if it was relatively easy…like a name/phone number in the wallet. However, I wouldn’t go to great lengths if effort was required.

CC/ID even with no money…I would put some serious effort to contact the person. They are a pain to deal with lost.

====

A real test of dishonesty would be to put $1000 in the wallet. THAT would be an interesting test.

29

[QUOTE=denquixote]

[QUOTE=RedRosesForMe]

The men, with a less empathetic view, don’t really consider the feelings of the person who lost the wallet and only with practical concerns like “Will I get caught?” etc.

Well you could have knocked me over with a feather when I discovered (or more likely was informed) that “empathetic” not only had a different meaning from “sympathetic,” but it is not even a word. Since being enlightened and learning the actual word is “empathic” I feel compelled to share. Sorry if you prefer not to know.
[/QUOTE]

I do know that empathy and sympathy are not synonymous, but I do believe I used it correctly- Identification with and understanding of another’s situation, feelings, and motives is the first definition I pulled up.

I did not realize that the word I meant was empathic, so I appreciate you informing me. And FWIW, empathic still sounds funny to my ears, no matter how correct it is.

30

[QUOTE=RedRosesForMe]

[QUOTE=denquixote]

I do know that empathy and sympathy are not synonymous, but I do believe I used it correctly- Identification with and understanding of another’s situation, feelings, and motives is the first definition I pulled up.

I did not realize that the word I meant was empathic, so I appreciate you informing me. And FWIW, empathic still sounds funny to my ears, no matter how correct it is.
[/QUOTE]

Hey i didn’t say you used the word incorrectly I said I used to. Your welcome. It might not sound so wrong if everyone else used it correctly, who knows?

31

[QUOTE=Thudlow Boink]
Note that it is possible to cook up a situation in which Blake’s objection actually holds true.

Suppose they tested 50 men and 50 women, but 40 of the men were young (and the other 10 old), while 10 of the women were young (and the other 40 old).

Suppose it turned out that 22 of the 40 young men were honest (55% honest), while 4 of the 10 young women were honest (40% honest), and 8 of the 10 old men were honest (80% honest) while 30 of the 40 old women were honest (75% honest).

But, if you compare all men to all women, 30 out of the 50 men were honest (60% honest), while 34 out of the 50 women were honest (68% honest).

Then the data would “prove” that young men are more honest than young women (55% vs. 40%) and that old men are more honest than old women (80% vs. 75%) but that, overall, women are more honest than men (68% vs. 60%).
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=brazil84]
I agree. Like I said before, I think his basic point is a good one, but there is a problem with his math.
[/QUOTE]

I can’t figure out what your points have to do with the data that is referenced in the OP…

Blake came to a totally incorrect conclusion with a bogus statistical analysis and then compounded his error by ridiculing my post for correcting his error. He threw in a gratuitous reference to “ignorant nonsense” and mentioned that my correction confirmed that I “have absolutely no understanidng of probability, science or logic.”

Is your observation is that if only the data supported his conclusion, the data might support his conclusion? Well yeah…and I suppose if the data showed all the women kept all the wallets and all the men returned all the wallets, that would be a different case as well.

I need to find a smiley icon for laughing until stuff comes out your nose if there is any more support that his point is a “good one.” Not a single group or subgroup had fewer women “steal” the wallet. Here, for your pleasure, is his rejoinder to the OP’s question of why “…men steal over twice as much as women…” :

(by Blake) : “They didn’t, in actual fact the exact opposite is true: all other factors being equal males stole less than one quarter as often as females.”

What is it that is so difficult about saying, “That was a silly analysis, a wrong conclusion, and a bad time to lecture about the value of a statistics class.” ?

If you want to defend the post, point out that it was posted in the middle of the nite or something. I’m well aware my own comeuppance is likely right around the corner, when I’ll be the one repenting my ignominy in leisure at a too-hasty post, but distancing yourself from Blake’s conclusion on this one is a wiser choice than defending it.

32

[QUOTE=RedRosesForMe]

[QUOTE=denquixote]

I do know that empathy and sympathy are not synonymous, but I do believe I used it correctly- Identification with and understanding of another’s situation, feelings, and motives is the first definition I pulled up.

I did not realize that the word I meant was empathic, so I appreciate you informing me. And FWIW, empathic still sounds funny to my ears, no matter how correct it is.
[/QUOTE]

Empathetic is fine. Pretty common usage.

33

[QUOTE=Chief Pedant]
I can’t figure out what your points have to do with the data that is referenced in the OP…

Blake came to a totally incorrect conclusion with a bogus statistical analysis and then compounded his error by ridiculing my post for correcting his error. He threw in a gratuitous reference to “ignorant nonsense” and mentioned that my correction confirmed that I “have absolutely no understanidng of probability, science or logic.”

Is your observation is that if only the data supported his conclusion, the data might support his conclusion? Well yeah…and I suppose if the data showed all the women kept all the wallets and all the men returned all the wallets, that would be a different case as well.

[/QUOTE]

While it is always dangerous to speak for other people, I think their point would be that it is possible to invent data in which the sort of paradox that Blake claimed existed here did occur. (I.e., where, say, the data taken on its face seemed to say that more women than men were honest but once you corrected for the correlation with age and the fact that the two gender groups had a very different age distribution, it actually implied the opposite.)

But, of course, as you point out, this data does not support that conclusion and it is only by completely screwing up the data analysis that Blake erroneously arrived at the conclusion that it did (and then compounded this by jumping down your throat when you tried to tell him how wrong he was).

Is that a consensus statement that we can all agree on? :wink:

34

[QUOTE=Chief Pedant]
I can’t figure out what your points have to do with the data that is referenced in the OP…
[/quote]

I think he has a point in that there were more young men than young women who were tested. Since the young people of both genders were more dishonest, this could skew the results.

But since men were more dishonest than women in all categories, if you control for age, it shouldn’t make the kind of difference he was claiming.

Ok, so he has been totally humiliated.

In my opinion, he was 95% wrong in his analysis. And he shouldn’t have spoken so harshly towards you.

35

“While it is always dangerous to speak for other people, I think their point would be that it is possible to invent data in which the sort of paradox that Blake claimed existed here did occur.”

I dont think its possible to have women being proportionally more honest than men in every age group and end up finding men are more honest once you take age into account - differences in sample sizes for each age group cant turn into a change in direction if thats the case.

At best you might have found the differences werent significant, because there was an over representation of one age/sex group.

If there had been differences in honesty in different age groups it might have been possible, but that wasnt the case, which is why I was dubious and eventually realised he’d reversed young/old.

Im pretty sure my calcs are right, but noone else has confirmed or disputed them.

Otara

36

[QUOTE=Foxy40]
I absolutely agree with this. I didn’t have time to go through each individual circumstance but we don’t know that. The wallet contained no money (to speak of) no credit cards, no drivers license and was cheap. In essence, it really had no value to the person that lost it other than two dollars and ten cents. How many people would be willing to go out of their way for something that seems to have no value to the person that lost it?
Personally, I would walk it in the closest shop but I wouldn’t condemn another who didn’t want to be bothered.
I think it would be a more accurate test of honesty if it contained what a wallet would normally contain. ID, debit card, credit card(s) and cash.
[/QUOTE]

Didn’t the wallets contain ID, though? So, although the monetary value of the wallets was low, the wallet was at least worth a couple of frustrating hours at the DMV, an even more hideous picture than last time, and a duplicate license fee for the “owner.”

37

[QUOTE=RedRosesForMe]
Didn’t the wallets contain ID, though? So, although the monetary value of the wallets was low, the wallet was at least worth a couple of frustrating hours at the DMV, an even more hideous picture than last time, and a duplicate license fee for the “owner.”
[/QUOTE]
Sure doesn’t look like a DMV ID. Just a sticker with a name and address.

38

[QUOTE=Otara]

I dont think its possible to have women being proportionally more honest than men in every age group and end up finding men are more honest once you take age into account - differences in sample sizes for each age group cant turn into a change in direction if thats the case.

At best you might have found the differences werent significant, because there was an over representation of one age/sex group.

If there had been differences in honesty in different age groups it might have been possible, but that wasnt the case…

[/QUOTE]

Yeah…I agree. Sort of. I think you could set up a case where the women were more honest than the men in every age group but were still less honest in the total sample by having the sample weighted such that there are many more women than men in the age group that is less honest. For example:
Young: 10/40 women honest and 1/10 men honest
Old: 50/60 women honest and 70/90 men honest.
In such a sample, the women are more honest in both age groups but in the sample as a whole, the men are honest 71% of the time and the women 60%.

However, given that we know that men and women are not in fact distributed so unevenly in age in the real world, I think you could argue that this is not a representative sample and that the evidence suggests that in a representative sample (i.e., once the correlation with age is essentially controlled for), one would that the women are more honest. [And, even if you did live in a world with such a skewed age distribution of the two genders, you would still probably end up with the conclusion that it seems to be more age than gender that explains the gender difference in honesty rates.]

39

[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
Sure doesn’t look like a DMV ID. Just a sticker with a name and address.

[/QUOTE]

Well then, I agree that the wallets aren’t very valuable, even to the owner. A real ID would possibly have led to a few more people returning it.

40

“I think you could set up a case where the women were more honest than the men in every age group but were still less honest in the total sample by having the sample weighted such that there are many more women than men in the age group that is less honest.”

I said “I dont think its possible to have women being proportionally more honest than men in every age group and end up finding men are more honest once you take age into account”.

You’re pointing you that scenarios can be constructed where it looks like men are more honest than women overall, but thats only if you deliberately ignore age as a variable in that scenario, which clearly wouldnt be valid when differences do seem to exist between the age groups.

Otara