IG NOBEL ECONOMICS PRIZE 2026 [USA, MEXICO, CANADA]
Paul Piff, Daniel Stancato, Stéphane Côté, Rodolfo Mendoza-Denton, and Dacher Keltner, for amassing evidence that upper class people are more likely to snatch from a children’s supply of candy, and engage in other kinds of unethical behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 109, no. 11, 2012, pp. 4086-4091. <doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1118373109>
It's not really a surprise that less ethical people on average are richer than ethical people. Sad, but logical: they more often choose selfishly and thus amass more money.
This is the correct direction of causation in this case, imho.
Is it? Wealth is used as a proxy for virtue, and has been for a long time. "Nobility" has two meanings, after all. Why the same word, if not the same root sentiment? Unless one definition was originally meant sarcastically.
Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. [I]t is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”
This guy is pretty influential in at least half the globe.
That's at least one sector of the Christian world that ignores that line. I don't think they're alone. You also have other etymological canaries like "fortune" meaning both "wealth" and "blessing". The thinking is that good things happen to good people, with "good things" including "coming into money". But, as we see, that seems to be erroneous. Just because good things happen to a person doesn't mean that they're good.
You presented it as something we should have known, because it's logical (and it is). But the problem is that we apparently don't know it, and haven't for some time. It appears as if (part of) humanity has gotten it wrong for so long that it's written into our language.
Nonsense. The logic based on etymology doesn't show that at all. Most people alive right have never even used the word "nobility", let alone do they let their worldview be defined by it.
They may have used the word "noble", but very probably did not link that to wealth.
I made and supported my initial claim. The burden of proof here is on the person who claimed that the etymology of "nobility" somehow disproves my initial claim.
Not your initial claim: the claim of the median human not being aware of basic dictionary and ethics.
Of course psychopathy as lack of restraint facilitates amassing riches.
To state the absence of family and schools and contact with books for a majority indicates a weird world view, or an impossibility to put heterogeneous populations in the same basket.
You're making a lot of assumptions, not least of which is that "noble" is the only word linking material wealth and intrinsic goodness. See also "fortune", "blessing", "worth", "value", "credit". Consider also the opposite, like "destitution" (material or moral).
To be clear, I am saying that the link these words connote is wrong, and that it's indeed logical to expect a wealthy person to be selfish. I'm just saying that something drove our culture to forego that logic and make the erroneous link described, and it's written in our language. I can't tell you where that link comes from.
I can go along with us having the tendency to determine the value of things in terms of money, but not with determining how virtuous somebody in terms of wealth. The former is morally neutral (even though it does pull society away from thinking in terms of what actually matters to wellbeing etc.), the latter isn't.
None of the examples you mentioned equate wealth with virtue/ethical behavior. "Nobility" does to an extent.
With regard to modern day connotations of wealth: I'd say that most people associate it with either luck or being savvy in some way; definitely not with ethical behavior.
I knew immediately this was BS, sure enough, someone already beat me to it with the comment explaining why.
Man, I'm so ashamed of my field (experimental psychology). Maybe ~60% of publications are literally worse than useless (that is, they are outright intentional lies).
If you have a Ph.D. you can somewhat sort the wheat from the chaff. But it's 100% not worth it for the layman. Better to just ignore it.
That's why, even though it's incredibly sad to see, I can hardly begrudge the current administration their "defund anything and everything using keyword search". Since they can't trust the experts, that's really about the best that can be done from their perspective.
There are many reasons why peer review doesn't work including but not limited to (1) motivated reasoning AKA complicity in whatever lie is being pushed (2) no real incentive to put effort into peer review (3) laziness and irresponsibility, see also point 2 (4) the "somewhat" qualifier I put in my original comment.
I'm being critical of peer reviewers here, but it's a genuinely very difficult job that takes massive effort to do well.
And then there's actual malpractice like editing data, which is functionally impossible to catch in peer review if the authors are clever. The whole system replies on trust, and trust is completely underserved.
Comments
Some great winners this time, personal favorite:
It's not really a surprise that less ethical people on average are richer than ethical people. Sad, but logical: they more often choose selfishly and thus amass more money.
This is the correct direction of causation in this case, imho.
Is it? Wealth is used as a proxy for virtue, and has been for a long time. "Nobility" has two meanings, after all. Why the same word, if not the same root sentiment? Unless one definition was originally meant sarcastically.
Is it?
This guy is pretty influential in at least half the globe.https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49582188
That's at least one sector of the Christian world that ignores that line. I don't think they're alone. You also have other etymological canaries like "fortune" meaning both "wealth" and "blessing". The thinking is that good things happen to good people, with "good things" including "coming into money". But, as we see, that seems to be erroneous. Just because good things happen to a person doesn't mean that they're good.
You are reading the term too literally.
(And by the way, you are using a severely outdated translation.)
It definitely benefits those with power to have it being considered such. Eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosperity_theology
You're countering logic rooted in psychology and economics with etymology and linguistics?
How does "ancient people consider the wealthy virtuous" cancel out "selfish people tend to make more money"?
You presented it as something we should have known, because it's logical (and it is). But the problem is that we apparently don't know it, and haven't for some time. It appears as if (part of) humanity has gotten it wrong for so long that it's written into our language.
Nonsense. The logic based on etymology doesn't show that at all. Most people alive right have never even used the word "nobility", let alone do they let their worldview be defined by it.
They may have used the word "noble", but very probably did not link that to wealth.
Support your statements, show it. Most people alive would have not been informed on basic ethics, nor basic language?!
I made and supported my initial claim. The burden of proof here is on the person who claimed that the etymology of "nobility" somehow disproves my initial claim.
Not your initial claim: the claim of the median human not being aware of basic dictionary and ethics.
Of course psychopathy as lack of restraint facilitates amassing riches.
To state the absence of family and schools and contact with books for a majority indicates a weird world view, or an impossibility to put heterogeneous populations in the same basket.
You're making a lot of assumptions, not least of which is that "noble" is the only word linking material wealth and intrinsic goodness. See also "fortune", "blessing", "worth", "value", "credit". Consider also the opposite, like "destitution" (material or moral).
To be clear, I am saying that the link these words connote is wrong, and that it's indeed logical to expect a wealthy person to be selfish. I'm just saying that something drove our culture to forego that logic and make the erroneous link described, and it's written in our language. I can't tell you where that link comes from.
I think this is stretching it quite a bit.
I can go along with us having the tendency to determine the value of things in terms of money, but not with determining how virtuous somebody in terms of wealth. The former is morally neutral (even though it does pull society away from thinking in terms of what actually matters to wellbeing etc.), the latter isn't.
None of the examples you mentioned equate wealth with virtue/ethical behavior. "Nobility" does to an extent.
With regard to modern day connotations of wealth: I'd say that most people associate it with either luck or being savvy in some way; definitely not with ethical behavior.
Wait, what does nobility mean other than aristocracy?
"Noble" means "known". "Aristos" means "best" (best fit). The "noble" (the notables) are empowered ("-cracy") for being the best ("aristos").
Moral qualities, practical abilities, enabling the exercise of a role in society.
You've never heard something selfless and good described as "noble"?
This one feels like it deserves more than just an Ig Nobel.
See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49567241
Far more or far less? The study is so profoundly flawed that it should be in a hall of shame, along with whatever journal published it.
I knew immediately this was BS, sure enough, someone already beat me to it with the comment explaining why.
Man, I'm so ashamed of my field (experimental psychology). Maybe ~60% of publications are literally worse than useless (that is, they are outright intentional lies).
The damage done will take decades to fix if it can be fixed. No idea why anyone would even bother engaging with (experimental psychology)
If you have a Ph.D. you can somewhat sort the wheat from the chaff. But it's 100% not worth it for the layman. Better to just ignore it.
That's why, even though it's incredibly sad to see, I can hardly begrudge the current administration their "defund anything and everything using keyword search". Since they can't trust the experts, that's really about the best that can be done from their perspective.
The ones who are vetting these articles have PhDs.
Disclosure: PhD
Oh, I know.
There are many reasons why peer review doesn't work including but not limited to (1) motivated reasoning AKA complicity in whatever lie is being pushed (2) no real incentive to put effort into peer review (3) laziness and irresponsibility, see also point 2 (4) the "somewhat" qualifier I put in my original comment.
I'm being critical of peer reviewers here, but it's a genuinely very difficult job that takes massive effort to do well.
And then there's actual malpractice like editing data, which is functionally impossible to catch in peer review if the authors are clever. The whole system replies on trust, and trust is completely underserved.
Are you impugning the good name of the Ig Noble awards? For shame!