Hacker News Reader

Comment by ve55 | Hacker News Reader

From the actual paper:

>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...

View on HN

The paper itself concludes that

> 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"?

I view the above article as trying to convey to readers that there was no positive correlation between social class and actual rank, when in fact there was, which they attempt to mislead readers about to the greatest extent that they can without outright lying.

>I view the above article as trying to convey to readers that there was no positive correlation between social class and actual rank

Well, I think it is clear from the title alone that it is not making that argument.

Strongly disagree.

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).

Were the word "exagerrated" omitted from the title, I'd agree with you. But its presence suggests that the relation exists but is overestimated by people in higher social class.

You can do better than average but still overestimate yourself. And in a world where people judge by appearances, that can be a real advantage.

The general effect still exists, yes. It's just reported on poorly in this instance.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com