

Jailed criminals think they are more kind, trustworthy and honest than average - pessimizer
http://digest.bps.org.uk/2014/02/jailed-criminals-think-they-are-kinder.html

======
bambax
> _A popular example is the finding that most drivers think they are a better-
> than-average driver._

The explanation in the article (that most people really are good drivers and
that the average is drawn "low" because of very bad drivers) is flat-out
wrong.

The correct explanation is described in detail in Daniel Kahneman' Thinking,
Fast and Slow. It's impossible to assess our own position on the grand scale
of driving ability; when the brain gets asked a difficult question, it quietly
changes the question to a similar one, much easier to answer.

So when people are asked "are you a better-than-average driver", since they
have no idea what the average is (or what the average means) they answer
instead the question "am I an okay driver" and answer "yes".

This is probably what happens with prisoners too (or, they're actually kinder
than the average people they know, and that's why they got caught).

~~~
baddox
I can't speak to how everyone interprets the question, and I don't know if you
have actual data on how people interpret the question (you mention that book,
but I haven't read it). I can tell you that I consider myself to be a better
than average driver because I have never been in an accident (as a driver) or
received any traffic infractions, which is the interpretation you call "flat-
out wrong." If I had been in an accident or received a traffic infraction,
then I would have to actually consult data to determine whether I am above or
below average. Until then, I think I have a very reasonable claim to being
above average.

~~~
ripter
I think your response just proved his point. We have no idea what 'average'
means, so the mind tries to find something it does know. Like never being in
an accident and not receiving traffic infractions.

According to this: [http://www.statisticbrain.com/driving-citation-
statistics/](http://www.statisticbrain.com/driving-citation-statistics/) only
20% of drivers get traffic infractions, meaning the average driver has never
had one.

~~~
baddox
> We have no idea what 'average' means, so the mind tries to find something it
> does know.

It's more like we have to interpret what "average" means in this context. It's
not "making up something that isn't an average," it's "deciding what quantity
_to_ average."

> According to this: [http://www.statisticbrain.com/driving-citation-
> statistics/](http://www.statisticbrain.com/driving-citation-statistics/)
> only 20% of drivers get traffic infractions, meaning the average driver has
> never had one.

The average number of infractions per driver is greater than zero. That means
that I am better than average. It also means that at least 80% of drivers are
better than average.

------
spindritf
I'm guessing that criminals move in a little different circles than most
people and it's their perception of "an average member of the community" that
may be skewed rather than perception of self.

~~~
pessimizer
That's a bit of a false dilemma.

~~~
elpachuco
You really need to explain what you mean because his explanation seems to make
sense to me.

~~~
pessimizer
>it's their perception of "an average member of the community" that may be
skewed _rather_ than perception of self.

My problem is with the word "rather." It can be any degree of either in
combination.

~~~
mercer
You could argue that the two are intwined: how much of a 'self' do we really
have that is not strongly linked to 'our' community?

------
smtddr
I'm sure the "shock value" in this headline is the assumption that most people
have in their heads: criminals in jail = bad people.

One factor to note in this, is that there are a lot of people in jail who
arguably shouldn't be there. People who are, in fact, not much different from
you or I. I suspect on average, the people in jail aren't that different from
the people outside of it in terms of morals & ethics.... on average.

~~~
pessimizer
>I'm sure the "shock value" in this headline is the assumption that most
people have in their heads: criminals in jail = bad people.

Not for me. For me, criminals in jail = on average worse than average unjailed
people.

~~~
baddox
The average person in prison would be worse than the average person not in
prison, at least if we assume a naive model whereby most violent criminals are
caught and imprisoned for some extended period of time. But it could also be
true that _most_ people in prison are not worse than the average person not in
prison.

Of course, this is also assuming away the vague and subjective task of
determining "how bad" a person is.

~~~
pessimizer
We don't have to assume anything. It's self-determined.

~~~
baddox
I'm not talking about how people respond. I'm talking about whether we
consider the responses to be accurate. Usually, the implication is that people
are overestimating their own merit.

~~~
pessimizer
It sounds as if you're talking about the difference between the average or the
median. The prisoners were asked about the average unjailed person, and the
findings are from the average response.

There might be more data that asked prisoners to say if they are better than
_most_ people, and from the data collected, I'm sure that you could determine
if _most_ prisoners thought they were better than the average person.

As it is, I'm assuming that prisoners answered from a list of characteristics
about themselves, average prisoners, and average unjailed people on some
linear scale.

~~~
baddox
> It sounds as if you're talking about the difference between the average or
> the median.

It's more subtle than that. Both average and median refer to a _number_ , so
you have to decide how to turn "driving ability" or "moralness" into a number.
Two ways of doing that are to simply _sort_ all people, and then use their
_ordinal_ as the number. In that case, average and median would be the same.
Another way is to actually assign a meaningful number to each person, but
there's not an obvious way to do that. You could choose an arbitrary proxy
stat, like how many traffic accidents you've been in or how many people you've
murdered, but then you're going to end up with a massively uneven distribution
such that a large majority of people are tied for "the best" and thus the
majority of people can accurately say they are above average.

------
baddox
> A popular example is the finding that most drivers think they are a better-
> than-average driver.

That one has always bugged me. How did this supposed poll define "average
driver," if at all? Is the idea that you rank all drivers from best to worst,
then see if you're in the top half of the list? Or is the idea to take some
metric, like the average traffic tickets per driver, and see if you have more
or fewer tickets than that average? If it's the former, I'm not sure how you
distinguish between all the drivers with flawless driving records. If it's the
latter, then I must be above average, since I've never had a traffic ticket.

The same questions apply to this poll, which asked people whether they are
"more moral, kinder to others, more self-controlled, more law-abiding, more
compassionate, more generous, more dependable, more trustworthy, and more
honest" than average.

~~~
bitJericho
It's called a self assessment. Of all the drivers you've seen on the road, do
you rate yourself above average compared to them? People are deluded all the
time in their opinion of themselves. This result is really unsurprising to me.

~~~
baddox
> Of all the drivers you've seen on the road, do you rate yourself above
> average compared to them?

Using the second concept of "average," yes I do. I have seen lots of car
accidents, and lots of people pulled over by police (presumably for speeding
or reckless driving). I have never experienced either, other than being pulled
over once for a missing tail light (humorously, literally hours after I had
purchased that vehicle). So I do consider myself a better than average driver.

But this idea of "better than average driver" just isn't very useful. Because
presumably the majority of drivers have not been in an accident, while the
average number of accidents per driver is obviously greater than zero. Thus
most people _are_ better than average drivers, in the same sense that most
people have more fingers than average.

~~~
bitJericho
Well you already fell for it. How could you possibly know if you're better
than average without keeping track and comparing with other drivers in a
scientific manner? For all you know, the bad drivers you see make up one tenth
of one percent (made up figure), making the majority of below average drivers
people who have never been pulled over or in an accident.

~~~
baddox
> How could you possibly know if you're better than average without keeping
> track and comparing with other drivers in a scientific manner?

Did you read the two definitions of "average" I posted above? Under the second
definition, if we go by traffic accidents, I am clearly better than average,
because I have been in zero traffic accidents (as a driver). Since you seem to
be going by the first definition, I'm curious how you are distinguishing
drivers that all have a perfect driving record.

~~~
drewbug
How do you know that most drivers have been in at least one traffic accident?

~~~
jamestnz
It's not necessary that most other drivers have had an accident for most
people to have had below the average number of accidents.

Consider a population of 100 drivers, none of whom have ever had a traffic
accident. The average number of accidents per driver is therefore zero.

Suddenly, two of them collide. Now, 2/100 drivers have had an accident, and
98/100 drivers have still never had an accident. The average number of
accidents per driver is now therefore 0.02.

Since 98/100 drivers have had 0 accidents, but the average number of accidents
per driver is 0.02, then 98% of drivers have had below the average number of
accidents.

~~~
drewbug
Ah, I see now. That makes sense. Thank you.

------
rqebmm
I wouldn't be surprised if this is a result of a victim mentality. It's very
possible they look around them and see themselves as the ones placed in dire
situations because other people weren't kind, trustworthy, or honest with
them, and that's why they had to resort to criminal activities. This kind of
attitude is (often rightly) prevalent in people on the fringes of societies.

------
dyeje
Cmon guys, I literally learned this is Psychology 101.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_superiority](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_superiority)

------
imgabe
People generally don't consider themselves to be bad people. Even if they've
done something bad, in their own mind there is bound to be a justification for
it.

------
S4M
Would it be possible that the criminals gave those answers hoping that this
survey would actually be monitored, and its result be used for parole?

~~~
baddox
And, even more generally, there seems to be little incentive in assessing
yourself poorly in an anonymous poll.

------
krick
I easily believe that often that can be the case.

------
squozzer
The site itself had a very interesting comment - that the study assumed the
convicts were worse than average. We don't know the exact nature of the
crimes.

Another question lies in whom the convicts were comparing themselves. If I
were a burglar whose friends were all hit men or divorce lawyers, I might find
some justification in feeling a little morally superior.

