Which brand/fuel/color/plate of car has the most “psychopath drivers”?(scrapcarcomparison.co.uk)
scrapcarcomparison.co.uk
Which brand/fuel/color/plate of car has the most “psychopath drivers”?
https://www.scrapcarcomparison.co.uk/blog/which-drivers-are-most-likely-to-be-psychopaths/
40 comments
I can almost guarantee it's either a BMW or an Audi that's one inch behind me on the motorway. So strange how universally true this is.
In Seattle it will often also be a Subaru driver.
BMW, off course. I don't need to read the article to know that...
You'd be pissed off too if your car was sold without turn signals.
FTA: “The drivers with the highest likeability of being a psychopath were BMW drivers, with an average psychopathy score of 12.1 out of 36”
The linked-to test says “The scoring of the psychopathy test is as follows: 0-18: No psychopathy”
So, “most psychopath” is more like “least not psychopath”.
The data also is based on self-reporting, but I’m not sure that matters much. True psychopaths might not have reservations about saying they are.
The linked-to test says “The scoring of the psychopathy test is as follows: 0-18: No psychopathy”
So, “most psychopath” is more like “least not psychopath”.
The data also is based on self-reporting, but I’m not sure that matters much. True psychopaths might not have reservations about saying they are.
>The drivers with the highest likeability of being a psychopath were BMW drivers,
those darn likeable sociopaths!
on edit: just found the typo funny.
those darn likeable sociopaths!
on edit: just found the typo funny.
White Ford Transit
And for reasons unknown this is now flagged
It would be nice to see some standard deviations reported here! Nominal p-values would be a start too. Since N = 2000 it wouldn’t be hard to find atleast a few interesting findings. Although the bias from study design would make it hard to know if we can believe the outcomes.
"Gold" tops the list of car colours correlated with psycho behaviour, and I thought, well, that makes sense - but then the one at the very bottom is "red".
I'm having trouble arranging this into some consistent mental image of the correlation.
Red tends to be a no cost paint option (along with white) - I expect there's an underlying factor of psychopaths choosing the high end options when kitting out the car.
Huh, didn't know that actually. I considered it a "royal" look-at-me colour sort of like gold (which takes it up a notch, but within the same vibe). Interesting.
The psychopath is their own worst enemy here. Never buy a gold car. Gold is hard to see, especially peripherally (which is why it's so hard to find a gold ring if you drop it).
Why would Benzes be so behind BMW and Audi? I’d prefer if they focused on sociopathy and narcissism versus psychopathy since I don’t feel like psychopaths are as common as the other two.
Someone please do this study with programming languages, I have my suspicions.
Someone please do this study with programming languages, I have my suspicions.
Mercedes-Benz probably still has a reputation that it's a luxury car for people who like it, and while BMW and Audi also target this market, most of their market is people looking for performance, i.e. speed.
Stereotypically, Merc buyers won't brag about their 0-60 times, while BMW/Audi buyers would. Merc has been trying to target that market though, e.g. with their A class (beginning from the 3rd gen, the 1st and 2nd gen were probably targetting old ladies...).
Stereotypically, Merc buyers won't brag about their 0-60 times, while BMW/Audi buyers would. Merc has been trying to target that market though, e.g. with their A class (beginning from the 3rd gen, the 1st and 2nd gen were probably targetting old ladies...).
In my personal perception, Mercedes AMG (do these count as Mercedes?) drivers are the worst by far.
It's often the BMW and Audi drivers from my experience. When I see a BMW I know I shouldn't expect the driver to use blinkers.
Interested if BMW actually cares about this perception of their brand.
Interested if BMW actually cares about this perception of their brand.
https://www.ladbible.com/news/uk-bmw-drivers-named-most-hate...
I did read some research that showed they were more likely to jump red lights but I can't find it right now.
I did read some research that showed they were more likely to jump red lights but I can't find it right now.
How can electric be the highest scoring of that group, but electric only manufactures don't show up?
Statistically speaking, (and assuming no flawed data) that would suggest that the highest scoring electric vehicle drivers are biased heavily towards other brands.
Or, there were no drivers from electric-only brands in the group.
Or, there were no drivers from electric-only brands in the group.
Or that someone made up the results for a fun clickbait article!
Land rover sport.
Have I ever been knocked off the road by a single vehicle more!
What a lot of commenters are missing is that the premise of the question is flawed/garbage to begin with.
To infer that a self-reported psychopathy test is somehow indicative of mental disease and to further infer that this directly translates into driving style is ludicrous and doesn't pass several simple smell tests.
One commenter mentioned horsepower, and they may be onto something. Certainly a better prediction than a simple quiz, which might as well be a horoscope or something.
To infer that a self-reported psychopathy test is somehow indicative of mental disease and to further infer that this directly translates into driving style is ludicrous and doesn't pass several simple smell tests.
One commenter mentioned horsepower, and they may be onto something. Certainly a better prediction than a simple quiz, which might as well be a horoscope or something.
Since everyone is saying BMW - which is the most stolen car? Since supposedly the chance of criminals being sociopaths is significantly higher than the rest of the population.
I say supposedly because I have strong reservations about how worthwhile the definitions of sociopath are, as well as reservations about the parts of the field of psychology that deal with identifying personality traits in order to make value judgments.
I say supposedly because I have strong reservations about how worthwhile the definitions of sociopath are, as well as reservations about the parts of the field of psychology that deal with identifying personality traits in order to make value judgments.
Iirc there was also a finding that learning about economics makes people score higher on those tests, so I worry they are more of an ideological tool than science. They may simply have categorized behaviors they don't like as "psychopath". I don't trust them.
That’s just the reality of normalizing casual psychiatric evaluations now days. I’m pretty sure there were Standford (or Princeton) psych professors casually diagnosing Trump with clinical narcissism on major news networks. If anyone has a any kind of spaz out moment, they are automatically bipolar to many people.
It’s the true meta form of cancelling someone, it just hasn’t caught on just yet (not to that level at least). There’s a contingent that has already started diagnosing Biden as senile. It’s one more way to categorize people, usually to discredit them.
Don’t get along with your parents? Welp, head on over to /r/raisedbynarcissists, simple as that. Don’t like your ex? Boss sucks? Again, narcissist, sociopath, etc.
If you think people live in a media or news bubble, wait till you dig into their amateur psych eval bubble of a life they got going on (seriously, visit some of those subreddits). Check those bubbles out, there is never a single ounce of objectivity in those subreddits/forums, just intense confirmation bias.
It’s the true meta form of cancelling someone, it just hasn’t caught on just yet (not to that level at least). There’s a contingent that has already started diagnosing Biden as senile. It’s one more way to categorize people, usually to discredit them.
Don’t get along with your parents? Welp, head on over to /r/raisedbynarcissists, simple as that. Don’t like your ex? Boss sucks? Again, narcissist, sociopath, etc.
If you think people live in a media or news bubble, wait till you dig into their amateur psych eval bubble of a life they got going on (seriously, visit some of those subreddits). Check those bubbles out, there is never a single ounce of objectivity in those subreddits/forums, just intense confirmation bias.
I don't know how to put it without sounding like a conspiracy theorist, but I think eventually society really needs to reevaluate its attitude to science in general. Scientists have this elevated status, and naturally people try to exploit it. But everybody can call themselves a scientist, and even getting credibility by attaching to supposedly reliable institutions is not that hard anymore.
It seems to me people are not sufficiently aware yet of "scientific studies" being used as a political tool. Maybe if they read a news article in some magazine, they may be aware it could be ideologically tainted. For "studies", that seems to be much less the case so far.
Psychology also seems like an immediately scary example to me. I worry for example that "experts" can simply bypass the legal system by diagnosing people as "mentally ill" and having them locked away. Is there legal recourse for such a thing?
Psychology also seems like an immediately scary example to me. I worry for example that "experts" can simply bypass the legal system by diagnosing people as "mentally ill" and having them locked away. Is there legal recourse for such a thing?
Is there legal recourse for such a thing?
It should fall under libel. Matt Taibbi has spoken recently about how the media in particular have no fear of committing libel:
https://youtu.be/T2uptyJrdu4
They will straight say certain things without any fear that someone might sue them for libel/character defamation. That link is a little topical due to the Rittenhouse case, but for many years they labeled Trump a variety of things on one side, and the right-wing labeled their targets in the same fashion on the other side. I’m pretty sure they also said Joe Rogan was taking horse medicine, which was a low blow. Well, not as low of a blow as insinuating Trump took part in Golden Showers (him pissing on girls, or vice versa, actual pee, if anyone needs to ask) in Russian hotels.
They don’t give a shit, and that’s just the media. Your average person now uses the same appeal to authority attack tactics in every day encounters.
What can you do if someone says you are toxic or __insert psychotic tendency here__ at work, in a relationship? The way we communicate seems to have shifted to the label being thrown out first, versus objectively walking through issues.
I don’t know, I have no answers honestly, and generally find this too exhausting to even try to dissect. I guess only Peter Thiel successfully launched a counter attack:
https://amp.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jan/11/peter-thi...
In summary, you need some dope lawyers if you want recourse.
It should fall under libel. Matt Taibbi has spoken recently about how the media in particular have no fear of committing libel:
https://youtu.be/T2uptyJrdu4
They will straight say certain things without any fear that someone might sue them for libel/character defamation. That link is a little topical due to the Rittenhouse case, but for many years they labeled Trump a variety of things on one side, and the right-wing labeled their targets in the same fashion on the other side. I’m pretty sure they also said Joe Rogan was taking horse medicine, which was a low blow. Well, not as low of a blow as insinuating Trump took part in Golden Showers (him pissing on girls, or vice versa, actual pee, if anyone needs to ask) in Russian hotels.
They don’t give a shit, and that’s just the media. Your average person now uses the same appeal to authority attack tactics in every day encounters.
What can you do if someone says you are toxic or __insert psychotic tendency here__ at work, in a relationship? The way we communicate seems to have shifted to the label being thrown out first, versus objectively walking through issues.
I don’t know, I have no answers honestly, and generally find this too exhausting to even try to dissect. I guess only Peter Thiel successfully launched a counter attack:
https://amp.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jan/11/peter-thi...
In summary, you need some dope lawyers if you want recourse.
> I’m pretty sure there were Standford (or Princeton) psych professors casually diagnosing Trump with clinical narcissism on major news networks.
Yes there was something like that, it was aslo universally shunned by the community as extremely unprofessional.
Though those were pretty crazy times, its unbelievable that clown got almost re-elected.
Yes there was something like that, it was aslo universally shunned by the community as extremely unprofessional.
Though those were pretty crazy times, its unbelievable that clown got almost re-elected.
"it was aslo universally shunned by the community as extremely unprofessional."
It certainly wasn't shunned by mainstream media.
It certainly wasn't shunned by mainstream media.
like anyone with a 1/2 braincell listens to mainstream media for opinions
A lot of people do - that is why it is "mainstream".
NYT articles get posted and upvoted on HN on a regular basis.
NYT articles get posted and upvoted on HN on a regular basis.
sure, but what is your point?
All kind of lies and misinformation is propagated via mainstream media. But that doesnt mean that the professionals in their respected fields are agreeing with some outlier giving a questionable interview on mainstream tv
All kind of lies and misinformation is propagated via mainstream media. But that doesnt mean that the professionals in their respected fields are agreeing with some outlier giving a questionable interview on mainstream tv
So electric car drivers are the highest of any population
As a Renault driver i can confirm that it takes a certain amount of psychopathy to even think about going out in the streets with a 20 year old 58 HP Clio. Not all the way, just the right amount.