The NY Times provides a cautionary article for their high-minded liberal readership, but most of them will read it as bashing the religious right.
By BENEDICT CAREY
Most people are adamant: They would never do it. Ever. Never deliberately inflict pain on another person, just to obtain information. Ever artificially inflate the value of some financial product, just to take advantage of others’ ignorance. Certainly never, ever become a deadbeat and accept a government bailout.
They speak only for themselves, of course. As for others, well, turn on the news: shady bankers, savage interrogators and deadbeats are everywhere.
In recent years, social psychologists have begun to study what they call the holier-than-thou effect. They have long known that people tend to be overly optimistic about their own abilities and fortunes — to overestimate their standing in class, their discipline, their sincerity.
Although the author leads with bankers and beaters he closes in church:
Yet for some people, religion appears to amplify the instinct to feel like a moral beacon. In a 2002 study, researchers at Baylor University in Texas and Simpson University in California evaluated the religious commitment of 249 students, 80 percent of whom were members of a church.
The researchers, led by Wade C. Rowatt of Baylor, found that the students in this highly religious group considered themselves, on average, almost twice as likely as their peers to adhere to such biblical commandments as “Love your neighbor as yourself.”
The study also found that the most strictly fundamentalist of the students were at the highest end of the scale.
“It reminds me of one of my favorite bumper stickers,” said Dr. Epley, of Chicago. “ ‘Jesus loves you, but I’m his favorite.’ ”
I know in my heart that humble as I am I am holier than Pinch and Rich and Krugman and Maureen. I just know it.
Posted by: clarice | May 04, 2009 at 08:29 PM
There is nothing holier than thou than a liberal. Well, strike that. There is nothing holier than thou than a progressive liberal.
Posted by: Sue | May 04, 2009 at 08:30 PM
There have been numerous studies showing that under the right conditions, most people will intentionally inflict pain, especially if anonymous.
As to the holier than thou effect, with 30 years of business experience, I would still want to get a credit report on the Dalai Lama before doing business. It's a "trust but verify" thing.
Posted by: matt | May 04, 2009 at 08:31 PM
"Oh Lord it's hard to be humble
when you're perfect in every way.
I can't wait to look in the mirror
'cos I get better looking each day
to know me is to love me
I must be a hell of a man.
O Lord it's hard to be humble
but I'm doing the best that I can.
I used to have a girlfriend
but I guess she just could'n't complete
with all of these lovestarved women
who keep clamouring at my feet.
Well I probably find me another
but I guess they're all in awe of me
who cares I never get lonesome
cause I treasure my own company.
Oh Lord it's hard to be humble
when you're perfect in every way.
I can't wait to look in the mirror
'cos I get better looking each day
to know me is to love me
I must be a hell of a man.
O Lord it's hard to be humble
but I'm doing the best that I can.
I guess you can say I'm a loner
a cowboy outlaw tough and proud
Well
I could have lots of friends if I wanted
but then I wouldn't stand out from the drowd
some folks say that I'm "egotistical
well I don't even know what that means
I guess it has something to do with the
way that I fill out my skintight blue jeans.
Oh Lord it's hard to be humble
when you're perfect in every way.
I can't wait to look in the mirror
'cos I get better looking each day
to know me is to love me
I must be a hell of a man.
O Lord it's hard to be humble
we are doing the best that we can."
Posted by: PeterUK | May 04, 2009 at 08:33 PM
It must be hard for you, PUK, but , yes, you do succeed it at..
Posted by: clarice | May 04, 2009 at 08:36 PM
Who said: “Churchill understood, you start taking shortcuts, over time, that corrodes what’s best in a people. It corrodes the character of a country.”?
Hint; the same guy who is arguing that we should shortcut the bankruptcy process for Chrysler, and thus abrogate the contractual rights of Chrysler's senior creditors.
Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan | May 04, 2009 at 08:38 PM
Thank you Clarice.
I also know what "egotistical" means but don't understand the concept.
Posted by: PeterUK | May 04, 2009 at 08:41 PM
Wouldn't think you'd need to worry about that, PUK.
Posted by: Extraneus | May 04, 2009 at 08:52 PM
"Who said: “Churchill understood, you start taking shortcuts, over time, that corrodes what’s best in a people. It corrodes the character of a country.”?
Obama was just bigging himself up by association,it is part of the con man,poodlefaker's stock in trade. Churchill was great at taking short cuts,Gallipoli was supposed to be a short cut.The invasion of Norway was supposed to be a short cut as was the invasion of Italy.
Churchill made mistakes,but he walked the walk as well as talking the talk.This popinjay isn't fit to borrow his boots to keep expenses down.
Posted by: PeterUK | May 04, 2009 at 08:54 PM
People turn to God when the Institutions and mores of a people turn sour.
As for the Super-Righteous, they are always with us.
Plenty of Sadducees and Pharisees in the
Temples of Christendom.
Matthew Chapter 23--
Posted by: Semanticleo | May 04, 2009 at 09:06 PM
The researchers, led by Wade C. Rowatt of Baylor, found that the students in this highly religious group considered themselves, on average, almost twice as likely as their peers to adhere to such biblical commandments as “Love your neighbor as yourself.”
What I find interesting about this snippet is that either Tom (shame!) or the NYT (to be expected, alas) does not go on to ask whether that self-evaluation is accurate. It might be, you know. It might be that highly religious people actually are twice as likely to follow injunctions like "love your neighbor as yourself," compared to nonreligious people. (After all, their respective rates of charitable work would certainly argue that way.)
The unstated assumption -- I'll assume it's the NYT author's -- is that it's just intuitively obvious that religious people can't be more moral, so if they think they are, why, it must be the purest self-deception.
Posted by: Carl Pham | May 04, 2009 at 09:06 PM
PUK that is Joe Willie Namath's theme song! Think of a brash young striker, say Wayne Rooney, for England proclaiming he will guarantee a victory over Brazil in the World Cup. And then coolly walking out on the pitch and burying three in the back of the net and being carried off the field. That was the improbability of Joe Willie pulling off the upset in the Super Bowl. And yes he did sing that very song at some point!
Posted by: Gmax | May 04, 2009 at 09:07 PM
House keeping,poltergeist on aisle one.Send over the exorcist and a de-sliming squad.
Posted by: PeterUK | May 04, 2009 at 09:09 PM
Thank you, PUK!!
I don't think an exorcist will have any luck, but the de-sliming squad is sorely needed.
Posted by: centralcal | May 04, 2009 at 09:13 PM
"Send over the exorcist'
Still angry 'cause I called Maggie Thatcher
Madam Pinochet?
Where is yer Christian ethic?
Posted by: Semanticleo | May 04, 2009 at 09:13 PM
Gmax,
Then he is entitled to sing it twice.
Posted by: PeterUK | May 04, 2009 at 09:14 PM
Carl, that's a perfectly sensible point.I guess we are so inured to the NYT' bias, it hardly seems a remarkable point though, of course, it is.
Posted by: clarice | May 04, 2009 at 09:17 PM
Septic,I never get angry with fools,only saddened,you seem such a waste of protein.
Look we can use a Jewish exorcist or a Muslim one if you are picky.Me I'd rather use the Aztec.
Posted by: PeterUK | May 04, 2009 at 09:18 PM
"you seem such a waste of protein."
That's the nicest thing you've ever said to me. Please forgive my petulance as I continue to insult the two faces of conservative Janus, Ronnie and Maggie.
Posted by: Semanticleo | May 04, 2009 at 09:23 PM
Here in very liberal Port Washington, New York, Prius drivers cut others off with abandon. Now instead of honking my horn and giving them the Obama to Hillary salute, I will call out "overinflated"
Posted by: peter | May 04, 2009 at 09:31 PM
What kind of demons could drive someone to devise a method of measuring another person's religiosity?
Posted by: Original MikeS | May 04, 2009 at 09:31 PM
'Still angry 'cause I called Maggie Thatcher Madam Pinochet?'
Is that because both made their countries happier, more prosperous places?
Posted by: Patrick R. Sullivan | May 04, 2009 at 09:36 PM
"What kind of demons could drive someone to devise a method of measuring another person's religiosity?
A Demoncrat.
Posted by: PeterUK | May 04, 2009 at 09:52 PM
........the two faces of conservative Janus, Ronnie and Maggie
"judge not lest ye be judged"
Posted by: glasater | May 04, 2009 at 09:59 PM
I have nothing to say--just thought I should put in an appearance on a thread with that kind of title.
Posted by: anduril | May 04, 2009 at 10:12 PM
Where is yer Christian ethic?
Oh, for Gods' sakes.
"Your".
Once or twice, for effect, okay. This is turning into an affectation. pretty quick it'll turn into a tic.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) | May 04, 2009 at 10:18 PM
See why we love you?
Posted by: anduril's an andiron | May 04, 2009 at 10:21 PM
"People turn to God when the Institutions and mores of a people turn sour."
People turn to God in recognition of the essential nature of existence.
Posted by: PD | May 04, 2009 at 10:22 PM
"Plenty of Sadducees and Pharisees in the
Temples of Christendom."
There's always room for one more.
Posted by: PD | May 04, 2009 at 10:22 PM
PD, have you seen any morels yet?
Posted by: bad | May 04, 2009 at 10:23 PM
Posted by: cathyf | May 04, 2009 at 10:52 PM
Excellent point, cathyf. Any research of this kind conducted solely on college students ought to be red-flagged immediately.
Posted by: Porchlight | May 04, 2009 at 11:00 PM
Any research of this kind
conducted solely on college studentsought to be red-flagged immediately.FIFY.
Posted by: Sue | May 04, 2009 at 11:08 PM
Well, I agree, Sue, but figured the college student part is an easy opener if you're trying to convince someone that the study is rubbish.
Posted by: Porchlight | May 04, 2009 at 11:29 PM
O Reilly's been reading JOM. He just asked a lefty to justify the bombing of womwn and children in Pakistan.
The leftie's against waterboarding but thinks the moral hazard of the bombings is justified by the results.
He's gonna get kicked out of the collective for saying stuff like that.
Posted by: bad | May 04, 2009 at 11:30 PM
You know, I keep reading stories about how great our POTUS is but sometimes we miss the truly important stories where real truth emerges.
For instance, today his finally coined the term to describe the underlying truth of the Obama budget.
Today we got introduced to the “Cinco de Cuatro” (the Fifth of Four) school of economics
Posted by: Neo | May 04, 2009 at 11:52 PM
One of Fascist Hyena's comments at Tapper just disappeared (the most recent comment on the Churchill thread, where he quotes the blog Classically Liberal). I read it, refreshed the thread, and it was gone.
Does Tapper have TyphusPad problems too? Or are comments sometimes deleted after the fact? Or both?
Posted by: Porchlight | May 04, 2009 at 11:52 PM
Some one at Tapper is a rapid deleter. It's not just typepad.
Posted by: bad | May 04, 2009 at 11:55 PM
The article itself seems to be a good example of the holier-than-thou effect.
Posted by: zywotkowitz | May 05, 2009 at 02:07 AM
What Carl said!
PUK:
Obama will be Gandhi reincarnated next, because Gandhi ate rice too, you know.
Posted by: JM Hanes | May 05, 2009 at 05:40 AM
Churchill was great at taking short cuts,Gallipoli was supposed to be a short cut.The invasion of Norway was supposed to be a short cut as was the invasion of Italy.
Churchill made mistakes,but he walked the walk as well as talking the talk.This popinjay isn't fit to borrow his boots to keep expenses down.
Churchill was also adamantly against the invasion of Normandy, which I'm sure gives the community organizer in chief cover, in his historically-challenged excuse for a mind, for having been against the surge.
Posted by: Captain Hate | May 05, 2009 at 06:53 AM
Gandhi ate rice but did he eat arrugala, that is the question.
Posted by: maryrose | May 05, 2009 at 08:36 AM
... but I am God's favorite .....
seriously, though - - - far more people are afflicted by the belief that God loves everyone BUT them than by the belief that they are His favorite.
And you know what?
I know people who say that (with a smile) - - - I'd put their witness & testimony up against those who criticize them as arrogant any day of the week.
Posted by: BD57 | May 05, 2009 at 01:42 PM