Want to make more money? Drink more.

It's easy to make more money: just drink more!  In particular, drink socially with friends (drinking at home alone has no apparent correllation with making more money, even though I'm positive it must have some impact).  The Journal of Labor Research says social drinking boosts your income, so it must be true right?  It's always nice to run into an article that casts your weaknesses as strengths and your addictions as good habit.

Let's count the cognitive biases and logical fallacies in this study, just for fun.

Illusory correlation. Correlation doesn't mean causation.  Does drinking lead to making more money, or does making more money lead to drinking?  Or, does being social lead to more drinking and making more money?  Or is there yet some other unseen explanation for the results?

Confirmation bias. We look for studies that agree with our desired beliefs.  A thousand studies could go by that prove that alcohol leads to madness and death, but we ignore those and wait for the one study that makes us think that our drinking is healthy (either for our bodies or for our wallet). 

Von Restorff effect.  The stand-out studies make better news.

Attentional bias. When we think about whether or not this seems true, we think back to see if any of our drinking friends have money.  If one of them does seem to make more than the average number of tacos, that memory will stand out as stronger proof than the ten or a hundred friends that don't make as much money.

Illusion of control. We like to think that we can control something like how much we make by pushing buttons on some other part of the cage.  Go out drinking = make more money.  Make more money = be happier.  Surely!

Post-purchase rationalization. We like to think that the things we do or buy are naturally good. Drinkers, since they drink, assume that it must be good in some way.

Observer-expectancy effect.  I'm not that familiar with the Reason Foundation (the group that published this study), but their about page claim to support Libertarian principles... it's possible that they were conducting this study with a bit of hope and experiment-altering subjectivity.

Not to mention the You're Still Going To Be Poor Principle which I just made up.  Given that I currently spend 18% of my income on alcohol, that my social drinking would have to be responsible for at least a 20% jump in income to pay for all that networking and good will.

I'm not picking on this particular article for any reason other than that it is an easy and fun target.  Other than those minor flaws in the study, I do like the gist of it and really wish it had stronger legs to stand on.  Speaking of, it's happy hour.  Time to go make me some money.

Via collision detection, Plastic,  and in recognition of National Alcohol and Drug Addiction Recovery Month.  My favorite found quote, attributed to Anacharsis, was:

"The first cup for thirst, the second for pleasure, the third for intemperance, and the rest for madness."

Comments

[Dustin]

I wouldn't be so sure about labeling the study itself with these cognitive biases. It never says specifically that drinking causes anything, the study says that drinkers have more social ties and make more money. That's an implication of correlation. In fact, here's the quote that you need to pay attention to:

"The researchers said their empirical survey backed up the theory, and said the most likely explanation is that drinkers have a wider range of social contacts that help provide better job and business opportunities."

This is not conclusive proof, and the nature of the explaination implies that theres a correlation, other wise the study would of said that alcohol caused social ties.

The humor in this is that you can easily interpet the study to apply all of the cognitive biases you mentioned in your post, so it's not the study itself, but how you look at it.

Perhaps you are suffering from disconfirmation bias.

Either way I enjoyed the post.

Disclaimer - As a Libertarian, I may be a little more apt to defend the Reason Foundation than to disagree with it ;-P

[Marc Hedlund]

Thanks for tearing into this. I had my own biased reaction when I saw the study go around -- as someone who didn't drink for very many years and never noticed pressure or effect from that, I was immediately skeptical of it.

That said, it's easy for me to believe that job advancement is controlled by a lot of subtle and probably unexpressed social cues. After having worked in enterprise software for a few years, I'd guess that a far greater downward pressure on salary is unwillingness to go to strip clubs. The outcome isn't subtle at all, but I'd bet that who gets asked to go is itself not obvious, not strictly determined by gender, and not apparent to those excluded.

By the way, Mutual Improvement also tackled this topic, though Libertarian may be to kind a word for their views on it... ;)

http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2006/09/i_didnt_believe.html

[Jordan]

I don't see any logical fallacies in that study, and cognitive biases are a matter of interpretation. Oh, the joys of relatavism!

Call it how you wanna see it.

The dudes having a beer look like they're having more fun drinking than you had from over-intellectualizing the ordeal, to be honest.

[Jordan]

P.S. http://www.zefrank.com/theshow/archives/2006/05/050506.html#