<p>A lot of psychological research takes place in societies that are Western, Democratic, and Industrialized, and that from a global/historical perspective are relatively Educated and Rich.</p>
<p>Of course, within those societies, people vary in their level of education and their socioeconomic status (e.g., wealth, income, financial security, earning potential, etc.).</p>
<p>And education and socioeconomic status have numerous correlates with psychological variables and life outcomes.</p>
<p>E.g., educational attainment is positively correlated with life time income, intelligence, and political views.</p>
<p>There are two obvious explanations for these processes:</p>
<ul>
<li>Education changes a person. They acquire general and discipline specific skills. They get exposed to different experiences, career opportunities and so on.</li>
<li>Psychological characteristics predict interest, access, and success in higher education. For instance, more intelligent people are more likely to be granted access and succeed in higher education.</li>
<li>Third variables. Factors like family socioeconomic status predict psychological characteristics as well as the probability of pursuing higher education.</li>
</ul>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-11-18T08:49:25.293Z
It is obvious that educational attainment **generally but not always** has a positive correlation with lifetime income (higher paid jobs often **but not always** go to University graduates) but could you please provide some citations for further reading on *"educational attainment is positively correlated with* [snipped] *intelligence, and political views."* and *"family socioeconomic status predict psychological characteristics as well as the probability of pursuing higher education."*?
Chris Rogers
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-11-18T03:58:09.520Z
2020-11-18T03:58:09.520Z
Jeromy Anglim
<p><a href="https://psychology.stackexchange.com/q/26047/7604">A recent question</a> was asking around the subject of <a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology#WEIRD_bias" rel="noreferrer">WEIRD psychology</a> [WEIRD standing for <strong>W</strong>estern, <strong>E</strong>ducated, <strong>I</strong>ndustrialized, <strong>R</strong>ich and <strong>D</strong>emocratic — an acronym seemingly coined by <a href="https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0999152X" rel="noreferrer">Henrich, et al (2010)</a>] and reading the Wikipedia article to find that out and get some understanding of the subject made me wonder if the concept of WEIRD psychology could have merit.</p>
<p>For the purposes of focus, <strong>let's take one aspect of the WEIRD category — Educated</strong>.</p>
<p>Would a person in Western society, educated at a lower level, be <strong>psychologically</strong> different to someone in Western society educated to the highest possible level?</p>
<p>To be precise in my meaning regarding psychological differences, ignoring the systems of education and assuming:</p>
<ul>
<li>nobody in either group are suffering from any psychotic disorders,</li>
<li>both groups have the same powers of observation, and</li>
<li>both have equal access to any required reference materials and advice from experts,</li>
</ul>
<p>is there empirical evidence to suggest that one of the groups cannot form a sound and reasonable argument based on their knowledge of the world around them?</p>
<p>Maybe I am not using the correct search criteria in Google but I can't seem to find any.</p>
<h2>References</h2>
<p>Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., &amp; Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world?. <em>Behavioral and brain sciences, 33</em>(2-3), 61-83. doi: <a href="https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0999152X" rel="noreferrer">10.1017/S0140525X0999152X</a>. PMID: <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20550733/" rel="noreferrer">20550733</a>.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-10-07T15:20:25.540Z
I think it's a good question, +1. It seems though that by definition the "WEIRD" category includes those university-educated. Maybe not graduated, but I take the "WEIRD" criticism of generalizing psychology to be directed at the recruitment for a lot of studies in psychology (outside of abnormal/mental illness-directed psychology) being "undergraduate students at institutions with sufficient funding to do these kinds of experiments". In that sense, isn't exactly the claim the paper you reference act as an answer to your question?
Bryan Krause
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-10-07T15:27:00.413Z
@BryanKrause - I agree that university educated people would be in the WEIRD category, and some might say general educated would too. Thinking about my question again, and maybe I didn't make it clear, I'm actually trying to ascertain whether a higher education level than another will actually make you more able to form a sound and reasonable argument than the lower educated person.
Chris Rogers
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-10-07T15:29:57.017Z
Hmm...that seems quite a bit different from the title, and seems to be an approach that the theory would pan. It doesn't seem to me like WEIRD is about what is "better" or "more able" but in suggesting that results in these populations are not translatable to others.
Bryan Krause
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-10-07T15:41:12.270Z
And are they translatable or not @BryanKrause that is what I am trying to ask with a more focused question as I cannot find any empirical evidence to suggest education affects ability to form a sound and reasonable argument, and if there is no evidence, surely it puts the whole idea of WEIRD psychology in doubt
Chris Rogers
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-10-07T15:42:57.917Z
But what does "a sound and reasonable argument" have to do with it? One of the examples noted on Wikipedia is a difference between WEIRD populations and tribal populations on the https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCller-Lyer_illusion - that has nothing to do with the soundness or reasonableness of arguments.
Bryan Krause
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-10-10T18:25:18.350Z
Your question needs a more clear approach 'as psychologically different' is not the best term to put it as... I do understand your question though. Education, be it elementary, High School, college or University has no correlation to the psychological wiring of a human. It is the human experience in Humanities that creates the diversity in a person. By person, I mean a human being with a conscious and values. A personality from a student is unique and their scholar way of thinking stems from their own personal views.
Future Social Worker
<social-psychology><educational-psychology><cross-cultural-psychology><weird-psychology>
Are University Graduated WEIRD people psychologically different to Generally Educated WEIRD people?
Chris Rogers
# Are University Graduated WEIRD people psychologically different to Generally Educated WEIRD people?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2020-10-07)

[A recent question](https://psychology.stackexchange.com/q/26047/7604) was asking around the subject of [WEIRD psychology](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology#WEIRD_bias) [WEIRD standing for **W**estern, **E**ducated, **I**ndustrialized, **R**ich and **D**emocratic — an acronym seemingly coined by [Henrich, et al (2010)](https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0999152X)] and reading the Wikipedia article to find that out and get some understanding of the subject made me wonder if the concept of WEIRD psychology could have merit.

For the purposes of focus, **let's take one aspect of the WEIRD category — Educated**.

Would a person in Western society, educated at a lower level, be **psychologically** different to someone in Western society educated to the highest possible level?

To be precise in my meaning regarding psychological differences, ignoring the systems of education and assuming:

* nobody in either group are suffering from any psychotic disorders,
* both groups have the same powers of observation, and
* both have equal access to any required reference materials and advice from experts,

is there empirical evidence to suggest that one of the groups cannot form a sound and reasonable argument based on their knowledge of the world around them?

Maybe I am not using the correct search criteria in Google but I can't seem to find any.

## References

Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world?. *Behavioral and brain sciences, 33*(2-3), 61-83. doi: [10.1017/S0140525X0999152X](https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0999152X). PMID: [20550733](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20550733/).

**Tags:** social-psychology, educational-psychology, cross-cultural-psychology, weird-psychology

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: I think it's a good question, +1. It seems though that by definition the "WEIRD" category includes those university-educated. Maybe not graduated, but I take the "WEIRD" criticism of generalizing psychology to be directed at the recruitment for a lot of studies in psychology (outside of abnormal/mental illness-directed psychology) being "undergraduate students at institutions with sufficient funding to do these kinds of experiments". In that sense, isn't exactly the claim the paper you reference act as an answer to your question?  
> **username_0**: @BryanKrause - I agree that university educated people would be in the WEIRD category, and some might say general educated would too. Thinking about my question again, and maybe I didn't make it clear, I'm actually trying to ascertain whether a higher education level than another will actually make you more able to form a sound and reasonable argument than the lower educated person.  
> **username_1**: Hmm...that seems quite a bit different from the title, and seems to be an approach that the theory would pan. It doesn't seem to me like WEIRD is about what is "better" or "more able" but in suggesting that results in these populations are not translatable to others.  
> **username_0**: And are they translatable or not @BryanKrause that is what I am trying to ask with a more focused question as I cannot find any empirical evidence to suggest education affects ability to form a sound and reasonable argument, and if there is no evidence, surely it puts the whole idea of WEIRD psychology in doubt  
> **username_1**: But what does "a sound and reasonable argument" have to do with it? One of the examples noted on Wikipedia is a difference between WEIRD populations and tribal populations on the https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCller-Lyer_illusion - that has nothing to do with the soundness or reasonableness of arguments.  
> **username_2**: Your question needs a more clear approach 'as psychologically different' is not the best term to put it as... I do understand your question though. Education, be it elementary, High School, college or University has no correlation to the psychological wiring of a human. It is the human experience in Humanities that creates the diversity in a person. By person, I mean a human being with a conscious and values. A personality from a student is unique and their scholar way of thinking stems from their own personal views.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_3 on 2020-11-18. Score: -1

A lot of psychological research takes place in societies that are Western, Democratic, and Industrialized, and that from a global/historical perspective are relatively Educated and Rich.

Of course, within those societies, people vary in their level of education and their socioeconomic status (e.g., wealth, income, financial security, earning potential, etc.).

And education and socioeconomic status have numerous correlates with psychological variables and life outcomes.

E.g., educational attainment is positively correlated with life time income, intelligence, and political views.

There are two obvious explanations for these processes:

* Education changes a person. They acquire general and discipline specific skills. They get exposed to different experiences, career opportunities and so on.
* Psychological characteristics predict interest, access, and success in higher education. For instance, more intelligent people are more likely to be granted access and succeed in higher education.
* Third variables. Factors like family socioeconomic status predict psychological characteristics as well as the probability of pursuing higher education.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: It is obvious that educational attainment **generally but not always** has a positive correlation with lifetime income (higher paid jobs often **but not always** go to University graduates) but could you please provide some citations for further reading on *"educational attainment is positively correlated with* [snipped] *intelligence, and political views."* and *"family socioeconomic status predict psychological characteristics as well as the probability of pursuing higher education."*?  

---

