Turning into someone's driveway to make a U-turn on a narrow residential neighborhood is trespassing.
Without knowing more the best we could say is that high-IQ people are more aware of their crimes or maybe more willing to admit to them. For example, a property lawyer might be more likely to admit to trespassing than the average person just because he's more aware of how often he commits it. At the same time, his awareness of and persistence in such unlawful behavior doesn't mean he's flouting the law more than anyone else except in the most pedantic, literal sense.
The whole study sounds dubious. Relying on self-reporting is excused as necessary. That there are no practical alternatives doesn't make the method magically sound or even remotely accurate. That in the aggregate self-reporting roughly corresponds with crime statistics says absolutely nothing about the accuracy of self-reporting for niche subgroups.
It's this kind of pseudo-science that gives science in any field a bad name. I can appreciate that it might be especially difficult to find funding for a study that, first, establishes a strong correlation between self-reporting and IQ. But until there's significant push back from the community for studies premised on barely-tenable assumptions that funding will never be forthcoming.
Without knowing more the best we could say is that high-IQ people are more aware of their crimes or maybe more willing to admit to them. For example, a property lawyer might be more likely to admit to trespassing than the average person just because he's more aware of how often he commits it. At the same time, his awareness of and persistence in such unlawful behavior doesn't mean he's flouting the law more than anyone else except in the most pedantic, literal sense.
The whole study sounds dubious. Relying on self-reporting is excused as necessary. That there are no practical alternatives doesn't make the method magically sound or even remotely accurate. That in the aggregate self-reporting roughly corresponds with crime statistics says absolutely nothing about the accuracy of self-reporting for niche subgroups.
It's this kind of pseudo-science that gives science in any field a bad name. I can appreciate that it might be especially difficult to find funding for a study that, first, establishes a strong correlation between self-reporting and IQ. But until there's significant push back from the community for studies premised on barely-tenable assumptions that funding will never be forthcoming.