What you're describing is just as 'made up' as the metric you're opposing - your 'hard yards' are still based on people's opinions, politicking, and ulterior motives.
Keep in mind that even the GP's original quote included at least two references to the difficulty in measuring the trait ('tricky' and 'had to use indirect measures'). It's not like the researcher boldly strode forth and said "This is the way, have faith!". The results are also suitably couched. It seems like this "bad science!" thread is making a mountain out of a molehill.
>What you're describing is just as 'made up' as the metric you're opposing
So are you telling me that the very best way we have of establishing narcissism is the "the frequency with which the CEO’s name appeared in company press releases"??
If not, then a scientist is required to either:
a) Use the best method.
or...
b) Develop a proxy and calibrate it against the best method.
You can't just postulate a proxy for narcissism out of thin fucking air and then use it.
Nice false dichotomy there. Where did I say it was "the very best way"? And I can see just as many ways for your suggestion to be corrupted as the method in question. If it 'scares you that you have to explain this', then you should be offering some actual method that is good as you demand, because what you offered is, frankly, subject to terrible bias on the part of the respondants, and still has the bias of the researcher in deciding what means what.
Your method much less robust than the method in the article, and it might not even get past an ethics committee, for that matter - formally questioning people about whether their boss was up themselves? Think about how could that possibly backfire and significantly harm the subjects. Where would you question them - at the workplace as a job lot? Or would you track them individually outside of work, where these kinds of questions about the boss could now be seen as an organised attempt at harrassment, given the effort required?
This was an exploratory study trying something out, with explicit mention that the measures were indirect. It's not like there's an international treaty being based on it. Calm the fuck down.
Keep in mind that even the GP's original quote included at least two references to the difficulty in measuring the trait ('tricky' and 'had to use indirect measures'). It's not like the researcher boldly strode forth and said "This is the way, have faith!". The results are also suitably couched. It seems like this "bad science!" thread is making a mountain out of a molehill.