|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on May 16, 2021 8:57:05 GMT
It's not the news, but it is because it is never not the news. A few weeks ago when I blogged about a social-psych study that found people have more empathy when they feel low in status, I wasn't aware how much work is being done on the rich-asshole problem in social science.
A few weeks ago when I blogged about a social-psych study that found people have more empathy when they feel low in status, I wasn't aware how much work is being done in other fields on the rich-asshole problem in social science. Earlier this month, for example, the evolutionary theorist David Sloan Wilson reported a very similar finding. Wilson's student Dan O'Brien was researching cooperative behavior in a local primate species called the Binghamton, N.Y. high-school student. The higher a neighborhood's median income, O'Brien found, the less cooperative were its teen-agers.
It's always worth noting when researchers using different methods and theories get similar findings about people. My earlier post was about social psychologists who were trying to measure empathy. O'Brien used a technique from experimental economics: He had the kids play a game in which cooperation is better than betrayal, but only if your partner keeps faith. Reactions to these games vary a lot from culture to culture around the world. Amazingly, in Binghamton, N.Y., they vary in a similar way from neighborhood to neighborhood.
Wilson says he was surprised that income would correlate negatively with niceness, but, on reflection, it made sense in light of another project he's involved with: It's called "Design Your Own Park," and it engages neighbors to band together and take over a vacant lot, transforming it into a nice park. "Some of the people in low-income neighborhoods are the most amazing networkers that I have ever seen," Wilson writes. On the other hand, "some of the so-called 'nicer' neighborhoods are sadly inert. Each family keeps a tidy home and lawn and doesn’t make trouble for the others, but positive social connections are almost non-existent."
The fact that cooperativeness varies from culture to culture, Wilson writes, suggests an explanation: Human nature doesn't have a single default setting for helpfulness and respect. Instead, we have the capacity to learn how trusting, how open, and how generous to be with others. If you hunt whales in a tightly cooperating team, you learn to cooperate readily. If you farm a hardscrabble patch of dirt with only your near relatives to help, you're much more likely to want to screw over your fellow man.
Mapping this onto our class structure, Wilson suggests that the comforts of affluence are atrophying people's propensity to band with others to work for the common good. If you don't practice this social skill, he argues, it will go away. "Those of us who can pay with our credit cards don’t need to cooperate," he writes, "and so we forget how."
That notion is consistent with another finding, from yet another discipline, which I didn't know about when I wrote about the social psychologists. It seems there's an association between spending money on one's self and selfish conduct, and it doesn't require actual spending. In this 2009 paper Roy Y.J. Chua and Xi Zou, both professors of management, found that just getting people to think about that kind of spending was sufficient to make their decisions more selfish.
The pair showed 87 university students pictures of shoes and watches and had them complete a survey about the products. Then they answered questions about how they would behave as a chief executive in each of three hypothetical business decisions. Half the group had seen pictures of simple, functional shoes and watches. The others had viewed, and then described, top-end luxury goods.
Those who saw the luxury versions were significantly more likely to choose the selfish path in the business decisions. They were more inclined to OK the production of a car that would pollute the environment, the release of bug-riddled software, and the marketing of a videogame that would prompt kids to bash each other. That suggests, write Chua and Zou, that "mere exposure to luxury caused people to think more about themselves than others."
Do many years of such exposure make us forget how to cooperate for good, as Wilson suggests? Maybe. But maybe there's a bit more innate flexibility in the human psyche. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that more people are volunteering in community organizations across the United States since the economic crisis began. That hints that when people have forgotten how to cooperate, they can remember—if someone just takes the money away.
the original resource
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on May 24, 2021 3:37:50 GMT
I actually think it makes sense. People who are rich have a completely different mindset than those who are not. It can be really difficult to even communicate with the rich people because they're off in their own little world. They are more closed minded and stuck in their world to really consider the outsiders. It's also why Jesus said that it was easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven. It's like they have developed a certain disease that almost can't be cured.
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Jun 4, 2021 12:33:34 GMT
The dynamic described certainly exists. But it would be woeful methodology to now decide this makes for the entire picture.
When wealth is acquired through unfair means, that is entirely different to people who genuinely earn their money through smart, hard work.
America, and most of western society is a parasite on the larger world, with most of its wealth acquired through rigging their currency values against those that live outside the "white curtain".
Wealth acquired in this way is fairly typical in so-called 'croney-capitalism'. Taking the wealth away from the REAL producers of goods would be recipe for complete and total social breakdown.
Be VERY careful with this topic. It can blow up in your face VERY quickly.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jun 4, 2021 17:14:26 GMT
The dynamic described certainly exists. But it would be woeful methodology to now decide this makes for the entire picture. When wealth is acquired through unfair means, that is entirely different to people who genuinely earn their money through smart, hard work. America, and most of western society is a parasite on the larger world, with most of its wealth acquired through rigging their currency values against those that live outside the "white curtain". Wealth acquired in this way is fairly typical in so-called 'croney-capitalism'. Taking the wealth away from the REAL producers of goods would be recipe for complete and total social breakdown. Be VERY careful with this topic. It can blow up in your face VERY quickly. You're right. I mean - now I try to be more careful with topics about scientists. I believe you of your critics of scientific methodology. Your explanations are much more convincible, than even speculations of mine: I mean just thinking about it is not the same as to hear it from a skilled and experienced person.
|
|
Triangle
Full Member
Posts: 356
Likes: 134
|
Post by Triangle on Jun 4, 2021 18:22:04 GMT
Well, it's true. For me rich people aren't a really social problem, but a economical problem. They produce less and receive more. There are more oportunities for rich people, so, is more easy to mantain a status of indiference for the low classes. But the low classes are also a social problem, because they are something easy to became vicious and bad. Well, it's only a theory of mine, and is open to discussion.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jun 4, 2021 18:35:18 GMT
Well, it's true. For me rich people aren't a really social problem, but a economical problem. They produce less and receive more. There are more oportunities for rich people, so, is more easy to mantain a status of indiference for the low classes. But the low classes are also a social problem, because they are something easy to became vicious and bad. Well, it's only a theory of mine, and is open to discussion. I think the rich people are more responsible. Yes, maybe they've got fatter brains, while it doesn't change anything. If you've got more, you've got more responsibilities. Any low classes aren't better, than any higher classes, because... where is that measure? How can we say that man is bad or good, just being participated to one of those classes? I guess you're right, the low classes are vicious mostly, and at the same time the haves have them as their meals.
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Jun 7, 2021 18:19:28 GMT
Well, it's true. For me rich people aren't a really social problem, but a economical problem. They produce less and receive more. There are more oportunities for rich people, so, is more easy to mantain a status of indiference for the low classes. But the low classes are also a social problem, because they are something easy to became vicious and bad. Well, it's only a theory of mine, and is open to discussion.
Absolutely right, both ends of the spectrum can be deeply problematic. Here in south africa its ridiculous how the rich and poor go at each other. Apartheid was virtual slavery, but the african response to colonialism was to increase their numbers and try and flood the white people in that way by using their offspring as cannon-fodder.
The dynamic is so entrenched that nobody can get all the blame, its just a matter of who is being the worst on any given day.
And the middle-class dwindles out of all existence ...
its like nobody ever heard of the french revolution...
|
|
Kasperanza
New Member
Posts: 49
Likes: 16
Ethnicity: White
Country: USA
Politics: Libertarian Capitalist
Religion: Atheist
Age: 22
|
Post by Kasperanza on Jul 13, 2021 12:16:45 GMT
This is silly. You find jerks in every economic class.
Also, not sure why thinking about yourself makes you a jerk. Being selfish gives you better quality of life. Rich people are more aggressive in business and fight for what they want. If this is jerkish behavior, I approve of it. Being a jerk is a virtue. I don't want soft businessmen not believing in their product while also letting their competitors win. That's weakness and doesn't benefit me as a consumer.
I think people cower behind politeness because they hope that they can attain money or value without having to actually work or fight for it.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jul 13, 2021 15:43:08 GMT
This is silly. You find jerks in every economic class. Also, not sure why thinking about yourself makes you a jerk. Being selfish gives you better quality of life. Rich people are more aggressive in business and fight for what they want. If this is jerkish behavior, I approve of it. Being a jerk is a virtue. I don't want soft businessmen not believing in their product while also letting their competitors win. That's weakness and doesn't benefit me as a consumer. I think people cower behind politeness because they hope that they can attain money or value without having to actually work or fight for it. Are you sure you're a libertarian? Maybe you're an elitist libertarian or authoritatianist? I see no reason for the aggressive in this world. That's to be a barbaric way or finding anything. But I cannot disagree what you've told about that will and that courage some rich have it. Well, not only them have it, otherwise there would be no rebels and charismatic leaders among them.
|
|
|
Post by thesageofmainstreet on Jul 13, 2021 17:23:14 GMT
The dynamic described certainly exists. But it would be woeful methodology to now decide this makes for the entire picture. When wealth is acquired through unfair means, that is entirely different to people who genuinely earn their money through smart, hard work. America, and most of western society is a parasite on the larger world, with most of its wealth acquired through rigging their currency values against those that live outside the "white curtain". Wealth acquired in this way is fairly typical in so-called 'croney-capitalism'. Taking the wealth away from the REAL producers of goods would be recipe for complete and total social breakdown. Be VERY careful with this topic. It can blow up in your face VERY quickly. You're right. I mean - now I try to be more careful with topics about scientists. I believe you of your critics of scientific methodology. Your explanations are much more convincible, than even speculations of mine: I mean just thinking about it is not the same as to hear it from a skilled and experienced person. Set Up Halfway to the Finish Line, the "Fatherest" Minimize the FittestAny statement that fails to distinguish between those who create their wealth and those who inherit it is defective and dishonest, obviously intended to justify the destructive tyranny of inherited power by ignoring its parasitic source.
|
|
Kasperanza
New Member
Posts: 49
Likes: 16
Ethnicity: White
Country: USA
Politics: Libertarian Capitalist
Religion: Atheist
Age: 22
|
Post by Kasperanza on Jul 13, 2021 22:33:01 GMT
This is silly. You find jerks in every economic class. Also, not sure why thinking about yourself makes you a jerk. Being selfish gives you better quality of life. Rich people are more aggressive in business and fight for what they want. If this is jerkish behavior, I approve of it. Being a jerk is a virtue. I don't want soft businessmen not believing in their product while also letting their competitors win. That's weakness and doesn't benefit me as a consumer. I think people cower behind politeness because they hope that they can attain money or value without having to actually work or fight for it. Are you sure you're a libertarian? Maybe you're an elitist libertarian or authoritatianist? I see no reason for the aggressive in this world. That's to be a barbaric way or finding anything. But I cannot disagree what you've told about that will and that courage some rich have it. Well, not only them have it, otherwise there would be no rebels and charismatic leaders among them. Well, I don't believe in the use of violence or force unless it's in self-defense or to protect one's private property. So I am definitely not an authoritarian. I wouldn't consider myself an elitist. I have great respect and admiration for rich people, but I wouldn't consider them as superior in any metaphysical way. They're superior is producing value and running businesses, but they aren't a higher class of human beings that deserve special privileges. I guess what I mean to say is that being aggressive, or assertive can be a good thing in certain situations. If you're starting a business, it takes guts and selfishness to get it off the ground. Appeasing people, giving to charity, and being "soft" will not help you at all. Here's a funny article that fleshes out what out what I mean markmanson.net/being-an-assholeOn the other hand, if you're with your friends and family, politeness is incredibly important. Being a jerk would be a vice in this situation. It really depends on context.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jul 14, 2021 16:42:35 GMT
Are you sure you're a libertarian? Maybe you're an elitist libertarian or authoritatianist? I see no reason for the aggressive in this world. That's to be a barbaric way or finding anything. But I cannot disagree what you've told about that will and that courage some rich have it. Well, not only them have it, otherwise there would be no rebels and charismatic leaders among them. Well, I don't believe in the use of violence or force unless it's in self-defense or to protect one's private property. So I am definitely not an authoritarian. I wouldn't consider myself an elitist. I have great respect and admiration for rich people, but I wouldn't consider them as superior in any metaphysical way. They're superior is producing value and running businesses, but they aren't a higher class of human beings that deserve special privileges. I guess what I mean to say is that being aggressive, or assertive can be a good thing in certain situations. If you're starting a business, it takes guts and selfishness to get it off the ground. Appeasing people, giving to charity, and being "soft" will not help you at all. Here's a funny article that fleshes out what out what I mean markmanson.net/being-an-assholeOn the other hand, if you're with your friends and family, politeness is incredibly important. Being a jerk would be a vice in this situation. It really depends on context. Agree. This has lotta sense. Nevertheless of business sharks to be the warriors on that economic battlefield, I would say that smart and talented people are those who bring the real support. So whether or not of their banking account is high, they do their jobs. At the same time, can't it be good for economic if we have those shark's account being abnormally high? It's the same as to say that some of common people have n/45%, while the shark or few sharks have k/55% of total capital. And considering n>>k, those common people would have almost nothing. I know that it's no good to untangle the Gordian knot with one hit, so I guess that perhaps we should start looking for the third alternatives to humanity. I mean, instead of to decide whose part of incomes (in general sense) must be bigger, we can do our work not for us directly. For instance, religious way is ok, because the profit of our business would be given to God. Or we can do our work for making animals suffer the less. Or we can spend our incomes to save nature and its "the red book" plants, etc. I think that the human by taking the apple from that good-and-bad tree made us not smarter, but more uncertain. That's why working for ourselves, for the humanity, is the task that will never be solved.
|
|
Kasperanza
New Member
Posts: 49
Likes: 16
Ethnicity: White
Country: USA
Politics: Libertarian Capitalist
Religion: Atheist
Age: 22
|
Post by Kasperanza on Jul 14, 2021 23:50:30 GMT
Eugene 2.0 I don't like business sharks either. There are certainly cutthroat people out there deprived of any value or skill, and they don't make the world a better place. Smart and talented people make the world go 'round for sure. When you say give the profit to God, do you mean giving the money to a church or??
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jul 15, 2021 3:06:57 GMT
Eugene 2.0 I don't like business sharks either. There are certainly cutthroat people out there deprived of any value or skill, and they don't make the world a better place. Smart and talented people make the world go 'round for sure. When you say give the profit to God, do you mean giving the money to a church or?? Thank you for a question. (I was certain you would ask this :) ) No, not exactly. Only if it is necessary. The main reason is to give money to the third side; to a neutral side. And when this side becomes to like it was in XIII-XV in Italy giving money for that institute becomes too problematic; this institute turns to a real political power, and stop being the third neutral side. Surely, I won't insist I'm right in such a decision, it doesn't seem to be perfect. For me it just looks like it might be an impartial decision: as Solomon did something similar offered two women to split up a child.
|
|
Kasperanza
New Member
Posts: 49
Likes: 16
Ethnicity: White
Country: USA
Politics: Libertarian Capitalist
Religion: Atheist
Age: 22
|
Post by Kasperanza on Jul 15, 2021 9:57:23 GMT
Eugene 2.0A third neutral side??? I think that whoever makes the profit should be able to use that profit however they want.
|
|