"Rich people suck" says a psychologist from study

[Sensia]

According to a new study by Psychologist Dacher Keltner, rich people are out of touch and not very empathetic. Once again, a scientist has spent countless hours, and probably a lot of money, to discover what those of us living in the real world already know. But, hey, if we need science to prove these things, then so be it.

“We have now done 12 separate studies measuring empathy in every way imaginable, social behavior in every way, and some work on compassion and it’s the same story,” he said. “Lower class people just show more empathy, more prosocial behavior, more compassion, no matter how you look at it.”

Who would’ve thunk it? People with money are relatively unaffected by the rest of the world’s problems. Of course they don’t care. They’re too busy eating goose liver and eating off of real plates, living the American dream. It’s hard to give a crap about poor people when your trying to decide on which home theater system to buy. Why should you have any sort of sympathy for anyone who can’t be self-sufficient like you?
As Keltner states, according to his findings:

“They think that economic success and political outcomes, and personal outcomes, have to do with individual behavior, a good work ethic,”

Thank you, Dr. Keltner, we’re glad someone set the record straight! Poor people can pick themselves up by the boot straps, go to a good college with money their grandmother gave them, and use their trust fund for sparingly, just like you did. They’ve got nothing to complain about! If they want to work, they can. They can go out, talk to a few of their father’s friends and find themselves a high-paying entry level job. How hard is that? C’mon poor, underprivileged people! Rich people are tired of you bitching about your lack of things and opportunities!
Keltner points out that poor people are better at making real social connections, because they rely on community and help from those around them. Rich people rely on the same things, they just don’t know it and/or refuse to admit it. As a poor person, or at the very least, a person of lesser means, you have to understand people. You have to know how to make friends with people quickly and easily. People like your landlord for example. If you make friends with him, he’ll be much less likely to evict you when you can’t pay your rent. You have to know how to be charming, like a vagrant gypsy, so that when you go on a job interview you can overcome the fact that nobody in your family works at the company you’re applying for. It also helps to know how to make yourself look harmless and endearing so that people will accept checks from you.
So, bottom line, we can all agree on this: Poor people are better people. Remember that when you’re eating macaroni and cheese for dinner, for the fifth time this week.


Link to news article

[TexTushHog]

I didn't read the links, but I don't doubt the conclusions. However, I would also suspect that the wealth are not devoid of empathy, although percentages showing significant empathy would be lower by statistically significant measures.

The more interesting measure to me would be empathy by political party. I think that you would find that 1) political affiliation would be a more significant predictor of empathy than wealth or income; 2) and that wealthy Democrats would have very significantly greater measures of empathy than wealth Republicans (by huge margins).

I would also think that empathy would increase with age, regardless of political affiliation or wealth.

[waverunner234]

Don't you love it?

[Marshall]

The 'Selfish' Rich

By Charlotte Cushman


I am so sick and tired of blood sucking, looting politicians who espouse taxing the rich in order to get them to pay their "fair share." This is a blatant immoral assault against every American, because it denies every person the right to keep what he has earned. But wait, now we have some new information:

"Psychologist and social scientist Dacher Keltner says the rich really are different, and not in a good way: Their life experience makes them less empathetic, less altruistic, and generally more selfish. In fact, he says, the philosophical battle over economics, taxes, debt ceilings and defaults that are now roiling the stock market is partly rooted in an upper class 'ideology of self-interest.'"

The article goes on to say, "Because the rich gloss over the ways family connections, money and education helped, they come to denigrate the role of government and vigorously oppose taxes to fund it."
So now the Left has a new line of attack. Let's tell the public that the rich are intrinsically flawed. After all, that will justify stealing from them. The way you prove this is to accuse them of being "selfish." because everyone agrees that selfishness is bad. Except, wait. No, we don't, all agree with that.
Perhaps someone should tell Mr. Keltner that the Declaration of Independence gave Americans the right to live their own lives and pursue their own happiness. That sounds like an "ideology of self-interest" to me. We must be honest. Acting in one's best self-interest is selfish.
Most people cringe when they hear the word selfish. We have been taught since we were children that selfishness is bad. We immediately visualize the person who lies, steals, and steps on everyone else's toes to get what he wants irrespective of those he hurts along the way. But a person like that is not acting in his best self-interest and will not achieve true happiness, therefore, he isn't truly acting selfishly.
People, for the most part, want to live their own lives, provide for their families and earn a living. Then, if they are so bold as to work hard, save their money and cross a line and enter into the world of the rich, they are vilified. Now suddenly they are different, bad, "selfish" and they don't care about others because they want to keep what they have earned.
If we are to win the war against Socialism (in all it's variants), it is the concept of selfishness, the right to act in one's best rational self-interest that we must defend, because that is the moral base of the American system, and it is required by our very nature to be able to pursue happiness. That is what freedom is all about, being able to live your life the way you want to as long as you respect the rights of others. And if you become rich along the way, by working hard, you get to keep what you earn.
John Adams said it best. "It must be remembered that the rich are people as well as the poor; that they have rights as well as others; that they have as clear and as sacred a right to their large property as others have to theirs which is smaller; that oppression of them is as possible and as wicked as to others."
Wealth has to be created and Americans created it by living and working for themselves. They pursued their own happiness as envisioned by the Founders. If we want to save our country, we must fight for the morality that underlies it's survival, that it is moral to act in one's best self-interest.

[Fast Gunn]

It is understandable that rich people become rich by focusing primarily on making money by hook or by crook rather than on developing empathy for their fellow man.

However, life is not really that simple.

I think that if you were to look at a cross-section of the prison population, you would find that most of them came from poorer families.

So who are the better people?

. . . The rich or the poor?

[Marshall]

Surprise! Conservatives are more generous than liberals

By Billy Hallowell 12:20 PM 09/23/2010



ADVERTISEMENT
If you talk to most liberals, they’ll tell you that conservatives are insensitive, callous and selfish. To their own detriment, leftists tend to believe that those on the right simply don’t care about the less fortunate. While this doctrine has been embedded in left-leaning gospel for decades, research and reality paint a very different picture — one that has perplexed many of the left’s self-proclaimed “compassionates.” With one of the worst economic downturns in American history still impacting the lives of millions of Americans, understanding this subject is paramount.
Out of all of the left’s discombobulated theoretical constructs, the ludicrous assertion that conservatives simply do not care about society’s downtrodden is particularly frustrating, as it vehemently denies both reality and logic. On the surface, the notion that liberals are the world’s most charitable individuals could easily be accepted. After all, many on the left talk quite a bit about helping the poor and providing [COLOR=green !important][COLOR=green !important]social [COLOR=green !important]safety [/COLOR][COLOR=green !important]nets[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR]. However, the left rarely explores the negative consequences of its policies. Furthermore, liberals fail to analyze and comprehend their own deficient charitable giving patterns.
Thomas Sowell captured this overall sentiment in a Nov. 2006 Human Events piece when he wrote, “One of the most pervasive political visions of our time is the vision of liberals as compassionate and conservatives as less caring.” While myths surrounding leftist giving and volunteerism continue to be perpetuated, American researchers have taken a pretty clear and concise look at this issue and the case is closed: Conservatives out-give and out-volunteer the opposition. Don’t believe me? Examine the facts.
In 2006, independently-registered researcher and author Arthur Brooks tackled the issue of political ideology as it pertains to giving. According to a 2006 ABC News piece by John Stossel and Kristina Kendall, Brooks’ research has shown that conservatives donate about 30 percent more than do liberals. Interestingly, on average, conservatives earn less than liberals.
Brooks also claims that [COLOR=green !important][COLOR=green !important]financial[/COLOR][/COLOR] donations aren’t the only difference at hand. When it comes to an issue as random as blood donations, conservatives are about 17 percent more likely than their liberal counterparts to donate blood! But, that’s not all. In 2008, George Will covered some of Brooks’ other findings. As it turns out, in 2004, George W. Bush carried 24 out of 25 of the states in which charitable giving exceeded the national average. According to Will,
“In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.”
Clearly, there are a number of factors that influence the disparity between conservative and liberal giving. Two reasons that Brooks mentions in his own work are religious affiliation and the way in which liberals and conservatives view the government’s role in society. To address the former, a higher proportion of conservatives are religious and, thus, report routinely giving to churches and faith-based ministries.
In terms of the latter, it’s no secret that liberals are more prone to accept the notion that it’s the government’s responsibility to provide direct services to the people. While conservatives are by no means opposed to essential state-sponsored programs, they place a higher value on personal responsibility and the building of self-driven social capital. According to Brooks, “…You find that people who believe it’s the government’s [COLOR=green !important][COLOR=green !important]job[/COLOR][/COLOR] to make incomes more equal, are far less likely to give their money away.” Compassion, however, should be rooted in personal engagement; liberals fail to match conservatives in this area.
In exploring the reaction to the consistent findings that conservatives are more charitable, one cannot help but chuckle at the left’s inability to accept the facts. In Dec. 2008, Ezra Klein attempted to dismantle Brooks’ findings. In addressing religiosity, Klein wrote, “A recent survey from Google similarly found that self-identified conservatives gave more to charity than did self-identified liberals. But they also found that ‘if donations to all religious organizations are excluded, liberals give slightly more to charity than conservatives do.’”
Klein goes on to question whether religious giving constitutes a “membership fee” of sorts. If more non-religious individuals on the left spent time working with churches and faith-based non-profits they’d realize that the vast majority serve populations in need and do, in fact, work in the charity realm. Dismissing all donations to “religious organizations” would be silly, as it would literally ignore an insanely large portion of the charity work that is conducted (and funded by conservatives) in America and beyond. During such difficult economic times, many of these charities are very literally preventing families from plunging into the abyss of poverty. Perhaps Klein’s most intriguing quip was, “Saying that conservatives give more to charity is another way of saying that conservatives are more religious.” How does one even begin to argue with that logic?
In a separate report for the [COLOR=green !important][COLOR=green !important]Hoover [COLOR=green !important]Institution[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR], Brooks explains that religious individuals are more likely (25 percentage points) than secular persons to give monies and 23 points “…more likely to volunteer time.” So, even if Klein’s downplay-religious-giving theory held, plenty of evidence shows that conservatives are more apt than liberals to, at the least, give their time.
Interestingly, Nicholas Kristof (a self-described liberal) of The New York Times wrote on this same subject back in 2008. Unlike others on the left who sought to dismiss Brooks’ data, Kristof wrote, “We liberals are personally stingy.” Kristof went on to cover other research that backs up Brooks’ findings. According to Kristof, “The ‘generosity index’ from the Catalogue for Philanthropy typically finds that red states are the most likely to give to nonprofits, while Northeastern states are least likely to do so.”
True charity starts at home. It’s one thing to advocate spending tax-payer dollars to solve social problems, but it’s an entirely different (and, in my opinion, more noble) beast to invest oneself in a cause, both through [COLOR=green !important][COLOR=green !important]financial [COLOR=green !important]investment[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR] and volunteerism. While conservatives tend to oppose some social programs that will add to yearly deficits and, subsequently, the national debt, they are the most apt to personally involve themselves in fixing social problems. At a time when local, state and federal budgets are beyond strapped, we should at least credit conservatives for investing in America’s future.
Billy Hallowell is a journalist and commentator who focuses on faith, media and society. Through journalism, media, public speaking appearances and the blogosphere, Hallowell has worked for more than a decade to inspire and motivate his generation. He has been published and featured in political and cultural books, textbooks, articles and [COLOR=green !important][COLOR=green !important]Web [COLOR=green !important]sites[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR] that focus on the youth of America and its role in the future of our world.

[Marshall]

It is understandable that rich people become rich by focusing primarily on making money by hook or by crook rather than on developing empathy for their fellow man.

However, life is not really that simple.

I think that if you were to look at a cross-section of the prison population, you would find that most of them came from poorer families.

So who are the better people?

. . . The rich or the poor?

Fast Cum, the article says poor people develope empathy to take advantage of other people.......

[anaximander]

Poor people of better character?
Like hell they are.

I am not rich by a long shot. I went to school
with a greatgrandson of Conrad Hilton, the eldest
son of the CEO of Marriot, asstd kids of execs
from Exxon, Shell, and Frost Bank.
It was a public school circa 1982.
They all came from warm friendly families.
I never felt unwelcome.

As the years wore on they fared about as well
as anyone else considering. Money isn't the
end all be all. Money caused various troubles
in various families. It brings a whole set of
problems that we middle class just can't see.

Poor people these days are mislabeled.
In my prior job we had contracts with
various sec8 asstd housing. What I saw
contradicts most assumptions regarding
'the poor'. They had flat panel HDTV's
when I still had CRT/HDTV . They had
more and newer laptops. Wifi before
myself or most of my friends had it.
More and newer cars.
Better wheels on all their cars.
All cellphones including the kids.
A cockroach infested kitchen stocked
with any name brand food and snack
you can think of. As well as second
full size fridges filled with beer.
Propane grills.
Music instruments of the best make.

Not one of these bastards even made
half of what I did if they worked at all.
The amount of young men sitting around
on couches goofing while the women
worked was just shameful.

Poor people more compassionate
and prosocial- yeah on display after Katrina.
LA riots anyone? What have poor done to
benefit anyone other than themselves?

No rich person ever hazed me at a stop light
for not anteing up into his booze/crack fund.
My house alarm is not meant to notify the LE
that self starters and trust fund brats are
trying to B&E.
My auto insurance isn't to protect me
from errant Bentley owners.
My SIG isn't intended to protect me from
speculative trust fund managers.
Lastly it's most unlikely that a rich person
will ever seek to take my belongings home
with them or to sell for whatever.

Rich people build hospitals-
the poor run it out of business

Care to see the character and caring of the poor?
Why anyone of you walk around the public housing
in your town...after you admire the scenery and how
these people care for their homes; see just what
activities the red bandana wearing welcome wagon
has in store for you
SHA-WHOOP

[Marshall]

Originally Posted by anaximander

Poor people of better character?
Like hell they are.

I am not rich by a long shot. I went to school
with a greatgrandson of Conrad Hilton, the eldest
son of the CEO of Marriot, asstd kids of execs
from Exxon, Shell, and Frost Bank.
It was a public school circa 1982.
They all came from warm friendly families.
I never felt unwelcome.

As the years wore on they fared about as well
as anyone else considering. Money isn't the
end all be all. Money caused various troubles
in various families. It brings a whole set of
problems that we middle class just can't see.

Poor people these days are mislabeled.
In my prior job we had contracts with
various sec8 asstd housing. What I saw
contradicts most assumptions regarding
'the poor'. They had flat panel HDTV's
when I still had CRT/HDTV . They had
more and newer laptops. Wifi before
myself or most of my friends had it.
More and newer cars.
Better wheels on all their cars.
All cellphones including the kids.
A cockroach infested kitchen stocked
with any name brand food and snack
you can think of. As well as second
full size fridges filled with beer.
Propane grills.
Music instruments of the best make.

Not one of these bastards even made
half of what I did if they worked at all.
The amount of young men sitting around
on couches goofing while the women
worked was just shameful.

Poor people more compassionate
and prosocial- yeah on display after Katrina.
LA riots anyone? What have poor done to
benefit anyone other than themselves?

No rich person ever hazed me at a stop light
for not anteing up into his booze/crack fund.
My house alarm is not meant to notify the LE
that self starters and trust fund brats are
trying to B&E.
My auto insurance isn't to protect me
from errant Bentley owners.
My SIG isn't intended to protect me from
speculative trust fund managers.
Lastly it's most unlikely that a rich person
will ever seek to take my belongings home
with them or to sell for whatever.

Rich people build hospitals-
the poor run it out of business

Care to see the character and caring of the poor?
Why anyone of you walk around the public housing
in your town...after you admire the scenery and how
these people care for their homes; see just what
activities the red bandana wearing welcome wagon
has in store for you
SHA-WHOOP

+1

[NinaBrooke]

I think it depends on what social standards are measured. If you never lived out of your comfort zone, i do think that you don`t know how good of a live you have, when you are born into money or get support from your parents or family ties.

So it could be that people that don`t face big challenges are showing less empathy as the ones who worked hard for their living. I heard "middle class" people sobbing about things that would be a relieve if any other person "faced" that challenges ;-). So it strikes me as not empathic.

On the other hand there are many people in good standing with money , who do support the needs of others because they are empathic.

I also see that poor people can be lacking empathy as well, given the hardships they have been put thru. It `s all about personal conduct and how your character gets shaped, regardless of the income, money you have.

In my life i have witnessed people lacking empathy or human decency in all sorts of the "field". Maybe both researches are a little propaganda, same like the research on how all escorts are forced and unhappy and depressed and whatnot - from some hardcore feminists.

It would be interesting how the research was conducted and how the conclusions were made. Sometimes you see conclusions presented in papers or newspapers that have never been presented in "such" an obvious way.

I also wonder what the category "social mobility" has to say in that research and IF it was conducted at all with that category in mind as well?
I personally find people who are socially inflexible (always surrounding themselves with the "same" kind of people like they are) lacking empathy more than people who have friends with different lives and viewpoints.

It`s just a pandemonium feast for political agendas IF you happen to interpret research as "obvious" as it was pointed out above. So that explains some of the answers :-)

ps: btw aren`t there rules on here that prohibit posting full articles? Aren`t we allowed to only post one paragraph?

[TexTushHog]

Charitable giving has nothing to do with the emotion of empathy. To me, it is more likely to evidence a hostility to government.

Many progressives believe -- justifiably, I would argue -- that private charity undercuts the case for government being the entity in society that should be the social safety net.

[Marshall]

Charitable giving has nothing to do with the emotion of empathy. To me, it is more likely to evidence a hostility to government.

Many progressives believe -- justifiably, I would argue -- that private charity undercuts the case for government being the entity in society that should be the social safety net.

[Sensia]

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

I didn't read the links, but I don't doubt the conclusions. However, I would also suspect that the wealth are not devoid of empathy, although percentages showing significant empathy would be lower by statistically significant measures.

The more interesting measure to me would be empathy by political party. I think that you would find that 1) political affiliation would be a more significant predictor of empathy than wealth or income; 2) and that wealthy Democrats would have very significantly greater measures of empathy than wealth Republicans (by huge margins).

I would also think that empathy would increase with age, regardless of political affiliation or wealth.

Originally Posted by Fast Gunn

It is understandable that rich people become rich by focusing primarily on making money by hook or by crook rather than on developing empathy for their fellow man.

However, life is not really that simple.

I think that if you were to look at a cross-section of the prison population, you would find that most of them came from poorer families.

So who are the better people?

. . . The rich or the poor?

Well I thought the article was interesting which leads to the all too familiar saying of someone living in a "bubble", which I think those with substantial wealth do. However I have met some very empathic and compassionate people who were wealthy so I can't say that they are all like this. But I do think there is much truth in the study by the psychologist and her team.

[anaximander]

Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Charitable giving has nothing to do with the emotion of empathy. To me, it is more likely to evidence a hostility to government.

Many progressives believe -- justifiably, I would argue -- that private charity undercuts the case for government being the entity in society that should be the social safety net.

Spoken like a true marxist. However it loses a little
something when not spoken in it's native german.

One can only speak for one's self.
By your measure the person(s) who annually
throw a gold eagle or kugerrand into a
Salvation Army kettle do so to spite the govt?

Private charity undercuts govt handouts because
they outperform govt aid at a fraction of the price.

And that ladies and gentlemen of the jury is the tell.

IF helping the "needy" were truly the motivation
this would not be an argument. Helping the needy
is the last thing progressives want..literally.
This is about centralization of power.
Turning all free men into wards of the State.

There are people who get their food, clothing, housing,
medical/dental, and work provided.
They are all wards of the State.

You won't get what you want.
You will get what you are given.

I share the same views towards govt as
Franklin, Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Hancock, Henry

You are obviously a Tory of the new stripe.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by anaximander

Poor people of better character?
Like hell they are.

I am not rich by a long shot.

You're living proof that not all poor folks are empathetic...but hey there are exceptions to every study!


btw, Why are you still in this country? Haven't you heard , Iran has a nuke, go join the country you love more than any other and rid the world of that Iranian threat to your motherland, Israel.