dancinmama
Senior Associate
LIVIN' THE DREAM!!
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 20:49:45 GMT -5
Posts: 10,659
|
Post by dancinmama on Aug 11, 2011 9:47:37 GMT -5
Reading the article, I think these writers are talking about a different "rich" than most of us are thinking of. They're not talking about the people who live up the hill from you ... unless, that is, you live down the hill from the Hiltons. I know people who are quite well-to-do; however, they worked hard to get where they are, and most are still working hard. Many of these folks are just as empathetic as anybody else (although, there are exceptions just as there are amongst those who have little or nothing). I don't think those are the "rich" this study is addressing. Unless one of us reads the actual study will we really ever known what they meant by "rich"? As I was trying to point out earlier, peoples perception of rich is very skewed by possessions which is meanlingless to the bottom line. The only time it is defined is in the middle of the article where the author describes middle to lower income as those who make less than $90K a year. Those making $90K/yr. were able to "increase their consumer spending in July" while "middle and lower income Americans remained stalled". This is the ONLY PLACE in the article where an attempt is made to define "the rich" with a concrete number.
|
|
|
Post by magichat on Aug 11, 2011 9:50:47 GMT -5
Maybe it's a democrat/republican thing? I have frequented several restaurants that Warren Buffett eats regularly at, and he is known as a terrible tipper. ;D Terrible according to what? If he tips 20% or more would that be considered "terrible"? Or is what he leaves considered "terrible" relative to how rich he is? I don't have a clue as I have never been a server. I was being faceitous to a point, but I am repeating what I have heard from several of his servers.
|
|
floridayankee
Junior Associate
If You Don't Stand Behind Our Troops, Feel Free to Stand in Front of Them.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:56:05 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by floridayankee on Aug 11, 2011 10:00:51 GMT -5
What? I'm totally shocked that a professor at at UC Berkley comes to the conclusion that rich people are different and not in a good way....shocked I tell you! So true I have worked jobs for tips before the less wealthy working class tip better are more appreciative and much more pleasant, the wealthier people were so nit picky and rude. I think the resentment they feel people have for them is not thier money but thier poopy condecending attitude towards other people. But that is what happens when you put so much of your self worth in your bank account and not actual qualities. We have a couple that doesn't work (I think they're both on disability) that come into the bar at our moose lodge nearly every day. The wife flat out told one of our (volunteer) bartenders that she never tips because they can't afford to tip. Somehow they always seem to have enough to sit there and drink for several hours though. I also know a rather wealthy developer up north that has always tipped in the 20% range. It seems to me that being a complete asshole is not restricted to any one income/wealth level. Nothing but more class warfare.....divide and conquer.
|
|
fairlycrazy23
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 23:55:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,306
|
Post by fairlycrazy23 on Aug 11, 2011 10:22:42 GMT -5
How does this possibly show anything about anything: In one test, for example, Keltner and other colleagues had 115 people play the “dictator game,” a standard trial of economic behavior. “Dictators” were paired with an unseen partner, given ten “points” that represented money, and told they could share as many or as few of the points with the partner as they desired. Lower-class participants gave more even after controlling for gender, age or ethnicity. are you unfamiliar with the Milgram experiment? the perception of the study subject as to their place in the experiment is very important. the study subjects here were told to spend those "points" as they desired. isn't that what the study showed, that the rich were less empathetic overall over the course of this study? I thought Milgram showed people would torture others if told by an 'authority' to do it, but I still fail to see how the dictator game shows empathy, so when you play monopoly if you don't give half your money to your opponents you are not empathetic ?
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Aug 11, 2011 10:25:11 GMT -5
I didn't notice anything that said you were not empathetic if you didn't give half your money (sic) to an opponent. What I saw was about giving points to a partner.
|
|
chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 38,650
|
Post by chiver78 on Aug 11, 2011 10:30:27 GMT -5
are you unfamiliar with the Milgram experiment? the perception of the study subject as to their place in the experiment is very important. the study subjects here were told to spend those "points" as they desired. isn't that what the study showed, that the rich were less empathetic overall over the course of this study? I thought Milgram showed people would torture others if told by an 'authority' to do it, but I still fail to see how the dictator game shows empathy, so when you play monopoly if you don't give half your money to your opponents you are not empathetic ? the study subjects in Milgram thought that the subjects were the people they were torturing, NOT themselves. they saw themselves as advancing the experiment by following instructions. in the quoted study, the subjects were instructed to do as they wished with the "points". by doing as they wished, you would infer their level of empathy by how much they shared. you cannot compare this to Monopoly, because the objective in Monopoly is to own everything and have the most money.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 19, 2024 16:26:05 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 11, 2011 10:39:27 GMT -5
you would infer their level of empathy by how much they shared This reminds me of lottery winners who often share more of their winnings than they should because they feel like they don't deserve the money - they didn't earn it. If you create your own wealth you might be more reluctant to share in the absence of any true need by your partner where people who feel entitled might be more willing to share - like the looters who didn't think they should have to pay for anything.
|
|
fairlycrazy23
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 23:55:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,306
|
Post by fairlycrazy23 on Aug 11, 2011 11:07:02 GMT -5
I thought Milgram showed people would torture others if told by an 'authority' to do it, but I still fail to see how the dictator game shows empathy, so when you play monopoly if you don't give half your money to your opponents you are not empathetic ? the study subjects in Milgram thought that the subjects were the people they were torturing, NOT themselves. they saw themselves as advancing the experiment by following instructions. in the quoted study, the subjects were instructed to do as they wished with the "points". by doing as they wished, you would infer their level of empathy by how much they shared. you cannot compare this to Monopoly, because the objective in Monopoly is to own everything and have the most money. That is what i said about Milgram, the teacher thought they where torturing a student but the student was an actor, but so giving away points that have no value shows empathy? I strongly disagree that the dictator game shows empathy at all.
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Aug 11, 2011 11:13:47 GMT -5
...at the risk of sounding argumentative, I'll agree that this article is an interesting read, but not (necessarily) in a good way... ...my take is that, just as science can never prove/disprove God... science can never quantify/qualify compassion... ...kinda like in that scene in the movie, Contact, when Matthew McConaughey asks Jodie Foster, "Did you love your father?" "Yes." "Prove it."
|
|
fairlycrazy23
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 23:55:19 GMT -5
Posts: 3,306
|
Post by fairlycrazy23 on Aug 11, 2011 11:28:21 GMT -5
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Aug 11, 2011 11:30:40 GMT -5
I have some experience with those who are "comfortable "..and by this I mean they really do not have to work for a living..one does however, 25 hours a week in the medical field, or if they do, friends of, meaning in a career, then they do so, in demandinhg employment where skills are needed, .
They all have very nice homes, these are ones who are some what younger meaning still have children in grade schools, they are very into helping others...charity work, volunteer work, not complaining about paying more in taxes..in the ones case of very close to me , they are liberal in out look and worry about those who don't have it, in another, not as comfortable but has a excellent job , well paid, over six figures a year, very conservative, but excellent moral charecter, does ots of volunteering with youth groups, coaching.
They also do not flaunt what they have to impress others, but think nothing of when on vacation, going first class, if skiing, hiring a guide, a teacher..taking trips with familys, education types and having kids experience things, whether national parks, for one , going every year to different ball parks, [baseball] hoping eventually to get to all of them in the country, a experience for the father and son, remember , it can be afforded, for another child, riding lessons , dance, theater , music, which can be expensive..and a month during the summer forn the kids to go to over night camp.
Normal all around people, they are just comfortable..can do things that many can't with out having to think twice if the thing to be done can be afforded..in their cases and their friends, everything with in reason and a bit over, can be afforded, so is this bad?
Also a decision to educate the kids in private schools. They can afford it and feel as good as the public school in their community, it is a good system, kids did go for the first five years..the education at the private will be better, or at least thats their hope..and they can afford it.
|
|