Poorer people a class above: study

[HughJass]

Poorer people a class above: study


A RAFT of studies into unethical behaviour across the social classes has delivered a withering verdict on the upper echelons of society. Privileged people behaved consistently worse than others in a range of situations, with a greater tendency to lie, cheat, take things meant for others, cut off other road users, not stop for pedestrians on crossings, and endorse unethical behaviour, researchers found.

Psychologists at the University of California in Berkeley drew their unflattering conclusions after covertly observing people's behaviour in the open and in a series of follow-up studies in the laboratory.

Describing their work in the US journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, social psychologist Paul Piff and his colleagues at the Institute of Personality and Social Research claim that self-interest may be a ''more fundamental motive among society's elite'' that leads to more wrongdoing. They say selfishness may be ''a shared cultural norm''.

The scientists also found a strong link between social status and greed, a connection they suspect might exacerbate the economic gulf between the rich and poor. The work builds on previous research that suggests the upper classes are less cognisant of others, worse at reading other people's emotions and less altruistic than individuals in lower social classes.

''If you occupy these higher echelons, you start to see yourself as more entitled, and develop a heightened self-focus,'' Mr Piff said. ''Your social environment is likely more buffered against the impact of your actions, and you might not perceive the risks of your behaviour because you are better resourced, you have the money for lawyers and so on.''

In one study, 105 volunteers were asked to read eight stories that implicated a character in taking something that wasn't theirs, and comment on whether they would do the same. Their endorsement of wrongdoing rose with socio-economic class, as ranked by income, education and occupation.

Another study had volunteers play a computer game that simulated five rolls of a dice. The participants were asked to write down their total score, and told that a high score might earn them a cash prize. Even though the game was rigged to give everyone a score of 12, more upper-class than lower-class people reported higher scores.

''Upper and lower class individuals do not necessarily differ in terms of their capacity for unethical behaviour, but rather in terms of their default tendencies towards it,'' the authors wrote.

GUARDIAN

http://www.smh.com.au/executive-style/c ... 1u12b.html

 

[Ori83]

Is this your way of letting us know your a millionaire??!!

 

[Man in Space]

:laugh:

Zinger!

 

[virtuality]

It's a well known fact that the rich take things for granted and that they feel entitled...

I've noticed that almost every single driver who uses the high beams in the dark is some bastard driving an expensive car..

 

[HughJass]

Is this your way of letting us know your a millionaire??!!

That's awfully catty.



You should give some of your money away. Then you'd be a much nicer person. Like me

 

[HughJass]

It's a well known fact that the rich take things for granted and that they feel entitled...

I've noticed that almost every single driver who uses the high beams in the dark is some bastard driving an expensive car..

Most wealthy people are parasites.

The ones who have gotten wealthy through creative endeavour- writing books, making music, films, art etc I don't feel that way about as much but the bosses are all exploiters and slave drivers and should be thrown off a cliff if they aren't willing to go quietly

 

[Man in Space]

There is a marxist school of thought that says all creative work is actually just a manifestation of Bourgeious interests. Language is created by the oppressing classes and therefore we are all just vehicles in the perpetuation of its hegemony....but i would hate to stir the pot Hugh!!

 

[HughJass]

There is a marxist school of thought that says all creative work is actually just a manifestation of Bourgeious interests. Language is created by the oppressing classes and therefore we are all just vehicles in the perpetuation of its hegemony

That's a bit much for me :innocent:. Making things is fun!





But I would love to be the guy who convinced everyone to quit their jobs.

 

[Man in Space]

You got the blinkers on man...!!

 

[HughJass]

you aren't siding with management are you spaceman?




don't be siding with management :nono:

 

[Man in Space]

No way man, Im Proletariat all the way

Viva La revolution!

 

[virtuality]

It's a well known fact that the rich take things for granted and that they feel entitled...

I've noticed that almost every single driver who uses the high beams in the dark is some bastard driving an expensive car..

Most wealthy people are parasites.

The ones who have gotten wealthy through creative endeavour- writing books, making music, films, art etc I don't feel that way about as much but the bosses are all exploiters and slave drivers and should be thrown off a cliff if they aren't willing to go quietly

Im not particularly against the rich. I do believe we are all equal but some are more equal in a sense that some might have abilities or visions that are beyond the abilities of an average person. Those people create economy, employment, etc through hard work and creativity.

On the other hand, I do agree that some rich people get wealthy through exploitation, etc and I'm against that as well.

 

[Man in Space]

Societally and culturally there is a hierarchy and there are cultural and economic superiors, philosophically we are all equally pointless creatures.

 

[kc444]

I know there are people who want this to be true, but I have a degree in psychology from a major university and I'll say that studies like these can reach any conclusion the author chooses. If I were to define stealing by asking a question about whether or not it's okay to steal from a rich person to give to a poor person, surely it would be liberals who would steal more often. I've read the study and it uses college students who self-report their family income, so perhaps the conclusion should be that students who consider their family to be rich are more likely to be unethical. For all we know, it could be that students who lie about their family's income are more likely to lie about other things. I am an evil conservative, so take it for what it's worth. I will say one thing though.. if you believe that we are all pointless creatures, please stop asking the rest of us for the money to buy pointless material things for your pointless lives.

*puts flame retardant suit on* (do people still say that anymore?)

 

[Man in Space]

Im not a marxist, i have just read some of his work. Ive also read Robert Nozick for example, I enjoy a welath of diverse opinions. I dont consider conservatism evil at all. Conservatism gets a bad rep, some of the great crimes perpetuated against the human race have begun with 'noble' intentions such as imposing egalitarianism upon a society.

Id love to know why you seemed to conclude that because i think life is inherently pointless that means you think i want your money, Ive worked since i was 16, never claimed a bean in my life. I also very much enjoy possessions and quality life experiences, I just think my enjoyment of them, as well as my experiences in life, are transcient.

 

[kc444]

I wasn't referring to you personally. Sorry. It was more of a swipe at liberalism/socialism as a whole.. I was trying to make this thread more interesting.

I don't understand though how you can work from a young age and never ask for anything, but be okay with a political system where others feel entitled to a percentage of the money you make. Both liberals and conservatives want to help the poor, but conservatives would argue (and I think history is on our side) that the best way to do this is through hard work, incentives, and private charity for those who are incapable.

Again, just trying to stir the pot a little :dunno:

 

[HughJass]

..... but conservatives would argue (and I think history is on our side) that the best way to do this is through hard work, incentives, and private charity for those who are incapable.

Leaving it up to private charities and philanthropists is a disaster. Firstly, it grows religion. I'm not saying there aren't religious folk who have really good hearts and genuinely want to help but more often than not charity is used by religious organisations to consolidate their power. Cynically. It's probably the reason why the US is still so religious compared to other western countries which have welfare states.

Secondly, when you leave it up to the billionaires to look after the poor they always give it to where they want it to go which isn't necessarily where it needs to go.

When you listed hard work as one of the ways to help the poor do you mean for them? to work hard?

In developed countries the problem of poverty isn't one of lack of resources it's one of wealth being concentrated in the hands of a few. There is no good argument for letting a handful of people get filthy rich from extracting resources which belong to everyone. Those people are just parasites. As are employment consultants who suck up big government contracts to get unemployed people into work. Why not just give that money to the unemployed instead? It's criminal that some company can siphon off public funds like that.

There is enough money and resources to let people who don't work, or don't want to work, not to. The idea that everyone has to have a job is rediculous. It just ends up fueling crime, burdens the health care sector, probably creates higher birth rates and unfettered consumption.

Why should I care if my neighbor doesn't work? I think it's more valuable to society that he's a good person than a worker in some job he probably doesn't want to do which will inevitably make him a miserable sod, a mindless consumer and generally a waste of skin. People will want to work, and will do far more valuable work when they are born into a system that doesn't demand things of them or forces them to do things under the threat of poverty.

and that's my prescription for ending poverty

 

[kc444]

..... but conservatives would argue (and I think history is on our side) that the best way to do this is through hard work, incentives, and private charity for those who are incapable.

Leaving it up to private charities and philanthropists is a disaster. Firstly, it grows religion. I'm not saying there aren't religious folk who have really good hearts and genuinely want to help but more often than not charity is used by religious organisations to consolidate their power. Cynically. It's probably the reason why the US is still so religious compared to other western countries which have welfare states.

Secondly, when you leave it up to the billionaires to look after the poor they always give it to where they want it to go which isn't necessarily where it needs to go.

When you listed hard work as one of the ways to help the poor do you mean for them? to work hard?

In developed countries the problem of poverty isn't one of lack of resources it's one of wealth being concentrated in the hands of a few. There is no good argument for letting a handful of people get filthy rich from extracting resources which belong to everyone. Those people are just parasites. As are employment consultants who suck up big government contracts to get unemployed people into work. Why not just give that money to the unemployed instead? It's criminal that some company can siphon off public funds like that.

There is enough money and resources to let people who don't work, or don't want to work, not to. The idea that everyone has to have a job is rediculous. It just ends up fueling crime, burdens the health care sector, probably creates higher birth rates and unfettered consumption.

Why should I care if my neighbor doesn't work? I think it's more valuable to society that he's a good person than a worker in some job he probably doesn't want to do which will inevitably make him a miserable sod, a mindless consumer and generally a waste of skin. People will want to work, and will do far more valuable work when they are born into a system that doesn't demand things of them or forces them to do things under the threat of poverty.

and that's my prescription for en ding povewillrty

That's a prescription for creating poverty, not ending it.

I don't think you're correct to assume that religion would take over. I am an atheist and I see it as an opportunity for secular people to organize and compete against churches who offer prayers instead of skills to lift others out of poverty. If it's reason and not superstition that produces the best outcome, then I can't think of a better way to prove it.

Do you think welfare sends money to where it needs to go? Liberals always talk about unequal distribution of wealth, but does welfare make poor people wealthier? Think of where welfare checks go.. consumables like food, light bulbs, cigarettes, etc. Energy assistance goes straight to big energy companies. Medicaid funds are funneled straight into the hands of big hospitals and pharmaceutical companies. These things are not assets and do not contribute to a person's wealth. You can't get a loan to buy a house from welfare checks. Welfare programs increase wealth inequality. Only when you encourage savings and hard assets can you reduce inequality.

Do you think America can really just tell everyone to stay home and not work, nationalize oil fields, coal mines, and natural gas reserves (wait, liberals are against using these resources..), and pay everyone a sum and reduce inequality? Do you think the poor people in this country would be richer under this system? There may be less wealth inequality, but that's only because everyone would be poor.

So you will invent a system where everyone who doesn't want to work doesn't have to and will just be paid for by the people who do? Where do I sign up? As long as I'm one of the ones not working, of course. It should be painfully obvious to understand why this would never work.

The only reason there are resources in this country is because there is still some incentive to work and innovate. If you take away these incentives, you'll have no resources to redistribute. Your friendly but unemployed population will not be able to feed themselves solely on their good virtues.

 

[HughJass]

I don't think you're correct to assume that religion would take over. I am an atheist and I see it as an opportunity for secular people to organize and compete against churches who offer prayers instead of skills to lift others out of poverty. If it's reason and not superstition that produces the best outcome, then I can't think of a better way to prove it.

All you have to do is take a look at the evidence- America doesn't have welfare state like many other western countries do and it's still stridently religious. It's religious institutions doing a lot of the charity work. Look at what happened in the Pakistan earthquakes a few years ago. The state couldn't provide for the people so religious groups moved in and started providing the charity.

Do you think welfare sends money to where it needs to go? Liberals always talk about unequal distribution of wealth, but does welfare make poor people wealthier? Think of where welfare checks go.. consumables like food, light bulbs, cigarettes, etc. Energy assistance goes straight to big energy companies. Medicaid funds are funneled straight into the hands of big hospitals and pharmaceutical companies. These things are not assets and do not contribute to a person's wealth. You can't get a loan to buy a house from welfare checks. Welfare programs increase wealth inequality. Only when you encourage savings and hard assets can you reduce inequality.

Yes, of course it goes to where it needs to go. Where else do you think it goes? To the welfare fairy?

Why you think it's a bad thing that welfare is spent on things like foods and bills is beyond me. That's what welfare is for! It isn't there to help people create wealth, it's there to keep them off the street.

Humans have tried living without welfare before. It wasn't pretty. There was a reason why welfare payments came into existence.

Do you think America can really just tell everyone to stay home and not work, nationalize oil fields, coal mines, and natural gas reserves (wait, liberals are against using these resources..), and pay everyone a sum and reduce inequality? Do you think the poor people in this country would be richer under this system? There may be less wealth inequality, but that's only because everyone would be poor.

It's definetly doable. Buckminster Fuller calculated that most jobs in American society were just there to keep people busy for the sake of busy-ness and were actually costing more wealth than they were producing:

As mentioned, World Game finds that 60 percent of all the jobs in the U.S.A. are not producing any real wealth—i.e., real life support. They are in fear-underwriting industries or are checking-on-other-checkers, etc. The majority of the jobs occasion the individuals using three to four gallons per day in their automobiles to go to and form work—at true cosmic costing this means four million dollars per worker per day. Obviously the computer finds that it would save the planet Earth’s energy account $500 trillion a day to give all the non-wealth-producing workers their full pay to stay at home.

So you will invent a system where everyone who doesn't want to work doesn't have to and will just be paid for by the people who do? Where do I sign up? As long as I'm one of the ones not working, of course. It should be painfully obvious to understand why this would never work.

The only reason there are resources in this country is because there is still some incentive to work and innovate. If you take away these incentives, you'll have no resources to redistribute. Your friendly but unemployed population will not be able to feed themselves solely on their good virtues.

The essential work can always be shared but it's going to become increasingly automated anyway. The people who grow and farm our food generally wouldn't have their lives any other way so it's not like they are going to be too upset about carrying the rest of us (notice all those subsidies farmers always want from the government just so they can be farmers?).

The threat of starvation or poverty is no incentive to get people to work. All it does is create anxiety in a lot of people and reduce them to sheep who are easily coerced into soul sucking, useless jobs which just create more problems (excess consumption, burden on the health system from stress induced sickness, too much breeding etc etc)

When people live within a system where there's no pressure on them and they are free to develop and realize their full potential then they do useful work and have good ideas. Humans only sit around and play video games and watch television when they've been burned out.

So more economic benefits to not working or reducing work:

• People with stressful jobs are twice as likely to die from heart disease, according to a 2002 study in the British Medical Journal.

• People who work over 48 hours per week have double the risk of heart disease, according to a 1996 UK government report.

• Long-term job strain is worse for your heart than gaining 40lbs in weight or aging 30 years, according to a 2003 US study.

• Work kills more than war. Approximately two million workers die annually due to occupational injuries and illnesses, according to a United Nations report. This is more than double the figure for deaths from warfare (650,000 deaths per year). Work kills more people than alcohol and drugs together.

• 82% of workers at the Department for Work and Pensions have suffered ill health as a result of pressure of work, according to a 2003 survey.

• The Health and Safety Executive reports that the number of people suffering from work-related stress has more than doubled since 1990.

• BBC News quotes the International Stress Management Association as saying: "Each year we conduct research into stress and each year the figure just keeps on getting worse."

• Rising stress at work is causing increasing numbers of young professionals to grind their teeth while they sleep, according to the British Dental Health Foundation.

http://www.anxietyculture.com/workhell.htm