Money shifts the emotions
Image: iStock / pagadesign
-
The Wisdom of Psychopaths
In this engrossing journey into the lives of psychopaths and their infamously crafty behaviors, the renowned psychologist Kevin Dutton reveals that there is a...
Read More »
Who is more likely to lie, cheat, and steal—the poor person or the rich one? It’s temping to think that the wealthier you are, the more likely you are to act fairly. After all, if you already have enough for yourself, it’s easier to think about what others may need. But research suggests the opposite is true: as people climb the social ladder, their compassionate feelings towards other people decline.
Berkeley psychologists Paul Piff and Dacher Keltner ran several studies looking at whether social class (as measured by wealth, occupational prestige, and education) influences how much we care about the feelings of others. In one study, Piff and his colleagues discreetly observed the behavior of drivers at a busy four-way intersection. They found that luxury car drivers were more likely to cut off other motorists instead of waiting for their turn at the intersection. This was true for both men and women upper-class drivers, regardless of the time of day or the amount of traffic at the intersection. In a different study they found that luxury car drivers were also more likely to speed past a pedestrian trying to use a crosswalk, even after making eye contact with the pedestrian.
In order to figure out whether selfishness leads to wealth (rather than vice versa), Piff and his colleagues ran a study where they manipulated people’s class feelings. The researchers asked participants to spend a few minutes comparing themselves either to people better off or worse off than themselves financially. Afterwards, participants were shown a jar of candy and told that they could take home as much as they wanted. They were also told that the leftover candy would be given to children in a nearby laboratory. Those participants who had spent time thinking about how much better off they were compared to others ended up taking significantly more candy for themselves--leaving less behind for the children.
A related set of studies published by Keltner and his colleagues last year looked at how social class influences feelings of compassion towards people who are suffering. In one study, they found that less affluent individuals are more likely to report feeling compassion towards others on a regular basis. For example, they are more likely to agree with statements such as, “I often notice people who need help,” and “It’s important to take care of people who are vulnerable.” This was true even after controlling for other factors that we know affect compassionate feelings, such as gender, ethnicity, and spiritual beliefs.
In a second study, participants were asked to watch two videos while having their heart rate monitored. One video showed somebody explaining how to build a patio. The other showed children who were suffering from cancer. After watching the videos, participants indicated how much compassion they felt while watching either video. Social class was measured by asking participants questions about their family’s level of income and education. The results of the study showed that participants on the lower end of the spectrum, with less income and education, were more likely to report feeling compassion while watching the video of the cancer patients. In addition, their heart rates slowed down while watching the cancer video—a response that is associated with paying greater attention to the feelings and motivations of others.
These findings build upon previous research showing how upper class individuals are worse at recognizing the emotions of others and less likely to pay attention to people they are interacting with (e.g. by checking their cell phones or doodling).
But why would wealth and status decrease our feelings of compassion for others? After all, it seems more likely that having few resources would lead to selfishness. Piff and his colleagues suspect that the answer may have something to do with how wealth and abundance give us a sense of freedom and independence from others. The less we have to rely on others, the less we may care about their feelings. This leads us towards being more self-focused. Another reason has to do with our attitudes towards greed. Like Gordon Gekko, upper-class people may be more likely to endorse the idea that “greed is good.” Piff and his colleagues found that wealthier people are more likely to agree with statements that greed is justified, beneficial, and morally defensible. These attitudes ended up predicting participants’ likelihood of engaging in unethical behavior.
Rights & Permissions
See what we're tweeting about
72 Comments
Add CommentWow, a trend, when they take age, sex, ethnicity, and socioeconomic background into account they may be able to tease out some useful data. Bill Gates didn't start giving away his billions until later as did Warren Buffett, maybe they are trying to make up with god and buy passage to heaven, or truly have seen the light.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMost people who drive on a regular basis could tell you people in nice cars drive like they own the world (same applies for most with CA lic plates).
It could be the simply that many of those who champion "survival of the fittest" consciously or unconsciously feel that they are among the fittest who will survive.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm sure the 'cutting off other motorists' statistic is just biased by BMW and Saab drivers. They'd do that independent of means.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJames, "Mitt Romney, who says that he doesn't give a damn about poor people"?? You know as well as I do, he did not say that. His statement was 1) The rich could take care of themselves, 2) There were programs in place to take care of the poor, so he was not worried about them, 3) The middle class was where he was focused. Agree with these statements or not, this is what he said.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUnfortunately, boundless investment in the population segment that produces the least financial prosperity, while altruistic, does not make strictly financial sense (a reality the government has no choice but to face). This is where education comes in, not just handouts.
I know what Romney said, 'lamorpa', but the republicans always take things out of context and add their own words to make it fit their agendas. That is what I did with Romney's poorly selected and stupid remarks. I think I did a 'marvelous' job, don't you?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI suppose so...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have an economic approach to answer "why" rich people have less of a emotional response towards others.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe monetary value of time.
Time = Money.
Rich people's time is, in average, worth more money. Paying attention towards others cost more to rich people than it does to poor people.
Try to talk for ten minutes with an investment banker from Goldman Sachs on the phone. You just can't keep him on the line.
Now try doing the same with a retiree. Easy.
This is absolutely easy to understand from an economic point of view. you could easily plot the statistical distribution of Time Spent/Cost of time and prove this point.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd even more, rich people tend to understand the monetary value of their time better than poor people. How much is worth your time?
First this article is as anti-scientific as any I've read in years. But that is for a later comment. First your comment presupposes that color has something to do with being poor. Second you misquote of Romney..Romney's comment referenced that he was not concerned with the poor in his focus at this time..due to the already in place mechanisms to help the poor. His focus was the middle class and small business's to get the economy back on tract...the core of jobs in America...more small business opportunities...more jobs...the middle class develops a greater stability...helping the poor and the rich alike. He was not ignoring the poor...just the recognition that solving the financial crisis of today helps everyone.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you want to be taken seriously..at least research the quotes your going to use. I'm not a Romney follower, but the world is confused and abused to much already by articles like this and people like you who do not listen or do a little reading before talking.
I wonder what the rich folks would do without all those undereducated useless poor people? I guess they would have to clean their own toilets and cut their own grass!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour then I thought...its one thing to take a quote out of context accidentally...its another to intentional do so. How do you think the world has gotten to this point...from the very actions collectively taken by you...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe can't have honest debate if people like you are consciously or unconsciously attempting to change the truth to fit your personal agenda...republican or liberal...no ones moves ahead with your kind or rhetoric.
I think wealthy people tend to avoid the poorer among us because they fear that befriending a poor person will lead to those poor people trying to take advantage of their wealth. Greed is an addiction that no amount of reason will cure. They remind me of a dog defending it's food. They would rather tear another dogs throat out then share. The more they have, the more they have to resort to violence and deceit to protect their wealth.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMitt Romney is a good example. He claims the poor already have what they need, but still he wants to take that too so he can have more.
This article is an example of many of the problems of the scientific community of today. Poor data sets extrapolated to conclusions that are unprovable in any objective sense. If you drive in any area of the world, where busy people are moving from point A to point B and rushing to work at any level...whether its a teenager going to McDonalds, a ceo to his business or a poor person running to be on time to his minimum wage job...you will find a percentage of people being rude...more so as the mob rule of rush hour begins and ends.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is a corollary that the more people in any given area, virtual or physical...the more the mob mentality drops to the common denominator of thoughtlessness...have you paid attention to the average blog site...most who are not rich...traffic in Detroit at rush hour....or traffic in Manhattan...
This article is the worst sort of tripe...coming to conclusions on poor data, poor science and obviously a severely compromised ability even to think objectively.
As a scientist I'm appalled that Scientific America would publish such ridiculous commentaries.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe more we have the less we own.
Meister Eckhart
"They remind me of a dog defending it's food. They would rather tear another dogs throat out then share."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAfter tearing another dog's throat, then it would share? What would be the point? The other dog would not be alive. I think the reason a dog would do this would be because it would rather fight than share.
Another rich bitch lying republican rant to try and cover up their venomous 'slip of the tongue'. Read all the comments before you start shooting your mouth off there 8585.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree, the article and most people now a days use the words wealth, income, and spending power interchangebly and they are not the same things. The studies seem to suggest behavior (luxury car buyer, or self identified social class) as wealth and then saying well wealthy don't care about the poor. The study needs to correct for people of the same wealth, income, social standing and determine if they act the same toward poor people. Driving a luxury car does not make one wealthy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnother rich bitch lying republican rant to try and cover up their venomous 'slip of the tongue'. I think the world has gotten to this point because of people like you, Faux News, Rush Limpballs, and the Bushs'. You are always distorting the truth, lying and deceiving people and making up your own truths to fit your agendas in making rich people richer and poor people poorer, and you wouldn't know an honest debate from a herd of elephants. You republicans don't even know the meaning of the words 'honest' or 'honorable'.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI know you are an enemy of the 1st Amendment, but I have the right to take whatever these lying conservative candidates say out of context, just like you do, twist it and rearrange it to anything I like and point it in any direction I want to. Here is another expression of the 1st Amendment: I think Romney is a rich greedy troll. So put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Given the quality of discorse in this article I would say we are doomed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Berkeley psychologists" - right there are two pieces of evidence that this piece is absolute rubbish, and nothing but another polemic in (poor) disguise. The piece is neither Scientific nor American; it certainly does NOT deserve inclusion in S.A.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow do I +1 your comment?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Berkeley psychologists" - right there are two pieces of evidence that this piece is absolute rubbish, and nothing but another polemic in (poor) disguise. The piece is neither Scientific nor American; it certainly does NOT deserve inclusion in S.A.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWarren Buffet's lower Tax rate produces more in tax revenue in one year than his secretary will EARN in ten years. Who benefits from that? Warren Buffet?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat I am typing on, what I live in, how I get to work, what I wear, what I eat, is wealth. It is wealth produced by the ingenuity and industry of a relatively small number of people for the benefit of mankind. The personal riches that accrue from these enterprises is but a tiny fraction of the good that redounds to the rest of us poor slobs.
The poor produce nothing. The poor pay no income taxes. Nor can it even be said that the poor are poor because the wealthy create wealth. This is not an indictment but merely a fact. Approximately 12%-14% of the population Has existed at or below the poverty level since 1960 through the present, regardless of the tax rate on the upper classes, which has been as high as 70%. Should Warren Buffet hand over ALL of his income?
The top 10% of earners pay 70% of all income taxes collected by the Dept. of revenue. The top 20% pay 87% of all taxes.
The same is true for charitable spending. The amount of money coming from the top ten percent dwarfs the contrbutions of the bottom 80%
I've met only one billionaire. I have met and am friends with a number of people who make over fifty million a year, and all of them have more character, humility, and integrity than Jibairdo, 3rdof8, and Mister Davis combind.
You like character assassination? You like fomenting class envy? Enjoy. But remember: You are still the same tiny minded trolls now that you were when you sat down to write your little diatribes.
I could carve better human beings out of a bannana
Well, put me down for a "fail" on the video test. I not only do not feel compassion, I get positively angry when shown things that make a blatant attempt to manipulate my emotions. I consider it a form of personal violation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe poor contribute nothing? What utter nonsense. The poor are the real working people in world, not the wealthy CEOs and blue blood heirs. There is no lazier breed of people in the world then the blue bloods and aristocrats. If they work so hard, why are they off on a vacation, paid for by their employees sweat and tears, every two months, while those same employees are lucky to get a week off once a year.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGood studies, but they are mostly confirming things that were shown by other studies decades ago. Some date back to before psychology existed as a science. For instance, the creation of trial by a jury of peers was created centuries ago because people recognized that the aristocratic judges pretty much completely ignored the statements of the ordinary people and just went along with whatever the wealthy landowners said, whereas the ordinary folk would at least listen to everyone. Which is what one of these studies is also showing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Unfortunately, boundless investment in the population segment that produces the least financial prosperity, while altruistic, does not make strictly financial sense"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisShouldn't there be a Captcha device on thess pages? I'm sure a machine is posting some of the comments...
"Unfortunately, boundless investment in the population segment that produces the least financial prosperity, while altruistic, does not make strictly financial sense"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisShouldn't there be a Captcha device on these pages? I'm sure a machine is posting some of the comments...
Not only does geographic location of a study absolutely prove its none science but I heard that some of the researchers were girls and who would listen to a girl.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCarts and horses. Reduced compassion LEADS to wealth, just ask Scrooge.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs this author kidding? The rich aren't as compassionate? What an America and capitalism hater. Yielding at street lights isn't indicative of overall compassion. Taking giant risks of starting companies and giving people employment is compassion. It's not intentional...it's the invisible hand at work! For those unfamiliar with the concept, and human nature in general, study some basic economics. Plus, Americans give over $300 billion a year to charities of various kinds. That's more than the charity given by all the other developed nations in the world combined!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWHO do you think is giving that money to the needy? It can't be the broke people who are sponging off the wage earners. Maybe some kindly grandmothers are dropping chunks of their dead husbands' pensions into the church collection baskets every week, but for the most part, you have to EARN wealth before you can SPREAD it. And you need a JOB to get wealth. We should be making statues of corporate titans and placing them in every public courtyard. I haven't read about such a specious study in a long time.
Fucking Berkeley America-haters. We should divest the United Socialist Sate of California...cut that tumor OFF this country. And New York too, while we're at it.
And Jesus said: "It is easier for a rich man to get into heaven than it is for a camel (rope?) to pass through the eye of a needle."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm no Christian, but I LIKE Jesus!!
Of course Romney never actually said any of that. Keep spreading the lies...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisInterestingly enough, income tax returns reveal Mitt
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRomney donates 40% of his income to charity. Any challengers in this forum?
I'm sure Romney 'means well', but removing one thin layer from his statement 'I’m not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there... I’m concerned about the very heart of America...who right now are struggling.' really tells me all I need to know. Poor people are no less human or no less citizen. The 'heart of America' also has the same 'safety net' so why are they 'struggling' and not the poor? Oh right! The poor don't want to work. They're lazy. So you're telling me that someone who might work two full-time minimum wage jobs to still be in poverty and not be able to afford health care or a proper education for his/her children is lazy? I'm sure they would love to pay 15% on their millions earned by skimming wealth off of people who actually work for a living. Don't even ask me about an American hiding wealth in Swiss bank accounts and thinking he deserves to be President of the US. The hypocrisy of a so called patriot who gladly takes as much as he can and gives back what? But he needs a low tax rate because he is a 'job creator'! You can give the 1% all 'their' money back or even have the govt give them double their money to create jobs. What happens? No jobs. The real job creators are the masses who actually work for their money and spend it to create demand. Capitalists don't need tax breaks to create wealth. If they see a chance to make a profit off of existing demand, they'll happily get a loan. It's a little risky, but that is what capitalism is. As for who we are, we are a nation. There will always be poor people, but we can afford to provide all of our citizens the human decency of healthcare, an education, and a good job. The masses with good jobs WILL create demand and will drive the morality of 'hard work' that built America. Trickle down morality from a wealthy hypocritical elite will inevitably destroy us.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMr. Obama has really done a great job spinning his tales if you believe he cares. And do you really believe Mitt Romney said that? Try to read both sides, I expect you will come down somewhere in the middle.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt has as much mediocre people - without shame, in the brézil that I only can have compassion of old people or Plants and Animals, the remaining portion, if I help today, I fortify futures executioners!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd just why are we going political on this?! Republicrat or Demican, both parties are controlled by the 1%. It would behoove us 99% to pay attention to the FACTS of the studies and find effective ways to deal with them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSinging flea:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThank you for proving my point.
The researchers hypothesize that wealth causes greed. They should test the reverse causality of their hypothesis. It may be greed that causes wealth. All things being equal, greedy people are more likely to become wealthy than generous people. It seems logical. The generous gives away his wealth. The greedy accumulates wealth. After all, it is the greedy who is willing to go the extra mile to get more for himself. Of course wealthy people can be generous after they become rich.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn addition to this article's material, which seems
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisin retrospect a no-brainer, given the generally
brutal role of the very rich over the millennia,
some of you may have already noted the following:
Recent research over the last decade or so gives
some support to the hypothesis that correlations
exist between differences in the thought processes
of self-identified liberal and conservative young
people, and measurable anatomical differences in
the anterior cingulate cortex and the right
amygdala.
See for example "Political Orientations are Correlated with Brain Structure in Young Adults", in Current Biology, April, 2011 issue, and "Neurocognitive Correlates of Liberalism and Conservatism", in
Nature Neuroscience, 10, 1246-1247 (2007). These
and an expanding series of studies show correlations between differences in perceptions and behaviors
between self-identified liberals and conservatives,
and their detailed brain anatomy.
See also for example the general reference article in Wikipedia at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differences_between_conservative_and_liberal_brain
and
http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822%2811%2900289-2
Whether this results in part from subtle genetic underpinnings or is wholly a reflection of early psychological/social influences (for example: the
culture of extreme wealth) on our developing
brains in childhood, the following thoughts seem
appropriate ...
It strikes me that evolution/natural selection may
well have found it best that we human primates have
a fair amount of both of these 'natures' or tendencies (among many others) in our evolution: some pressures
requiring more liberal thought modes and some needing
more conservative modes. If so, today we are very
remarkably out of balance.
Why? A dog is a dog.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnyway, the discussion is about wealth. Any thing else is a distraction.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWith so much science being publicly funded, the left-wing bias in soft social "science" is probably inevitable.
Few would have expected them to have become so blatant about it, however, or for it to have reached these proportions. What once was lauded as scientific integrity has gone by the board.
I can find at least two major flaws with studies in this article. First, the study on luxury car drivers as opposed to the public at large assumes that the rich are the most likely to drive luxury cars. They're not. If you look at America's millionaires, they're less likely to drive luxury cars that everyone else because they spend their money on assets, not liabilities. (see The Millionaire Next Door, by Stanley and Danko)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs to the survey about cancer, the wealthy are more likely to have actually contributed to a cause to help than those who have not. (e.g. the Koch Institute for Cancer Research) For those who feel they can't help, they make themselves feel better by complaining that other people don't give money to the patients. The wealthy are more likely to do something about it and move on.
"Taking giant risks of starting companies and giving people employment is compassion. It's not intentional...it's the invisible hand at work!"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUsing that argument anything reflects compassion, even buying a lottery ticket
"Americans give over $300 billion a year to charities of various kinds. That's more than the charity given by all the other developed nations in the world combined!"
Compassion level is not proportional to dollar amounts given. On average the more money you have the smaller the proportion of it you give to charity.
"You have to EARN wealth before you can SPREAD it."
Group (A) one person making $1000 an hour with 10 employees making $10 an hour
Group (B) one person making $200 an hour with 10 employees making $90 an hour
Group (A) is not better than group (B) because one person in group (A) has more wealth to spread the others
"With so much science being publicly funded, the left-wing bias in soft social "science" is probably inevitable"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe soft social "science" of economics too ?
"the study on luxury car drivers as opposed to the public at large assumes that the rich are the most likely to drive luxury cars. They're not."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOn average the more wealth you have the more value your car will have.
"If you look at America's millionaires, they're less likely to drive luxury cars that everyone else because they spend their money on assets, not liabilities"
Interesting book as a window on a subset of wealthier individuals.
"As to the survey about cancer, the wealthy are more likely to have actually contributed to a cause to help than those who have not"
Compassion level is not proportional to dollar amounts given. On average the more money you have the smaller the proportion of it you give to charity.
This is a horribly done study. The test to see if which one led to what is horribly flawed because there are so many other confounding factors at play. Maybe the person doesn't like candy or thinks kids are better off without candy or whole host of things that have nothing to do with the wealth aspect. A person might be very generous with the kids but simply can't resist his favorite candy. Or someone else who didn't care for the kids hated the candy so just let it go.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlso neglected is the structure of this society. This institutionalized society, be it corporate or government is geared to reward sociopathic behavior. Why shouldn't such people be over represented in those who have more wealth? Think about major political and business figures. Ones with an unwavering sense of ethics are very few and far between.
To keep this simple, let's take the driving example for instance. People are conditioned, told to "just let them do it". That is to avoid a collision and make way for people who drive rudely. Why is it such a shock that people who don't have any personal moral reason not to drive rudely take advantage of this to get ahead? It can even develop into a sense of entitlement.
Then there is the confounding factor that many people lease or borrow to appear more wealthy with regards to their vehicles, another problem with this study.
Let's look at successful businessman in an illegal trade like some drugs. He has to be violent and ruthless otherwise he won't be successful. Was he a better person when he started out in poverty? doubtful.
Wealth by being ruthless is highly more probable than being ruthless because of wealth.
These were not longitudinal studies. All you have demonstrated is that those who have accumulated wealth tend to be those with less compassion. You should read up on psychopathy, and its prevalence in this countries board rooms and halls of political power
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think the title is misleading on the article. It should rather read, "People Who Lack of Compassion Make Wealth." To say otherwise is putting the cart before the horse. It may be that during the accumulation of wealth that compassion decreases, but it is the greedy attitude that drives one to accumulate wealth and power. The article, while it has good points, reflects reverse engineering of an old topic.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe reason I believe is that rich are few and poorer people are many and it has been so since time immemorial everywhere. So rich always feel more insecure than poor. They tend to monopolise more and are more thrifty. Poor on the other hand try to increase in number. This process continues till some balance is achieved. This is the economic as well as evolutionary explanation of the topic.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSinging Flea, and others, are confusing social darwinism with social psychology. To say nothing of insulting the dog. Dogs are pack animals, like wolves and lions. They have their pecking order, but they kill together and they eat together in their established order. Only in the scarcest times will they actually kill a pack member to get a share of the prize. I am still of the opinion that the wealthy don't care because they don't have to care. Or they care only after they've pulled a Carnegie, broken the strike, killed the workers, broken the union. Only then do they think of free libraries and only to remediate their public image.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOf course it would be difficult to know Mitt Romney's real position since he tends to say whatever is required at the moment.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo read the science: http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/EMO-class-and-compassion.pdf
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe study was conducted in the San Francisco Bay area and at UC Berkeley, two of the most liberal places in the U.S. Therefore, the correct conclusion of this study should be that wealthy liberals lack compassion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo it is all worse than was to be feared? Not only are there some 5% of individuals with psychopathic personality traits - seemingly everyone can develop greed and ruthless selfishness, if their financial situation allows them to get along without cooperation. Or - perhaps ruthless selfishness is our real nature, and only when we are in precarious circumstances our inner nature switches to "compassion mode", which really is nothing but our willingness to cooperate with others for our own good? There is yet a third situation: people who are NOT rich at all and yet selfish and uncooperative (and, in America at least, who denounce compassion and cooperation of every form as "communism", apparently having no idea what that term really means). What's wrong with them? They seem to be fighting for the right to be trampled upon. I would hypothesize they really PERCEIVE themselves as being well off - and that cooperation and compassion on a society level would leave them behind in a worse situation than they are in. Anyway - I am dubious that the chicken-egg problem here can be easily solved and the experiments strike me as... well... somewhat over simplified. So do the "economic" approaches among the comments here, which do not answer WHY some people want to have ever more money and keep it for themselves despite already having more than enough. I have experienced many people who never had enough, took ever higher risk and in the end stumbled over their own greed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnyway - the story reminds me of another personal experience. Back in the 90s I had written a book about the philosophy of the Jedi Knights in Star Wars. The book was intended to get High-school kids interested in Philosophy. As it was a non fiction book, there was no copyright issue here in Germany, where it was printed. Nevertheless - Lucasfilm threatened to sue me big time on the base of Trademark law. I then wrote a letter to George Lucas personally and offered we set up a fund for the benefit of children in developing countries. I would not earn a cent in revenues. Lucasfilm declined through their mega law office. And I, then having been young and intimidated, chickened out. Economic reasons? I rather call it "logics of the system". What we call "the economy" is an algorithmic greed machine, and if you don't run, you fall behind. It is entirely uncompromising and driven by forced exponential economic growth, and the higher you get, the more you have to work to stay there. So - perhaps it is the people at the TOP, who live in a constant mental state of emergency!?
Actually I have met Mitt Romney, when he was governor of Ma. I can tell you with first hand knowledge that the man has no empathy. He sneers at having to mingle with peasants, and does check his watch frequently! The proof is in the statement, "I have everyday aquantances/ know some average joes, they are nascar owners." end quote. He was born with a silver spoon in his mouth. Told the people of Penn. "your cookies don't look homemade, look like they came from the 7-11." Gues he's too good for that! Proof is in the fact that he wants a flat tax which would benefit the wealthy and destroy the poor and level down the middle class. The millionaires can afford the 10% while the working and middle class would feel this as a big bite of their disposable income. He is out of touch with reality and what it means to have to depend on a pay check for survival, what it means to wonder, 'how will my children afford college?' And not to mention public schools and daycare systems, his kids had nannies and private school educations. Feudalism at its best . Wake up!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPerhaps Compassion comes more from Obama, the ONLY man who voted as Senator for legalizing Infanticide? Or perhaps from his listing under Obamacare a woman's fertility as a "Preventable disease under STD's? Because we know Obama is so compassionate because he is in the .08% of Americans in his income bracket? Or that his brother lives in a hut in Africa, and other relatives here in the USA on welfare? Or is it because He gives hundreds of millions to Planned parenthood International to kill babies worldwide?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisObama's "compassion check: 1st & only Senator to vote in favor of Infanticide and of course he is a Partial Birth Anbortion proponent. Under Obamacare, he has placed womens fertility under Preventible diseases such as STD's, Love's the poor so much, his brither lives in an African hut and his US relatives are on welfare. With his paltry salary of 3/4 million last year, it places him in the upper 1 %. So in touch with the poor, perhaps he forgot to plug all the tax loopholes of his many Millionaire & Billionaire friends while he had full control of both House & Senate for 2 years? But then again, why would he want to piss them off since he is collecting more donations from that sector than any of his competition....Sorry to disturb your Obama worship service with the facts, you can continue being delusional.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisObama's "compassion" check: 1st & only Senator to vote in favor of Infanticide and of course he is a Partial Birth Abortion proponent. Under Obamacare, he has placed womens fertility under Preventible diseases such as STD's, Love's the poor so much, his brother lives in an African hut and his US relatives are on welfare. With his paltry salary of 3/4 million last year, it places him in the upper 1 %. So in touch with the poor, perhaps he forgot to plug all the tax loopholes of his many Millionaire & Billionaire friends while he had full control of both House & Senate for 2 years? Or Instead of attacking cheap energy sources & causing the costs to rise & strangle the lower & middle class, he wastes Billions on "green energy" and allows the CEO's to get bonuses for going bankrupt.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis article has made sweeping generalizations, far from the truth. How do you explain billionaires like Buffet, Gates and Rockefeller, to name a few, who have given back billions to society? My grandfather was a very wealthy man, but he also engaged in several philanthropic activities - a legacy my father has continued to keep. The author also writes "The less we have to rely on others, the less we may care about their feelings". Surely, enlightened, spiritual guru's like Eckhart Tolle, Sadghguru and others have the highest sense of "feedom" and "independence from others" and don't rely on other people at all. But surely, it is not true that they don't care about people's feelings. Sadghguru has devoted his life to helping people lead happier lives. Moreover, he is now a very wealthy man. It is only when you have a considerable amount of wealth that you have the luxury to think of the higher ideals of life, one of which is to give back. In fact, if you youtube one of Arnold Schwarzenegger's speech on success, he says one of the rules of success is to "give something back". Either the study is biased or the author is.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"First your comment presupposes that color has something to do with being poor."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDo you suppose color does NOT have something to do with being poor?
Kudos to James Davis for "hitting the nail on the head." Voting for the Romney/Ryan ticket will be the end of the values & principles of this country as we know it. I'm forever perplexed by the "middle class" citizens who are favoring Mitt over President Obama. What they don't seem to get is that "life can turn on a dime" and w/R & R at the helm of this ship, it is a certainty that their safety nets will become a thing of the past and they will pass right through that net and hit bottom. All intelligent thinking people know that reforms must be made and w/the need of the "obstructing" Congress to participate. The conservatives are on a mission, with the help of Citizens United (shame on SCOTUS for allowing the secrecy & hidden agenda of "super pacs" favoring the rich), the Koch Bros., Karl Rove, Adelson, etc. for their immoral attempts to buy the election of Romney & Ryan. This election is sacrosanct and the middle class must rise up above such greed and sense of entitlement that the Tea Party Republican extremists are carefully manipulating to "win at all costs." "He is the flower growing in Romney's mud pie." Nice touch, James!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I'm not a Romney follower"? Well that speaks volumes of what you already don't know. "helping the poor and the rich alike. He was not ignoring the poor...just the recognition that solving the financial crisis of today helps everyone." You seriously believe that rhetoric. Well I have just a few suggestions for you: Remember life can turn on a dime and for most of us, it usually does. So make damn sure that you do not receive the news of a catastrophic medical diagnoses, become a victim of a natural disaster (think Katrina & FEMA), or become a victim of a heinous crime (think cut backs on law enforcement), be the beneficiary of S.S., Medicare or Medicaid (two of which you will someday receive--maybe even three). If so, good luck w/the Tea Party Republicans who will split your safety net in half. Oh, lest I forget! If you or your kids are planning on college, you will have that financial burden, too. (think billions that are being cut out of education programs) And if your kids attend grade school, then they will be sharing a classroom w/44 other students. (a nice learning environment--don't you think?) All the while, the entitled mill/billionaire's kids will be receiving the best health care that money can buy, attending the most prestigious schools, studying and traveling abroad and just plain enjoying the good life. More than likely your reality is that you are a card carrying member of the 98% and gaining entrance to that 2% club will more than likely not happen. So go right ahead and vote against your and your family's own self interests. Oh, and furthermore good luck w/your future if R/R wins; you will surely need it! I'm a nurse from MA and yes, Romney was my governor and not a good one at that. But we do thank him for "Romneycare." We love it! Bev of Boston, MA
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am in the poverty class. I have never experienced degradation from the truly rich. It is the upper middle class who have always stuck their noses in the air. They give next to nothing in charity and want all the breaks. They treat the poor as a type of vermin. It is this middle class that everyone is trying so hard to help out that are the selfish ignorant ones. I have been in households of old money billionaires. They never treated me with any disrespect. I have had middle class insist that all poor people are trash, and act accordingly. The worstsnobs are the upper middle class, not the truly rich.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf this excellent article has kindled an interest in learning about the what, why, and how of compassion, please visit our site www.sot.sixsigmaquality.com. It presents a complete scientific framework for individual, organizational, national, and global transformation. It encompasses Eastern wisdom several thousand years old, outstanding contributions of Western and American scientists in recent decades and four decades of scientific scrutiny and contemplation on the part of the writer. The framework comprises of two components: Excellence of the External and Excellence of the Internal. Embracing both allows individuals and nations to emerge as their best. Businesses who wish to not compromise on compassion need to follow six sigma for Karma Capitalism.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this_______________________
Dr. Pradeep B. Deshpande
Professor Emeritus of Chemical Engineering
University of Louisville
and
President and CEO
Six Sigma and Advanced Controls, Inc.
P. O. Box 22664
Louisville, KY 40252-0664
Tel: (502)526-4214
Fax: (502) 526-4215
URL: http://www.sixsigmaquality.com
i recently contacted a doctor named UBIATO i find his name on the internet so i decided to contact him on his email: ubiatowhitemagicspell@yahoo.com for help in my relationship he ask me to send him my details which i did after that he told me that the gods reveled something to him and he told me everything that was reveled to him and he told me what he was going to do the after three days my relationship became sweet again and the person that was behind my problem came to apologize to me for forgiveness which was my mother in-law now i and my love are happy again including my mother in-law.... thanks to Dr.UBIATO
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think it would be interesting to do some additional research studies with people of varying socioeconomic background on how level of compassion is affected if the wealthy person is the one in the situation being measured. I hypothesize that people with less wealth would not feel as much compassion for wealthy people who are in situations they normally would feel great compassion about. Do average income earners feel less compassion for wealthy people who experience non-economic related setbacks or events in their lives?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe poor produce nothing?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat about the working poor - earners of the minimum wage? These are the peddlers of large wealthy corporations' creations (whether it be a Whopper, or a laptop or any other product or service in which the seller is a minimum wage worker). Surely these workers are contributing to the wealth of society and to the profits of the companies whose products they sell. The working poor are the servants of the wealthy so to speak. There is obvious mutual benefit.
I agree, giallopudding.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe wealthy do contribute vast amounts of money to charitable organizations which then assist those who need their assistance the most. There are compassionate wealthy people so it is bogus for anyone to argue that the wealthy have no compassion. The study with the traffic, etc. is not a valid study. The variables do not measure what they are intended to measure. Bad research indeed. Shameful at best.
To bendertherobot
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe flaws of the study are numerous and you have noted some of the most important. The structure of society as you have noted is geared toward rewarding sociopathic behavior.
I wonder what the candy was and if the manufacturer supplying it provided any research dollars for the study LOL.