The Lower Your Social Class, the 'Wiser' You Are, Suggests New Study (sciencemag.org) 311
Wisdom -- the ability to take the perspectives of others into account and aim for compromise -- comes much more naturally to those who grow up poor or working class, according to a new study by social psychologist Igor Grossman at the University of Waterloo in Canada and his colleagues. Science Magazine reports: To conduct the study, Grossmann and his graduate student Justin Brienza embarked on a two-part experiment. First, they asked 2145 people throughout the United States to take an online survey. Participants were asked to remember a recent conflict they had with someone, such as an argument with a spouse or a fight with a friend. They then answered 20 questions applicable to that or any conflict, including: "Did you ever consider a third-party perspective?" "How much did you try to understand the other person's viewpoint?" and "Did you consider that you might be wrong?" Grossmann and Brienza crunched the data and assigned the participants both a "wise reasoning" score based on the conflict answers and a "social class" score, then plotted the two scores against one another. They found that people with the lowest social class scores -- those with less income, less education, and more worries about money -- scored about twice as high on the wise reasoning scale as those in the highest social class. The income and education levels ranged from working class to upper middle class; neither the very wealthy nor the very poor were well represented in the study.
In the second part of the experiment, the duo recruited 200 people in and around Ann Arbor, Michigan, to take a standard IQ test and read three letters to the Dear Abby advice column. One letter, for example, asked about choosing sides in an argument between mutual friends. Each participant then discussed with an interviewer how they thought the situations outlined in the letters would play out. A panel of judges scored their responses according to various measures of wise reasoning. In the example above, thinking about how an outsider might view the conflict would earn points toward wisdom, whereas relying only on one's own perspective would not. As with the first part of the experiment, those in lower social classes consistently had higher wise-reasoning scores than those in higher social classes, the researchers reported today in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B. IQ scores, however, weren't associated one way or another with wise reasoning.
In the second part of the experiment, the duo recruited 200 people in and around Ann Arbor, Michigan, to take a standard IQ test and read three letters to the Dear Abby advice column. One letter, for example, asked about choosing sides in an argument between mutual friends. Each participant then discussed with an interviewer how they thought the situations outlined in the letters would play out. A panel of judges scored their responses according to various measures of wise reasoning. In the example above, thinking about how an outsider might view the conflict would earn points toward wisdom, whereas relying only on one's own perspective would not. As with the first part of the experiment, those in lower social classes consistently had higher wise-reasoning scores than those in higher social classes, the researchers reported today in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B. IQ scores, however, weren't associated one way or another with wise reasoning.
Easy peasy (Score:5, Insightful)
Poor people are not spoiled rotten, nor are they accustomed to be able to make every problem "go away" by application of money. This gives them a whole lot more experience dealing with problems that involves having to deal with things and situations where you just can't in various ways brute force your way.
Also, see "Cake, why don't they eat".
Re:Easy peasy (Score:5, Insightful)
Basically, compromise is a survival skill for anyone without the strength (today, financial strength) to beat everyone else up until they do what you tell them to do.
Silly definition of wisdom (Score:5, Insightful)
Wisdom is compromise?
The study is absurd at the outset because they have a ridiculous definition of wisdom.
Re: Silly definition of wisdom (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Silly definition of wisdom (Score:5, Funny)
One day, a group of poor researchers wanted to define wisdom....
Re:Silly definition of wisdom (Score:5, Insightful)
The study is absurd at the outset because they have a ridiculous definition of wisdom.
The methodology is silly as well. Rather than doing "surveys", they should have looked at hard data: Less educated and less affluent people have much higher rates of divorce and domestic violence. So it is unlikely that they are "better at compromising".
People with college degrees are half as likely to divorce [fivethirtyeight.com] as those without.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
But is that a function of the person, or a function of the money? Take an "affluent" couple, and throw them into financial turmoil, medical debt, sicknesses, job instability. What do the divorce rates look like then?
Re: (Score:2)
And not just divorce. There's more than one way to eliminate a spouse for your financial advantage.
Re: (Score:2)
The study is absurd at the outset because they have a ridiculous definition of wisdom.
....Less educated and less affluent people have much higher rates of divorce and domestic violence....
Maybe if you're stuck in a bad marriage with a wealthy spouse, you would be more likely to maintain that marriage for reasons other than love. The wealthy spouse would rather not go through the expense of a divorce. So they buy separate homes and find a workable relationship. The point is the less affluent cannot buy their way out of difficult situations, so have to come up with other coping strategies.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe if you're stuck in a bad marriage with a wealthy spouse, you would be more likely to maintain that marriage for reasons other than love.
In other words, they compromise.
The wealthy spouse would rather not go through the expense of a divorce. So they buy separate homes and find a workable relationship.
This is not supported by evidence. For families with children, the more affluent and better educated are more likely to all live together. It is the poor families where Dad doesn't live at home.
Re:Silly definition of wisdom (Score:5, Insightful)
Less educated and less affluent people have much higher rates of divorce and domestic violence. So it is unlikely that they are "better at compromising".
But that's a scenario that's fraught with complications, isn't it? The character of compromises demanded from poor people differs from the kinds of compromises people with plenty of resources face. It's not about where to take vacation this year, it's food or medical care and which bills you can risk going past due on.
I grew up in a quite poor neighborhood, and achieved middle class status through education. My family was better off than most, and I was fortunate enough to win a scholarship to a prestigious engineering school. So I know from personal experience the difference between how poor people live and how middle class people live. My wife, my kids, most of the people I know these days have no idea. They don't know any families where the kids don't have beds to sleep in.
Let me tell you another thing about poor people you probably don't know. For the most part they work. Often a hell of a lot, although these days many of the jobs aren't 9-to-5. You've got to get work where and when you can, and some employers are canny about using computerized scheduling to keep employees below thresholds where mandated benefits kick in.
One in four working class people spend 50% or more on their income on rent. This means you really need two incomes, and low status jobs don't come with perqs like mental health days. So no flexible schedules or after-school programs for your kids; you give them a key and hope for the best.
It's stressful to deal with all that, and that stress breaks up families.
Re: (Score:3)
Let me tell you another thing about poor people you probably don't know. For the most part they work. Often a hell of a lot
Your assertion is not supported by evidence:
Average number of income earners per household in bottom quintile: 0.45
Average number of income earners per household in top quintile: 2.04
Income inequality by household demographics [aei.org].
Re: Easy peasy (Score:2)
The wealthy are evil obviously, because they are too afraid to use their wealth and financial security to help others. I mean in many cases beyond $10 million dollars accumulating wealth is merely for greed. How do you ignore someone in need and keep money for yourself? If you were super empathetic you would be broke all the time. While 99% of the Bible is useless, the biblical note about the camel and needle has some basis in truth. That doesnâ(TM)t make the poor any better or more trustworthy though.
Re: Easy peasy (Score:3)
I am super wealthy, worth more than a million bucks. I always give a dollar to the panhandler at traffic lights. Yay! Iâ(TM)m a saint going straight to heaven.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
How did you get to Cloud-Cuckoo land? I can't find it on Google Maps. Are you using Bing?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, why don't you apply for social assistance benefits (or whatever the local equavalent it is called in your country) while you're working and paying tax and see what happens. Taxpayer funded gifts tend to be available only to those that are not employed or have a low income, not to those who toiled to earn diplomas and degrees and worked hard to advance their careers.
Social assistance while underemployed (Score:2)
In the USA, Obamacaid (Medicaid as expanded by the ACA) and SNAP (food aid, formerly the Food Stamp Program) are available to the underemployed as well as to the unemployed.
Re: Easy peasy (Score:2, Funny)
I noticed that you weren't able to dispute or debate the argument that you replied to. You went straight to a personal attack.
This might mean that you are wrong. Try some wisdom.
Re:Easy peasy (Score:4, Informative)
Why was this modded down?
That's ***exactly*** what this inarticulate woman said, and was a response to the GP ---
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpAOwJvTOio
Re:Easy peasy (Score:5, Informative)
It might have something to do with the fact that the Lifeline phone program (which the woman called "Obama phone") was started under Ronald Reagan and expanded to mobile phones under George W. Bush. It was already a done deal before Obama became President.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Donald is unlikely to know a real welfare mother. On the other hand, those of us that grew up poor knew plenty. We might even be related to some.
This real world experience with the social welfare system probably also explains how "the poor vote against their interests". They are far less impressed with promises of goodies from the government.
Is this supposed to be some kind of consolation? (Score:5, Insightful)
By virtue of having been born on the wrong side of the tracks, I'm pretty much screwed. Stuck on a low level job I hate but hope it's still there next year. My Christmas presents are a pile of bills to pay. My best years have come and gone. I'd rather be a rich fool than a wise pauper.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Should my final report card, at the end of my life, be a record of my accumulated assets, or an archive of my virtues, achievements and reputation?
Which of these will touch my descendants?
Be careful what you wish for..
- A friend
Assets stay multi gen, virtue is gone next gen (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:My rich uncle died (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a well-known phenomenon known as "Shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in 3 generations." [morganstanley.com]
"THE Chinese have a saying, “Fu bu guo san dai,” or “Wealth never survives three generations.” America has its own version of this saying: “From shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations.” As with most old proverbs, there is a grain of truth to this—and the new rich are searching for ways to avoid history's curse." -- The Economist (likely paywalled) [economist.com]
Re: My rich uncle died (Score:2, Insightful)
It's hilarious that you brought up Trump as an example of moneyed parents creating useless children...
He's the president of the United States... You fucking imbecile.
Re: (Score:3)
There's also nothing admirable in being rich.
Moderation is the key. I want just enough money to live comfortably, but never so much that people who could inherit my shit want to see me croak.
Re: (Score:2)
What does it matter?
You're dead. Sure, it might be comforting to know that the legacy you leave behind is one of joy instead of one of misery, but given the choice of leaving a legacy of joy and living a life in misery, or leaving a legacy of misery after living a life of joy, I choose the latter. Because screw you, I got mine.
Skin in the game (Score:3, Informative)
That's wisdom? (Score:5, Insightful)
I can offer an SSI benefit letter as supporting credentials.
Re: (Score:3)
The thing about wisdom is so much of it is domain specific. Over the course a career a software engineer and a kindergarten teacher learn many lessons which amount to a kind of practical, situational wisdom. Some of what they learn may be transferable to other contexts -- that's one of the reasons that jury trials work. But practical wisdom can fail us in unfamiliar situations because we fail to recognize salient differences.
One of the most interesting characters in Shakespeare is Polonius, the king's ad
Not wisdom (Score:5, Insightful)
Wisdom -- the ability to take the perspectives of others into account
What the author describes could be many things: diplomacy, empathy, humility even. But it is not wisdom. Though I can understand that people with less money (though that has little to do with "class" or entitlement - excpet possibly in the USA) will be forced to become more skilled in the art of compromise.
Wisdom, as we all know, is not putting tomatoes in a fruit salad.
He's using the word 'wisdom' (Score:2)
Re:Not wisdom (Score:5, Interesting)
Despite the prevailing wisdom that its poor white hicks that vote for Republicans, the evidence is actually not like that. There's a lot of folks, small business owners, managers and the likes.
I'm going to get my head bit off this, but hear me out. One of Karl Marx's best observations is that people are basically self-interested. That isnt unique to him, most economists prior and after agreeing with him on that. What his big insight is, however, is that people form ideologies to justify or self explain their relationship to capital, or more loosely, wealth. Rich people are attracted to ideologies like Libertarianism or neo-conservatism. Poorer folks are more likely to be attracted to more socialist or even communist in extreme cases, ideologies. Conservatism and its spiral eyed crazy distant-cousin Fascism are the ideologies of the middle class. Those who think they are better than the poor folk, dont want the poor folk costing them tax, but still ultimately are just working for the man themselves. You dont have to agree with marxism, to see he made a pretty good observation there.
Racism , sociologists argue, formed as a sort of pact between the white working class and the ruling caste in society. We'll give you better pay, and we wont give any of your jobs to those black folks, if you promise not to do anything buck crazy like joining the Commies or voting out the rich guys. It provided a way to essentially tame that self-interested streak in the working class by giving them something to be resentful of that isnt their fat rich bosses. Now none of this is some grand conspiracy. Its an emergent phenomena of millions and millions of people acrting on what they believe is their own self interest.
Trump though. I half suspect the 50% of the population where having a bit of a granddad moment with that one
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget the idiot anti-vaxer and bad public speaker that the Greens and Libertarians nominated this cycle.
It's almost as if someone was deliberately putting up terrible candidates to run against the 'worst candidate'. It was HER TURN!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And then the white working class went and voted for Donald Trump on a promise to disenfranchise anybody who isn't white, crack down on black people complaining that the police shoots them for no reason, build a wall on the Mexican border, deport people by the millions and rubber stamp Israel's ethnic cleansing of Palestinians without any attempt to put themselves in the place of the people being affected by these crackdowns. I'm failing to see the empathy and the willingness to compromise here.
Wow you really are delusional aren't you? Can you point to where Trump promised to disenfranchise anyone who isn't white? Right. Didn't think so. But turning around and having voter ID laws isn't disenfranchisement, you of course realize that every western country BUT the US has voter ID laws. Can't remember where he is cracking down on "poor blackies" for getting shot. Remember how Obama and his administration went out of his way to race bait, go after police for doing their jobs and so on? Notice how
Voter ID: Half an answer (Score:4, Interesting)
As a poll worker ("volunteer": they paid us, about 1/10 of a day's pay for an 18-hour day), I totally agree with the idea of consistent and reliable ID methods.
So you are half right. But it's the thin and weak half.
Those of us who were born into families with the basic resources to give us a good start were able to spend the effort to set up drivers licenses (the typical ID) which are trivial to renew once set up. To us, it does not appear to be a very high bar.
"Conservatives" are careful to avoid, and have largely successfully avoided an important point: There are many people who would otherwise be fully capable were born to families so far down that they could not get that start. And from that position, they often do not have the resources to get the legal documents that get the ball rolling.
Countries with good quality voter ID laws/practices do not erect the legal impediments to getting that initial start, and their citizens do not experience the disenfranchisement that we see in too many places in the U.S.
I few of them did (Score:3)
Re: Not wisdom (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
And lets not forget shooting civilians, including children and decapitating them, who throw rocks at vehicles to try and murder them. But oh, yes, gotta make sure we protect Israel from a few(~19,000) home made rockets attacks.
Just fixed that up for you.
Or in other words... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Or in other words... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, and too many folks who attain the highest social strata have anyone left around them to keep them grounded in reality. Not to single out the President because it affects many persons of privilege, but one Of President Trump's great weaknesses is an inability to accept criticism without perceiving it as a personal slight.
Some advantages of being born poor?:
You learn how to fix things other than by writing a check.
All your well-being is less likely to be tied up in one commodity (money)... many suicides during the Wall Street crash of 1929.
The greater the struggle of any life form, the hardier the stock.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're born an only child or into a WEALTHY FAMILY, you naturally rely on others less during your early development
Mod parent funny!
that's not wisdom (Score:3)
That's complacency, adaptation and submisiveness.
That's not wisdom (Score:5, Interesting)
Wisdom is "the quality of having experience, knowledge, and good judgement; the quality of being wise." It has nothing to do with being able to understand someone else's perspective, nor does it have anything to do with class.
I have a serious problem with this kind of article redefining what words mean, and then ascribing positive traits to lower-class people and negative traits to upper-class people. It's the same story as with "emotional intelligence": that was just a crutch to allow less intelligent people to feel good about themselves and to let them look down on smarter people, because those are _obviously_ not emotionally intelligent as well.
And this is the same: being poor does not make you wise. I've seen poor people make horrendously unwise decisions, and in some cases they are poor because of that.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I have a serious problem with this kind of article redefining what words mean, and then ascribing positive traits to lower-class people and negative traits to upper-class people. It's the same story as with "emotional intelligence": that was just a crutch to allow less intelligent people to feel good about themselves and to let them look down on smarter people, because those are _obviously_ not emotionally intelligent as well.
Some people are obviously all of the above. But there's undoubtedly also people like Sheldon, obviously intellectually brilliant but not very smart. In fact, dense as a brick in some contexts. Which may mean that abstract reasoning doesn't capture all the aspects of "smartness" we wish to measure. Because that's the core issue here, doing well on an IQ test is obviously a talent, like being exceptionally fast at running or having an absolute pitch. But is it a sort of "universal talent" that'll help you in
Re: (Score:2)
Dude, at your UID it's long past measuring people across a single line. There's always someone more intelligent and a pissing contest is nowhere near any wisdom. You get wisdom from living and experience, intelligence is no substitute for wisdom.
Same With Monkeys (Score:5, Interesting)
Group living in all species is dependent on tolerance of other group members. In crab-eating macaques, successful social group living maintains postconflict resolution must occur. Usually, less dominant individuals lose to a higher-ranking individual when conflict arises. After the conflict has taken place, lower-ranking individuals tend to fear the winner of the conflict to a greater degree. In one study, this was seen by the ability to drink water together. Postconflict observations showed a staggered time between when the dominant individual begins to drink and the subordinate. Long-term studies reveal the gap in drinking time closes as the conflict moves further into the past. -- Long-tailed Macaques [wikipedia.org]
tldr; All individuals depend on the group, higher ranking individuals, whose position in the group is more secure, can afford to be assholes.
Compromise is inherently unwise (Score:2, Interesting)
If there exists an optimal solution to any problem, then compromise is likely to be the very least effective method to discover it. By definition, any solution reached through compromise is diluted by opposing intentions.
If person A is right, and person B is wrong...any concession to deviate from person A's path results in an inferior outcome. Compromise may smooth out conflicts with one's peers, but avoiding conflict is not necessarily wise. In fact, it could be argued that conflict is the arena in which c
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry, but no. First, there's generally no such thing as a solution that is 'optimal' all on its own. Instead, a solution to a problem is optimal for certain selected variables, i.e. if you value X, Y, and Z over all other variables, then you have a shot at finding a solution that is optimal for X, Y, and Z. But in doing so, that solution will be suboptimal for (probably many) other variables. And guess what? Not everyone agrees on which variables are most important.
And this mentality that you're describing
Re: (Score:2)
Sometimes the worst solution is halfway between two good ones.
Wisdom (Score:2)
Bad Study (Score:2)
Moreover, the effect seems to be much stronger for those with some college than a bachelors [royalsocie...ishing.org]. Which the authors didn't address at all.
Not to mention the ridiculous definition of "wise".
Hard choices, easy life. Easy choices, hard life. (Score:2)
Captain Stoic was glad to help.
This is not science! It's crap! (Score:2)
That's because at the bottom... (Score:2)
...dumbasses aren't coddled. They end up on the streets and die of that. It's the last bastion of natural selection in humans.
This is plausible... (Score:2)
When you have money, regardless of the amount, just that you're better off than someone else, the money gives you options others don't have. Go way far up the spectrum, and you see wealthy people living in sealed enclaves with security to protect them from having to deal with anyone. Way down the spectrum, you get people scratching and hustling just to get by from day to day...and they have to navigate their way around situations. Wealthy people apply the amount of money necessary to make a situation disapp
Needle in the camel's dick, or something (Score:2)
I don't think we need a study to tell us that rich people are some of the most awful human beings on the planet. I mean, even the bible says that rich people suck ass.
Circular reasoning (Score:2)
The study defined wisdom as a characteristic of followers rather than leaders and than found that underlings rather than boses posess it. If one is constantly vaccilating between points of view based on every conversation with others, it's impossible to commit to one course of action for long enough to succeed, let alone organize others to assist you. Of course, society needs both kinds of people to function. But that's a separate question of what constitutes wisdom.
Ah, classism. (Score:2)
Rearing it's ugly head again.
Sorry, but being poor isn't a virtue. Nor is it something to condemn someone for.
It just is.
Yet some boob wants to claim that the poorer you are, the wiser you are.
Never mind that one has NOTHING to do with the other.
There are dumbasses in EVERY social strata.
Just like there are intelligent and caring people in every social strata.
A smart man learns from his mistakes. (Score:3)
A wise man learns from other people's mistakes.
That's not wisdom (Score:2)
It's called empathy. Who the hell is writing these articles?
Re: (Score:2)
Empathy, not wisdom (Score:3)
hair gel OCD (Score:3)
This study is beneath notice, but I do have one thing to add.
In The Baroque Cycle Stephenson satirizes the myopic culture of Versailles. The higher up one goes in status, the smaller the tea leaf microscope required.
While a few of the noblemen (and women) are relative dunderheads, there's no shortage of nested-plot mastermind decoders.
Studies of adolescent culture have determined that the kids with the highest social status experience the most severe anxiety about committing a social blunder.
Just like Versailles.
(Also, remember that result next time you chuckle mindlessly about scientists doing a study which only managed to confirm the patently obvious.)
The Fonz might seem cool to those around him, but deep down he's mainly driven by hair gel OCD.
Wise People... (Score:3)
Wise people don't answer surveys. That explains these stupid findings.
This may have merit (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Another "great" article (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Another "great" article (Score:5, Funny)
The Moneylenders in the temple say screw the libtard poor, I didn't get where I am today by not stepping on the faces of the cattle I despise so much. Evolution says the strongest survive and I am an animal, so death to the poor! Of course everyone hates me for my arrogance and arguably I am nothing to do with human civilisation but civilisation is for losers. Happy Christmas everyone!
Re:Another "great" article (Score:5, Interesting)
The Moneylenders in the temple say screw the libtard poor
They were money CHANGERS, not money lenders.
The story of JC driving the "money lenders" from the temple is TOTALLY MISUNDERSTOOD by most people, and even many theologists. The lesson they take away is that JC wanted to "keep the temple holy", but the actual point was the exact opposite. At the time, mainstream Judaism was obsessed with "purity" rituals, and people would change their soiled and worn money for clean and polished money (paying a premium to do so) so they could make an offering with "clean" money. But JC was objecting to the "purity" rather than the "commerce", and was expressing the Essene [wikipedia.org] philosophy of getting back to basics, and doing away with purity and ritual. He wanted to make the temple more accessible to the common people.
Re:Another "great" article (Score:5, Interesting)
Not quite right. As I understand it, they were required to pay in the coinage accepted by the temple, which meant they had to give gifts in Jewish currency, not Roman or Greek currency. It had nothing to do with making the money pure, but rather with converting it to a form that the church would accept. And because they were far from home and did not have the advantage of knowing where to find good conversion rates, those money changers cheated them massively.
So it was, indeed, about making the temple pure from those who would prey upon the naïveté of foreigners, while at the same time sending their soldiers to attack other nations for theft and barbarity. The hypocrisy was what Jesus wanted to cleanse from the temple, along with the unethical commerce.
Re: (Score:2)
> Not quite right.
You simply understand nothing about Judaism. The bit about purity is pretty spot on and even is relevant to modern Conservative and Orthodox practice.
Re: Another "great" article (Score:2)
Tell yourself anything to justify your behavior. If you do something that increases suffering in the world, you are evil. Loaning money improves the world, but charging exorbitant interest from a poor person or making somebody starve who needed money for an emergency increases suffering.
Re: Another "great" article (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Making money by treating people like shit doesn't make you successful in my book. It just makes you an asshole.
When a recession hits, the "asshole" CED will immediately lay off 10% of his workforce.
The "nice" CEO will delay and dither while his finances deteriorate, and eventually have to lay off 20-30%, or possibly go bankrupt.
Not putting off hard decisions out of empathy is one reason that psychopaths often make better leaders [economist.com].
Re: Another "great" article (Score:3)
It does make people successful in the economy's book though, and that's the book that keeps track of who can afford what. Our economic system is completely indifferent to assholery or suffering.
Re: (Score:2)
Making money by treating people like shit doesn't make you successful in my book. It just makes you an asshole.
Why can't it be both?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I think this has a lot to do with it -- with less empathy you're less likely to question your own goals and methods. (*cough* Jobs *cough*)
If true (a big "if"), it would play to stereotypes that the poor view the rich as successful criminals, and the rich see the poor as weak and shiftless.
We have at least some confirmation of this in that a number of successful conservatives have changed from anti-LGBTQ to pro-LGBTQ when their daughter or son came out. Their empathy simply doesn't extend beyond their clo
Re:Another "great" article (Score:4, Interesting)
You are excluding the possibility that many successful people succeed because of their lack of empathy, not despite it.
Get off your moral high horse. It's not that they don't have empathy, it's that they don't allow their decision making process to be exclusively dominated by it. People who make decisions exclusively based on emotions do not fare as well as those who also mix in rational thinking. Rational thinking coupled with extensive knowledge and experience can do remarkable things that emotions alone cannot.
We still live in a world of economic scarcity unfortunately and as such you must make decisions according to that. When we arrive at a utopia, which I sincerely hope we do, it will fundamentally alter the decision making and it will be rational to behave the way you ideally think we should. We are not your enemy.
Re: (Score:2)
No, I'm speaking psychologically, not morally. CEOs, especially at the biggest companies, have much higher concentrations of sociopathy than the general public. It's a neurology that has many advantages, but also plenty of disadvantages. However, because politics tends to attract a similar level of sociopathy, the immediate effects of those disadvantages can be deferred.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Seems plausible. An empathetic business owner experiencing a slowdown might be less willing to lay off employees, for example. That alone would serve as a filter, making less empathetic people more likely to be financially successful.
And that's the filter that helps to select which businesses actually stay in business, keeping people employed - even if not all of them, in a down-turn - rather than everyone losing their jobs and the company going under. Ask the majority of people still working at National Geographic if they'd rather have the paycheck they're currently getting from Evil Awful Murdoch who bailed them out and kept the company alive, or have watched NatGeo go completely down in flames and be gone for good along with ALL of
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Another "great" article (Score:4, Interesting)
"Seeing the view and perspective of other people" != "Empathy"
Psychopath are often very good as seeing the view and perspective of other people... and how to abuse that knowledge for personal gain.
Re:Another "great" article (Score:5, Informative)
In a recent feature on This American Life, Betsy DeVos was depicted as being a very compassionate and generous person (she helped individual students to get private schooling), but lacking empathy (she didn't understand the multiple issues with public schools and the diverse population and the regulatory frameworks for the public school system in the US. Also, she didn't appreciate the need for scalable solutions). MORE: https://www.thisamericanlife.o... [thisamericanlife.org]
Re: (Score:2)
NO solution "scales". All human systems and systems in general scale poorly. So you are better of not trying to make them huge, unmanageable, inefficient, and prone to corruption.
In practice, education is very much highly distributed in this country.
It makes someone like DeVos far less relevant than the media tries to make her. She is pretty much the first "celebrity" to run that department since it was founded by Carter.
Re: Another "great" article (Score:2)
The end of next year, most likely.
Re: (Score:3)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Marie Antoinette died over two hundred years ago. The aristocracy of France is even less similar to modern wealthy people than Andrew Jackson's duel is to modern presidential debates. (Then again, I suppose Dick Cheney did shoot somebody....)
Re: (Score:2)
You are pushing the classical modernist fallacy.
People don't change. It's the same shit over and over again. Fancy new toys and technology really don't change anything. The same basic things that drive people now drove them 5000 years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you ever watched day time TV?
Re: (Score:2)
Have you ever watched day time TV?
I have. Most of it is soap operas, and most of the characters on those are rich AF.
In fact, virtually every show on TV is about people who are above the median income.
Re: (Score:3)
Give it time. We're working on a scenario again where we create a critical mass of people with nothing to lose.
Re: (Score:2)
So... educating poor people leads to Communism?
Re: (Score:3)
I'm pretty sure -- no, make that REALLY SURE -- that's not the definition of Communism.
Not only that, but the most dedicated Communists have always been the educated children of the middle and upper classes.
Re: (Score:2)
> Successful people are much more likely to see the view and perspective of other people.
Don't kid yourself snowflake.
You just think you're smarter than everyone else and it annoys the hell out of people. It also amuses those of us who have a wider set of life experiences.