New Study Finds Rich People Lack Empathy

reply to post by v1rtu0s0


I wanna know who pays for these studies and who studies things like this. Pretty solid assumption rich people are selfish and no empathy for the poor, in order to have empethy for someone who have to have been in their shoes for a period of time. How many rich people were at one point dirt poor? A small percentage once again who wastes their time with studies like this, it's common knowledge.

Originally posted by Headband7
reply to post by v1rtu0s0

 

I wanna know who pays for these studies and who studies things like this. Pretty solid assumption rich people are selfish and no empathy for the poor, in order to have empethy for someone who have to have been in their shoes for a period of time. How many rich people were at one point dirt poor? A small percentage once again who wastes their time with studies like this, it's common knowledge.

It's not that they specifically don't have empathy for the poor. If you read my summary above, you will see that the authors found that higher income or higher subjective social-class people tend to lack empathic accuracy - i.e. the ability to perceive the emotions of other people. The only test they looked at where a higher class person (objective or subjective) was actually interacting with a lower class person was in the first test, where they looked out how engaged each person was.

As for funding, since this was a study performed by university academics, it would have likely been funded by external grants (government or industry), but they don't specify.

Additionally, it's not really common knowledge, it's a common assumption and stereotype.

Originally posted by hadriana
I just question why we constantly elect the rich, as if - well they got rich so they must know what they are doing.
I guess, if you want a lizard world that is ran well for lizards.

Maybe the economic downturn will see a return of compassion to the world - after it burns itself to the ground.

my view of elections, is that voters want to be represented by a bully that will stand up to the bullies of other groups of humans.

so we end up with the present crop of social retards.

while i have noticed cultures relating to wealth status, they never apply to all in that social economic group.

some poor people live for greed, while some wealthy are as saints in dealing with others.

but culturaly, the rich can be very cruel, and in western society, the poor have a bad attitude of entitlement.

individuals can be impresive, group culture rarely.

So snobs lack empathy do they...

www.telegraph.co.uk...

I think it is the withdrawl they go through to protect themselves their goods and chattels.
I have never been rich rich, but when more successful i tend to get more dependants than when poorer in my life.
You have to develope a tough hide when everyones got a sob story and you are the man.
By the time one has gained any wealth they have lost their sensitivity.
And older the money the less the people have access to their emotions like poorer people.
Again it all boils down to the age old question"Am I my brothers keeper?"

reply to post by hypervalentiodine


Absent looking at the scientific methodology behind the study it is BS. I guarantee that a "study" would show that poor lack empathy for the rich as well. Don't think that they have any problems, don't have the same feelings and emotions, etc.

It would be a far more logical conclusion to suggest that the chronically dependant have absolutely no empathy for the folks out there who are going to work every day and paying taxes to provide them with all manner of entitlements - but again, there is no science.

One of the reasons that shows like The Sopranos was so popular is that it showed that a gent who is a violent mobster still had all of the same problems that we all have, worrying about his kids, problems with his wife, family issues. It broke down the stero type that folks who do this are somehow different, when in fact they are not in a number of ways. Many of the reality shows are interesting for the same reason.

Again, the study is nonsense and is a waste of time unless there is some information about the science behind it - and that won't be available.

As far as empathy from the rich, it is a fact that the top 1% of income earners in the country give 30% of the money to charity in this country and that 80% is given by the top 15%.

I certain folks will claim that they're giving that money for tax reasons only and if so, they seriously need to get a life and grow up.

Originally posted by dolphinfan
reply to post by hypervalentiodine

 

Absent looking at the scientific methodology behind the study it is BS. I guarantee that a "study" would show that poor lack empathy for the rich as well. Don't think that they have any problems, don't have the same feelings and emotions, etc.

I am not sure you mean in the first sentence, but in any case you need to read what I wrote. The study stated that higher income and higher subjective social-class people show a lower empathic accuracy. It did not say that the rich specifically lack empathy for the poor .

It would be a far more logical conclusion to suggest that the chronically dependant have absolutely no empathy for the folks out there who are going to work every day and paying taxes to provide them with all manner of entitlements - but again, there is no science.

Again, read what I wrote. What you are assuming is not at all what the study presented.

One of the reasons that shows like The Sopranos was so popular is that it showed that a gent who is a violent mobster still had all of the same problems that we all have, worrying about his kids, problems with his wife, family issues. It broke down the stero type that folks who do this are somehow different, when in fact they are not in a number of ways. Many of the reality shows are interesting for the same reason.

Perhaps, in a fundamental sense. That being said, the world operates in a hierarchal fashion and it appears to be something ingrained in every microcosm of society I can think of.

Again, the study is nonsense and is a waste of time unless there is some information about the science behind it - and that won't be available.

A waste of time from your perspective maybe, but you're not someone who can make any productive use of the information. Most scientific journals publish new papers under copyright for 50 years, which means that access to the articles comes at a cost (they have to make money somehow). That being said, it doesn't come at a cost for a lot of people. Most institutions and universities pay to have access to these journals so that students, academics and researchers can utilise them free of charge.

As far as empathy from the rich, it is a fact that the top 1% of income earners in the country give 30% of the money to charity in this country and that 80% is given by the top 15%.

I certain folks will claim that they're giving that money for tax reasons only and if so, they seriously need to get a life and grow up.

No one's denying that. The study was speaking in terms of percentage, not straight numbers. And as a proportion of their respective incomes, the rich donate less than the poor.

reply to post by hypervalentiodine


Generally speaking these "studies" are under copywrite and then are published for a fee in scientific journal of some type. I can't recall a "study" that made such sweeping pronouncements where the underlying data is hidden from view.

It is certainly not standard practice. How could it be?

Originally posted by dolphinfan
reply to post by hypervalentiodine

 

Generally speaking these "studies" are under copywrite and then are published for a fee in scientific journal of some type. I can't recall a "study" that made such sweeping pronouncements where the underlying data is hidden from view.

It is certainly not standard practice. How could it be?

Well as someone who reads a lot of journal articles, I can promise you that it is standard practice. Scientific journals are a business and need to make money, so that's how they do it. I don't understand why you find this so surprising. And it's not hidden from view, since you can access it, albeit for a fee. Hidden from view would imply you couldn't see it at all, which is simply not the case. In any event, I summarised the entire paper for you on page three, what else do you want?

Originally posted by sliceNodice
So snobs lack empathy do they...

www.telegraph.co.uk...

I guess this means that college kids will just be more rich and wealth by 40% than those that graduated 20-30 years ago?

Does the study separate those that earn their living from those who have trust funds or live off of a sugar daddy or just mommy and daddy? I would be willing to guarantee they rank highest in lack of empathy. All the business majors make me laugh at the Arizona universities, always sizing each other up and displaying their obvious inferiority complex for everyone to see while all the while thinking they just plain better LOL.

I would also say that our degenerate greek life plays a big role in this also. The University of Arizona had to kick out a few dozen students for massive cheating rings.

Maybe it is just a sign of the times?

I have to agree, when I had my own business the rich were always the people who tried to get something for nothing. Most of them would always be late to pay their bills. The majority of average Joe's would always pay their bills on time and never try to screw you out of deserved pay.

Maybe that's why trickle down economics doesn't work, because the rich are too cheap! They like to hold onto their money.

reply to post by v1rtu0s0


Not just in congress!
In banks, on Wall Street, in CEO offices, funding non-profits, chairpersons of the board, news moguls...
we have the wrong people in positions of power and wealth.

But I calm myself by remembering in karma, and that good sown is one day reaped in kind.
And harm done unto others is returned onto the hurtful seven-fold.

Eventually.

I know people from across the spectrum of "wealth", some who live in poverty, some who are Wall Streeters...
and the happier ones are those who are simpler and who have relationships with others that mean something.

Originally posted by WeRpeons
I have to agree, when I had my own business the rich were always the people who tried to get something for nothing. Most of them would always be late to pay their bills. The majority of average Joe's would always pay their bills on time and never try to screw you out of deserved pay.

Maybe that's why trickle down economics doesn't work, because the rich are too cheap! They like to hold onto their money.

i had a good laugh reading your post, it reminded me of something i heard from paperboys.

that the people in the rich part of town were cheap, and you had to chase them for the money.

and working people paid their bill on time, usually with a tip.

Surely this should be SYMPATHY, not EMPATHY.

Sympathy essentially implies a feeling of recognition of another's suffering while empathy is actually sharing another's suffering, if only briefly.

One feels empathy when one has "been there" and sympathy when one hasn't.

So of course they lack empathy, as they most likely have not been in the situations they are supposed to display empathy towards, making it only possible to display sympathy.

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by v1rtu0s0

 

But I calm myself by remembering in karma, and that good sown is one day reaped in kind.
And harm done unto others is returned onto the hurtful seven-fold.

I used to believe in karma too, but yesterday my brothers father-in-law to be commited suicide, just quietly disappeared in the night and hung himself, no note. He has left behind 3 children, one about to go to university and another about to be married to my little brother.

He was a fireman who had saved hundreds of peoples lives, including my mums when our gas fire exploded (this is how I first met this hero) yet no-one could save him. Something so terrible had happened that he felt there was no other option.

Hows that for Karma.
Life is soo cruel sometimes.

EDIT - Sorry, this is a bit off topic, maybe I'll make a new thread on this one day

reply to post by citizen6511

i had a good laugh reading your post, it reminded me of something i heard from paperboys. that the people in the rich part of town were cheap, and you had to chase them for the money. and working people paid their bill on time, usually with a tip.

It's really the absolute truth! I had to take a dentist and a realtor to a District Justice to get paid! The guy had a luxurious dentist office, the building was shaped like a lighthouse! When I arrived at the District Justice the check was waiting for me. The District Justice told me he sees it happening all the time. Rich people think they can hold out and avoid paying because some small businesses don't want to take the time out to pursue their payment legally.

What I found amazing is nobody questions a doctor or lawyers fees. Yet these doctors and lawyers are ready to question other legitimate business fees.

A few points

1) I have serious misgivings about these kinds of "studies". Empathy isn't something that can be measured or even quantified or qualified.

2) I don't really understand the problem, even if it is true. Empathy is not something most people have a lot of unless they have actually had a shared or tangential experience to spur the feelings. This really doesn't have to be said for most wealthy people since they don't know what it's like more often than not.

As for if empathy is good, I think it's gotten a slightly holy status and I tend to disagree with it's use and purpose. empathy is the internalization of emotion that mirrors that of another who actually has the problem. Personally, the emotionalization of the modern world is highly annoying to those that espouse intellectual understanding and education.

Logically, empathy makes no sense since it is by it's nature irrational. I say good riddance to it.

Peace
KJ

reply to post by v1rtu0s0


This is a SHOCKING discovery. I had NO IDEA!

reply to post by ldyserenity

Y'know, I've had experience with both ends of the cultural scale, born and raised in real-life UK city Newcastle amongst the real life common man and woman and an aura of violence I've also mixed it with the snobs in affluent areas like London and Surrey so I know only too well the reality of the North-South UK divide, affluence in the South and the poorer neighbours up North.. thing is, in a lot of instances, I've found that the wealthy can be just as uncompromising when it comes to attitude..I think the well -off can simply be Affluent Yobs when it suits them. Must say, I don't really prefer one lot over the other - it all comes back to one of mankind's biggest and most common enemies...Human Nature itself.

I'm calling BS on this one.

I know many people who are well off. These are people that volunteer at the local soup kitchens providing meals to the homeless. They don't have to work for a living any longer so they spend their time helping various charities.

This is blatant class warfare in action.

Look at Bill Gates. He and his wife started a foundation to improve health and learning around the globe.

Here is a LINK to the top 10 philanthropists

Who wrote this?

BTW I'm far from wealthy but I do support a number of social causes that I believe in.