Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Harvard Mathematics Ph.D talks to man who considers lower-class as separate sub-species

page: 5
25
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 02:58 PM
link   
I've never met a "wealthy" person who had any sense, common or otherwise. They're basically useless in their existence, draining mineral or fuel resources for no progressive purpose, and almost always have obtained their "wealth" through underhanded tactics, tricking, stealing, and killing to get to where they are; very natural in the animal kingdom, but in no way a sign of evolutionary advancement. If you ask me, their obsession with materialistic want is a sign of a lesser being, procuring more and more monetary strength while your species suffers. Anyone who doesn't work for the betterment of the species is sub-prime in my eyes.

I'm not condoning poverty either, don't get me wrong. There are drains on the planet on both ends of the spectrum, but I cannot agree with the "wealth = evolutionary superiority" equation presented in the op article. A truly advanced species would see the system of money as archaic and unevolved, and ultimately unnecessary. This gentleman is trying to justify the recent war of the classes that's been waging for a while now. War.... another unevolved, archaic idea.




posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 03:15 PM
link   
Wow that guy just unproved his own theory by opening his mouth to speak...



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by FugitiveSoul
 


My guess would be that you don't know many wealthy people.

I worked with a guy that was a self-made millionaire. I didn't know it for quite a while. He was a contractor who built houses and apartment houses.

He was a good builder.. He loved to build things and he was a good businessman. He didn't overcharge people or cheat people. Over a thirty year period, he amassed quite a bit of money as well as property.

He was a very nice person who did what he loved and didn't squander his money but reinvested it in his projects. The last time I talked to him, he owned two very large apartment complexes as well as numerous rental houses that he built himself.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wildbob77
reply to post by CastleMadeOfSand
 


What I'm trying to point out is that given equal resources, outcomes will not be identical.

You assert that you know very bright poor people. I'd say they aren't that bright if they are still poor. It doesn't take that much mental effort to figure out how to make some money.Try getting accused of a crime you didn't commit, losing your job, house, family and see how that helps.Money has nothing to do with intelligence or being a "sub species". Being rich is a choice, but often times, being poor is not. So your saying if an individual has no desire to be rich, he must be stupid?

You also don't seem to understand statistics. Individual outliers will always exist. That doesn't mean that the average outcomes will change. Doesn't mean it won't either.Hence why I use the term "It seems to me" It was a generalization of a small sub-set.

There are many people born poor who have improved themselves in this country. However, most children of the poor will also be poor.True

The same holds true of the affluent. Most children of the affluent will themselves be affluent. You will also have those who have all the advantages yet make nothing of themselves. True


I'm basically saying that given equal opportunity(not resources), the poor may be less prone to being lazy or dull. But yes, there will always be those that choose not to do anything and to be poor.

I hope that makes sense.

edit on 12/7/2011 by CastleMadeOfSand because: (no reason given)
edit on 12/7/2011 by CastleMadeOfSand because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 03:31 PM
link   
This is a dissussion of the class system or as I prefer the actual science is the CASTE system from India .

India now has a complex caste system but basically the system was set in place as a natural order by the "gods "
Thats system is based upon ones natural working ability . This "rich" man who thinks hes sooo good is actually in one of the lower classes . This man is called a vaisya or the merchantile class . The money makers , those who do business along with the farmers . Ofcourse there are many sub castes in the Indian system But we are talking about the basic 4 classes .

So his proud class is prone to cheating and bad habbits thats why they are on the lower rungs of society and need to be checked by the other two higher class , namely the warrior class and kings who are bound by a moral code of conduct to protect all the classes

And the brahmin class who are the less physically productive but are mentally productive intelligent class who are the knowers of wisdom and guide all the other classes without maliace or other lower qualities tha inhabit the other classes ., like greed and cheating as in the class of the Vaisya or Merchant class that this rich men comes under.

Because the feet class now rule the system of governments the system is failing . You cant have the feet and the kneee ruling the higher society or any part of society and thats not in there job description , unless they actually have the QUALITIES of the higher classes .

I could go on about this as it explains alot about the natural structure of human qualities and whats gone wrong in our societies now . How the feet and ankles rose up by money and corrupted the other classes .

the military class who are above the money / merchantile class are kept in check by the heads of society who are the ones who are simple living high thinking philosiphers who dont aspire for wealth and material gains as they wish liberation from the world of matter .

In todays society they are the advisors who are not actually so qualified to advise alot of the time as they are backed by big business interests or the merchantile class .
So everything is topsy turvey and not working smoothly as the natural system of checks and balances , is corrupted by these lower qualities
edit on 7-12-2011 by Anusuia because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by CastleMadeOfSand
 


For the past 50 years, the poor have been given access to free education. I was in school during the first forced integrations.

Yet the poor don't seem to value education. One of my daughters friends worked for Teach Across America and worked in the Appalachian mountains. My daughter was the teachers aid. She said that the young kids in her class were several years behind in their education and her guess would be that only 2 out of the 30 kids in her class could have performed in the school system of our town.

When they tried to talk to the parents to improve the children's educational experience, the parents response was "We don't need no outsiders tellin us how to raise our young." Poverty in that area is the norm and it will continue.

There has been no magic bullet that raises the educational differential outcome between the poor and middle classes. In Kansas City they spent well over a billion dollars to build new schools and hire the best teachers for the poor kids yet the poor kids continue to fail.

The poor have opportunity here in the US but they don't seem to value this opportunity.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Wildbob77
 


it all depends on Qualities of the children that why the classes used to be set on performance levels when I was a child .
One always aspired to be in the A classes but if you did not make the grades you had to function at the B, C and if you were really not too brite , the dreaded D classes .



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Wildbob77
 


Your guess would be wrong. I've known several millionaires and a couple of billionaires, and they couldn't figure out how to change a tire if you put them all together and gave them google and a long weekend to do it. I literally witnessed one of these people try to figure out how to turn the valve on his 'Windex' bottle (took him about 45 seconds), and then watched as he cleaned his marble counter top with it. The kicker is, his colleagues refer to him as brilliant. Really?!
I'm not labeling all wealthy in this respect, as I said above, there are drains on both sides, and I'm sure there are some legitimate brains out there who've made substantial amounts of money, and have used their wealth and power for the betterment of society. Richard Branson could be labeled in this way. Rupert Murdoch? Not so much. Not only has Murdoch not helped mankind, but he's one of the very ones who would stunt its growth to keep himself and those like him at the top of their make-believe food chain, when in reality they couldn't survive without the "bottom rung" crowd.
That entire article is a farce, and the man that made its claims a fool.
I would happily debate him at a forum of his choosing just so I good humble him with a well needed reality check.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by FugitiveSoul
 


My apologies.

The people that I know who are of means, made it themselves.

They tend to be bright motivated people. They also give back to the community. I know one very well off person who works at a soup kitchen for the poor. I also know people who are involved with other charities. It flies in the face of what the MSM reports about the greedy rich.

I don't subscribe to your train of thought but that's what makes the world an interesting place. Have a great day.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Wildbob77
 



Originally posted by Wildbob77

My apologies.

The people that I know who are of means, made it themselves.

They tend to be bright motivated people. They also give back to the community. I know one very well off person who works at a soup kitchen for the poor. I also know people who are involved with other charities. It flies in the face of what the MSM reports about the greedy rich.


And I've known people surviving on $8,000 a year who give about $1000 of that to charitable causes, who have everything they need in the world, and who live by the literal fruits of their labor, never needing to be "wealthy" in a monetary sense. They're wealthy in life, and I respect them far more than I respect a college suit who spends his career casting judgement on people he doesn't know, dehumanizing them based on stereotypical assumptions. These sorts of dehumanizing tactics are exactly the kind of thing people do when they want to rid themselves of a "problem" while maintaining a clear conscious.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this matter. We're just two humans showing a difference of opinion. Like you said, it's what makes this world so grand.



edit on 7-12-2011 by FugitiveSoul because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 06:30 PM
link   
Yeah, but the bigger problem is Harvard. THE MESSAGE IS BEING LOST.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by FugitiveSoul
 


Everything you said, in the few posts I read, is the reason I turned down a very profitable job position in the past and NEVER once regreted it. Sure I dont have a 3D TV or a BMW, but im content and happy living confortable with what I have. Crazy how many people choose to live a life where everything revolves around money, and they constanly have to have new shiny things to keep them happy. Money changes people, it always will.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 07:05 PM
link   
reply to post by AnIntellectualRedneck
 


The rich are hardly a superior "sub-species" of humanity. It's funny how such a wealthy elitist, so blinded by ego, thinks he is superior to the poor... all the while being wholly IGNORANT and DULL of actual science and deep philosophical consideration.

Washing one's hands of the failures, evils, short-comings, and insanity of our socio-politco-economic system with such bigoted expediency is not a sign of knowledge or capability, but rather of blindness to one's own surreal position (whether real or imagined) of wealth, privilege, power, status, and opportunity. The greatest men on the planet have nearly always been of the lower classes, period.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wildbob77
reply to post by FugitiveSoul
 


My guess would be that you don't know many wealthy people.

I worked with a guy that was a self-made millionaire. I didn't know it for quite a while. He was a contractor who built houses and apartment houses.


If you've never read "The Millionaire Next Door" its very interesting, the basic message is that the bulk of millionaires in this country are like the person you described. They work hard and they don't flash their wealth around, they drive older cars, shop at Walmart and in general are quite frugal. Which is exactly WHY they are millionaires. The people that we think are rich- the ones wearing Armani suits, Choo shoes, living in mansions and driving exotic cars, are referred to as "hyper consumers" in the book. They have mastered the art of accumulating massive debt and whatever riches they have can't keep up with their appetite. The book does talk about "old money" families as well, but as a rule they are unusual exceptions to the rule. Most flashy people you see are not rich, they are heavily in debt.The book is a great read, I've followed many of the principals in it throughout my life and as a result am in an enviable financial position.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 07:10 PM
link   
A MESSAGE TO THE PLUTOCRATS!




AND A MESSAGE TO MY LOWER-CLASS "SUBHUMAN SPECIES"!




posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by FugitiveSoul
Your guess would be wrong. I've known several millionaires and a couple of billionaires, and they couldn't figure out how to change a tire if you put them all together and gave them google and a long weekend to do it.


Read "The Millionaire Next Door" if you get a chance, your opinion that millionaires are stupid buffoons is completely wrong. Your 3 examples are trumped by the hundreds of cases studied for the book. The author went into the book thinking he knew what type of people millionaires were, but he came out of it shocked by his findings. Millionaires as a rule are solid, hard-working, salt-of-the-earth types who not only know how to change a tire, but readily do it themselves rather than take their car in if it'll save them a few bucks.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by brilab45
reply to post by Blaine91555
 


There is no argument from me to your thoughtful post. My problem is with people that think they are superior and entitled to live a better life than others that do not have a more prosperous mind.

Fundamentally, we are not created equal. However, it is a great reflection on humanity on how we treat others.

Mr Ph. D. seems to feel we need to have a 95% slave enclave and a 5% ruling class.

Now, please take into account.........I have not done an entire inquiry on the subject matter and am simply making off the cuff remarks based on the OP's remarks.

Very well I may change my mind if I were to study the Ph. D. in mind. That would take some time to do. This is not an inquisition. Yet I did make a rough assessment that may be wrong.


That is a quite common view among Progressive intellectuals it seems. We agree.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by AnIntellectualRedneck
reply to post by Blaine91555
 


This Code Named Cain dude blatantly says that there's something to the argument that the lower-class are a different sub-species. Read the thing. This guy's attitudes are horrifying, and they're pure idiocy to boot.


No argument here. I was simply pointing out the difference in the way some of the most brilliant people think and we need to factor that in to be fair minded. In some cases their intentions are horrible and in others it's just their unique environment that warps their thoughts and how they express them.

The statement was very wrong and I hope I did not word a post so badly it looked like I meant otherwise.
edit on 12/7/2011 by Blaine91555 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 08:23 PM
link   
Has anyone else read up on Emotional IQ or EI?

en.wikipedia.org...

Being staggeringly intelligent (what defines intelligence is largely debatable, but I'd settle on an ability to problem solve over sheer recollection ability anyday) and being incredibly adept at understanding social environments, as well as being able to deftly maneuver the delicate sensitivities we encounter amongst each other, are very much different capabilities.

I would garner, by his statements alone and not his credentials, that this "professor" is unfit as a human being, and incapable of interpersonal relationships.

After all, would he be able to manage a romantic relationship? Could he find a spouse willing to suffer his tremendous ego? Could he raise children? Many different questions arise from his arrogance.

Unfortunately for him, people are not brains. We're social animals. As a social animal, he would quickly find his end, being unable to positively adapt to life as a person, and not a walking calculator.
edit on 7-12-2011 by yourignoranceisbliss because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by beezzer

I don't know this guys' politics, but I'd bet that he's a progressive democrat.



Here is Newt Gingrich saying almost the exact same thing:

“Really poor children in really poor neighborhoods have no habits of working, and have nobody around them who works. So they literally have no habit of showing up on Monday. They have no habit of staying all day. They have no habit of ‘I do this and you give me cash,’ unless it’s illegal.”

— Newt Gingrich
edit on 6-12-2011 by Annee because: (no reason given)


if newt becomes president, it will be interesting.
as he reforms america in his image, is he the reincarnation of marie antoinnette?






top topics



 
25
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join