Empathy, Get Some

[Timsup2nothin]

If that's the litmus test, then we also need to hear what poor people are saying about rich people and to judge rich people by those standards.

I pretty much do. Many people I encounter who have a lot of financial advantage tend to dehumanize the disadvantaged. Similarly, those who are financially disadvantaged tend to dehumanize the advantaged. The difference, in my opinion, is that the disadvantaged appear to be correct, while the advantaged appear to be not.

 

[Synobun]

If that's the litmus test, then we also need to hear what poor people are saying about rich people and to judge rich people by those standards.

1789 called.

The news is bleak.

 

[warpus]

I pretty much do. Many people I encounter who have a lot of financial advantage tend to dehumanize the disadvantaged. Similarly, those who are financially disadvantaged tend to dehumanize the advantaged. The difference, in my opinion, is that the disadvantaged appear to be correct, while the advantaged appear to be not.

Yeah, I don't think that everyone who is well off is a sociopath jerk. Come on..

We're all humans after all, aren't we? Everywhere you go you'll find the good and the bad

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Yeah, I don't think that everyone who is well off is a sociopath jerk. Come on..

We're all humans after all, aren't we? Everywhere you go you'll find the good and the bad

I think "many" and "tend to" were good indicators that I wasn't saying "everyone." But just to be clear, I was making a statement more in line with "odds are" than as an absolute.

 

[warpus]

I think "many" and "tend to" were good indicators that I wasn't saying "everyone." But just to be clear, I was making a statement more in line with "odds are" than as an absolute.

I totally disagree. If you take an average sampling of rich people and an average sampling of poor people, I really doubt you'd end up with more jerks in one group over the other. Nothing significant anyway. But if there's a study that backs up the opposite it would be interesting to take a look at its conclusions.

 

[Hygro]

Charity given in return for eternal paradise is ultimately a selfish gesture.

Well I guess it doesn't count then.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I totally disagree. If you take an average sampling of rich people and an average sampling of poor people, I really doubt you'd end up with more jerks in one group over the other. Nothing significant anyway. But if there's a study that backs up the opposite it would be interesting to take a look at its conclusions.

In the absence of such studies all I can go on is my lifetime of experience. In my career selling cars I met literally thousands of people. Of them there were relatively few that could really be described as "of substantial means," bearing in mind that for some fraction of them I filled out credit applications so I had regular feedback...my judgements of people's means were verified, not pure theory. The customers that went on my list (people who if they stepped off a curb at the wrong moment would prompt me to look down and adjust my radio) over the years were almost exclusively drawn from that minority who I determined (or guessed, if we never got to the credit application) were of substantial means. So, based on experience I think the probability of encountering a high order jerk is much higher among people of substantial means. Again, in the absence of proper studies that's all I have to go on, so I have to muddle along as best I can.

 

[Narz]

I wouldn't want my life either in the hands of a homeless person or a billionaire.

If I had to choose who to save me I'd choose a lower-middle class, blue-collar male between the ages of 20 and 40.

 

[bernie14]

I would choose the trauma surgeon passers-by

 

[Berzerker]

didn't Dustin Hoffman make a movie based on this premise?

yeah, it was called "Hero"

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I wouldn't want my life either in the hands of a homeless person or a billionaire.

If I had to choose who to save me I'd choose a lower-middle class, blue-collar male between the ages of 20 and 40.

If you are ever nearby and get damaged don't remind me of this preference or I'll have to just let you die.

 

[EgonSpengler]

I totally disagree. If you take an average sampling of rich people and an average sampling of poor people, I really doubt you'd end up with more jerks in one group over the other. Nothing significant anyway. But if there's a study that backs up the opposite it would be interesting to take a look at its conclusions.

This isn't exactly what you're asking for, but perhaps it's a data point to throw onto the fire:

CNBC, June 2015 - Are poor kids more charitable than rich ones?
Forbes, October 2014 - Wealthy Americans are giving less of their incomes to charity, while poor are donating more
The Atlantic, April 2013 - Why the rich don't give to charity
Psychology Today, August 2010 - Why are the poor more generous?

 

[Terxpahseyton]

I wouldn't. I'd have my money on someone of deep religious convictions.

If you earnestly talk to people who get heoric in such a tense situation, they will usually tell you that they did not think about it. They just acted. Which to me suggests that this about instincts more than anything else. So possibly something that is innate to you, possibly was nurtured in your child hood, possibly benefited or prohibited by current living conditions, but in the end just a click-moment which literally just happens to you or not. Not something you decide.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

In the absence of such studies all I can go on is my lifetime of experience. In my career selling cars I met literally thousands of people. Of them there were relatively few that could really be described as "of substantial means," bearing in mind that for some fraction of them I filled out credit applications so I had regular feedback...my judgements of people's means were verified, not pure theory. The customers that went on my list (people who if they stepped off a curb at the wrong moment would prompt me to look down and adjust my radio) over the years were almost exclusively drawn from that minority who I determined (or guessed, if we never got to the credit application) were of substantial means. So, based on experience I think the probability of encountering a high order jerk is much higher among people of substantial means. Again, in the absence of proper studies that's all I have to go on, so I have to muddle along as best I can.

Instead of merely money I would factor in power. As in the power you enjoy at your job + the power your money gives you. I don't think any such abstract factor has to make you a jerk. But power definitely has a tendency to kill consideration and boost jerkness. That is just normal human nature. Consideration is somewhat tied to usefulness and affordability.
That is why people will more likely be jerks to service personal (waiter, pizza delivery), because they instinctively know they got them by the throat and that they have a low social standing. It is very petty, but that are just some of the strings inside of us.

 

[EgonSpengler]

Instead of merely money I would factor in power. As in the power you enjoy at your job + the power your money gives you. I don't think any such abstract factor has to make you a jerk. But power definitely has a tendency to kill consideration and boost jerkness. That is just normal human nature. Consideration is somewhat tied to usefulness and affordability.
That is why people will more likely be jerks to service personal (waiter, pizza delivery), because they instinctively know they got them by the throat and that they have a low social standing. It is very petty, but that are just some of the strings inside of us.

I think that's true. The truth in the phrase "power corrupts" is almost lost in its triteness. (In)famously, the "Stanford prison experiment" cannot be replicated because it's so dangerous it would never pass an ethics review board. In our society (in most societies, I suppose), wealth is power. Anybody with more wealth has more power than someone with less wealth, and at a certain point you cross a threshold where wealth opens up all new avenues of power. I was going to cite the story of Christopher Epps in a different thread to illustrate (just one of) the dangers of the for-profit prison industry, but it's a useful anecdote here, too:
Associated Press, 24 May 2017, "Former Mississippi prison chief sentenced to nearly 20 years [for corruption]"

 

[Terxpahseyton]

I have sometimes wondered how great political figures can bear the immense responsibility they have. The course of millions of lives is, in one way or the other, theirs to change for the better or worse.
But then I realized: They are so power-high that self-righteousness / self-appreciation will shield them pretty good. Without that, maybe you couldn't even do the job.

 

[metalhead]

Well I guess it doesn't count then.

That's why the whole notion of "heaven in exchange for being a good person" is absurdly childish. And why the notion that religion begets either altruism or morality is totally ass-backwards.

Probably still counts to the people on the receiving end though, who are less worried about the motives of the giver, more worried about having food or heat or health care or Christmas presents for their kids..

 

[BvBPL]

Whining about the ultimate motives of charitable actors is also selfish. Better to rejoice in any charity.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Charity given in return for eternal paradise is ultimately a selfish gesture.

Is charity to feel good about yourself less of a selfish gesture? More heart-felt, okay. But ultimately any less selfish?
More interesting is IMO weather you harm others for your own gain. Not weather you help others for your own gain.

 

[Yeekim]

If a homeless guy is a jerk, his dog is probably the only one to suffer/notice.
A billionaire, on the other hand, can get elected President...

EDIT: Also, class warfare is ugly.