Wealthy really are different
andyt @ Fri Aug 12, 2011 12:17 am
$1:
Wealthy really are different, and not in a nice way: study
Economically privileged lack empathy, social skills and sensitivity compared with poor
BY MISTY HARRIS, POSTMEDIA NEWS AUGUST 11, 2011
Turns out, the rich really are ifferent. But not necessarily in he ways we assume.
Though economically privileged, people from upper-class backgrounds consistently display deficits in empathy, social engagement, generosity and sensitivity compared to those from the lower classes. The differences in behaviour are so marked that even unschooled observers are able to detect a person's socioeconomic background based on 60 seconds of interaction.
The findings, published in the journal Current Directions in Psychological Science, have researchers concluding that wealth comes at considerable personal cost - and that being poor isn't without its rewards.
"There's this sense among people that all problems reside in the lower classes," says report co-author Dacher Keltner, professor of psychology at the University of California-Berkeley. "While some of that is true - they are more prone to diseases of every kind, and suffer health problems because of the difficulties in their lives - the research also points to all these wonderful strengths: greater empathy, greater altruism, greater sensitivity to others and greater attunement to the social world."
In one experiment, for example, observers were able to accurately judge education and income levels solely from watching a one-minute videotaped interaction between two strangers.
Cues to privilege included checking a cellphone during the conversation, doodling and avoiding eye-contact, while lower-class individuals - whom Keltner notes "turn to social connections to survive" - were prone to headnodding, laughter and overall attentiveness.
The report draws from years of class studies using participants of diverse ages, incomes, educations and upbringings. The findings on empathy, altruism and compassion are considered robust, having been replicated by nearly a dozen studies.
The tendency for the rich to hoard their resources was of particular interest to researchers, who conclude that "the idea of noblesse oblige or trickle-down economics ... is bull" because the upper classes aren't reliably giving back.
Statistics Canada reports that while wealthier families donate more money to charity in absolute terms, those earning less money donate a higher percentage of their income.
In 2007, donors with annual household incomes of less than $20,000 gave an average 1.6 per cent of their pre-tax earnings to charity, compared to just 0.5 per cent for donors with household incomes topping $100,000.
Lindsey Vodarek, communications manager for Imagine Canada, an advocacy group working on behalf of charities, says "this pattern has remained consistent over the last decade."
According to the Current Directions study, the divide is rooted in fundamental differences in thinking between the haves and have-nots.
While lower-class upbringings encourage people to lean on others, ask for help when needed, and to offer help in return, Keltner says those raised in upper-class backgrounds are imbued with greater permission to "focus on the self" and consider their opportunities to have been earned.
Keltner observes that such notions of entitlement and "old Protestant work ethic" don't lend themselves to offering hand-outs.
"If we're serious about reducing inequality - which I think is one of the most important problems facing the western world today - we can't just rely on the instinctual generosity of people who are wealthy. Because we're not finding it," says Keltner, author of Born to be Good: The Science of a Meaningful Life.
Of course, not all rich people are self-centred and greedy, and poorer families aren't universally benevolent and sensitive.
But the broad-strokes message is clear that socioeconomic background continues to have significant effects on culture, despite popular sentiments to the contrary.
"People think class is disappearing, and that it's something only crazy monarchs from European history cared about," says Keltner.
"But don't think for a minute that we live in a class-free society."
Economically privileged lack empathy, social skills and sensitivity compared with poor
BY MISTY HARRIS, POSTMEDIA NEWS AUGUST 11, 2011
Turns out, the rich really are ifferent. But not necessarily in he ways we assume.
Though economically privileged, people from upper-class backgrounds consistently display deficits in empathy, social engagement, generosity and sensitivity compared to those from the lower classes. The differences in behaviour are so marked that even unschooled observers are able to detect a person's socioeconomic background based on 60 seconds of interaction.
The findings, published in the journal Current Directions in Psychological Science, have researchers concluding that wealth comes at considerable personal cost - and that being poor isn't without its rewards.
"There's this sense among people that all problems reside in the lower classes," says report co-author Dacher Keltner, professor of psychology at the University of California-Berkeley. "While some of that is true - they are more prone to diseases of every kind, and suffer health problems because of the difficulties in their lives - the research also points to all these wonderful strengths: greater empathy, greater altruism, greater sensitivity to others and greater attunement to the social world."
In one experiment, for example, observers were able to accurately judge education and income levels solely from watching a one-minute videotaped interaction between two strangers.
Cues to privilege included checking a cellphone during the conversation, doodling and avoiding eye-contact, while lower-class individuals - whom Keltner notes "turn to social connections to survive" - were prone to headnodding, laughter and overall attentiveness.
The report draws from years of class studies using participants of diverse ages, incomes, educations and upbringings. The findings on empathy, altruism and compassion are considered robust, having been replicated by nearly a dozen studies.
The tendency for the rich to hoard their resources was of particular interest to researchers, who conclude that "the idea of noblesse oblige or trickle-down economics ... is bull" because the upper classes aren't reliably giving back.
Statistics Canada reports that while wealthier families donate more money to charity in absolute terms, those earning less money donate a higher percentage of their income.
In 2007, donors with annual household incomes of less than $20,000 gave an average 1.6 per cent of their pre-tax earnings to charity, compared to just 0.5 per cent for donors with household incomes topping $100,000.
Lindsey Vodarek, communications manager for Imagine Canada, an advocacy group working on behalf of charities, says "this pattern has remained consistent over the last decade."
According to the Current Directions study, the divide is rooted in fundamental differences in thinking between the haves and have-nots.
While lower-class upbringings encourage people to lean on others, ask for help when needed, and to offer help in return, Keltner says those raised in upper-class backgrounds are imbued with greater permission to "focus on the self" and consider their opportunities to have been earned.
Keltner observes that such notions of entitlement and "old Protestant work ethic" don't lend themselves to offering hand-outs.
"If we're serious about reducing inequality - which I think is one of the most important problems facing the western world today - we can't just rely on the instinctual generosity of people who are wealthy. Because we're not finding it," says Keltner, author of Born to be Good: The Science of a Meaningful Life.
Of course, not all rich people are self-centred and greedy, and poorer families aren't universally benevolent and sensitive.
But the broad-strokes message is clear that socioeconomic background continues to have significant effects on culture, despite popular sentiments to the contrary.
"People think class is disappearing, and that it's something only crazy monarchs from European history cared about," says Keltner.
"But don't think for a minute that we live in a class-free society."
Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/Wealthy+rea ... z1UnRykoXE
Canadian_Mind @ Fri Aug 12, 2011 12:23 am
So if I was to tell you to go stick it you'd accuse me of being wealthy? 
martin14 @ Fri Aug 12, 2011 3:22 am
Andy, please go edit your avatar, he really needs a bright green face.
Your constant trolling and whining about people who have worked for something,
rather than serve coffee and expect millions, is getting really tiring.
And this last nonsense should be on the list for the most idiotic topic of the year.
Macguyver @ Fri Aug 12, 2011 6:43 am
It is totally true. People think by giving the rich tax breaks they'll spend it on jobs for the rest of the population. The truth is if the rich can find a way to get richer, they will . If that means closing shop in North America and moving your job to India, they'll take your tax break and use it to move your job to India.
You'll lose your job, you'll lose those tax dollars, and you'll still vote for the Tory or Republican that rich guy paid to make this all legal.
That blows my mind. But whatever, I'll amass my fortune and keep it all to myself and be happy when the proud-but-poor vote for the government that puts the most money in my pockets!
mentalfloss @ Fri Aug 12, 2011 6:48 am
You don't need a study to know that white, rich dudes are typically assholes.
Gunnair @ Fri Aug 12, 2011 7:05 am
mentalfloss mentalfloss:
You don't need a study to know that white, rich dudes are typically assholes.
Following that logic, poor coloured people are typially thieves, right?
ShepherdsDog @ Fri Aug 12, 2011 7:39 am
andyt andyt:
$1:
Wealthy really are different, and not in a nice way: study
Economically privileged lack empathy, social skills and sensitivity compared with poor
BY MISTY HARRIS, POSTMEDIA NEWS AUGUST 11, 2011
Turns out, the rich really are ifferent. But not necessarily in he ways we assume.
Though economically privileged, people from upper-class backgrounds consistently display deficits in empathy, social engagement, generosity and sensitivity compared to those from the lower classes. The differences in behaviour are so marked that even unschooled observers are able to detect a person's socioeconomic background based on 60 seconds of interaction.
The findings, published in the journal Current Directions in Psychological Science, have researchers concluding that wealth comes at considerable personal cost - and that being poor isn't without its rewards.
"There's this sense among people that all problems reside in the lower classes," says report co-author Dacher Keltner, professor of psychology at the University of California-Berkeley. "While some of that is true - they are more prone to diseases of every kind, and suffer health problems because of the difficulties in their lives - the research also points to all these wonderful strengths: greater empathy, greater altruism, greater sensitivity to others and greater attunement to the social world."
In one experiment, for example, observers were able to accurately judge education and income levels solely from watching a one-minute videotaped interaction between two strangers.
Cues to privilege included checking a cellphone during the conversation, doodling and avoiding eye-contact, while lower-class individuals - whom Keltner notes "turn to social connections to survive" - were prone to headnodding, laughter and overall attentiveness.
The report draws from years of class studies using participants of diverse ages, incomes, educations and upbringings. The findings on empathy, altruism and compassion are considered robust, having been replicated by nearly a dozen studies.
The tendency for the rich to hoard their resources was of particular interest to researchers, who conclude that "the idea of noblesse oblige or trickle-down economics ... is bull" because the upper classes aren't reliably giving back.
Statistics Canada reports that while wealthier families donate more money to charity in absolute terms, those earning less money donate a higher percentage of their income.
In 2007, donors with annual household incomes of less than $20,000 gave an average 1.6 per cent of their pre-tax earnings to charity, compared to just 0.5 per cent for donors with household incomes topping $100,000.
Lindsey Vodarek, communications manager for Imagine Canada, an advocacy group working on behalf of charities, says "this pattern has remained consistent over the last decade."
According to the Current Directions study, the divide is rooted in fundamental differences in thinking between the haves and have-nots.
While lower-class upbringings encourage people to lean on others, ask for help when needed, and to offer help in return, Keltner says those raised in upper-class backgrounds are imbued with greater permission to "focus on the self" and consider their opportunities to have been earned.
Keltner observes that such notions of entitlement and "old Protestant work ethic" don't lend themselves to offering hand-outs.
"If we're serious about reducing inequality - which I think is one of the most important problems facing the western world today - we can't just rely on the instinctual generosity of people who are wealthy. Because we're not finding it," says Keltner, author of Born to be Good: The Science of a Meaningful Life.
Of course, not all rich people are self-centred and greedy, and poorer families aren't universally benevolent and sensitive.
But the broad-strokes message is clear that socioeconomic background continues to have significant effects on culture, despite popular sentiments to the contrary.
"People think class is disappearing, and that it's something only crazy monarchs from European history cared about," says Keltner.
"But don't think for a minute that we live in a class-free society."
Economically privileged lack empathy, social skills and sensitivity compared with poor
BY MISTY HARRIS, POSTMEDIA NEWS AUGUST 11, 2011
Turns out, the rich really are ifferent. But not necessarily in he ways we assume.
Though economically privileged, people from upper-class backgrounds consistently display deficits in empathy, social engagement, generosity and sensitivity compared to those from the lower classes. The differences in behaviour are so marked that even unschooled observers are able to detect a person's socioeconomic background based on 60 seconds of interaction.
The findings, published in the journal Current Directions in Psychological Science, have researchers concluding that wealth comes at considerable personal cost - and that being poor isn't without its rewards.
"There's this sense among people that all problems reside in the lower classes," says report co-author Dacher Keltner, professor of psychology at the University of California-Berkeley. "While some of that is true - they are more prone to diseases of every kind, and suffer health problems because of the difficulties in their lives - the research also points to all these wonderful strengths: greater empathy, greater altruism, greater sensitivity to others and greater attunement to the social world."
In one experiment, for example, observers were able to accurately judge education and income levels solely from watching a one-minute videotaped interaction between two strangers.
Cues to privilege included checking a cellphone during the conversation, doodling and avoiding eye-contact, while lower-class individuals - whom Keltner notes "turn to social connections to survive" - were prone to headnodding, laughter and overall attentiveness.
The report draws from years of class studies using participants of diverse ages, incomes, educations and upbringings. The findings on empathy, altruism and compassion are considered robust, having been replicated by nearly a dozen studies.
The tendency for the rich to hoard their resources was of particular interest to researchers, who conclude that "the idea of noblesse oblige or trickle-down economics ... is bull" because the upper classes aren't reliably giving back.
Statistics Canada reports that while wealthier families donate more money to charity in absolute terms, those earning less money donate a higher percentage of their income.
In 2007, donors with annual household incomes of less than $20,000 gave an average 1.6 per cent of their pre-tax earnings to charity, compared to just 0.5 per cent for donors with household incomes topping $100,000.
Lindsey Vodarek, communications manager for Imagine Canada, an advocacy group working on behalf of charities, says "this pattern has remained consistent over the last decade."
According to the Current Directions study, the divide is rooted in fundamental differences in thinking between the haves and have-nots.
While lower-class upbringings encourage people to lean on others, ask for help when needed, and to offer help in return, Keltner says those raised in upper-class backgrounds are imbued with greater permission to "focus on the self" and consider their opportunities to have been earned.
Keltner observes that such notions of entitlement and "old Protestant work ethic" don't lend themselves to offering hand-outs.
"If we're serious about reducing inequality - which I think is one of the most important problems facing the western world today - we can't just rely on the instinctual generosity of people who are wealthy. Because we're not finding it," says Keltner, author of Born to be Good: The Science of a Meaningful Life.
Of course, not all rich people are self-centred and greedy, and poorer families aren't universally benevolent and sensitive.
But the broad-strokes message is clear that socioeconomic background continues to have significant effects on culture, despite popular sentiments to the contrary.
"People think class is disappearing, and that it's something only crazy monarchs from European history cared about," says Keltner.
"But don't think for a minute that we live in a class-free society."
Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/Wealthy+rea ... z1UnRykoXE
DanSC @ Fri Aug 12, 2011 10:19 am
Who knew getting an advanced engineering degree and the employment opportunities that come with such a degree made me an asshole?
andyt @ Fri Aug 12, 2011 10:28 am
DanSC DanSC:
Who knew getting an advanced engineering degree and the employment opportunities that come with such a degree made me an asshole?
So that degree made you a rich member of the upper class?
DanSC @ Fri Aug 12, 2011 10:49 am
andyt andyt:
So that degree made you a rich member of the upper class?
It got me much much closer, considering that I grew up below the poverty line. I'm still young in my career, but if I'm an exceptional engineer and file the right patents, it's attainable.
andyt @ Fri Aug 12, 2011 10:50 am
So you're only half assed now, but aspire to be an asshole. Pretty standard American then.
DanSC @ Fri Aug 12, 2011 10:52 am
andyt andyt:
So you're only half assed now, but aspire to be an asshole. Pretty standard American.
If by pretty standard American you mean starting below the poverty line, working hard in public schools, earning scholarships, and starting a sucessfull career that ensures my children won't grow up in poverty, then yes, I am the standard American.
andyt @ Fri Aug 12, 2011 10:54 am
this forum seems full of people who all hardscrabbled out of poverty. Am I the only one here who grew up in a (upper) middle class family?
DanSC @ Fri Aug 12, 2011 10:55 am
andyt andyt:
this forum seems full of people who all hardscrabbled out of poverty. Am I the only one here who grew up in a (upper) middle class family?
Probably. You seem to give off an odor of unrepented White Guilt.
BartSimpson @ Fri Aug 12, 2011 10:56 am
Then why is it that the poorest societies in the world also exhibit the very least of the qualities that are supposedly lacking in the rich?
In short, this is just another class warfare screed from Andy.
As to this...
$1:
The differences in behaviour are so marked that even unschooled observers are able to detect a person's socioeconomic background based on 60 seconds of interaction.
Oh, I totally agree.
Just I may not want to apply this 'universal rule' the same way the Marxists want to.
Oh, and let's not forget...
Still want to bandy around the stereotypes? Hmmm?