Pity the rich. They drive their expensive cars with little respect for the law, they break the rules thinking they won’t have to face the consequences, and they even take candy from children.
Their unethical behavior, according to new research, is driven by the fact that they see nothing wrong with greed.
Psychologists at the University of California, Berkeley, have conducted seven studies involving nearly a thousand participants from college students to senior citizens indicating that the rich are, indeed, different from the rest of us.
Although the scientists concede that there are exceptions, “the really well-to-do have lost a little of their moral character,” psychologist Dacher Keltner, coauthor of a paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, said in a telephone interview.
Keltner, who led the research along with fellow psychologist Paul K. Piff, said his inbox has been jammed with feedback, mostly from working class citizens who say “it’s about time” someone paid attention to this problem.
The science has spoken. Now that we have proof of their evil nature, it's only just and right that whatever they have be taken from them since it was gotten through nefarious methods.
As Uncle Joe Biden might say, this is a big f*cking deal. A mindset is being created that very clearly separates the haves from the have nots, dehumanizes them and blames them for society's ills. Nothing unites a people like a common hatred. This type of mindset is, in part, what led to the French Revolution. Bit by tiny bit the pieces are being put into place. This nation is heading towards a dark age.
I am one of those that has gotten fed up with the arrogance. The part that sets me off more is the trickling down of it all. The ones that attempt to by a Lexus and can't afford to maintain it. The ones that mindlessly drop into a morgage that could have the interest rate blow out and lose their home. To me they at least, should "remember" where they came from. No, they also tend to have that way about them. They see the affluent and expect to treat their fellow man the same way. And when the bucket drops out expect the rest of us to pick up the pieces. Yeah the affluent are taxed. But it seems that they are not made to pay/work to fix things when it hits the fan like the rest of us even though they profited the most.
I understand the results of the study in such a way that being rich influences people's behavior. It doesn't say that they have an evil nature per se.
However, I think it's a hen-and-egg problem. Are reckless and ruthless people more likely to become rich in our society or does being/becoming rich make people more likely to be reckless and ruthless?
Berkeley never stops surprising me. You would think they would be running out of people to fool.
"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men."
- John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton, first Baron Acton (1834–1902)
cor·rupt
1. having or showing a willingness to act dishonestly in return for money or personal gain. synonyms: dishonest, unscrupulous, dishonorable, unprincipled, unethical, amoral, untrustworthy, venal, underhanded, double-dealing, fraudulent, bribable, criminal, illegal, unlawful, nefarious;
I'd say that having money gives people power. In that sense, I would basically agree with the findings of the study. I'm actually not that surprised...
[This message has been edited by yellowstone (edited 05-19-2014).]
No, getting rich is just luck. It appears to me, from what I read of rich people, that honest, hardworking determined people get rich just as often as morally bereft, reckless members of Cong . . . people.
However, I think it's a hen-and-egg problem. Are reckless and ruthless people more likely to become rich in our society or does being/becoming rich make people more likely to be reckless and ruthless?
I am one of those that has gotten fed up with the arrogance. The part that sets me off more is the trickling down of it all. The ones that attempt to by a Lexus and can't afford to maintain it. The ones that mindlessly drop into a morgage that could have the interest rate blow out and lose their home. To me they at least, should "remember" where they came from. No, they also tend to have that way about them. They see the affluent and expect to treat their fellow man the same way. And when the bucket drops out expect the rest of us to pick up the pieces. Yeah the affluent are taxed. But it seems that they are not made to pay/work to fix things when it hits the fan like the rest of us even though they profited the most.
I'm confused... I wouldn't call someone who finances a Lexus and / someone who goes into foreclosure a person that is affluent. I would call that a person who's trying to pretend they have more money than they actually do. Unless I misunderstood you.
The trickling down of the affluent arrogance. They see the arrogance and want to do it too. None of it is right. But seems more hypicritical when the don't haves do it. (shoot me I can't spell)
I can't stand the new Escalade commercial. The one with the Pharoh, Persian royalty and Kings coach. The commercial makes it look normal to treat every one else like that if you by a Cadi Escalade.
OK, of course I'm biased. I'm a have not. But I refuse to be "punked" by those who try to treat me like that.
Anyone that believes that anything coming out of Berkley isn't extremely unbalanced is either fooling themselves or drank way too much of the Kool Aide.
------------------ Ron Count Down to A Better America: http://countingdownto.com/countdown/196044 Isn't it strange that after a bombing, everyone blames the bomber, his upbringing, his environment, his culture, his mental state but … after a shooting, the problem is the gun?
My Uncle Frank was a staunch Conservative and voted straight Republican until the day he died in Chicago. Since then he has voted Democrat. Shrug
Now we just have to agree on what exactly greed is... Check it out the definition........sez who?
Unfortunately many seam to think that it is just having more than they have but not "sharing" it with them. I am not sure greed is even necessarily a bad thing, that is if greed is what greed may or may not be?.
Milton defends unfettered pursuit of materialism on the basis it's really efficient at gaining material things.
Close, but not quite. He says it's individuals "pursuing their separate interests." That may or may not be material wealth, but certainly material gain is necessary to provide food and shelter. A largely free trade system allows individuals to do this more efficiently - not just to gain stuff. It would also include the artist pursuing their art, or a musician or poet or writer all pursuing their craft in exchange for the material necessities of life. They may have gained the stuff to live and thrive, but the goal was pursuing their interest beyond just gaining wealth.
He also never said it's completely unfettered, either. If you've ever listened - actually listened - to his lectures, he recognizes the necessary government role but when government's role becomes too big it interferes with the individual's freedom to pursue their separate interest.
Greed only has meaning when somebody is complaining that somebody ELSE wants too much.
Who is to define what is greed and what is providing a comfortable life for themselves and their families? Is a man greedy because he likes fishing and buys a boat? Is a man greedy because he has a wife and four children so he buys a five bedroom home? Or is he greedy simply because someone has determined that he has things that others want but don't have?
He also never said it's completely unfettered, either. If you've ever listened - actually listened - to his lectures, he recognizes the necessary government role but when government's role becomes too big it interferes with the individual's freedom to pursue their separate interest.
No, this. Now there can be quite a discussion what's "necessary"...
But I think that the discussion here has veered off course. The question wasn't if greed is good but if wealth corrupts people morally. I'd say that is has the tendency to do so but it's not true for everybody and the degree of how much a person is "corrupted" varies greatly.
No, this. Now there can be quite a discussion what's "necessary"...
But I think that the discussion here has veered off course. The question wasn't if greed is good but if wealth corrupts people morally. I'd say that is has the tendency to do so but it's not true for everybody and the degree of how much a person is "corrupted" varies greatly.
Agreed, there are many people who have made many millions without destroying other peoples lives and even helping others while increasing their own wealth and others around them less fortunate than themselves.
I think I consider greed as someone who does anything and everything to increase their own wealth with no regard to how much it hurts others. think of people like Michael Milken, and Bernard Madoff.
On the other side of the coin you have people who have become rich while not destroying everyone in their way, think of people like, Stephan King, or Steve Jobs.
you can be rich without destroying everyone else around you, but you can also become rich by being a greedy SOB and stepping on everyone who gets in the way of them becoming rich. the latter is what I call greedy.
So in answer to the original question,
"Not always, just those people who have no morals like Michael Milken, and Bernard Madoff and the others who have no scruples in regards to increasing their wealth.
Steve
------------------ Technology is great when it works, and one big pain in the ass when it doesn't
Detroit iron rules all the rest are just toys.
[This message has been edited by 84fiero123 (edited 05-20-2014).]
No, this. Now there can be quite a discussion what's "necessary"...
But I think that the discussion here has veered off course. The question wasn't if greed is good but if wealth corrupts people morally. I'd say that is has the tendency to do so but it's not true for everybody and the degree of how much a person is "corrupted" varies greatly.
I agree on all points. The discussion of "necessary" is a never ending one - how much is enough and more importantly, "who" gets to decide. Yes, while the article does comment on whether wealth corrupts (or is it just easier for the corrupt to gain wealth?), to me the larger issue is framing the discussion around equating wealthy with evil (or lacking morals, etc.).
In general people believe you should not be able to keep profits from ill-gotten gains. Proceeds from illegal activity are usually confiscated when the person is convicted of that crime. Taking the profit or wealth from someone who has honestly earned it would be stealing, but if the person is evil and gained that wealth nefariously - it's unearned and taking it away from them is justice.
Another step to make people to want to take what others have and feel justified in doing so. This works to establish that the method used to become wealthy is irrelevant - simply having the wealth is evidence enough.
[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 05-20-2014).]
Yes, while the article does comment on whether wealth corrupts (or is it just easier for the corrupt to gain wealth?), to me the larger issue is framing the discussion around equating wealthy with evil (or lacking morals, etc.).
You can do this, of course, but the study that the article presents doesn't do it and I think that the findings ring true based on my own observations and experiences.
Or are you saying that some research shouldn't be carried out because the findings might be inconvenient and/or misused by someone else?
[This message has been edited by yellowstone (edited 05-20-2014).]
Depends on your 'yardstick of morality'. For some that would be Jesus or Buddha, others, Donald Sterling.
Donald Sterling employed many black people and made them millionaires. Seems like a great person on the surface. If I had that many millions, I am not sure I would be doing so much for minorities.
Or are you saying that some research shouldn't be carried out because the findings might be inconvenient and/or misused by someone else?
If you can find an unedited statement of mine saying that, then yes. If not, then no. How about just having a discussion for once instead of concentrating on how you can twist the "debate?"
I explained my concerns. That's my opinion and nowhere did I say that was the purpose of the research. You are free to disagree but please stop trying to twist my words into what you imagined I said.
Who is to define what is greed and what is providing a comfortable life for themselves and their families? Is a man greedy because he likes fishing and buys a boat? Is a man greedy because he has a wife and four children so he buys a five bedroom home? Or is he greedy simply because someone has determined that he has things that others want but don't have?
What does the good book say? It's usually so clear on these things.
Or is he greedy simply because someone has determined that he has things that others want but don't have?
Definition of rich, has more than me. It actually is all relative.
Greed, has more than me, won't share. Edit: also has more than I or "we" think he needs.
Envy is generally not a good or admirable trait and is practiced by weak people with weak minds. Frankly I think these people are just stupid and easily manipulated.
[This message has been edited by Red88FF (edited 05-20-2014).]
Most seam to miss that if you don't, nobody else will either and you won't ever be able to effectively compete.
I think it's way more complex than that.
also from the OP article.
quote
No matter what their social or economic standing was, participants primed to think there’s nothing wrong with being greedy were more willing to cheat.
“There is this mental frame of mind when you feel like you are at the top,” Keltner said. “You think you are above the law, you think you can get away with stuff and you won’t have to deal with the consequences. That’s what that study demonstrates."
If you can find an unedited statement of mine saying that, then yes. If not, then no. How about just having a discussion for once instead of concentrating on how you can twist the "debate?"
I explained my concerns. That's my opinion and nowhere did I say that was the purpose of the research. You are free to disagree but please stop trying to twist my words into what you imagined I said.
It was a question (indicated by the question mark) that I asked you based on what I think I understood from what you said. So?
