Evidence Seems To Show That the Rich Are Less Compassionate

I don't see this as politics per se (though it might have some bearing on politics) but it certainly isn't religion or world events. So into the pile it goes.

Scientific American | "How Wealth Reduces Compassion: As riches grow, empathy for others seems to decline"



Is this really a surprise?

 

Get ready for the inevitible onlaught of denials from the righties here along with their graphs and statistics showing how much righties give in comparison to lefties lol

In addition to the "greed is good" reference in the article I'd add the idea of "personal responsibility." Those with greater wealth, health, and/or success (etc.) are more prone to cite "personal responsibility" as a reason why those less fortunate than themselves haven't achieved as much in their lives as they themselves have.

 

There are more than just Republicans here who are Richie Rich's. And it wasn't just wealth that had the effect but education and occupational prestige.

But, being a blue collar, middle class, So Il redneck, it is surprising that I don't give a damn about any of ya.

 

Not a study or poll but just life experience of living in Manhattan and Naples.

People I have met who made their own money have been great individuals who give back to the community in many ways and none of them were for political or tax reasons. People I have met who were second or third generation money for the most part disgust me. Then there are those who made money being asses and frankly they do not believe in anything but themselves.

 

I'm just stating what's happened previously on this site when this subject was mentioned.

That said, true... the article was about wealth, and wealth is non-partisan.

I'd also agree that people who succeed in other aspects of life other than wealth feel a certain measure of superiority... and that starts early on. You could say the kid winning the "King of the Hill" game in elementary school may begin to feel a sense of superiority, especially if he/she manages to defend his/her dominance on said hill. It's possible the kid may begin to look at others as inferior even, and less worthy of pity or compassion... at least until someone kicks one of the kid's teeth out, of course. That kind of thing tempers feelings of superiority. Especially if the girl who kicked my, I mean the kid's, tooth out was cute.

So yes, I'd agree this kind of behavior isn't limited to wealthy republicans... but come on!... this is Partisan Lines after all! Cut me a little slack lol

 

While you are absolutely correct that wealth in non-partisan, poverty seems to reside exclusively among those who are Left-leaning, for lack of a better term. Although the flipside of wealth isn't poverty, poverty is always portrayed as the opposite of wealth. Poverty is actually the lack of power and in this society and many others, money IS power. Few on the Right even understand this distinction. Conversely, wealth isn't the same as success. Wealth is just the concentration of power in the hands of a few. If you stop thinking about wealth and poverty as the amount of money one has or doesn't have, you realize that it is really about the power you wield in society. If we as a society valued knowledge for example, we'd have a bunch of Ph.D.'s living in mansions in gated communities and driving BMW's but we don't. What we have is a bunch of bankers and stockbrokers living in those communities and driving those cars because we value money over knowledge.
One thing that really comes to the surface in this dynamic for me at least is that the wealthy or power brokers in this society have morals of convenience, morals that buttress their position, morals that keep them on top of the heap. For example, the personal responsibility mantra you hear so often from the Right. What does that really mean? Everyone should make it on their own Right? Well, if you are born rich, or you have a natural advantage due to some demographic, oh I don't know such as your skin color or gender, then you really aren't even responsible for your own success, you simply won the sperm lottery and now want everyone else to play by rules that your yourself didn't even adhere to because you were born into some privileged demographic. That is what I mean by morals of convenience. What could be more convenient than wanting everyone else to work to achieve the same things you were handed at birth?

 

You need to write you own dictionary so we can understand what you are trying to say. Today I learned;
wealthy means powerful
poverty means weak
personal responsibility means you are a loner

Interesting, but my guess is that you are the most powerful (your definition) active member of this forum.

 

Don't you think that is probably a result of the left's introduction of entitlements?
(we can now debate how (in)effective those programs have been in reducing poverty)

 

This sounds like a comment one who has a PHD would make if they were being a bit jealous. And for the record, you tend to be living proof that simply having a PHD doesn't necessarily = knowledge.

 

Compassion in relation to wealth is the subject here and, looking at his last two comments, it would be fair to say David is likely to be quite wealthy.

 

You really didn't seem to comprehend what I said about poverty. Poverty is the result of social inequity not social safety nets. Social safety nets were never designed nor could they ever eradicate the issue of poverty. All social safety nets do is keep people from starving to death in the streets, barely. Granted, you don't walk down the street today and see people dying but that scene was quite common in the early 1900's in this country. You simply aren't old enough to remember and therefore you can't believe that it happened.
Whether it is an industrialized country or a third world banana republic, poverty has the same causes. The best defense against poverty is a robust middle class. The more you have a small contingent at the top that is staggeringly wealthy, the smaller the ranks of the middle class and the large the ranks of the poor. This is universal and no matter the political system of the country in question, poverty has the same root causes. I'd say with your health issues, you'll be ripe for the downward trend into the lower economic ranks sooner than most of us here. So keep defending and apologizing for your precious upper class masters. I'm sure that they'll have as much compassion for you as you have had for the current crop of have-nots. I'm sure that this doesn't bother you and that you think that you have it all figured out. Don't be so sure.

 

I disagree but I suppose it is all relative. I think he, like some many on the Right, carries the water for the wealthy hoping one day to join their ranks even as that possibility becomes less and less likely.

 

You're giving me a PhD? Thank you! I thought that I'd have to take all those courses and write that dang dissertation and everything but here you have bestowed one on me simply by assuming it to be the case. Thanks!
BTW I never assumed that you had one.

 

I would like to think I do..but it didn't happen overnight.
The left has pushed gov't dependency on the poor just like a drug dealer pushing dope. The whole idea was to create a dependent class & convert it into a voting bloc. Obviously it worked in that regard becuase these programs sure haven't done anything to curtail the problem of poverty.
I guess everyone has a choice to make when they aren't born with a silver spoon. They can either live as the liberals believe they should & accept the handouts of the benevolent nanny state or they can decide to work their tales off & make their own way. I'm glad I chose the path of hard work.

 

You've bragged about having a PhD in the past so either someone gave you a PhD or you were lying abount that one too. Which is it?

 

Typical Liberal Arts college Phd candidate burning the midday candle working on his disseration.

 

Re the OP....
Actually, I would have to agree the rich are less compassionate. It is also a fact that democrats are wealthier than republicans. Therefore one would have to conclude "rich" refers primarily to democrats. It has already been proven conservatives give more money to charity than liberals.
So what were we talking about?

 

I can prove you wrong with one current example. Look at the Kennedy family. They were very wealthy and they heard the message of giving back all of their lives from Joe Kennedy. They felt that much was given to them and that they owed this country a lot in return. Ted Kennedy, John Kennedy, and Bobby Kennedy all fought for people less fortunate than themselves when they could have simply helped other rich people. They didn't, they fought the good fight for people who didn't have voices.
Now look at Romney. Just who is he fighting for? It certainly isn't the poor. If anything, he believes in tinkle down, yes tinkle down economics. In other words pissing on the poor. He doesn't speak for the poor and he has been given much.

That is the difference between Democrats and Republicans. Who they fight for when they come from wealth.

 

So to disprove your proof, just how much has Biden and Obama donated? And you keep saying Romney was born with a silver spoon in his mouth. Would you care to tell me who he gave that silver spoon too? Two direct questions I doubt will be answered.

 

Lets just take a brief look at two members of the wonderful Kennedy family:

Joe Kennedy:
Lobotomy
Kennedy's daughter Rosemary was 23 years old when her father okayed an experimental prefrontal lobotomy, one of the first performed in the U.S. She has been termed "mentally retarded" and she may have been "mentally ill" (no treatment other than incarceration existed for that in the 1940s).[7] The lobotomy went terribly wrong, and left her incapacitated for life (she died in 2005 at age 88). Rosemary's name "was never mentioned in the house", said Janet Des Rosiers, Kennedy secretary and mistress of Joseph for nine years
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_P._Kennedy,_Sr

Stealing from middle class investors.
Joseph P. Kennedy was the ambitious son of a prosperous Boston saloon keeper and ward boss. He married the mayor's daughter, went to Harvard, and generally made the most of his ample connections and talent. He ran a bank (admittedly two-bit) at 25, and was number-two man at a shipyard with more than 2,000 workers during World War I. At 30 he became a stockbroker and made a fortune through insider trading and stock manipulation. He was a master of the stock pool, a then-legal stunt in which a few traders conspired to inflate a stock's price, selling out just before the bubble burst.
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/716/what-is-the-true-source-of-the-kennedy-familys-wealth

Then there are the bootlegger and mafia ties to houses of prostitution and gambling.

Ted Kenndey:
Chappaquiddick incident" refers to the circumstances involving the death of Mary Jo Kopechne, whose body was discovered underwater inside an automobile belonging to her driver, U.S. Senator Edward M. "Ted" Kennedy. During the early morning hours of July 19, 1969, Kopechne's body and the car were found in a tidal channel on Chappaquiddick Island, Massachusetts. After the discovery, Kennedy gave a statement to police saying that during the previous night, Kopechne was his passenger when he took a wrong turn and accidentally drove his car off a bridge and into the water. After pleading guilty to a charge of leaving the scene of an accident after causing injury, Kennedy received a suspended sentence for two months in jail. The incident became a national scandal, and may have influenced Kennedy's decision not to campaign for the Presidency of the United States in 1972 and 1976.

Boys' Night Out in Palm Beach

By Michelle Green
For Ted Kennedy, a Son and a Nephew, An Evening of Aimless Carousing Ends in An Accusation of Rape

People Magazine

• April 22, 1991
• Vol. 35
• No. 15