Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Rich people less empathetic than the poor: New study proves it---, The RICH are GREEDY!!!

Posted 7 years ago on Dec. 20, 2011, 11:13 p.m. EST by Puzzlin (2898)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

"The depiction of the rich and cold-hearted Ebenezer Scrooge in Charles Dickens classic “A Christmas Carol” is backed up with scientific evidence, according to researchers at the University of California at Berkeley."

*Most will not find this hard to believe. For others, in denial, they will reject it. But this is confirmation for most us. Just what we thought and the behavior shows!

Actions do speak louder than words!

Here's the article and proof:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/12/20/rich-people-less-empathetic-than-the-poor-study/

THE PUZZLER

162 Comments

162 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 6 points by Windsofchange (1044) 7 years ago

Well, with the greedy banks subsidizing their losses (e.g. BOA dumping 79 trillions of toxic derivatives onto the shoulders of the American Taxpayer) we will be overtaxed to no end.

Yes, I just love it how people defend the corporations and corporate welfare, but in regards to the average joe being on welfare they look down on and treat them like dirt. NICE!

Banksters = Hypocritical greedy dirtbags.

[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 7 years ago

We are beginning to see the light. Ahhhh, the clarity.

Windsofchange,

You got it right, the winds of change are coming!!!



[-] 4 points by bill1102inf2 (357) 7 years ago

When is the last time a corporation went to jail because they defaulted a multi-million or multi-BILLION dollar loan?? A: Never.

No american should live in a state where there are 'debtor prisons', if you live there and you pay taxes, you are unAmerican

[-] 4 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 7 years ago

"Among the new objects that attracted my attention during my stay in the United States, none struck me with greater force than the equality of conditions. I easily perceived the enormous influence that this primary fact exercises on the workings of the society"~Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

Alexis de Tocqueville traveled throughout the United States in 1831

What's Trust Got To Do With It?

But does inequality erode trust and divide people -- government from citizens, rich from poor, minority from majority? This chapter shows that the quality of social relations deteriorates in less equal societies.

Inequality, not surprisingly, is a powerful social divider, perhaps because we all tend to use differences in living standards as markers of status differences. We tend to choose our friends from among our near equals and have little to do with those much richer or poorer. And when we have less to do with other kinds of people, it's harder for us to trust them. Our position in the social hierarchy affects who we see as part of the in-group and who as out-group -- us and them -- so affecting our ability to identify with and empathize with other people. Later in the book, we'll show that inequality not only has an impact on how much we look down on others because they have less than we do, but also affects other kinds of discrimination, such as racism and sexism, with attitudes sometimes...justified....by statements like, 'they just don't live like us'.

De Tocqueville understood this point. A lifelong opponent of slavery, he wrote about the exclusion of African-Americans and Native Americans from the liberty and equality enjoyed by other Americans. Slavery, he thought, could only be maintained because African-Americans were viewed as 'other', so much so that 'the European is to other races what man himself is to the animals'.

Empathy is only felt for those we view as equals, 'the same feeling for one another does not exist between the different classes'. Prejudice, thought de Tocqueville, was 'an imaginary inequality' which followed the 'real inequality produced by wealth and the law'.

Excerpts from The Spirit Level: Why Greater Equality Makes Societies Stronger

[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 7 years ago

Very good post, thank you Jaded!!!

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 7 years ago

Thanks, It's a damn good book -- based on real statistical data; not just Tocqueville's observations, which are actually a small part.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 7 years ago

soylent green - soon

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 7 years ago

Very good point!!!

Thanks for your post!!!

[-] 4 points by BlueRose (1437) 7 years ago

Yep.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 7 years ago

Those actions are speaking very loudly these daze!!!

[-] 3 points by BlueRose (1437) 7 years ago

If you run out of gas or need your car pushed, best not have it happen in a rich neighborhood.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 7 years ago

How true. They wouldn't want to get dirty. It doesn't go well with their style or expensive clothes to get dirty. Likely, you would be a sore sight for the beautiful rich neighborhood for which the police will make sure get you towed out quickly.

[-] 2 points by BlueRose (1437) 7 years ago

SO quickly, in fact, that AAA didn't have time to get there, and the cops forced me to let another tow truck tow me 30 feet off the street to the nearest parking lot. Bill was $140 to get my car off truck, cops did not care, said it was legal in the city.

[-] 2 points by gnomunny (6819) from St Louis, MO 7 years ago

The police departments in many larger cities have a 'deal' with certain private towing companies that is questionable at best, if not downright illegal. Kickbacks, payoffs, stolen vehicles. I wouldn't be surprised if you just experienced this very thing.

[-] 2 points by BlueRose (1437) 7 years ago

I wrote to the TV stations here, but they are so biased, they never got back to me. But wouldn't that make a great story for the news? And the thing is, the cops were saying I was blocking traffic, which I was, but the way this world works now, no one can help someone push a car off the street, I need to pay a tow $140 for a few feet, and cops won't wait for my FREE AAA?

[-] 2 points by gnomunny (6819) from St Louis, MO 7 years ago

Back in the good old days the cops would've helped push the car out of the way. What a screwed-up world it's become. I'll bet those cops got a kickback from the tow company.

[-] 0 points by MASTERdBATER2 (56) 7 years ago

Probably because the dumb poor bitch would sue if they mistakenly scratched it or worse. You can't tell that this self absorbed entitled moron is the exact reason no one will help anyone else.

[-] -1 points by MASTERdBATER2 (56) 7 years ago

So you expected help and were mad when your own expectations were let down?

Your a moron!

[-] -1 points by justhefacts (1275) 7 years ago

Maybe they should have gotten back to you....lead story-"Woman fails to put gas in her car and then calls news stations to complain about how stupid and irresponsible police and towing agencies are". Film at 11....

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 7 years ago

That is how it works for them. Not surprising. The poor are a blight to them.

[-] 0 points by MASTERdBATER2 (56) 7 years ago

They are to everyone that they constantly burden.

[-] 0 points by justhefacts (1275) 7 years ago

It's always SO much more fun if it happens in a "poor" neighborhood.

[-] 3 points by BlueRose (1437) 7 years ago

A poor person will give you a dollar toward gas before a rich person will.

[-] -3 points by justhefacts (1275) 7 years ago

A GOOD person will give you a dollar toward gas no matter what their income level is. Bad people are everywhere.

But I've never heard of anyone having their hubcaps stolen or their car stripped for parts by a rich person. And rich people might not "like" a poor person being in their neighborhood, but I've never heard of them getting a bunch of their homies together to insult, threaten, and attack them either.

[-] 3 points by scvblwxq (155) 7 years ago

They just call the cops to have them beaten up and thrown into jail for a 3 day hold.

[-] -2 points by justhefacts (1275) 7 years ago

You've seen this happen to someone who ran out of gas in a rich neighborhood? When did running out of gas become a civil violation?

[-] 1 points by scvblwxq (155) 7 years ago

I was thrown into jail a long time ago while walking down the street at night in Santa Monica(upper middle-class) a block from my apartment and held overnight for nothing. The cops said "This one's on us." A friend was beaten up by the cops and thrown in jail in Cleveland after someone hit his car and he asked the police to stop the person that hit him who was leaving. He tried to sue the police but no lawyers would take the case so he learned some law and sued them himself and after years of legal roadblocks by the courts he won. The city won't pay anything and there is nobody to force them to pay and they harass him.

[-] -1 points by justhefacts (1275) 7 years ago

So you have no proof that "rich people" "called the police" to have you or your friend "beaten up and thrown in jail". Correct?

[-] 1 points by scvblwxq (155) 7 years ago

The police said someone called them and since their weren't any poor people living in that area it was probably the richer people that lived there.

[-] -1 points by justhefacts (1275) 7 years ago

So you were rich then? If you were only a block away from your apartment then you were either "upper middle class" yourself, (and thus the police really didn't arrest you for being "poor") or you were poor and the police would know that poor people DID live in that area-within a block.

And the police told you that whoever called them told them to "beat you up and throw you in jail"?

[-] 1 points by scvblwxq (155) 7 years ago

I was a young middle-class programmer. As they said that one was on them.

[-] 0 points by justhefacts (1275) 7 years ago

So they admitted they made a mistake? Meaning what they did to you is not their normal practice?

[-] 1 points by scvblwxq (155) 7 years ago

I don't think they were admitting a mistake, more like there were no crimes committed to pin on me. My friend who was beat up by the police and jailed after his car was hit by another car and he told the police the driver of the other car was fleeing is another example of bad police conduct. Who knows how many incidents like these occur? New Orleans police were running drugs, committing murder for hire and much else before Katrina. http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/gangsters_outlaws/cops_others/len_davis/index.html

[-] 0 points by justhefacts (1275) 7 years ago

I'm not arguing that incidents like this happen. I'm arguing that not ALL cops are the same-just like not ALL OWS are the same. The bad incidents we hear about....the good ones we rarely do. But that doesn't mean that good cops don't exist.

[-] 3 points by BlueRose (1437) 7 years ago

If you speak of crime, you should mention white collar crime too. It is fact the poor give more than the rich to charity percentage-wise.

[-] -1 points by MASTERdBATER2 (56) 7 years ago

Whats 1% of nothing...lol

[-] -2 points by justhefacts (1275) 7 years ago

All you want to do is paint one side as "good" and the other as "bad" based on income. What makes you any different than a racist who thinks someone's skin color "makes" them better or worse than someone with a different skin color. MY CRAP!!

YOU ran out of gas because YOU FAILED to put gas in YOUR OWN DAMN CAR. It's not "rich" people's fault that you ran out of gas. Or that you had be to towed out of the way. Or that the cops in that city didn't feel like shoving your car out of the way. IT IS YOUR FAULT.

I've WATCHED cops and other drivers shove cars out of the way, and pull snowbound cars out of a ditch, and help cars that have slid off the road get back on it...without gloves....or boots.....or tools. I watched a video of a cop LAYING UNDER A TRUCK the other day comforting a woman who was trapped under it because he promised her he would hold her hand not matter what.

So IF you experienced bad, nasty, lazy cops-then say that. You don't get to say that ALL cops are that way and get away with it. If you've experienced bad, nasty, evil rich people-then say that. You don't get to say that ALL rich people are that way and get away with it. You'd think with as many bad, evil, nasty comments that people make about OWS-you'd be the LAST people to categorize and marginalize other people just because they are different from you. Shame on you both.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by MASTERdBATER2 (56) 7 years ago

No one read that.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 7 years ago

Just the Facts is ALL

[-] 3 points by UncomonSense (386) 7 years ago

Having less empathy makes it easier for the rich to kill us, and harder for us to kill them.

Go figure.

[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 7 years ago

Dualities, everywhere. Good that means your thinking. LoL



[+] -4 points by justhefacts (1275) 7 years ago

Having "less empathy" is the equivalent of being a murderer? Wow. High standards there bud.

[-] 2 points by Samsquatch (48) 7 years ago

well the answer is self evident isnt it?

...how do you think they GOT rich in the first place? it wasnt by helping get the homeless off the streets, thats for damn sure!

[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 7 years ago

No it was off the backs of the hard working middle class still lucky to have a job.

The repugs are NOW raising taxes on the middle while protecting the rich. Read the headlines, taxes are going up and they left town. They protect the rich tax cuts but hell with us.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 7 years ago

"People who are rich have trouble recognising the emotions of others, a new study claims."

"The university research has found that those who are poorer are better at gauging how someone feels because they need to rely on other people more often."

"Scientists speculated that the rich performed worse in tests because they can solve their problems without relying on others. In other words, because of their wealth they are not as dependent on the people around them."

"Whereas people who cannot afford to buy support services - such as childcare - have to rely on neighbours or relatives to watch their children while they attend work or run errands."

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1332291/Why-people-rich-good-empathy.html#ixzz1hnSZFyy3

[-] 1 points by Rico (3027) 7 years ago

fMRI proves that the rich tend to be more generous to the poor and that the poor tend to resist giving to the rich. See http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7284/full/nature08785.html .

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 7 years ago

RAISE THOSE GOD DAMN TAXES ON THE RICH!

I couldn't agree more. It's way past time, we should make it retroactive from when the Bushwacker put them into effect.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 7 years ago

The ones much more sold out are the Republicans (Repugs). Some blue dog dems vote to protect the rich but the Repugs worship Greedy Rich people. The Rich who buy Politicians are Greedy

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 7 years ago

Since the daze of Reagan, I knew Repugs were not the party of hardworking Americans who just wanted something for their toils, a comfortable retirement and see their kids off to college for a better life. Their battle cry was deregulation!!! Started under Reagan. And then with no one to watch the store, somewhere along the way we were swindled by those wall street city slickers and saw the American Dream suddenly getting flushed down the toilet.

We get it!!! We get it!!!

NOW, we want it BACK!!!

[-] 0 points by Jflynn64 (337) 7 years ago

So you work harder than me?

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 7 years ago

Like a Chinese.



[-] 0 points by Jflynn64 (337) 7 years ago

Why, what would you do with the extra money?

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 7 years ago

Pay down the deficit (from those who made it).













[-] 0 points by Jflynn64 (337) 7 years ago

If that's your concern why don't we cut spending.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 7 years ago

Good! Let's eliminate 3/4 of the pentagon budget! Great ideal Jeff!

[-] 0 points by Jflynn64 (337) 7 years ago

Defense spending should be cut as well as many other departments.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 7 years ago

Yeah, but that's where there's the biggest waste. We can then declare the War On Drugs over & tax MJ. Heee Hawww

Then we can fully fund SSI without cutting or gutting it.

[-] 0 points by Jflynn64 (337) 7 years ago

I'm all for legalizing marijuana. Theft is a lot of waste we can take out of defense. We need to cut all other area as well including the transfer payments.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 7 years ago

We need spend money where it really matters. The failed programs need to go bye bye. Right on it. Thanks!

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (22953) 7 years ago

This would be funny if it weren't so sad.

[-] 1 points by GreedKills (1119) 7 years ago

When I did carpentry the poor people would make me lunch, offer a cool drink and at the end of the day even tip me. When I worked in the homes of the rich they did not even want the "help" using their bathroom. This was in the 80s at the being of the greed movement in the US.

[-] 1 points by cmt (1195) from Tolland, CT 7 years ago

This forum bounces between two theories: the Friedman/Haydek nonsense that idolizes the myths of the "free market" and the analysis of Marx, which underpinned socialism and communism.

Wrong theoretical constructs for what is going on, folks!

You've forgotten Veblen, who described (what we would call the 1%) as predators, and the rest of us as prey.

That better illustrates what has been happening in recent decades.

[-] -1 points by Jflynn64 (337) 7 years ago

Free market nonsense had brought more people out of poverty than any other system. You want a totalitarian state like the Soviet Union move to Cuba. Get away from my liberty

[-] 1 points by cmt (1195) from Tolland, CT 7 years ago

Capitalism has its good and bad points, but the "free market" is a myth. There are forces that act on it, like the well documented cronyism that has inflated executive pay beyond all reason. Veblen was right that there can be powerful predators in a system like ours.

[-] 0 points by Jflynn64 (337) 7 years ago

If a company's BOD decides to inflate executive pay above what the person should receive then and the company doesn't perform then the equity holders will demand a change.

Of course there will be predators and greed, that's the point. I'm sure the majority of users on this board use Apple products of some type. Steve Jobs was not a nice guy. How about Larry Ellison at Oracle, not nice guy. How many people here use a GE product or I'm sure everybody has flown on GE engines, Jack Welch is not a nice guy. But all three of these people produced for their workers, shareholders and customers.

It's just baffles me how you want to send more power to bureaucrats in DC who have no history of making asset allocation decisions and frankly are not good at it.

[-] 1 points by cmt (1195) from Tolland, CT 7 years ago

They can "demand a change" but not make it happen. The laws do not give equity holders much ability to affect anything, because they are designed to protect boards of directors from shareholders. I'd like to see laws that made it possible for equity holders to get rid of bad actors on boards of directors, and thus to affect CEO excess pay.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by kingscrossection (1203) 7 years ago

That is how you know.. THEY GOT RICH

[-] 1 points by Windsofchange (1044) 7 years ago

Now the greedy banksters are making sure they jail those in debt. Debtor prisons are on the way back. One third of the people in prison right now are there because of debt. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php? az=view_all&address=439x721058 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/22/debtors-prison-legal-in-more-than-one-third-of-us-states_n_1107524.html

I have friends that are in debt and they are being threatened to no end. I knew the greedy banksters would resort to this as they didn't want to lose any money. This is screwed up.

[-] 1 points by earnyours (124) 7 years ago

What about greedy borrowers that took the money, spent the money, and now are flaking on their obligation to pay it back? That doesn't count, right?

[-] 1 points by Windsofchange (1044) 7 years ago

Yes, but NOT everybody did what those jerks did. There are good people who lost a job or had severe medical expenses and are up to their eyeballs in debt. Let me tell you, it doesn't take much to end up in debt nowadays, nor does it take much to become homeless.

For those who were foolish, they need to man up and do the right thing. Now with that said. How is it that our banks can engage in highly unethical banking practices, get bailed out by the Fed, and subidize their losses (making the American Tax payer pay for their mistakes). I am talking especially about risky loans they gave out and toxic derivatives.

The Banksters SHOULD NOT BE ABOVE THE LAW. They need to be held accountable for what they did.

[-] 0 points by justhefacts (1275) 7 years ago

They did not BREAK the law. Our laws ALLOWED them to do what they did. The freakin lawmakers who ALLOWED this to happen and then covered it up with bailout money should be held accountable.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 7 years ago

So the law is not honest and IN FACT it's Greedy. Name those lawmakers Justin!

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) 7 years ago

another private message of your bullshit and you want to talk about things of nobility? you really are a psychopath.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 7 years ago

DO someone hear an echo in here?

Is this an echo chamber?

What concocted bullshit this way comes from Ken Gates?

( EX: Richard bends his gates, what a shame.)

[-] 0 points by earnyours (124) 7 years ago

The public SHOULD NOT BE ABOVE RESPONSIBILITY. Free will does exist, you know.

Debt has consequences. The more you have, the less resilient to bad times you become. Just because you default due to job loss or unplanned illness doesn't in the least imply that one's debt level was appropriate or responsible.

Seriously, people lost all track of what debt means. We need a major reset in common sense. Hopefully, rather than just blame and go on the same way, people turn a little more inward and discover their own culpability.

[-] 1 points by Windsofchange (1044) 7 years ago

Yes, I am an advocate of personal responsiblity. I said that those people need to man up and pay up their debt.

However, you seem to turn a blind eye to corporate greed. Not once did you address the part of my last reply where I stated the obvious about how THE BANKS ARE NOT TAKING ANY RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR UNETHICAL BANKING PRACTICES! So since you refuse to address that, I will end my reply here.

[-] 0 points by earnyours (124) 7 years ago

Banks are too taking responsibility. They've been getting defaulted on up the ass. What do you call that? You should look up the stock price of Bank of America today vs 2007. It's been clocked.

Borrowers were greedy. They were trying to gets theirs in real estate. They were greedy for the consumer goods someone else had. The little guy can be plenty greedy too.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 7 years ago

I have heard of this! Very good point Windsofchange. Also, th elinks are very helpful. We are in for fight and we must continue to bring it on. We are beginning to win but we can not stop!

Thanks!!!

[-] 1 points by Windsofchange (1044) 7 years ago

Yes, I wanted to put up a post about this, but being that it is so close to Christmas I decided not to.

This really, really sucks. If people are out of work and are falling in the red, now they can end up in jail? OWS needs to fight this all the way!

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 7 years ago

This is almost funny.

Almost.

[-] 0 points by Reneye (118) 7 years ago

Pleonexia?

[-] 0 points by HitGirl (2263) 7 years ago

It takes a certain personality type to get rich. Often the traits required are at-odds with the goals and aspirations of a civilized society. That is why the wealth of individuals needs to be curbed to reasonable levels through taxation.

[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 7 years ago

Absolutely. Taxation is a key point. It's about being fair.

Greed is the natural tendency when unchecked and unrestrained. As children we had to be broken of that habit and told to share. And, other children aren't, and become snobs. It's all mine, none for you. I deserve everything because that's what I want. Altruism is a learned behavior and much more difficult to obtain. One must give up their own wants sometimes to care for others.

[-] 1 points by HitGirl (2263) 7 years ago

Well said! Or at least well quoted.

[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 7 years ago

It's all mine. Thanks HitGirl! We need your help here. The trolls outnumber us but have no good ideas.

Good Luck!!!

[-] 0 points by owsleader2011 (304) 7 years ago

Well lets understand this YOUR fucking poor cuz your an idiot.

The rich by definition get rich by keeping their money and NOT spending that money. Fucking morons spend their money paycheck-to-paycheck, and they're working poor their entire lives.

The 'rich' Get-RICH by NOT spending money on booze and going out to dinner, by being frugal and over time they get rich and buy real-estate, and maybe after 20-40 years of such lifestyles they wake up one morning 'rich'.

Then once your 'rich' and you got that way by frugality, your not likely to want to be poor again, and you not likely to change your behavior.

The problem is your children then never have to work, cuz your rich, and they spend all your money.

Today like OWS children, most trustafarians are simply bitching about the ugly 2nd generation rich, and have NO fucking idea that somebody long ago actually saved and worked to acquire a fucking fortune.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by blackbloc (-19) 7 years ago

they must have fried their empathy neurons with hard liquor and cocaine....

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 7 years ago

They definitely missed the big boat. Their Tea Party Pals got them the dingy instead. It does seem the tide is turning, and a big wave is coming.

[-] 0 points by blackbloc (-19) 7 years ago

the ones who are smart are scared shitless... not just about OWS world wide but the rise of asia as a power to rival the west. they have to crush both of these things for their nwo plans to succeed welcome to military fascism!!!!

[-] 0 points by focus01 (21) from Queens, NY 7 years ago

Ebenezer was obviously the exception to the rule. Evidenced by the surprise on the faces of the two gentlemen who came in asking for a donation. of course your study isnt biased or agenda driven coming out of UC Berkeley lol!

[-] 0 points by blackbloc (-19) 7 years ago

there is a reason that the rich are rich they are sociopathic, unfeeling, uncaring people, they are at a disconnect like they have aspergers or autism or something... they simply don't feel bad for real it is insane...

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 7 years ago

So true, also following this line of thought, politicians are generally rich, and they take the sociopathic Cake. Their rich and in love with power.

When we overcome the love of power, and instead embrace the power of Love, we will have real POWER.

[-] 0 points by blackbloc (-19) 7 years ago

we might have to cut off some heads to do that

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 7 years ago

That's the Power of Love?

Or the Love of Power?

.............................................................................................................................................................


[-] 0 points by justhefacts (1275) 7 years ago

WOW. From the STUDY which said this-

“The results suggest that it’s not that upper classes don’t care, it’s that they just aren’t as good at perceiving stress or anxiety.”

To posters saying this: "there is a reason that the rich are rich they are sociopathic, unfeeling, uncaring people, they are at a disconnect like they have aspergers or autism or something... they simply don't feel bad for real it is insane..."

As long as people like Puzzlin and blackbloc are allowed (and encouraged) by other OWS members to spin and distort actual scientific evidence to this degree without being shunned, real, honest, rational people will never take this movement seriously.

[-] 0 points by blackbloc (-19) 7 years ago

go ahead defend the undefendable bastards idc.

[-] -1 points by mee44 (71) 7 years ago

"Participants from lower-classes reported feeling greater levels of compassion than their more affluent counterparts. "

How is that measured ???

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) 7 years ago

Why don't you read the article and find out?

[-] 0 points by mee44 (71) 7 years ago

I did. It isn't measurable. It's subjective BS. The whole thing is BS. PERIOD.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) 7 years ago

I would hardly call using biometrics "subjective". Maybe you're one of those anti-science people.

[-] -1 points by mee44 (71) 7 years ago

It's the University of Kalifornya "left of Lenin" at Berkeley, FFS. Get real.

No science involved. It's opinion with outcome predetermined.

[-] -1 points by justhefacts (1275) 7 years ago

The AUTHOR of the article, who is NOT a social psychologist, and did NOT participate in the study, made the crack about Ebenezer Scrooge you moron.

The actual lead psychologist said something different- “It’s not that the upper-classes are coldhearted,” UC Berkeley social psychologist Jennifer Stellar, lead author of the study published the journal Emotion, explained. “They may just not be as adept at recognizing the cues and signals of suffering because they haven’t had to deal with as many obstacles in their lives.”

SHE GOES ON TO SAY:

“Recognizing suffering is the first step to responding compassionately,” Stellar said. “The results suggest that it’s not that upper classes don’t care, it’s that they just aren’t as good at perceiving stress or anxiety.”

All you proved is that you'd rather quote a reporter than a scientist.

[-] -3 points by focus01 (21) from Queens, NY 7 years ago

oh - Berkeley - can you have a more liberal institution conducting this study hahaha! Bogus - I wont even look at it - that's how little credibility they have.

[-] 3 points by shoozTroll (17632) 7 years ago

The study I read was from Der Spiegel, in Germany.

It said they found all the signs of sociopathy and psychopathy.

This study was rather nice to the POS.

[+] -4 points by focus01 (21) from Queens, NY 7 years ago

nice - Germans studying rich people in the U.S. hahaha! no kiding lol! I am impesssed !!! Quick - who gives more to charity liberals or conservatives?

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 7 years ago

Afraid of the truth when it has facts to back it up?

ANSWER the question Focus!

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 7 years ago

Conspicuous "giving" at 'Charity Balls' et al, is NOT "charity" ; It's PR !

Corporate and Private "declared charitable donations" are not kindness or largesse ; It's a Tax Ploy !!

Are you at your parents house, home from college for the hols trying to earn a few dollars more by paid-as-you-go Trolling, you Reactionary Half-Wit ? Bet you're thrilled that you were recruited to do it by Your Dark Overlords, lol ...

ab absurdum(b), veritas ?

[-] -2 points by focus01 (21) from Queens, NY 7 years ago

if anyone is giving at charity balls it's libs. do your homework .

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 7 years ago

You seem to be an Idiot-Assclown of The Highest Order ! My sympathies to your mother !!

[-] -1 points by focus01 (21) from Queens, NY 7 years ago

nice statistical data lol! Intelligent lol!

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 7 years ago

Mr. @ssclown : You seem to do a lot of "lol"ing ! Is that because talking out of the back of your neck has loosened your empty head from your girly shoulders ?!! Dolt !!!

[-] -1 points by focus01 (21) from Queens, NY 7 years ago

another good one while ducking the question.

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 7 years ago

As regards you ; The Only question is how your head has gone so far up your (x) and is That how you've become such a SH!T 4 Brainzzz ?

[-] -1 points by focus01 (21) from Queens, NY 7 years ago

the winner is shadz66! great debating points there ! so you dont even know why you are part of this movement or what the goals are except you demand Utopia to appear NOW because of your collective temper tantrum lol! great goal in life there!

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 7 years ago

Cheers, Mr. "I've just joined The Forum but know Sweet FA" ;

You don't know your "arse from your elbow" and you show no evidence of having read anything either here or elsewhere ! You know nothing about me and even less about yourself !!

Go Read A Book (for example : something by Nomi Prins, http://www.nomiprins.com/ OR David Malone, http://www.debtgeneration.org/index.php or IF your fuzzy little head will extend to it ; Detlev Schlichter's "Paper Money Collapse", http://papermoneycollapse.com/ ) !!

IF reading is NOT your bag, try watching some http://rt.com/programs/keiser-report/ !!!

You're possibly too schtoopid to realise the favour I've just done for you but maybe NOT ...

dum spiro, spero ...

[-] 1 points by jodeckard (1) from Port Jefferson Station, NY 7 years ago

May I suggest http://papermoneycollapse.com/2011/12/detlev-on-rt-keiser-report/ which combines both Max Keiser and Detlev Schlichter...

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 7 years ago

Good suggestion ! I watched it myself and it was an excellent programme. Alternative link : http://rt.com/programs/keiser-report/episode-222-max-keiser/ ;-)

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 7 years ago

No one.

Why would they?

[-] -3 points by focus01 (21) from Queens, NY 7 years ago

do your homework - conservatives give more to charity than you libs. yet you want to redistribute other peoples money. real impressive.

[-] 2 points by Just1MoreVoice (76) 7 years ago

The claim that conservatives are more charitable is simply untrue. Charitable giving is tax deductible, you see. What that statistic really means is simply that conservatives choose to give less to the government. It's hardly a surprise.

[-] -3 points by focus01 (21) from Queens, NY 7 years ago

libs have the same option yet they give less - interesting. and they dont take any fewer tax deductions which is surprising since theu believe so much in govt lol!

[-] 1 points by scvblwxq (155) 7 years ago

They always say on TV that if tax breaks are limited charitable contributions will drop.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 7 years ago

Charities like CATO and heritage.

Or stuff their PR departments tell them would be good for their image.

Do your homework, or go to school.

[-] -3 points by focus01 (21) from Queens, NY 7 years ago

lets see your backup. ABC - hardly a conservative cheerleader

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2682730&page=1#.TvFsoTVSQYk

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 7 years ago

Well of course you won't look at it !

How TF can you with your head jammed so far up your (x) and while your so called "focus" doesn't extend beyond your rectum ?!!

Watch this : http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/i-psychopath/ and see if you recognise yourself !!!

Irksome little c*nt ; run along and come back when you've learnt something ...

ad iudicium

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 7 years ago

So, I guess in your narrative that the rich are friendly, empathetic, and the job creators.

Right or Wrong?

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 7 years ago

Puzzlin' : Re. your forum post and IF you haven't seen it already, then I strongly recommend http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/i-psychopath/ for a real insight into The Real Randian Psychopathic Parasites ; The 1% of a 1% - The 0.01% !!

fiat lux ...

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 7 years ago

Thanks for the link!



[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 7 years ago

;-) & u r wlcm ! Yuletide best wishes for Solstice !! Roll on 2012 !!!

fiat pax ...

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 7 years ago

2012 is when we begin taking back our country from the rich!!!



[-] 2 points by shadz66 (19985) 7 years ago

"P" : The thing to consider about your use of the word "Rich" is that in The U$A, where there are so many materialistic aspirants to "The Cult Of Wealth", a Whole Load Of People get rather upset at anything that targets or blames "The Rich" - NOT so much because they ARE "rich" but because they "Wannabe" and please cogitate over this !

That is why one is better off for reasons of truth, logic and psychology in using the "99% v The 1%" analogy. In truth & 'imho', the real opprobrium should be directed at The Parasitic 0.01% and that's why there is now (& in 2012!!) an ever developing G.I.A.B.O. = Global Insurrection Against Banker Occupation ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGRu1uqJGkY ) !!

Resistance Is Fertile !!!

fiat justitia ...

[-] 3 points by Puzzlin (2898) 7 years ago

I'm right with you. Good way to put the argument. We must keep our eyes on the truth and how others try to smear it.

The Puzzler

[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 7 years ago

Very true about the wannabes but the strangeness about that is rich is still rich a little more in taxes isn't going change that. It's the myth building that scares people. If they believe that because the taxes get raised a few percentage points they can't be rich is nothing more than Myth.

[-] 0 points by Mooks (1985) 7 years ago

"Participants from lower-classes reported feeling greater levels of compassion than their more affluent counterparts. "

Poor people actually experience hardship so they have more empathy for others because they have those experiences. Affluent people don't have nearly the amount of hardship so they don't really know what it is like. It doesn't necessarily make them any worse people.

[-] 1 points by Puzzlin (2898) 7 years ago

But when they can't empathize it does in that way make them worse simply because they won't care as much. Which is what this study proves out.



[-] 1 points by Mooks (1985) 7 years ago

So do you think that everyone should be poor at one point or another?

[-] 3 points by gnomunny (6819) from St Louis, MO 7 years ago

I know this question was directed at Puzzlin, but IMO, I'd bet if every rich person was poor at some point, it would give them a fuller, more complete picture of the real world. 'Walk a mile in my shoes.'

[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 7 years ago

Not necessary. But we have to broaden our experience this is true. As humans we tend towards generalization so we have to force ourselves out of that comfortable position we make for our selves. We have to get out of the box.

[-] 1 points by Frizzle (520) 7 years ago

It would be better if noone was poor.

[+] -5 points by Stormcrow (11) 7 years ago

The rich are richer because the keep doing what makes them rich. The poor are poor because they keep doing what makes them poor.

Think about that before you comment

[-] 6 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 7 years ago

How about we look at data instead of throwing around social opinions, Stormcrow.


Empirical Studies on the Culture of Poverty Concept vs. Cultural Opinion of Grownup

Researchers around the world tested the culture of poverty concept empirically (see Billings, 1974; Carmon, 1985; Jones & Luo, 1999). Others analyzed the overall body of evidence regarding the culture of poverty paradigm (see Abell & Lyon, 1979; Ortiz & Briggs, 2003; Rodman, 1977).

These studies raise a variety of questions and come to a variety of conclusions about poverty. But on this they all agree:

There is no such thing as a culture of poverty.

Differences in values and behaviors among poor people are just as great as those between poor and wealthy people.

In actuality, the culture of poverty concept is constructed from a collection of smaller stereotypes which, however false, seem to have crept into mainstream thinking as unquestioned fact. Let's look at some examples.

MYTH: Poor people are unmotivated and have weak work ethics.

The Reality: Poor people do not have weaker work ethics or lower levels of motivation than wealthier people (Iversen & Farber, 1996; Wilson, 1997). Although poor people are often stereotyped as lazy, 83 percent of children from low-income families have at least one employed parent; close to 60 percent have at least one parent who works full-time and year-round (National Center for Children in Poverty, 2004). In fact, the severe shortage of living-wage jobs means that many poor adults must work two, three, or four jobs. According to the Economic Policy Institute (2002), poor working adults spend more hours working each week than their wealthier counterparts.

MYTH: Poor parents are uninvolved in their children's learning, largely because they do not value education.

The Reality: Low-income parents hold the same attitudes about education that wealthy parents do (Compton-Lilly, 2003; Lareau & Horvat, 1999; Leichter, 1978). Low-income parents are less likely to attend school functions or volunteer in their children's classrooms (National Center for Education Statistics, 2005)—not because they care less about education, but because they have less access to school involvement than their wealthier peers. They are more likely to work multiple jobs, to work evenings, to have jobs without paid leave, and to be unable to afford child care and public transportation. It might be said more accurately that schools that fail to take these considerations into account do not value the involvement of poor families as much as they value the involvement of other families.

MYTH: Poor people are linguistically deficient.

The Reality: All people, regardless of the languages and language varieties they speak, use a full continuum of language registers (Bomer, Dworin, May, & Semingson, 2008). What's more, linguists have known for decades that all language varieties are highly structured with complex grammatical rules (Gee, 2004; Hess, 1974; Miller, Cho, & Bracey, 2005). What often are assumed to be deficient varieties of English—Appalachian varieties, perhaps, or what some refer to as Black English Vernacular—are no less sophisticated than so-called "standard English."

MYTH: Poor people tend to abuse drugs and alcohol.

The Reality: Poor people are no more likely than their wealthier counterparts to abuse alcohol or drugs. Although drug sales are more visible in poor neighborhoods, drug use is equally distributed across poor, middle class, and wealthy communities (Saxe, Kadushin, Tighe, Rindskopf, & Beveridge, 2001). Chen, Sheth, Krejci, and Wallace (2003) found that alcohol consumption is significantly higher among upper middle class white high school students than among poor black high school students. Their finding supports a history of research showing that alcohol abuse is far more prevalent among wealthy people than among poor people (Diala, Muntaner, & Walrath, 2004; Galea, Ahern, Tracy, & Vlahov, 2007). In other words, considering alcohol and illicit drugs together, wealthy people are more likely than poor people to be substance abusers.

The Culture of Classism

The most destructive tool of the culture of classism is deficit theory. In education, we often talk about the deficit perspective—defining students by their weaknesses rather than their strengths. Deficit theory takes this attitude a step further, suggesting that poor people are poor because of their own moral and intellectual deficiencies (Collins, 1988). Deficit theorists use two strategies for propagating this world view: (1) drawing on well-established stereotypes, and (2) ignoring systemic conditions, such as inequitable access to high-quality schooling, that support the cycle of poverty.

The implications of deficit theory reach far beyond individual bias. If we convince ourselves that poverty results not from gross inequities (in which we might be complicit) but from poor people's own deficiencies, we are much less likely to support authentic antipoverty policy and programs. Further, if we believe, however wrongly, that poor people don't value education, then we dodge any responsibility to redress the gross education inequities with which they contend. This application of deficit theory establishes the idea of what Gans (1995) calls the undeserving poor—a segment of our society that simply does not deserve a fair shake.

If the goal of deficit theory is to justify a system that privileges economically advantaged students at the expense of working-class and poor students, then it appears to be working marvelously. In our determination to "fix" the mythical culture of poor students, we ignore the ways in which our society cheats them out of opportunities that their wealthier peers take for granted. We ignore the fact that poor people suffer disproportionately the effects of nearly every major social ill.

They lack access to health care, living-wage jobs, safe and affordable housing, clean air and water, and so on (Books, 2004)—conditions that limit their abilities to achieve to their full potential.

http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/apr08/vol65/num07/The-Myth-of-the-Culture-of-Poverty.aspx

[-] 5 points by Puzzlin (2898) 7 years ago

Screw you Stormcrow! You are blaming the poor for being poor. Wake the hell up. Next you'll tell us how the poor are really happier than the rich and their not really poor it's just a bad perception their having.

So we should never try to change anything since, in your words, things are the way they are, and that is that. Accept it, and never give god damn about it. It's just the way it is.

So, maybe we should just go back to the daze of slavery since that was the way it was. Why ever try change. You dumb a$$.

Who's thinking now. It's not you is it???

Think before you post you dumb a$$!!!

[-] 6 points by Puzzlin (2898) 7 years ago

Did you even read and understand Jaded Citizen's post?

[-] 0 points by Stormcrow (11) 7 years ago

Well then why is it that lots of folks working never do anything to improve not only their job skills, but their income. All they do is go to work every day being satisfied with their status at work and look for ways to screw the company their working for. .

They make enough money to pay their bills and have some left over for their entertainment, don't have much in their savings account and when they get laid off they start blaming others for their problems.

[-] 2 points by Puzzlin (2898) 7 years ago

Apparently NOT Steamed Crow!!!

So you blame hard working Americans for the bad economy.

What the hell is wrong with you. Keep going though, this is exactly why we have a movement to roll over idiots like you!!!

[-] 4 points by Puzzlin (2898) 7 years ago

Don't care what you say?

[-] -2 points by Stormcrow (11) 7 years ago

Let me explain this a little better so you can understand.

50% of the people in this country depend on the government for support. 20% require some kind of support from the government and 30% are independent - meaning they can pay their bills and when the economy sucks like it is now, they will survive.

Why is that?

[-] 4 points by Puzzlin (2898) 7 years ago

Your the genius, tell me. Please site some facts to back up your opinion.

Go for it!









[-] -2 points by Stormcrow (11) 7 years ago

Look around and you will see what I am talking about. Go talk to an individual who is complaining about not having anything and see if they have some kind of 5 year plan to get them out of the situation they are in.

That'll provide the facts right there. If a person has no goals or aspirations to change their situation they will never change their situation.

[-] 4 points by Puzzlin (2898) 7 years ago

You have no facts. You say talk to the guy on street. WTF

Are you for real?












[-] -2 points by Stormcrow (11) 7 years ago

All right you say I have no facts it's your turn prove me wrong about what I commented on. You provide facts to back up what I stated is wrong.

[-] 0 points by blackbloc (-19) 7 years ago

exactly the rich are rich because the poor keep allowing them to take advantage of them.. guess what the poor got the internet now and are waking up.....