UC Berkeley Study: Money turns people into jerks

reply to post by VegHead


It's worth pointing out, in this context, that Mississippi has the lowest personal income per capita in the US, but is second in the nation for charitable giving.

I think that it's New Hampshire, which is no. 8 in income, has the lowest rate of per capita charitable giving.

And I agree with other posters about the crime statistics. I know wealthy people. They do commit crimes, but they are often either crimes that are overlook, or they just know how to get out of them.

Look at the statistics for race and income for coc aine usage as opposed to the same statistics for coc aine related incarceration.

incoserv
reply to post by VegHead

 

It's worth pointing out, in this context, that Mississippi has the lowest personal income per capita in the US, but is second in the nation for charitable giving.

I think that it's New Hampshire, which is no. 8 in income, has the lowest rate of per capita charitable giving.

And I agree with other posters about the crime statistics. I know wealthy people. They do commit crimes, but they are often either crimes that are overlook, or they just know how to get out of them.

Look at the statistics for race and income for coc aine usage as opposed to the same statistics for coc aine related incarceration.

I like that statistic on charitable giving. Of course, correlation is not causation (as we all know) and one could just as well argue that the giving is so high in Mississippi due to a higher concentration of bible-believing Christians.

I feel I should point out that I don't think poor people commit more crimes or are less generous than rich people. I'm just defending the possibility that the OPPOSITE is not necessarily true either.

Do you happen to have the links for those studies (the charity ones). I don't want to derail this thread, but I am interested to see it. You say the stats are per capita -- so just to verify, you mean per person (I assume, as that is what it usually means) and not some variable based on income (like percent of income given), correct?

Thanks for your response!

reply to post by VegHead


on driving....I own a Nissan 350z convertible sports car, it's fast, sits low, and it was my retirement present to myself....and I've noticed more people in other cars always trying to beat me out at stoplights, they accelerate and pass me on freeways and then pull in front of me and slow down. there are us out there that don't want to race, drive safely, and try and enjoy driving. I'm not wealthy at all, my wife and I have always been frugal, lived modestly and saved money, and now we are enjoying all those years when we didn't try and keep up with the joneses.

Nuff said. Start video @ 0:22

John_Rodger_Cornman
"Drivers of expensive cars were three to four times more likely to break the law, and not stop in a pedestrian intersection.
Given the opportunity, wealthier participants took twice as much candy from children as poorer participants.
The wealthy cheated four times as often at dice games when money was on the line--a $50 voucher.

At the end of the game, the wealthier subjects inevitably win. But strangely, when asked, even knowing that they were given every advantage in the game by nothing more than chance, they reported that they deserved to win. Even in the microcosm of Monopoly, wealth bred entitlement."

www.fastcodesign.com...

edit on 10-12-2013 by John_Rodger_Cornman because: (no reason given)

www.livescience.com -
Mere Thought of Money Makes People Selfish...

www.globalpost.com - Rich people more unethical, likely to cheat and steal, study finds...

(What's up with the huge font for links?)

So money gives us a mental illness? Money is like a drug?

reply to post by jonnywhite


From your first link:

The scientists split 50 undergraduate students into two groups. One was primed with the concept of money; other served as a control and was not primed. A few methods were used to get the participants thinking about money: In some experiments, a stack of play Monopoly money was within a subject's peripheral view, or a subject would unscramble word phrases dealing with money, while in others a participant would sit in front of a computer screensaver showing pictures of floating money.

The subjects were unaware the money was even a part of the experiments as they filled out unrelated questionnaires.

Then scientists gave the subjects a challenging problem to solve with the experimenter letting them know he was available for help if needed. Sure enough, the money subjects persisted much longer before asking for help.

In one test, a participant sat in a lab filling out a questionnaire when a supposed student walked into the room and said, "Can you come over here and help me?" She explained that she was an undergraduate student and needed help coding data sheets, each of which would take five minutes. Some of the participants didn't help at all, Vohs said. The control group volunteered an average of 42.5 minutes of their time, whereas the money group gave about 25 minutes.

Another experiment gave participants the opportunity to lend a helping hand in a situation requiring no skills. In a staged accident, a random person walked through a room where a participant sat filling out a questionnaire, and spilled a bunch of pencils. The money participants picked up far fewer pencils than the controls.

and

A take-home message, Vohs explained, is that "cooperation really goes down the drain when money is an issue."

OK, that is admittedly a small experiment (n=50) with a very non-random group (undergrad students), but very interesting nonetheless.


Er....


OK, guys, can I sheepishly admit that my mindset on this entire issue is shifting? I thought money was more of a scapegoat, but now... Thanks, everyone - this has been very enlightening.

One more thing: The rich wouldn't be rich if the rest of us didn't work and enable their lavish lifestyles. No matter how much people complain about the rich and their behavior, they enable them by participating in the economy and also by making dumb consumer choices. And like another person posted, if poor people are more likely to commit crimes then how is that any different? So lack of money can make people into jerks and too much money can make them into jerks, so...? It doesn't matter what your excuse is for committing a crime. Poor people might have a better excuse, but I believe everybody has a bit of a scoundrel inside them. Poor persons can choose to go to shelters and do volunteer work and practice safe sex. If they have several children and can't afford them then they need to examine their choices. Perhaps society should intervene more often or improve foster care for children of parents who can't take care of them. A hands off approach can have bad consequences.

We DO generally buy whatever is cheapest, don't we? The reality is few of us care about how it's done because it's too tricky. We don't spend enough time figuring out the details and that's usually where the devil is. And this is AFTER the kingpins have hidden their trail and made things confusing. So it's doubly more difficult to find the devil even if we care enough to do something about it.

I think there's a strong possibility money doesn't expose an individual flaw, instead it exposes something deep inside everyone that's hard to see otherwise. Assuming this is true, it also hints it's instinct or genetic. If so, perhaps we shouldn't be monkeying with it? Evolution operates on a different scale than us. We're more short-term. Our studies or research are restricted by our short-term nature.

Here's something relevant:
discovermagazine.com - The End of Morality...

Would you kill a crying baby to save yourself and others from hostile soldiers outside? Neuroscience offers new ways to approach such moral questions, allowing logic to triumph over deep-rooted instinct.

What the article is about is the possibility most or all of our morality is restricted by instinct or gut reactions which are tied to the primitive brain. The problem is our primitive brain cannot meet the demands of the modern world, so it might have to be disregarded somehow through conscious effort and use of the new brain.

Which of course is what makes me nervous; we're tinkering with evolution.

Doncha know?
MONEY CHANGES EVERYTHING>>>>>ITS A FACT>

reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman


It is my opinion the rich are jerks because they are afraid. They equate a gain for you = a loss for me. So everyone is a threat to them, be it toys or money.

this bears repeating ....

Even in the microcosm of Monopoly, wealth bred entitlement.

so few people who toss the word "entitlement" around as a purjorative against nasty socialists realize that capitalists have their own version of it which is far more nasty.

rich folks don't want to share the road.... a resource which inherently must be shared.

rich folks don't want to share money.... but they are more than happy to destroy its value for everyone else.


and, YES, ATS political conservatives, I am talking to you.

probably more so the debt and fear based society the wealthy have in place that is allowing people to become this way. when everyone's not treated equally, we all loose and of course that includes money.

Cabin
reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman

 

It can be turned to advantage in certain fields, true. Although the advantage would still be lower than the advantages for opponents.

The simple fact lies in majority of people not caring enough and going simply for the lowest price. When you do the honest business, paying all the talented, difference making employees fairwhat the negotiated wage is and well, creating a quality productby who's standards?, while following all environmental standardsthis is true.EPA regulation drives up prices and even more, your prices will be higher than the opponents.not true There will be people who are willing to buy these because of the business ethics, but there are not that many.not true. Market it better to them. Its a sales gimmick. Making millions like that is near to impossible.false. Earning a good income (in US standards roughly 100k a year)that is subjective. is reasonable in long-term. Also it has to be considered that people are affected by the standards signs. You can make all your products like that, the rival company can do a few products in the same category as yours, while at the same time doing the unethical parts also and possibly they could do it cheaper due to the size of the company.like intel,Sony and microsoft. I disagree.

Even in internet and app market you have to make a choice, put a price on your productsomewhat negligible at this point or put it full of advertisements.or both and make twice as much... If you choose the no-advertising version, the opponents with similar products just do a advertisement version and costly version without advertisements at the same time.Yet they have high overhead and you don't.No corporate taxes,no affordable care(marxist care) insurance,no management, no labor,limited federal workplace regulation,no bookkeeping or quarterly reports to shareholders, no property leases,no publisher licenses(VERY expensive) etc etc

Running a nice small business (with a smaller amount of employees < 50) it is possible to run the ethical business, although growing larger is near to impossible as in the top companies do not run in the same way.False You will not be able to compete with them prisewise Doesn't matter. and your ethical business is simply a sales argument.Somewhat true...but meh Gaining a significant market share with that argument is near to impossibleFalse.

edit on 10-12-2013 by Cabin because: (no reason given)

Define ethical.

Naw, it's more complicated than that. Perhaps some jerks are quite comfortable in using their special skills to get rich. That's not unusual.

Personally? A good friend of mine won a million in the lottery. He was a good guy beforehand...he remained a good guy. Major difference was that you could no longer pick up a cheque in his presence.

I think, like most statistical analysis, it's all in how you choose to interpret the data.

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck


I don't think money turns people into jerks per say. Its deeper than that.

Subconsciously we when in times of abundance and decreased risk we become more aggressive. When in times of scarcity people become more submissive.

Ah all the fiscal conservatives coming out in droves to defend their terrible monetary system.

sunrise sunset

reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman


Guns don't kill people.....


Jerks are Jerks, with money or without money.

It doesn't take money to make jerks.