Research Research suggests rich people tend to be more selfish (glitterati fashions)

[C C]

But these studies have far-ranging spillover. If even the wealthy elites of the entertainment industry, governing establishment, and some progressive companies are actually super-selfish... then they are opportunistically pretentious and have ulterior motives for their noble posturing about unbridled social justice. (I.e., this is actually "shooting yourself in the foot" territory with respect to the revered icons and "philosopher kings" of the left community.)

So it's best to remember that these are results of the soft or social sciences, which are abundant with invalid science practices, replication problems, predatory publishing, and pre-existing biases and motivated reasoning with respect to test set-up and data interpretation.

Just as business and industrial funded science preferentially caters to defending that domain's outputted products and related capitalism, science revolving around the social-utopia political interests of the humanities and awards dispensed by humanitarian agencies caters to the common conceits and platitudes of those applicable agendas and thought orientations. Everybody on both sides gets their own tailored "research results" to appeal to for justifying _X_.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Research suggests rich people tend to be more selfish -- but why is that?
https://theconversation.com/research-sug...hat-265794

INTRO: From Disney’s Scrooge McDuck and Cruella de Vil to DC Comics’ Lex Luthor to and Mr Burns in the Simpsons, there are plenty of examples of wealthy people using their money and power in evil ways. But is there any truth to the stereotype that rich people are mean?

There are many rich people who act benevolently, including philanthropists who give a lot of their money away. However, research in psychology has found a clear link between wealth and unethical behaviour, including an increased tendency to cheat and steal.

One study found that wealthy upper class people were more likely to have a selfish focus on their interests. Conversely, another study found that people from lower social classes were more likely to feel compassion for other people’s suffering.

Researchers have also established that drivers of expensive cars are less likely to behave altruistically than other drivers. They are less likely to slow down to let pedestrians cross or to let other drivers join the road.

They are also more likely to drive aggressively and disobey traffic rules. One study found that the likelihood of the drivers slowing down to let pedestrians cross the road decreased by 3% for every US$1,000 (£738.50) that their car was worth.

But it’s not just that these people are bad drivers. A study by Finnish psychologists found that owners of luxury cars had a higher prevalence of negative personality traits such as being disagreeable, stubborn and lacking in empathy.

In simple terms, it seems that rich people are less likely to be altruistic... (MORE - details)

[Magical Realist]

I'm suspicious of such sweeping moralistic devaluations of classes of people. I don't think the rich are any more selfish than anybody else. It just looks that way because they have alot more things to be selfish about. It's really the fault of the whole concept of material ownership itself, a flawed and inauthentic mode of being-in-the-world that mistakes one's own value with the prestige and amount of one's possessions. It's really an indication of tremendous insecurity and of never having pursued one's individual meaning in life distinct from one's parents. Hence Trump..And hence The Talking Heads: "This is not my beautiful house. This is not my beautiful wife. My God what have I done?"

[Syne]

It's more likely that this result is due to the consequences being relatively less for the rich. When you're poorer, you rely more on others, and that makes you more cooperative out of necessity. And the fines for violating traffic laws, etc. are also relatively more severe for the poor.

So it seems to be a simple risk/reward estimation that varies by wealth. If you only have $100, a $20 fine is huge, but if you have $10,000, a $20 fine is relatively nothing.
If so, this is just evidence that a punitive legal system is a deterrent. And for the most part, it works, because the poorer are statistically more likely to commit crimes. So it makes sense that the punishment is relatively more severe for those most likely to commit crimes... as they need a larger deterrent.

[stryder]

It's more likely that this result is due to the consequences being relatively less for the rich. When you're poorer, you rely more on others, and that makes you more cooperative out of necessity. And the fines for violating traffic laws, etc. are also relatively more severe for the poor.

So it seems to be a simple risk/reward estimation that varies by wealth. If you only have $100, a $20 fine is huge, but if you have $10,000, a $20 fine is relatively nothing.
If so, this is just evidence that a punitive legal system is a deterrent. And for the most part, it works, because the poorer are statistically more likely to commit crimes. So it makes sense that the punishment is relatively more severe for those most likely to commit crimes... as they need a larger deterrent.

The counterpoint to that however would imply that the rich are more likely to be sociopathic with no morals. After all if they are happy to pay off punitive fines because they seen them as "just a thing for poor people to worry about", it proves their detachment.

A poor person might steal food if they can't afford it, a rich person on the other hand might just take the whole trust fund because of their inherent risk taking (Gambling) The value of one loaf of bread versus thousands of peoples life savings... who again is more likely the crook?

[Syne]

No, it actually just shows that people, of any economic strata, only change their behavior due to punitive consequences. The higher the perceived consequence relative to reward, the better it regulates behavior. People at every economic strata behave the same. Thinking that they don't is conspiratorial classism.

You can't tell me that a poor person who needs food would turn down the opportunity to steal millions. They simply don't have the opportunity. Thinking otherwise falls into the myth of "virtuous poor."

[stryder]

No, it actually just shows that people, of any economic strata, only change their behavior due to punitive consequences. The higher the perceived consequence relative to reward, the better it regulates behavior. People at every economic strata behave the same. Thinking that they don't is conspiratorial classism.

You can't tell me that a poor person who needs food would turn down the opportunity to steal millions. They simply don't have the opportunity. Thinking otherwise falls into the myth of "virtuous poor."

I don't believe that.

Sometimes someone might swipe(half-hinch) something and repay(with interest) and a "thank you" note later. It could be down to feeling guilt or whats more likely is if circumstances were different, they wouldn't steal in the first place.

The only instance that is not true is when people assume they are entitled to things, such as what can be seen with the immigrant crisis. Where they travel across intent on making as much money as they can in any way without paying tax (not just due to their legal status)

[Syne]

Appealing to your incredulity with a "sometimes" is hardly compelling.

Determining the exact percentage of thieves that repay their victims is not possible due to a lack of data, but it is known to be extremely low. Most thefts, particularly small-scale ones, are not solved, and offenders often have a high rate of repeat offenses.
- Google AI

Sounds like you're selling run-of-the-mill classism.

[confused2]

Poor folks tend to steal from rich folks with the justification 'they won't even notice' (eg stealing food from supermarkets).
Rich folks tend to steal from poor folks (rich folks are too smart) in ways that aren't actually illegal.

[Syne]

More classism. 9_9

From the sample here, I'd say that's prevalent in the UK and those on some kind of dole (retirement, welfare, disability, etc.).