What binds people together (?)

[The Anti-Targ]

9 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Didn't know where to post this, so I'll shamelessly resurrect my own thread.

This study is starting to make made some noise a few years ago*:

I don't think the theory is new. It's well in line with studies arguing that CEOs are statistically more likely to have psychopathic tendencies among others...
I wouldn't take the studies themselves too seriously, but the core theory is really that our capitalist/materialistic society requires unethical behavior to succeed in it. In other words, you need to be greedy, selfish, or callous to make a lot of money.
A different way to put it (in order to link this with this thread's original topic) is that successful people do not feel as bound to their community or society than others.

I wouldn't have paid much attention to this angle of attack against capitalism/materialism. I suppose people versed in theology could point out that this could be a reflection of an ancient feud between Catholicism and Protestantism and their respective values (?), perhaps Judaism as well (?). Point is, accusing the wealthy of being "immoral" is as old as humanity.
However, with global warming the idea that our elites are very likely to act unethically may be worth highlighting.
Also, given the moral dimension involved in global warming (Kal pointed out it can become a religion, and funnily enough that's a common take among conservatives), there are objective markers for people behaving selfishly or unethically, like driving a brand new SUV...

 

*lol it's actually from 2012 and only popped up in my facebook feed... internet can be weird.

I thought it was sociopathy, which I think is worse, because it's easier to hide being a sociopath.

To succeed capitalism needs a ready supply of exploitable workers. I think being happy to exploit masses of people for your material benefit sounds more like more sociopathy than psychopathy. But I'm no psychologist.

[Rippounet]

8 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

I thought it was sociopathy, which I think is worse, because it's easier to hide being a sociopath.

Nope, it's psychopathy all right:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackmccullough/2019/12/09/the-psychopathic-ceo/#30c50a71791e

https://www.washingtonpost.com/gdpr-consent/?destination=%2fnews%2fon-small-business%2fwp%2f2016%2f09%2f16%2fgene-marks-21-percent-of-ceos-are-psychopaths-only-21-percent%2f%3f

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/08/the-science-behind-why-so-many-successful-millionaires-are-psychopaths-and-why-it-doesnt-have-to-be-a-bad-thing.html

... etc.

[Ormond]

Most psychologists really don't make much of the supposed distinction between psychopathy and sociopathy any more -- it's all just anti-social personality disorder now.

I don't think the causal factors on this are mostly in the direction of "unethical people become wealthy." Personally I'd expect that those born into inherited wealth have an even greater sense of "entitlement" and are more likely to act unethically, on the average, than those who have become wealthy on their own. 

[Larry of the Lawn]

There are also practical considerations on the consequences of unethical behavior being very different for people- if I get a ticket for texting while driving I am going to have to take a day off work to go into court, fight it, lose, pay $250.  My insurance will go up.  It could easily cost me over $1000 in the long run.  I would have to find extra work for the next month or two to make up for that.  For someone who is affluent they can just pay the fine and and take the hit to their insurance.  

If the consequences of unethical behavior aren't as bad for you, of course you're more likely to engage in that behavior.  

[The Anti-Targ]

Why would you go to court and not just pay the fine? The $250 fine still stings the average joe much more than a rich person, but you don't have to inflict cost and inconvenience upon yourself as well.

As to unethical and anti-social behaviour among those who inherit vs those who earn their wealth. My guess is no matter how you got there, if you are mega rich you've done some shady shit to get yourself there / stay there. Illegal? Maybe not. But legal doesn't define ethical.

[Rippounet]

4 hours ago, Ormond said:

I don't think the causal factors on this are mostly in the direction of "unethical people become wealthy." Personally I'd expect that those born into inherited wealth have an even greater sense of "entitlement" and are more likely to act unethically, on the average, than those who have become wealthy on their own. 

Why not both?

[Ormond]

Just now, Rippounet said:

Why not both?

I didn't say that both of these couldn't operate. I just meant to say that I think the "born rich" feeling "entitled" would be the bigger of the two factors. 

[DMC]

14 minutes ago, Ormond said:

I didn't say that both of these couldn't operate. I just meant to say that I think the "born rich" feeling "entitled" would be the bigger of the two factors. 

So to clarify, you're saying the direction of causality is more born rich --> entitled/unethical than it is entitled/unethical --> becomes wealthy?

[Ormond]

Just now, DMC said:

So to clarify, you're saying the direction of causality is more born rich --> entitled/unethical than it is entitled/unethical --> becomes wealthy?

Yes, though at the moment that is just a theory based on personal experience and observation. I know of no empirical data on the issue. 

[DMC]

I'd agree, as a prior.  It meshes better with socialization being integral.

[A True Kaniggit]

1 hour ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Why would you go to court and not just pay the fine? The $250 fine still stings the average joe much more than a rich person, but you don't have to inflict cost and inconvenience upon yourself as well.

If the cop was wrong. 

I still get irritated about a $70 fine I had to pay about 9 years ago for not wearing my seatbelt, when I was actually wearing my seatbelt.

[Larry of the Lawn]

1 hour ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Why would you go to court and not just pay the fine? The $250 fine still stings the average joe much more than a rich person, but you don't have to inflict cost and inconvenience upon yourself as well.

.

Well if it was texting I might just pay it, because they're so strict on it, but it'd be worth taking a shot at getting it dropped to a generic non-moving violation that wouldn't show up in my insurance.  I was ticketed for a bald tire but got it dropped to a parking violation by contesting it.  Cost me $200, nothing showed up on my insurance.

  My gf on the other hand got a texting ticket for $250 and her insurance went up over $600 for the year.  I'd take a day off work to try to talk my way out of that.  

[The Anti-Targ]

Fair if there's something you can do that will stop your insurance from going up. I dunno if it works the same here, but I think that if an infringement isn't sufficient to go on a criminal record then it stays private and no insurance companies can get that sort of information.