User Tag List

First 1234 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 52

  1. #11
    Alexander the Terrible yenom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,755

    Default

    yes, because smarter people are more machieveillian . and wealth is a result of intelligence.
    The fear of poverty turns people into slaves of money.

    "In this Caesar there are many Mariuses"~Sulla

    Conquer your inner demons first before you conquer the world.

  2. #12
    Lay the coin on my tongue SilkRoad's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    3,939

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CzeCze View Post
    I know, do we even need an article on this? Is this not "common knowledge".

    It's a short read.

    Article

    Before I even read it I already disagreed. ENTITLED people are the most likely to be unethical, commit crimes, and be jerks to other people who they feel are not equals (and most people are not equals). Being wealthy doesn't turn everyone into arrogant jerks, looks at Warren Buffet. Compare heirs and heiresses and how they act compared to how they were raised and how much, if any, family money they are given.

    And ENTITLED people are not necessarily the wealthiest or highest on the socio economic ladder, they just wish they were or think they are.

    I pretty much agree with this. It's the sense of entitlement. Not that this doesn't often come with wealth, but it's not always the case. I think it's a growing problem amongst all socioeconomic levels.

    It's somewhat similar to something else I have thought about - you can be either a rich or a poor person and still be materialistic (ie. unhealthily obsessed with material things, the acquisition of wealth etc.) You can also be either rich or poor and NOT materialistic and obsessed with acquiring more.
    Female
    INFJ
    Enneagram 6w5 sp/sx


    I DOORSLAMMING

  3. #13
    . Blank's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6
    Posts
    1,202

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Orangey View Post
    This isn't scientific, and really it has little to do with wealth in and of itself, but I've had a theory that success as we define it in most professional arenas creates (or at least encourages) sociopathic behavior.
    Definitely. It's built into the system and how we perceive success. Whoever has the most goods "wins."

    If we were all on a deserted island and began storing up food, who is the most successful person? The one who distributes his food amongst friends and loved ones or the one who hoards his food, sharing it with none?

    [That was rhetorical, but allow me to go on a philosophical thought tangent. You can ignore this if you wish.]
    On one hand, I would like to say the benevolent person is more successful. It seems like he's got more going for him. But what happens when Person A runs out of food? He turns to the horder, Person B, for help. B can then begin to extort A for other goods and services. If we allow this scenario to "get out of hand" and take it to its extreme, we could end up with A falling into extreme debt to B indefinitely, making A effectively become B's indentured servant. I.e. a slave.

    If we ignore the details of what happened and just had to compare two people: a master and a slave, it would be easy to jump to conclusions and say that the master is more successful than the slave, for we believe that being a slave is degrading. Now forgive me for using such extreme terms in this thought experiment. There does not need to be such a literal master-slave relationship, as many people are slaves to their jobs and possessions today. "Job-creators" (the wealthy) are to masters as workers are to slaves.

    So at some base level, when we see rich man, poor man, we think the rich man to be more successful even if he doesn't have any family or loved ones just by the virtue of him being wealthy. What's ironic about the scenario is that in order to become a rich man, you need to either hoard your resources, screw others out of theirs, or find an ingenious way to generate more resources. What's the easiest way to amass wealth out of these options? Screwing people over. So it's natural we see so many "successful" sociopaths. They're the most efficient at screwing everyone else.
    Ti = 19 [][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
    Te = 16[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
    Ne = 16[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
    Fi = 15 [][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
    Si = 12 [][][][][][][][][][][][]
    Ni = 12 [][][][][][][][][][][][]
    Se = 11[][][][][][][][][][][]
    Fe = 0

    -----------------
    Tiger got to hunt, bird got to fly;
    Man got to sit and wonder why, why, why;
    Tiger got to sleep, bird got to land;
    Man got to tell himself he understand

  4. #14
    Ginkgo
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Orangey View Post
    This isn't scientific, and really it has little to do with wealth in and of itself, but I've had a theory that success as we define it in most professional arenas creates (or at least encourages) sociopathic behavior.
    I must admit that if you say "we", you include yourself, and make yourself suspect to your own criticism. I'm sure you already know this. If this "we" is truly, a we, then how do you define success? Or, rather, how would you define the success as defined by the group of people you refer to?

    Ps- I may as well join in on @Blank's inquiry.

  5. #15
    Per Ardua Metamorphosis's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    3,466

    Default

    I think it is more about power than money and money just happens to be the reason they have power. I should say perceived power, because I would think that the individuals' perception of themselves is the biggest factor. It's simple human hierarchy. You see the same sense of entitlement among certain people in poorer groups, it's just expressed differently.
    "You will always be fond of me. I represent to you all the sins you never had the courage to commit."

    Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office
    than to serve and obey them. - David Hume

  6. #16
    Blah Orangey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    6,364

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ginkgo View Post
    I must admit that if you say "we", you include yourself, and make yourself suspect to your own criticism.
    If you include the hidden (well, assumed to be assumed) words it would read "we as a culture," or "we in capitalist societies," or "we in the time of global capitalism." Am I complicit? Yes, to the extent that it is almost impossible to extricate myself from the reproduction of dominant ideologies. Is that here nor there? Not particularly.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ginkgo View Post
    I'm sure you already know this. If this "we" is truly, a we, then how do you define success? Or, rather, how would you define the success as defined by the group of people you refer to?
    Success as "we" define it is the acquisition of power (via wealth and status), and to acquire this kind of power requires that we take it away from someone else. Like @Blank said. Thus, in order to be successful, we need to harden ourselves to the idea of taking something from someone else in order to enrich ourselves. So we come up with a bunch of shit to rationalize it, and that shit makes its way through the various ideological channels and into public consciousness at such an alarming rate (and in such alarming volumes) that we end up covered and inundated with it, to the point that we can't tell what's shit and what's not. Then people start forgetting that the shit is not normal and shouldn't be there, and eventually they start believing that the shit is actually something to be admired. So now everyone is running around trying to become shitheads because they think that this shit is awesome, and they gleefully start spreading the shit around to other people. Thus we have a culture in which sociopathic behavior is normalized in the context of professional achievement.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ginkgo View Post
    Ps- I may as well join in on @Blank's inquiry.
    You mean his question about who is more successful in that hypothetical scenario? I thought he was just playing around with the question himself, because (at least in the context in which I was speaking) it is irrelevant to ponder what "real" success is, or what success to me personally means.
    Artes, Scientia, Veritasiness

  7. #17
    Member dadapolka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 so/sx
    Posts
    31

    Default

    Slightly insulting to those philanthropists who donate vast amounts of wealth to charity.

    The problem is definitely in the encouragement of entitlement and privilege, which is a bit rampant in the UK. It is a form of social conditioning I suppose.
    It has probably developed out of the fact that the wealthy can live and survive outside of society and can afford a certain level of happiness without being particularly involved with other people. The poor or 'middle classes' cannot help but be dependent on others at some point in their lives and so need a greater sense of community. Corruption probably comes out of laziness - it's the easy option, like it's the easier option to download music illegally (bit of a weird analogy but it was the first one that came to mind!)

    @Orangey 'This isn't scientific, and really it has little to do with wealth in and of itself, but I've had a theory that success as we define it in most professional arenas creates (or at least encourages) sociopathic behavior.' - Very likely http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20...ace-jobs-study

    @SmileyMan : There's nothing innately narrow-minded about the 'working-classes' (if that's what you're implying xD) Just as 'middle class' and 'upper class' people are not innately unethical. Of course they're going to be jealous. They have fewer opportunities and the importance of owning property is so intrinsic to our culture at the moment.

    Slightly diverging here sorry, but watching this http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode...ure_Episode_1/ I realised lot of those beautiful stately homes that the 'upper classes' lived in were built by the working classes. If anything it's a reflection of working class culture, not of upper class culture.

  8. #18
    Emperor/Dictator kyuuei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    enfp
    Enneagram
    8
    Posts
    13,877

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yenom View Post
    yes, because smarter people are more machieveillian . and wealth is a result of intelligence.
    I'd argue that you don't really need to be intelligent to become successful.. Maybe someone needs to be somewhere along the way, but a kid following in daddy's footsteps and inheriting everything didn't really have the smarts to start up the business, just enough intelligence to maintain what daddy did.

    Quote Originally Posted by Metamorphosis View Post
    I think it is more about power than money and money just happens to be the reason they have power. I should say perceived power, because I would think that the individuals' perception of themselves is the biggest factor. It's simple human hierarchy. You see the same sense of entitlement among certain people in poorer groups, it's just expressed differently.
    This.

    I witness it all the time.. I think this is what Cze cze was aiming at when she said entitled people, if I may be so bold as to assume? I know people I'd consider poor who feel they are successful and entitled, as if they'd already paid their dues twice over at their young age.

    Quote Originally Posted by dadapolka View Post
    Slightly insulting to those philanthropists who donate vast amounts of wealth to charity.
    Just to point out... someone isn't necessarily good if the donate to charity, even vast amounts of their wealth. I'd like to see how many wealthy people would still donate to charities if there were no tax breaks available for those good deeds.. I'm not saying the act isn't appreciated, only that there are other motivators in that particular aspect as well. I don't think Christopher Reed was a hero for donating a lot of money towards curing paralysis... Because he had paralysis. He really didn't give a shit about it until he was affected by it.
    I don't see too many wealthy people that still donate their *time* to charities and volunteer work... which, to me, would be a more valued currency to the wealthy person. At least, I don't see it in comparison to working class and poorer people.
    Kantgirl: Just say "I'm feminine and I'll punch anyone who says otherwise!"
    Halla74: Think your way through the world. Feel your way through life.

    Cimarron: maybe Prpl will be your girl-bud
    prplchknz: i don't like it

    In Search Of... ... Kiwi Sketch Art ... Dream Journal ... Kyuuei's Cook book ... Kyu's Tiny House Blog ... Minimalist Challenge ... Kyu's Savings Challenge

  9. #19
    darkened dreams labyrinthine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    isfp
    Enneagram
    4w5 sp/sx
    Posts
    8,584

    Default

    Entitlement is connected to unethical behavior especially when the assumption is that oneself is more entitled than another person. That is the foundation of cruelty, theft, or any violation of another human being. If you possess more than others and are socially positioned to assume superiority, that will increase a sense of entitlement.

    In the upper classes you get a complex mix of ideas and behavior because often the ideals are positioned higher, but the means of achieving success are in direct conflict with those ideals. My impression is that there is a lot of cognitive dissonance in the upper classes. This conflict of ideals and reality requires that insults be masked as back-handed compliments because it is considered "beneath" someone with class to be insulting. Greed is masked in charitable benefit dinners because there is social status in being a humanitarian. The lower classes display their faults explicitly with direct insults and overt theft. Upper classes are expert at masking rage and cruelty with pleasantries and polish.

    It is necessary to assume superiority when you have access to more resources than others because there needs to be some justification for it. "I work harder." "I am more intelligent." "God has blessed my family for being more virtuous". How many people can say to themselves, "I have more money than other people because I think I deserve better things than other people, I am greedy, I make social power-plays that undermine others, and I refuse to give anything substantial away.
    Step into my metaphysical room of mirrors.
    Fear of reality creates myopic morality
    So I guess it means there is trouble until the robins come
    (from Blue Velvet)

    I want to be just like my mother, even if she is bat-shit crazy.

  10. #20
    Member dadapolka's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 so/sx
    Posts
    31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kyuuei View Post
    I'd argue that you don't really need to be intelligent to become successful.. Maybe someone needs to be somewhere along the way, but a kid following in daddy's footsteps and inheriting everything didn't really have the smarts to start up the business, just enough intelligence to maintain what daddy did.



    This.

    I witness it all the time.. I think this is what Cze cze was aiming at when she said entitled people, if I may be so bold as to assume? I know people I'd consider poor who feel they are successful and entitled, as if they'd already paid their dues twice over at their young age.



    Just to point out... someone isn't necessarily good if the donate to charity, even vast amounts of their wealth. I'd like to see how many wealthy people would still donate to charities if there were no tax breaks available for those good deeds.. I'm not saying the act isn't appreciated, only that there are other motivators in that particular aspect as well. I don't think Christopher Reed was a hero for donating a lot of money towards curing paralysis... Because he had paralysis. He really didn't give a shit about it until he was affected by it.
    I don't see too many wealthy people that still donate their *time* to charities and volunteer work... which, to me, would be a more valued currency to the wealthy person. At least, I don't see it in comparison to working class and poorer people.
    I agree that the wealthy should donate their time - it would give them some insight into how people with far less live, for sure. Donating money does have a certain detachment.

    However giving money may still be ethical without being good, as in the ends justify the means to a degree - though it depends on what these two words mean to you and how much importance you place on the means.

    I suppose no act is completely selfless - people whether they are rich or poor favour certain charities because of things that have either happened to them or loved ones *opens huge can of worms* There are always motivators.

Similar Threads

  1. Are good people more likely to be depressed ?
    By Virtual ghost in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 08-03-2016, 08:09 AM
  2. Are blind people more likely to be Sensors?
    By avaxtskyr in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 04-25-2015, 06:10 AM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-01-2013, 10:40 PM
  4. If you're sexay, are you more likely to be an extrovert?
    By teslashock in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 110
    Last Post: 12-29-2009, 06:24 PM
  5. Are you more likely to be politically left or right if you scare easily?
    By ajblaise in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 70
    Last Post: 11-23-2009, 05:02 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO