FR version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.
Advertisement
Advertisement
⚡ Community Insights
Discussion Sentiment
62% Positive
Analyzed from 1822 words in the discussion.
Trending Topics
#more#social#behavior#wealth#drive#car#don#class#study#ethical
Discussion (49 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews
> In contrast, other research in economics and sociology has hypothesized and found a positive relationship between SES and prosocial and ethical behavior. We review the empirical evidence for these contradictory findings and conduct two direct, well-powered, and preregistered replications of the field studies by Piff and colleagues (2012) to test the relationship between SES and unethical/selfish behavior. Unlike the original findings, we find no evidence of a positive relationship between SES and unethical/selfish behavior in the two field replication studies.
¹) https://pubpeer.com/publications/7363E2E1B57AC42EF166E0D0266... ²) https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2023-34988-001?doi=1
The wealthiest Europeans I know drive the cheapest vehicles. Modesty is wealth in many parts of the world, but perhaps not in California (the authors are affiliated with UC Berkeley).
That may well be true of the people you know, but in general the relationship is exactly what one would expect: the higher people's income, the more expensive their car purchases.
https://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/economic-bulletin/articles/2...
Full paper: https://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/economic-bulletin/articles/2...
They can. It just gets reported to FinCEN, which might attract unwanted attention. The same applies to buying a $200k lambo with cash, which has to be reported to the IRS[1], on top of being registered with the state DMV.
[1] https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employe...
Because of this there was always some risk of the government locking up bank accounts, so physical assets were purchased and spread around to avoid seizure of all finances which can prevent a person from fighting a legal battle.
Yeah, that's a fun meme, I'm sure it still gets a lot of likes on Instagram.
The data shows otherwise, however.
Clarkson had a line about estate owners driving "ancestral transport", invariably a land rover as old as the trees it lives amongst.
Ultimate statement about european land owners driving ancient vehicles: https://youtu.be/R8-9oIq1hxw?si=Ogg7C5MjFRoDdC9R
Not saying I agree with GP, but your point doesn't hold up.
But driving a bently is "some work", so I would rather prefer the small e-vehicle :-))
No, but sometimes they can finance a very (comparatively) expensive car for way too many years at an insane percentage just to appear wealthier than they are. And that stomps on the study just as much as millionaires driving a Camry IMO.
> In the actual candy study, the participants were all students, status was manipulated in the lab by telling some students they were better than others, and "nearly twice" means 1 piece vs 2 pieces.
> oh and the researchers told participants they could take some candy. There was no stealing!
Working class: sometimes moral, often indifferent to formal ethics that they feel were set in place without their consent.
The social language of appearing to avoid conflicts of interest and self-dealing is one in which upper-middle and upper class people are fluent. In terms of morality (avoiding harm, rather than avoiding violations of semiformal social principles) there is a negative correlation to SES, but it’s very slight because it turns out there are also scoundrels at the bottom.
But here's what I think happens: people with more power can more easily hide their transgressions. So in practice its easier to enforce rules against people with less power.
Second, a known and agreed upon good is really useful when seeking to manipulate people and generate "thought terminating cliches". Certain organizations / groups have gotten really good at taking known good things, and weave in their agenda and propaganda, linking something obvious with something that seems to make sense but actually doesn't.
History is rittled with how a call to ethical behaviour has been abused by the rich and powerful to keep the lower classes down. In Europe the Church used this to extol the virtues of poverty to the poor while selling pardons to the rich.
In China, the richness of Confucian philosophy was distilled down to obey orders from above / filial piety above all else, etc etc.
The fact that bad actors have taken something good and done bad things with them does not take away the value that can be found, it just needs to be on our own terms, and not someone else's.
It isn't quite a conspiracy as much as it's a lower-level animalistic behavior. You see this sort of behavior occur in monkeys in tribes where alpha chimps will create conflict, drive war, and cut off competitors from resources to secure their edge and position.
I think the reasons are obvious and unrelated to the point of the study. Desperation, culture (broken window theory) which is critically related to average wealth, lack of opportunity, and legal veracity explains the statistics sufficiently.
Also, it seems that higher status/income people benefit a lot more from acting unethically than lower income people would, the more money at the table, the more beneficial it is to act unethically. I’m not saying it to excuse anyone’s behavior, just speculating out loud.
"Rules for thee but not for me."
"There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect."
Senators build their wealth by millions while "working" for the public, and nobody bats an eye. We all know how it works.
It's why some celebrities are so loved when they don't fit the mold. People give up their seat on the subway every day, but when Keanu Reeves does it, he is venerated. Most people don't have any care for the people who run charities, but Dolly Parton is practically sainted for hers. All high-status people need to do is not be wicked and we are awed by it.
Do you know the source of that quote and the context? It was Frank Wilhoit explaining the core of the problem with conservatism. He wrote it when proposing anti-conservatism. To quote it as a general rule of life presumes that conservatism is the only way humans can organize a society.
What kind of non-sense are you spewing out of your big mouth through your unfiltered small brain?
> All high-status people need to do is not be wicked and we are awed by it
It's not easy to do so even if you are not of high status.
Your comment is a dead-away example that you are whining like a kid.
Me? I am unethical AF i don't give a s*t even more than you do so pointing it out to you because nobody more sane will give it to you straight in your face.