New Study from Berkeley: Rich people lie, cheat and steal 4x more than poor people.

Forums › Off topic › New Study from Berkeley: Rich people lie, cheat and steal 4x more than poor people.

Brendan

716 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 67

Trusted

#127014 26-Jul-2013 18:00

Very interesting, everyone should watch this.

A university study demonstrates that wealthy people are 4 times more likely to steal, cheat and lie than poor people. Note, this is not some cooked study from some dinky pretend university - it is from one of the most prestigious and famous universities in the world. They have already received hate mail, but the science is good and peer reviewed. John Key and the entire National Party is full of rich people, and they are already showing high levels of dishonesty.

Indeed, I think it could apply to all politicians... But certainly, the richer you are, the more entitled you feel to break the law, cheat, steal, lie. Even when there is little or no material gain, you still feel entitled to. You also will feel you have worked hard and deserve this wealth, and neglect the small advantages you had over other people starting out.

http://youtu.be/IuqGrz-Y_Lc

1 | 2 | 3

6434 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1528

#866752 26-Jul-2013 18:10

Do you have a link to the actual study rather than a YouTube video?

pctek

807 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 157
Inactive user

#866765 26-Jul-2013 18:29

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/02/21/1118373109

Here?

mattwnz

20515 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4795

#866767 26-Jul-2013 18:33

Just because someone is driving a flash car, doesn't mean they are rich. They could just be leasing it, or it could be a company car. It is assuming too much. Many who maybe driving flash cars, it maybe more about impressing other people, which may tell you more about the type of person, than their wealth.

jeffnz

2870 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 666

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#866768 26-Jul-2013 18:38

Not sure how the whole National party is now condemned or are you just naturally against right wing parties

Galaxy S10

Garmin Fenix 5

Brendan

716 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 67

Trusted

#866771 26-Jul-2013 18:45

NonprayingMantis: Do you have a link to the actual study rather than a YouTube video?

Wish I did, but no sorry I don't.

Brendan

716 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 67

Trusted

#866774 26-Jul-2013 18:47

pctek: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/02/21/1118373109

Here?

It's by the same guy, so I guess so. Good find.

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

Brendan

716 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 67

Trusted

#866777 26-Jul-2013 18:51

mattwnz: Just because someone is driving a flash car, doesn't mean they are rich. They could just be leasing it, or it could be a company car. It is assuming too much. Many who maybe driving flash cars, it maybe more about impressing other people, which may tell you more about the type of person, than their wealth.

No, you need to watch it again more carefully this time.

This is a scientific study, peer reviewed and published. There was no 'assuming' involved. You 'assume' something in science and you get the boot.

Anyway, your question is answered in the video. Even fake wealth makes people misbehave.

jeffnz

2870 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 666

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#866778 26-Jul-2013 18:52

well I suppose its open to interpretation on how you see the study, this from Psychology Today

"First, a caveat is in order, one acknowledged by Piff and colleagues. Although all of the outcome measures entailed “bad” (AKA unethical) behavior, there are nonetheless degrees of bad behavior, and this research did not sample the full range. Failing to yield the right of way at an intersection or not acknowledging an incorrectly scored exam is not the same thing as physically assaulting someone or robbing someone at gunpoint. Had these sorts of behaviors been examined in this line of research, one suspects that the results might have been different.

Indeed, the sorts of behavior studied by Piff and colleagues for the most part entailed harm done diffusely or at a distance, literal or metaphorical. For example, Study 4 did not require participants to pry candy out of the hands of children. Harm spread over many or harm done at a distance is still unethical but probably easier for most of us to do and to justify, no matter our social class (Kish-Gephart, Harrison, & Treviño, 2010)."

I think using the study to label a whole political party is wrong.

Galaxy S10

Garmin Fenix 5

Chambers

22 posts

Geek
+1 received by user: 4

#866779 26-Jul-2013 18:54

Brendan:
NonprayingMantis: Do you have a link to the actual study rather than a YouTube video?

Wish I did, but no sorry I don't.

If its on youtube it must be true then

Brendan

716 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 67

Trusted

#866793 26-Jul-2013 19:28

jeffnz: Not sure how the whole National party is now condemned or are you just naturally against right wing parties

Interesting question! Genuinely surprised. I was expecting to be bashed by the usual horde.

For some time I have been unimpressed by all of them Jeff.

It reminds me of Nero fiddling while Rome burned.

While National, or Labour twitter on about each other, shifting blame and pretending they would do better - things get worse. The lack of foresight is astounding, and now we have a culture of victim blaming from the current lot. (no doubt to be protested by the opposition now, and quietly maintained if they get in next).

Useless. The lot. And I bloody well wish everyone would wake up to that.

There are certain truths about modern civilization that they cannot, will not face. Certain assumptions that are embedded so deeply into their ideologies they can no longer be identified as such.

1. The only thing exceeding the growth in population is the growth in automation.
2. Artificial Scarcity is collapsing, and with it will go many large industries.
3. The concentration of wealth IS the concentration of power; and it is simply impossible to maintain resulting in catastrophic failure.
4. People are increasingly unsatisfied with the status quo.
5. The monetary system could qualify as Game Theory: except the game is rigged.

National has no idea how to fix any of those. Labour is no better. I have little idea on what the Greens think on it. But it's fair to say National and Labour will turn to "business as usual" models, with the same, broken, results.

This government is not your friend Jeff. They could have been Right or Left, doesn't matter: both are capable of the creeping corruption we are seeing.

Brendan

716 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 67

Trusted

#866796 26-Jul-2013 19:37

jeffnz: well I suppose its open to interpretation on how you see the study, this from Psychology Today

"First, a caveat is in order, one acknowledged by Piff and colleagues. Although all of the outcome measures entailed “bad” (AKA unethical) behavior, there are nonetheless degrees of bad behavior, and this research did not sample the full range. Failing to yield the right of way at an intersection or not acknowledging an incorrectly scored exam is not the same thing as physically assaulting someone or robbing someone at gunpoint. Had these sorts of behaviors been examined in this line of research, one suspects that the results might have been different.

Indeed, the sorts of behavior studied by Piff and colleagues for the most part entailed harm done diffusely or at a distance, literal or metaphorical. For example, Study 4 did not require participants to pry candy out of the hands of children. Harm spread over many or harm done at a distance is still unethical but probably easier for most of us to do and to justify, no matter our social class (Kish-Gephart, Harrison, & Treviño, 2010)."

I think using the study to label a whole political party is wrong.

They were measuring honesty, not aggression.

Why do you find it necessary to defend National Jeff? Is this an emotional response to a perceived threat? Surely, if the study is wrong, science will deal with it more authoritatively than you or I could ever do. Why the leap to defense?

Does the study not talk about wealthy people?
Are there not wealthy people in National?
Why should we assume National is immune to the behaviors identified?

Or is it simply that I named National and not Labour? It applies to both. But I named only one. Did I do an experiment of my own?

Geekzone

Want to support Geekzone and browse the site without the ads? Subscribe to Geekzone now (monthly, annual and lifetime options).

jeffnz

2870 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 666

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#866797 26-Jul-2013 19:37

Brendan I don't doubt you are right in some of what you say but for this thread it is wrong of you to use this study as it could be sued against many politicians regardless of wealth.

I've never thought the government my friend and I have one vote and I use it where I see best, as most would do.

I don't feel either have any policies of substance but would rather support policies that make people responsible for their actions than fund poverty for votes.

Each to their own but I try not to go tribal and stereotype people by their political beliefs

Galaxy S10

Garmin Fenix 5

Brendan

716 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 67

Trusted

#866798 26-Jul-2013 19:39

Chambers:
Brendan:
NonprayingMantis: Do you have a link to the actual study rather than a YouTube video?

Wish I did, but no sorry I don't.

If its on youtube it must be true then

If you had looked at it, you'd see it's from a UNIVERSITY. A big one.

The people doing this study also had hate mail and witless attempts at refutation. I see the pattern is repeating here.

Do I step on someone's ideological toes? Someone's pet political assumptions got hurt?

jeffnz

2870 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 666

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#866809 26-Jul-2013 19:47

They were measuring honesty, not aggression.

Why do you find it necessary to defend National Jeff? Is this an emotional response to a perceived threat? Surely, if the study is wrong, science will deal with it more authoritatively than you or I could ever do. Why the leap to defense?

Does the study not talk about wealthy people?
Are there not wealthy people in National?
Why should we assume National is immune to the behaviors identified?

Or is it simply that I named National and not Labour? It applies to both. But I named only one. Did I do an experiment of my own?

.

If you are just trolling I could think of better ways than than what you have used. Hope you get the reaction you are after for whatever you are trying to prove.

I would have reacted to whomever you decided to use so don't go clapping your hands with joy at your first bite.

Galaxy S10

Garmin Fenix 5

Brendan

716 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 67

Trusted

#866810 26-Jul-2013 19:48

jeffnz: Brendan I don't doubt you are right in some of what you say but for this thread it is wrong of you to use this study as it could be sued against many politicians regardless of wealth.

Exactly my point Jeff. Exactly.

Sometimes you cannot just tell someone something, you have to let them see it for themselves. Wealth and power are the same things Jeff.

I've never thought the government my friend and I have one vote and I use it where I see best, as most would do.

I don't feel either have any policies of substance but would rather support policies that make people responsible for their actions than fund poverty for votes.

Such a strategy would be a poor one for gaining votes: they don't vote much.

"responsible for their actions". Are they currently irresponsible?

Each to their own but I try not to go tribal and stereotype people by their political beliefs

Glad to hear it. It's too common on GZ.

To criticize National is to be labeled a 'dirty lazy left wing nutcase' here. It smells like religion.

1 | 2 | 3