Poor People More Economically Compassionate Than the Rich

[Alphawolf55]

One thing that surprises me why does everyone assume "rich=works in business" there are tons of rich dudes who work in other sectors namely medicine.

[Kanastrous]

People who become truly spectacularly wealthy via medicine usually don't achieve that via their pay earned as practicing physicians - the really huge money is still in the business end (pharmaceuticals, surgical equipment and medical devices, etc) - of course some physicians have income streams from both but the business revenue from a successful drug, procedure or chunk of medical hardware is generally going to outweigh salary and fees.

[Medic]

One interpretation of all this might be that selfish people find it easier to become rich.

Another is that becoming rich makes one a selfish douchebag. The existence defines the character. Becoming one of the rich requires to be a douchebag, because rising to richness in capitalism is built on douchebaggery - destroying competition (in the extreme case, physically), "cutting down the waste" at the expense of humans and other things that work to destroy the last shreds of empathy inside a human. Complete mistrust is also a must, because you're dealing with large capitals and that is dangerous stuff, you know. Chronic mistrust in the rich is a subject of many sociological studies.

But this is probably too fearful a thought - it's not the rich who are at fault but the way they become rich. The "path to riches" itself.

It makes the rich empathyless, callous, chronically distrusting, always suspicious of the people around them.

I see this precisely backwards.

I'll echo Broomstick, sociopathic traits are essentially advantageous, but that means that they merely rise to the top. The great enabler beyond absolutely not giving a shit about others and to a certain extent, consequences, is intelligence. I don't think necessarily the system, alone, makes them so, although it's possible. 1 in 25 Americans, or 4 percent I've read recently are supposedly sociopaths, which is pretty alarming in any context.

This rate, by the way though, is either dozens or hundreds of times greater than in many East Asian society's, by way of contrast. (I'll dig for this tomorrow evening) The author posited, speculatively, that only cultural values can explain the difference. In essence, Eastern cultural values stress among other things social harmony and that this substituted for conscience in a sociopath. For while truly no sociopath can feel empathy, sympathy or love, nevertheless, the conditions of their social environment are absolutely vital to learn and adapt to. America's current cultural ethos... certainly doesn't stress that, especially as it related to money which can be summed up as "get rich quick." More disparaging things than that can and have been said.

I'm inclined to agree since a purely genetic explanation strains credulity, considering America's multicultural roots. Oh sure, it's predominately white but even in European countries there's surely a rich genetic diversity; and all of that before you throw in African and now especially Latino immigrants and descendants.
(the book is The Sociopath Next Door; I've mentioned it before - it's a must read if you need a primer on the subject)

[Kanastrous]

Frankly the tone of the post suggests a degree of cognitive dissonance: the extreme caricature of anyone whom the author considers 'rich' smells like sour grapes. Well, being rich is *bad* and means that you are a *bad person;* I would never lower myself to such a thing.

Is 'Sociopath Next Door' suitable for a layperson or does it assume a degree of education in behaviorism or psychology?

[Medic]

Frankly the tone of the post suggests a degree of cognitive dissonance: the extreme caricature of anyone whom the author considers 'rich' smells like sour grapes. Well, being rich is *bad* and means that you are a *bad person;* I would never lower myself to such a thing.

Is 'Sociopath Next Door' suitable for a layperson or does it assume a degree of education in behaviorism or psychology?

I am a layperson, which is why I said it's good for a primer. So yes, it is for a layman.

I haven't forgotten about that reference or this thread, I worked all night last night and couldn't post: Japan and China were noted as societies with a very low prevalence of sociopaths but Taiwan it notes specifically the range is .03 to .14 percent. So I overstated my point by a quite a bit, but .03 percent is a little over 12 times less than 4 percent. (it's a completely random detail to remember out of an entire book; that I remembered the reference at all was because it struck me as significant)