Can money make you mean?

[AthenaAwakened]

 

[none]

thanks for sharing

 

[Kharakov]

A talk about money making you mean, in the allegedly liberal, richest county (per capita) in California.

 

[Tigers!]

Money won't make me mean. My attitude to, or about, money might make me mean.

 

[EricK]

I wouldn't think getting money would change your basic personality. What it can do, however, is give you the freedom to express your basic personality.

If people in poorer communities are more generous to each other than those in richer communities, it is because they can less afford not to be. Rich people can purchase whatever they need with money. Poor people, some of the time, will have to rely on payments of other sorts e.g. doing favours for each other etc. That's not to say that rich people won't involve themselves in a favour-based economy; it's just that if they don't want to interact with their neighbours, they can afford not to. A further point is that when you have very little money, or you only get money sporadically, being generous with that money towards those who might be able to help you later can be the best investment you can make with that money. This is less of a necessity for rich people as they expect (whether rightly or wrongly!) not to be in need of favours at a later date. Thus generous people will be generous whether they are rich or poor (and I have personally known people who have gone from very poor to reasonably well-off and maintained their enormously generous nature); whereas mean people will be more likely to express their meanness when they are less reliant on other people i.. when they are rich.

With regards to the video, I found the reported reactions to the rigged Monopoly game very unusual. I can't imagine playing an obviously rigged game, as either player, without thinking "this is just pointless", and I can't imagine myself not giving that as the reason for my winning , nor imagine myself proud of having won. And I would definitely have eaten my fair share of snacks whichever player I was - in fact, as the losing player, I'd have tried to guilt the other person into letting me have all of them.

As an aside, and very tangentially related to the above, why is it considered "bad form" to gloat or brag when you have won a game of skill, but gloating when the sports team you support has won is almost compulsory; even though in the former case you actually have something to be proud about, whereas in the latter you had no bearing on the result?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Something I have noticed--when one substantially improves one's financial lot there tends to be a lot of envy from those left behind. If one doesn't share as much as *THEY* want the person whose lot improved tends to be seen as mean.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

With regards to the video, I found the reported reactions to the rigged Monopoly game very unusual.

Why?

- - - Updated - - -

Something I have noticed--when one substantially improves one's financial lot there tends to be a lot of envy from those left behind. If one doesn't share as much as *THEY* want the person whose lot improved tends to be seen as mean.

what did you notice about the people who got the money? that's who the OP is about.

 

[EricK]

Why?

Not only is the game rigged, it is massively rigged in favour of one player. And not only is it massively rigged, it is rigged in such a way that both people know this. So attributing a victory to any skill is just ridiculous.

I have played in handicapped chess tournaments before. eg the best players get 3 minutes to make all their moves, while worse players get more time (with, say, the worst players in the field getting 10 minutes). Now here, of course, the idea is to even up the playing field rather than to make it totally lopsided; and here skill still plays a massive part in the result, rather than having been totally eliminated. But if, say, one of the weaker players defeated one of the stronger players they would accept that it was largely due to the handicapping system.

So if people in this experiment attributed their victory to skill, I find that to be really unusual behaviour.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Why?

Not only is the game rigged, it is massively rigged in favour of one player. And not only is it massively rigged, it is rigged in such a way that both people know this. So attributing a victory to any skill is just ridiculous.

I have played in handicapped chess tournaments before. eg the best players get 3 minutes to make all their moves, while worse players get more time (with, say, the worst players in the field getting 10 minutes). Now here, of course, the idea is to even up the playing field rather than to make it totally lopsided; and here skill still plays a massive part in the result, rather than having been totally eliminated. But if, say, one of the weaker players defeated one of the stronger players they would accept that it was largely due to the handicapping system.

So if people in this experiment attributed their victory to skill, I find that to be really unusual behaviour.

have you studied the wealthy? Academically studied the wealthy or the effects of wealth on people?

 

[EricK]

Why?

Not only is the game rigged, it is massively rigged in favour of one player. And not only is it massively rigged, it is rigged in such a way that both people know this. So attributing a victory to any skill is just ridiculous.

I have played in handicapped chess tournaments before. eg the best players get 3 minutes to make all their moves, while worse players get more time (with, say, the worst players in the field getting 10 minutes). Now here, of course, the idea is to even up the playing field rather than to make it totally lopsided; and here skill still plays a massive part in the result, rather than having been totally eliminated. But if, say, one of the weaker players defeated one of the stronger players they would accept that it was largely due to the handicapping system.

So if people in this experiment attributed their victory to skill, I find that to be really unusual behaviour.

have you studied the wealthy? Academically studied the wealthy or the effects of wealth on people?

No. But these people aren't wealthy. They are just playing a game - and I have played lots of games. Or are you trying to imply that because Monopoly is played with something which resembles money, people treat it differently to, for example, a rigged Scrabble game where each of their words scored 10 times what it ought?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Why?

- - - Updated - - -

Something I have noticed--when one substantially improves one's financial lot there tends to be a lot of envy from those left behind. If one doesn't share as much as *THEY* want the person whose lot improved tends to be seen as mean.

what did you notice about the people who got the money? that's who the OP is about.

The point is that others may perceive the person as being mean when they aren't.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Why?

Not only is the game rigged, it is massively rigged in favour of one player. And not only is it massively rigged, it is rigged in such a way that both people know this. So attributing a victory to any skill is just ridiculous.

I have played in handicapped chess tournaments before. eg the best players get 3 minutes to make all their moves, while worse players get more time (with, say, the worst players in the field getting 10 minutes). Now here, of course, the idea is to even up the playing field rather than to make it totally lopsided; and here skill still plays a massive part in the result, rather than having been totally eliminated. But if, say, one of the weaker players defeated one of the stronger players they would accept that it was largely due to the handicapping system.

So if people in this experiment attributed their victory to skill, I find that to be really unusual behaviour.

Other than playing well under time pressure is a skill. Back in high school there was nobody in the district except the guy who ran the whole thing I couldn't hold my own against in a 5 minute game--and I even beat him in a 2 minute game. (In a regular tournament game against the same people the only way I would have a chance is if they handled their clock badly. If someone got down to 20-30 seconds/move I would launch an attack and play something akin to speed chess against them--and surprisingly often it worked.)

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Why?

- - - Updated - - -

Something I have noticed--when one substantially improves one's financial lot there tends to be a lot of envy from those left behind. If one doesn't share as much as *THEY* want the person whose lot improved tends to be seen as mean.

what did you notice about the people who got the money? that's who the OP is about.

The point is that others may perceive the person as being mean when they aren't.

But your point isn't an answer to the question. I am asking you what you observed about the people who can into money. This is not difficult and it is actually on point.

 

[spikepipsqueak]

If someone is doing good things for other people because of what they will get out of it later they are still being mean.

People who have little tend to pool resources for 2 reasons. One is that the resources go further and do the maximum amount of good, the other is from fellow feeling, empathy, for the dilemma of others, and some of that grows out of being in the same situation. There are people with little who jealously guard what little they have, and some who would give you the shirt off their backs.

When people have money the people they identify with tend not to need help. The people who need help are dissimilar to them on many parameters and so there is no fellow feeling.

A poor person might say "They're in a bind and I know how that feels. I will do whatever I can to help."

A wealthy person typically has no idea how that feels and finds it not very difficult to ignore problems that are kept well out of their face, anyway.

I read somewhere that the wealthy are endowing art galleries, and calling it philanthropy, it is the people who don't have much who are donating to the charities that actually make a difference to people.

This is not to say that no wealthy people are compassionate. I am saying that they are placed less often in a position to have it tested if they are not predisposed to seek out helping opportunities.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Why?

Not only is the game rigged, it is massively rigged in favour of one player. And not only is it massively rigged, it is rigged in such a way that both people know this. So attributing a victory to any skill is just ridiculous.

I have played in handicapped chess tournaments before. eg the best players get 3 minutes to make all their moves, while worse players get more time (with, say, the worst players in the field getting 10 minutes). Now here, of course, the idea is to even up the playing field rather than to make it totally lopsided; and here skill still plays a massive part in the result, rather than having been totally eliminated. But if, say, one of the weaker players defeated one of the stronger players they would accept that it was largely due to the handicapping system.

So if people in this experiment attributed their victory to skill, I find that to be really unusual behaviour.

have you studied the wealthy? Academically studied the wealthy or the effects of wealth on people?

No. But these people aren't wealthy. They are just playing a game - and I have played lots of games. Or are you trying to imply that because Monopoly is played with something which resembles money, people treat it differently to, for example, a rigged Scrabble game where each of their words scored 10 times what it ought?

and in the Stanford study about guards and prisoners, the "guards and prisoners" weren't in the corrections system, they were college students who underwent drastic personality change because they were put into a contrived situation and evoked from them sides of their personality that were not good.

and having played games is not the same as having studied game structure or game players' behavior.

Also, the monopoly study is not the only study mentioned in the talk. Do you have an opinion on those?

 

[EricK]

Why?

Not only is the game rigged, it is massively rigged in favour of one player. And not only is it massively rigged, it is rigged in such a way that both people know this. So attributing a victory to any skill is just ridiculous.

I have played in handicapped chess tournaments before. eg the best players get 3 minutes to make all their moves, while worse players get more time (with, say, the worst players in the field getting 10 minutes). Now here, of course, the idea is to even up the playing field rather than to make it totally lopsided; and here skill still plays a massive part in the result, rather than having been totally eliminated. But if, say, one of the weaker players defeated one of the stronger players they would accept that it was largely due to the handicapping system.

So if people in this experiment attributed their victory to skill, I find that to be really unusual behaviour.

have you studied the wealthy? Academically studied the wealthy or the effects of wealth on people?

No. But these people aren't wealthy. They are just playing a game - and I have played lots of games. Or are you trying to imply that because Monopoly is played with something which resembles money, people treat it differently to, for example, a rigged Scrabble game where each of their words scored 10 times what it ought?

and in the Stanford study about guards and prisoners, the "guards and prisoners" weren't in the corrections system, they were college students who underwent drastic personality change because they were put into a contrived situation and evoked from them sides of their personality that were not good.

But that was a contrived position they had never been in before. The Monopoly game was a slight variation on a situation they presumably had experienced before. It is no more contrived than my Scrabble example. If you ran an experiment where you repeatedly sat pairs of people down to play Scrabble with one player scoring 10 times what their word was worth, and asked them at the end why they had won, do you think they would say something like "I couldn't help but win", or would you expect them to say things like "Well I cleverly played 'cat' on a double word score and got 100 points, whereas the best he could do was 'zeugma' for a mere 78". because it seems like the contestants in the Monopoly game were saying things like the latter, and that is surprising to me.

and having played games is not the same as having studied game structure or game players' behavior.

It isn't; but if you play them seriously enough, you will tend to study those things too.

Also, the monopoly study is not the only study mentioned in the talk. Do you have an opinion on those?

I find them less surprising, which is why I singled out the Monopoly example.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Why?

Not only is the game rigged, it is massively rigged in favour of one player. And not only is it massively rigged, it is rigged in such a way that both people know this. So attributing a victory to any skill is just ridiculous.

I have played in handicapped chess tournaments before. eg the best players get 3 minutes to make all their moves, while worse players get more time (with, say, the worst players in the field getting 10 minutes). Now here, of course, the idea is to even up the playing field rather than to make it totally lopsided; and here skill still plays a massive part in the result, rather than having been totally eliminated. But if, say, one of the weaker players defeated one of the stronger players they would accept that it was largely due to the handicapping system.

So if people in this experiment attributed their victory to skill, I find that to be really unusual behaviour.

have you studied the wealthy? Academically studied the wealthy or the effects of wealth on people?

No. But these people aren't wealthy. They are just playing a game - and I have played lots of games. Or are you trying to imply that because Monopoly is played with something which resembles money, people treat it differently to, for example, a rigged Scrabble game where each of their words scored 10 times what it ought?

and in the Stanford study about guards and prisoners, the "guards and prisoners" weren't in the corrections system, they were college students who underwent drastic personality change because they were put into a contrived situation and evoked from them sides of their personality that were not good.

But that was a contrived position they had never been in before. The Monopoly game was a slight variation on a situation they presumably had experienced before. It is no more contrived than my Scrabble example. If you ran an experiment where you repeatedly sat pairs of people down to play Scrabble with one player scoring 10 times what their word was worth, and asked them at the end why they had won, do you think they would say something like "I couldn't help but win", or would you expect them to say things like "Well I cleverly played 'cat' on a double word score and got 100 points, whereas the best he could do was 'zeugma' for a mere 78". because it seems like the contestants in the Monopoly game were saying things like the latter, and that is surprising to me.

and having played games is not the same as having studied game structure or game players' behavior.

It isn't; but if you play them seriously enough, you will tend to study those things too.

Also, the monopoly study is not the only study mentioned in the talk. Do you have an opinion on those?

I find them less surprising, which is why I singled out the Monopoly example.

if the other examples don't surprise you, why would the monopoly game surprise you? The players are taking the role of wealthy person, A Member of a class with stronger feelings of entitlement and lower feelings empathy. Many wealthy people were born on third base but think they hit a triple. Not because they are genetically evil, but because they aren't regularly reminded that they live on a planet with none rich people. what is fascinating to me is that if you do remind wealthy people that they do share the planet with less privileged people, they make more compassionate decisions.

 

[EricK]

Why?

Not only is the game rigged, it is massively rigged in favour of one player. And not only is it massively rigged, it is rigged in such a way that both people know this. So attributing a victory to any skill is just ridiculous.

I have played in handicapped chess tournaments before. eg the best players get 3 minutes to make all their moves, while worse players get more time (with, say, the worst players in the field getting 10 minutes). Now here, of course, the idea is to even up the playing field rather than to make it totally lopsided; and here skill still plays a massive part in the result, rather than having been totally eliminated. But if, say, one of the weaker players defeated one of the stronger players they would accept that it was largely due to the handicapping system.

So if people in this experiment attributed their victory to skill, I find that to be really unusual behaviour.

have you studied the wealthy? Academically studied the wealthy or the effects of wealth on people?

No. But these people aren't wealthy. They are just playing a game - and I have played lots of games. Or are you trying to imply that because Monopoly is played with something which resembles money, people treat it differently to, for example, a rigged Scrabble game where each of their words scored 10 times what it ought?

and in the Stanford study about guards and prisoners, the "guards and prisoners" weren't in the corrections system, they were college students who underwent drastic personality change because they were put into a contrived situation and evoked from them sides of their personality that were not good.

But that was a contrived position they had never been in before. The Monopoly game was a slight variation on a situation they presumably had experienced before. It is no more contrived than my Scrabble example. If you ran an experiment where you repeatedly sat pairs of people down to play Scrabble with one player scoring 10 times what their word was worth, and asked them at the end why they had won, do you think they would say something like "I couldn't help but win", or would you expect them to say things like "Well I cleverly played 'cat' on a double word score and got 100 points, whereas the best he could do was 'zeugma' for a mere 78". because it seems like the contestants in the Monopoly game were saying things like the latter, and that is surprising to me.

and having played games is not the same as having studied game structure or game players' behavior.

It isn't; but if you play them seriously enough, you will tend to study those things too.

Also, the monopoly study is not the only study mentioned in the talk. Do you have an opinion on those?

I find them less surprising, which is why I singled out the Monopoly example.

if the other examples don't surprise you, why would the monopoly game surprise you? The players are taking the role of wealthy person, A Member of a class with stronger feelings of entitlement and lower feelings empathy.

What is surprising is they are taking on the role of skillful Monopoly player. Would you be equally unsurprised if, in my hypothetical Scrabble experiment, the winners starting talking about the good moves they made which lead them to win?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But your point isn't an answer to the question. I am asking you what you observed about the people who can into money. This is not difficult and it is actually on point.

Them getting tired of relatives being greedy.

 

[arkirk]

Money does not make people mean. It just facilitates the meanness that is already there. Whenever great fortunes are compiled, there is always crime and corruption. Wealth disparity in a society is a measure of how corrupt a country has become. We are doing great in the corruption category...as in great crimes against the people and the environment. When the richest 0.5 percent decide everything...it will be mean even if there are only a few mean people at the top.