Can money make you mean?

[AthenaAwakened]

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.

So they themselves don't change, just those people around them.

Is that what you are saying?

 

[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.

So they themselves don't change, just those people around them.

Is that what you are saying?

That's what I've seen.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

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.

So they themselves don't change, just those people around them.

Is that what you are saying?

That's what I've seen.

Then you haven't seen much.

Funny how "what you have seen" seldom jives with the research of trained professionals

 

[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.

So they themselves don't change, just those people around them.

Is that what you are saying?

That's what I've seen.

Then you haven't seen much.

Funny how "what you have seen" seldom jives with the research of trained professionals

I'm very unimpressed with most social research with political repercussions. Most of it looks like they set out to prove their pet theories rather than did honest science.

 

[TV and credit cards]

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.

I watched a family friend experience this on a large scale. He was an early manufacturer of dual pane gas filled windows in the U.S. The rule is, if you come in to money, don't tell anyone. In his case it was unavoidable.
There is emotion involved. You were one of us, now you're one of them. To a point, it's jealousy.

Regarding the video, the speaker makes a good point about wealthy people doing good with a little nudge. That little nudge is asking: Is this who you are? Money is a powerful and corrupting force but I think for most it is not addicting. The accumulation of money is synonymous with success and how can success be wrong? It's not. Of course it's the right thing to do. It's what we've been trained for. It's what we observe in our parents. It's the direction your guidance counselor pointed you in. By and large, students are told study hard, work hard, kick ass. Oh, and there's a few gratuitous speeches about altruism in there.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

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.

So they themselves don't change, just those people around them.

Is that what you are saying?

That's what I've seen.

Then you haven't seen much.

Funny how "what you have seen" seldom jives with the research of trained professionals

I'm very unimpressed with most social research with political repercussions. Most of it looks like they set out to prove their pet theories rather than did honest science.

and it almost always disagrees with you.

getting back to wealth changing people, a person can get a scar, not a big scar but one that is barely noticeable, and that scar can change a person behavior for the rest of his or her life, but becoming wealthy changes nothing but other people?

You have seen people become rich and they didn't change? Not for good or bad, just no change whatsoever? Only the greedy, greedy people around them changed or perhaps rather let their true natures show. Nothing has happened to them but they have changed and the economic fortunes of a newly wealthy person have changed, for the better, but no change at all for him or her?

PUH-LEASE

tell me another and this time make me believe.

 

[coloradoatheist]

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.

So they themselves don't change, just those people around them.

Is that what you are saying?

That's what I've seen.

Then you haven't seen much.

Funny how "what you have seen" seldom jives with the research of trained professionals

I'm very unimpressed with most social research with political repercussions. Most of it looks like they set out to prove their pet theories rather than did honest science.

and it almost always disagrees with you.

getting back to wealth changing people, a person can get a scar, not a big scar but one that is barely noticeable, and that scar can change a person behavior for the rest of his or her life, but becoming wealthy changes nothing but other people?

You have seen people become rich and they didn't change? Not for good or bad, just no change whatsoever? Only the greedy, greedy people around them changed or perhaps rather let their true natures show. Nothing has happened to them but they have changed and the economic fortunes of a newly wealthy person have changed, for the better, but no change at all for him or her?

PUH-LEASE

tell me another and this time make me believe.

The hardest part is finding a way to measure it in a meaningful way. Some people get nicer, some get worse. And you don't get the true picture from a rigged monopoly game. That's the problem. So it does come down to a lot of anecdotes.

 

[doubtingt]

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.

There is nothing at all "unusual" about people ignoring objective facts that they are actually aware of and drawing inferences, conclusions, and beliefs that are blatantly refuted by the obvious available facts, especially when it serves their interests to do so. Countless evidence, including controlled experiments, show that this is true of most people most of the time. Also, it is a clear and obvious fact that random luck plays a massive role, if not the #1 role, in determining accumulation of extreme wealth, and yet studies show that almost none of the wealthy acknowledge any role of luck in their fortunes and attribute it to their skill and intellect.

 

[doubtingt]

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.

There is a growing consensus among researchers of human personality variance that the notion of each person having a "basic personality" is largely a myth. Rather each persons thoughts, emotions, and actions are context dependent. They are not an "X type person", but rather they are a person that tends toward X in a Y situation, but tends toward Z in a W situation." It also means that much of the variance in how different people respond to the same situation is due to how their "personality" has been trained by the prior situations they have encountered. Therefore, what appears on the surface to be different reactions rooted in some inherent trait of the person and thus seemingly reducing the causal importance of the situation one is in, are actually differences in current reaction rooted in differences in prior situations, meaning that even the variance within a given situation is itself a result of the impact of the situation on the behaviors that we call "personality".




This reality of human psychology is going to take a long time to displace the myth because people prefer the black and white simplicity of "he does X because he is an X type of person".

 

[AthenaAwakened]

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.

There is a growing consensus among researchers of human personality variance that the notion of each person having a "basic personality" is largely a myth. Rather each persons thoughts, emotions, and actions are context dependent. They are not an "X type person", but rather they are a person that tends toward X in a Y situation, but tends toward Z in a W situation." It also means that much of the variance in how different people respond to the same situation is due to how their "personality" has been trained by the prior situations they have encountered. Therefore, what appears on the surface to be different reactions rooted in some inherent trait of the person and thus seemingly reducing the causal importance of the situation one is in, are actually differences in current reaction rooted in differences in prior situations, meaning that even the variance within a given situation is itself a result of the impact of the situation on the behaviors that we call "personality".




This reality of human psychology is going to take a long time to displace the myth because people prefer the black and white simplicity of "he does X because he is an X type of person".

 

[spikepipsqueak]

I'm very unimpressed with most social research with political repercussions. Most of it looks like they set out to prove their pet theories rather than did honest science.

This is pretty much how social science works. Somebody notices a trend and sets out to investigate whether it is a valid construct or just some random coincidences they have encountered.

If you are objecting to what people investigate you haven't a leg to stand on, unless you can go on to demonstrate that their methods aren't honest science.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'm very unimpressed with most social research with political repercussions. Most of it looks like they set out to prove their pet theories rather than did honest science.

This is pretty much how social science works. Somebody notices a trend and sets out to investigate whether it is a valid construct or just some random coincidences they have encountered.

If you are objecting to what people investigate you haven't a leg to stand on, unless you can go on to demonstrate that their methods aren't honest science.

In most cases they pay attention to the facts. In the social sciences I see far too much "research" that ignores the obvious in order to avoid reaching the right conclusion.

 

[spikepipsqueak]

I'm very unimpressed with most social research with political repercussions. Most of it looks like they set out to prove their pet theories rather than did honest science.

This is pretty much how social science works. Somebody notices a trend and sets out to investigate whether it is a valid construct or just some random coincidences they have encountered.

If you are objecting to what people investigate you haven't a leg to stand on, unless you can go on to demonstrate that their methods aren't honest science.

In most cases they pay attention to the facts. In the social sciences I see far too much "research" that ignores the obvious in order to avoid reaching the right conclusion.

I'm somewhat confused about who, here, has preconceived notions on what is the right conclusion.

The whole point about much science, physical and social, is to investigate when it starts to become likely that the obvious is, nevertheless, not the truth.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

I'm very unimpressed with most social research with political repercussions. Most of it looks like they set out to prove their pet theories rather than did honest science.

This is pretty much how social science works. Somebody notices a trend and sets out to investigate whether it is a valid construct or just some random coincidences they have encountered.

If you are objecting to what people investigate you haven't a leg to stand on, unless you can go on to demonstrate that their methods aren't honest science.

In most cases they pay attention to the facts. In the social sciences I see far too much "research" that ignores the obvious in order to avoid reaching the right conclusion.

and now you will surely provide examples of such that weigh in number more heavily than occurances of the opposite phenomenon

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'm very unimpressed with most social research with political repercussions. Most of it looks like they set out to prove their pet theories rather than did honest science.

This is pretty much how social science works. Somebody notices a trend and sets out to investigate whether it is a valid construct or just some random coincidences they have encountered.

If you are objecting to what people investigate you haven't a leg to stand on, unless you can go on to demonstrate that their methods aren't honest science.

In most cases they pay attention to the facts. In the social sciences I see far too much "research" that ignores the obvious in order to avoid reaching the right conclusion.

and now you will surely provide examples of such that weigh in number more heavily than occurances of the opposite phenomenon

How about the eternally-repeated pattern of ignoring considering whether race is merely a proxy for socioeconomic status.

Or the extreme distortions of reality in the attempts to blame healthcare costs for bankruptcies.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

I'm very unimpressed with most social research with political repercussions. Most of it looks like they set out to prove their pet theories rather than did honest science.

This is pretty much how social science works. Somebody notices a trend and sets out to investigate whether it is a valid construct or just some random coincidences they have encountered.

If you are objecting to what people investigate you haven't a leg to stand on, unless you can go on to demonstrate that their methods aren't honest science.

In most cases they pay attention to the facts. In the social sciences I see far too much "research" that ignores the obvious in order to avoid reaching the right conclusion.

and now you will surely provide examples of such that weigh in number more heavily than occurances of the opposite phenomenon

How about the eternally-repeated pattern of ignoring considering whether race is merely a proxy for socioeconomic status.

Or the extreme distortions of reality in the attempts to blame healthcare costs for bankruptcies.

this is the point where you link to relevant materials that prove the assertion.

 

[ZiprHead]

I'm very unimpressed with most social research with political repercussions. Most of it looks like they set out to prove their pet theories rather than did honest science.

This is pretty much how social science works. Somebody notices a trend and sets out to investigate whether it is a valid construct or just some random coincidences they have encountered.

If you are objecting to what people investigate you haven't a leg to stand on, unless you can go on to demonstrate that their methods aren't honest science.

In most cases they pay attention to the facts. In the social sciences I see far too much "research" that ignores the obvious in order to avoid reaching the right conclusion.

Kinda' like what you are doing right now?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

How about the eternally-repeated pattern of ignoring considering whether race is merely a proxy for socioeconomic status.

Or the extreme distortions of reality in the attempts to blame healthcare costs for bankruptcies.

this is the point where you link to relevant materials that prove the assertion.

Do you not recall the discussions at the time the crap was published?

 

[AthenaAwakened]

How about the eternally-repeated pattern of ignoring considering whether race is merely a proxy for socioeconomic status.

Or the extreme distortions of reality in the attempts to blame healthcare costs for bankruptcies.

this is the point where you link to relevant materials that prove the assertion.

Do you not recall the discussions at the time the crap was published?

I.E.
"I don't have such links, as usual."

 

[arkirk]

Loren: Last year more than 2 million Americans filed for bankruptcy based on medical costs. I tried to copy the link but it didn't copy but you can get numerous sources for this if you Google (medical cost bankruptcies). Medical cost bankruptcies is quite a legal cottage industry.