Are Rich People Less Honest than Poor People

Basically Social Science is neither social nor science. Add to the old conundrum that, 'All generalities are False.' Further the Heisenberg uncertainty principal interfering with normal behavior shows that any test is thus tainted by the observer. Add the bias of the observer and one concludes this will be a contentious topic. I do think the experiments were interesting what if any thing they 'prove' is problematic. Second has anyone else repeated these experiments, are results consistent?

Poker

garfield wrote:<snip>
And I repeat, in my view that holds for societies to an even greater extent. In a society with 40% or greater unemployment, you should not expect the poor to be honest or generous. They are fighting like hell for their next meal.

About the study, let me digress a little. I recently played a computer game and when I switched the difficulty level to "Hard", the game logic responded not by being smarter, but by producing a statistically unlikely series of dice throw to try and win. That ticked me off to the point that I deleted the game. Does that make me dishonest and rude? I just despise cheating, no matter where it is coming from.

No that doesn't make you dishonest and rude. I would view that as quite sensible behavior not to play a computer game that appears rigged to beat you. But computer games don't involve human-human interactions either, so it's not an equivalent comparison.

garfield wrote:Finally, about driving a luxury car, German or otherwise. In South Africa I rode a motorcycle for many years, and learned to keep away from luxury cars. But where I live right now in the US, the cars I have to look out for are large pickups and SUV's. And I have noticed that many of those drivers take particular pleasure in being as obstructive as possible to German cars as well.

There are a couple of very wealthy, gated communities that I pass on my way to and from work every day. I have personally observed drivers turning into or pulling out of those communities behaving in ways that I could classify as rude. These behaviors include pulling out in front of me when they clearly should reconsider, turning into the community drive without bothering to signal, and (my favorite; it's happened a couple of times) flying down the road, getting right up on my tail, and flashing their lights and honking their horn until I pull over, then flying past me at clearly illegal speed. Paul Piff's research fits my experience. My experience doesn't prove the validity of his research, but my experience fits what his research says is true about unethical rich people.

garfield wrote:When I studied statistics in college, our lecturer made a point of emphasizing that we should not believe statistics: they are too easily shaped to reflect the view of the author. Always look at the methodology, and where possible the raw numbers I was told. And that I do believe.

Please see my comment to Brigade XO, below. A 2-semester course in Statistics was required for my undergraduate degree, and my instructor said the same thing. Therefore, the link below is to one of Piff's studies "Higher Social Class Predicts Increased Unethical Behavior", published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. From this link you can access both Piff's paper and his supplementary data, if you want to read further. I don't think I can get you closer to the raw numbers unless you contact Dr. Piff. His gmail address is listed on the page below, provided you scroll down far enough to find it.

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

The page above linking to Piff's paper also includes links to other papers citing Piff's research.

Pokermind wrote:Basically Social Science is neither social nor science. Add to the old conundrum that, 'All generalities are False.' Further the Heisenberg uncertainty principal interfering with normal behavior shows that any test is thus tainted by the observer. Add the bias of the observer and one concludes this will be a contentious topic. I do think the experiments were interesting what if any thing they 'prove' is problematic. Second has anyone else repeated these experiments, are results consistent?

As a physical scientist, I, also, am skeptical of "Social Science," but I don't dismiss it out of hand. It can be quite helpful in understanding very complex human social structures, relationships, and interactions. If you'll check the link above, you'll see at the bottom of the page that there are several studies that follow on Dr. Piff's studies. There are also people that question the validity of Dr. Piff's studies on rude drivers. See for example, the link below:

http://blog.brainiyak.com/?p=2773

The discussions at the links below, discuss Dr. Piff's research, including some criticisms of his study design:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-2 ... -find.html

http://blogs.wsj.com/ideas-market/2012/ ... -behavior/

Brigade XO wrote:One of those saying that I first heard in high school which does seem to match life:

There are lies, dammed lies and statistics.

Yes, I heard that in high school also. On top of that, my aforementioned statistics series including a small paperback book entitled How to Lie with Statistics as a supplementary text to the main text. It explains very clearly how statistics can mislead people. It complements (in a weird way, admittedly) the chapter on logical fallacies in the textbook I used in a class on logic.

However, just because one can lie with statistics doesn't mean that all statistics are lies. It just means that one needs to approach statistics, as garfield's post quoted above implies, with a healthy degree of skepticism. Likewise, my own observations about rude drivers at gated communities doesn't prove the general correctness of Dr. Piff's findings, but it does reinforce to me personally that he may be on to something.

It is very interesting and as you and pokemind noted, individual experiences will inevitably slant ones perceptions on this and many other, related questions.

Fascinating subject and thanks for the links. It will be interesting to see how this pans out. It would also be interesting to see similar studies between countries where gun ownership is common vs uncommon, and between wealthy and poor nations.

pokermind wrote:Very thought provoking. I'd be curious as to how 'Selfmade' men wealthy compare to golden spoon trust baby wealthy?

Poker

My maternal grandfather and adoptive father cultivated an image of being a "self made millionaire.". I learned quite late in life that his relationship with my step-grandmother and adoptive mother began while my grandfather was still very married to his first wife. My grandfather was not only a philanderer, he was an embezzler who drove his first wife to suicide by embezzling her divorce settlement. He rushed to Hawaii to identify the body, explain that his ex-wife was suffering from "woman problems" (the autopsy revealed that she was suffering from the effects of chronic STDs), gave the courts a copy of her will that would have left everything she should have owned to him if she had committed suicide a few days earlier, then abandoned his 16 year old daughter (my mother) to either graduate or not so he could marry the other woman ten days later. The probate records document the Federal Courts recovering the embezzled divorce settlement which was rightfully my mother's property, then my grandfather reembezzling the money from his own daughter which drove her to an early death. I was adopted to secure continued ownership of the assets that were bought with the embezzled funds.

Don't ger me started on my evil, step uncle and step aunt who are also my adoptive step
siblings.

While I reject the Marxist message, the point that wealthy, seemingly virtuous people can be sewerage slime is very valid.

PS,

My grandfather got his initial working capital from his first wife's inheritance.

He had been a grocery store clerk in the 1930s, a private during WW-2 (supply) then by 1955 had a net worth of about $5 million+ in today's dollars.

Bet the rich in France say a few rude words about this
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-12-30/f ... es/5177916

At least from my personal perceptions, non-scientific anecdotes that they are, whether or not the rich are less honest than the poor seems to relate strongly toward HOW they got rich.

Those that I know who got rich through sales, the stock market and other financial means, do tend to as a rule fit the stereotype of dishonest and rude. (That's those who got RICH especially those who got rich quickly not just those who are making a decent or even a good living in these areas).

On the other hand given the amount we've been spending on his books RFC is likely very rich by now. While I don't know him personally, he strikes me as neither dishonest nor rude. While I also don't personally know other authors who have gotten rich writing fiction, they also appear to be neither dishonest nor rude. So if my observations are accurate, then honest polite behavior is the NORM among people who get rich through this route (perhaps we could ask RFC, who does know many personally and can let us know if my observations are accurate?).

RHWoodman wrote:This is an interesting study by Paul Piff at UC Berkeley. Piff has been studying the effects of wealth on behavior, and has found that statistically (yes, there are exceptions, but this is about probability), people of wealth are ruder, less honest, less generous, and more likely to endorse unethical behavior than poor people.

Interestingly, this behavior tracks across political lines. Whether politically liberal or politically conservative, rich people display more rudeness and less honesty than poor people, whether those poor people are liberal or conservative.

Before you shoot the messenger take a look at the video in the link below:

http://www.upworthy.com/take-two-normal ... ext?c=ufb2

I'm interested in thoughtful comments. I don't want to get into any kind of (metaphorical) yelling match.

I would say my personal experience leans towards agreeing.
Probably with the addition that a rich socialist is a bit less likely to go naughty.

While being authoritarian, moralistic or "religious" seems a good recipe to raise the risk of badness. Latter two tend to be very good at excusing any "righteous" behaviour to themselves.

Still, it´s hard to say how big the difference really is.

Biochem wrote:And under the Selfmade label subdivide those who made most of their money by building a better widget, writing a best selling book etc vs those who made their money via manipulating the system (class action lawyers, wall street gurus, crony capitalists etc)

Probably makes a BIG difference yes.

"Rules are made to be broken, regulations ignored and laws bent."
Fuad Malik, (Nawab of Khalaba), 1991 Oxford UK.

While my good friend Fuad isn't really "rich" he is some one of power. His quote does seem to exemplify just about everyone else I went to college with. All wealthy, or more, although amongst ones peers there is not much rudeness or less honest as a basis, one would find rather they hold the truth outwardly honestly. Even if blatant in its application,the blatant can be seen as rude. Corruption on the other hand can be found everywhere the fact that the rich are more likely to be involved in it more often as they have more dealings with more people doesn't make them more corrupt.

As for generous, being hounded for support from many leads one to develop a thick skin. My years in Oxford and the thieves guild operating as the homeless on the streets taught me to be less guilible. Seeing as the poor are less likely to be targeted by such persons they don't develop a resistance.

Realistically it just comes down to the person. Some people are corruptible, some are not. When the corruptible are more wide spread, or spread out, they appear more statistically corrupt. The poor just don't have the same impact. Or one might say the poor can't buy off as many or as much as the rich.

Interesting quote Lord Skimper
"Rules are made to be broken, regulations ignored and laws bent."
Fuad Malik, (Nawab of Khalaba), 1991 Oxford UK.

To a certain extent I agree with it, but would add the rider "If you are sure you are right and are prepared to accept the consequences".
In my own country I was one of the rule - regulations - and law writers over a couple of decades in several spheres so can attest to the fallibility of human derived rules. I would have said it differently "After examination and careful consideration rules may well be broken, regulations challenged, and laws should be adhered to but challenged if unjust. If you are prepared to accept the consequences?"
Examples abound - in the UK last week a beautiful teenage girl died in the street from anaphylactic shock caused by a peanut allergy because she had forgotten her epi pen and a pharmacist at the scene refused to supply her with one without a doctor's prescription despite knowing the potential consequence. In the 1930-40s in Germany it was the law that you had to denounce Jewish neighbours so they could be killed. The law in 1950s UK said that Touring was a criminal because he was gay, so he committed suicide, yet he has now been pardoned?
Many expectant fathers have ended up with a police escort to a maternity hospital after being pulled over for speeding.
Returning to the topic though, an expectation that different rules/laws apply because someone is rich or a celebrity is plain wrong. If anything a sports star, priest, police person, or "movie star" should have at least as harsh a treatment as anyone else, because their betrayal of trust does even more harm.
In most developed countries a fraudster can steal many millions in white collar crime, destroying many lives along the way, and end up with a four year stretch on a prison farm; yet a disadvantaged youth robs a few hundred from a service station and gets ten years hard labour?
Challenge injustice, but be aware that it may cost you.