People who are rich have trouble recognising the emotions of others, a new study claims.
The university research has found that those who are poorer are better at gauging how someone feels because they need to rely on other people more often.
Scientists speculated that the rich performed worse in tests because they can solve their problems without relying on others. In other words, because of their wealth they are not as dependent on the people around them.
Whereas people who cannot afford to buy support services - such as childcare - have to rely on neighbours or relatives to watch their children while they attend work or run errands.
One experiment used volunteers who worked at a university. Some had graduated from college while others had not. Researchers used educational level as a proxy for social class.
In the U.S, where the study was carried out, the term 'upper class' often equates to how rich someone is, rather than the more complex notions of class that exist in Britain.
The volunteers did an emotion perception test in which they were told to look at pictures of faces and indicate which emotions each face was displaying.
People with more education performed worse on the task than people with less education.
In another study, university students who were of higher social standing - determined from each student's self-reported perceptions of his or her family's socio-economic status - had a more difficult time accurately reading the emotions of a stranger during a group job interview.
The research team said that these results suggest that people of upper-class status are not very good at recognising the emotions other people are feeling.
A final experiment found that, when people were made to feel that they were at a lower social class than they actually were, they got better at reading emotions.
The study published in Psychological Science - a journal of the Association for Psychological Science, was co-written by Michael Kraus, of the University of California-San Francisco. ...
via Why people who are rich are no good at empathy | Mail Online.
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Why people who are rich are no good at empathy
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
"People with more education performed worse on the task [of recognizing emotions] than people with less education. ..."
But,...
"In another study, university students who were of higher social standing ... had a more difficult time accurately reading the emotions of a stranger.. "
Nonetheless, ...
"A final experiment found that, when people were made to feel that they were at a lower social class than they actually were, they got better at reading emotions."
Meaning ....
empathy can be learned. What they were studying, apparently, was not not psychopathy, merely the lack of empathy. Although psychopaths cannot empathize, they cannot learn or develop empathy. Psychopathy is untreatable.
The lack of empathy is only one, albeit an important, characteristic of psychopaths. According to Robert Hare's "Psychopathy Checklist" psychopaths have the following characteristics:
1. Glibness/superficial charm
2. Grandiose sense of self-worth
3. Pathological lying
4. Cunning/manipulative
5. Lack of remorse or guilt
6. Emotionally shallow
7. Callous/lack of empathy
8. Failure to accept responsibility for their own actions
Hare estimates that about 1% (i.e. 1 per 100) of the population are psychopaths. [-wiki]
You're absolutely correct about the rich not needing other people and therefore not paying attention to the emotions of other people. They, to put in the vernacular, don't give a shit, because they don't need to. But, allow me to emphasize, it is not psychopathy, i.e. an incurable mental disorder.
Maybe the lack of empathy the wealthy have is worse than a disease, because they weren't born with it; they learned it, meaning it was a characteristic they picked up just being wealthy. This, of course, doesn't mean someone actually taught it to them. It's just part of their social environment.
But, we're talking about empathy. You can speculate about the other qualities the rich have (i.e. the list of psychopathic symptoms, which are truly symptoms of psychopaths), but it's only an opinion, perhaps the result of your experiences. That's fine.
However, to give your hypothesis a bit more reality, Hare claims that psychopathy is more common among CEOs, who are among the wealthiest people in the country. (He also says that psychopaths are found in high political offices, as well.) So, there may be some crossover between the wealthy class and psychopathy. But, don't get'em mixed up. One group can change for the better, if it wants to, the other can't, according to Hare (who is, by the way, the recognized authority on the subject worldwide).
Thanks , I was making far reaching generalizations of course ;-) Obviously not all rich fit the profile . But there are several general commonalities . And yes when it comes to the rich it is generally a product of the competitive environment they are in . It is the way the system works.You don't get to the top by playing nice ;-)
One is more treatable yes. Choice is somewhat debatable though . I think both can have obsessive compulsive behavior . But a sociopath has more control over what they do then what one might generally think . In order to be a successful serial killer for instance one would have to have great control. Or they would easily be caught . It's not easy getting away with one murder. Let alone a string of them .They plan ,they wait until the perfect time to strike .If they gave in to impulse they would most likely be caught .And a lot of research done on such subjects are flawed . Because a lot of the studies relied on input directly from the sociopaths. Which tend to be manipulators and liars ;-) They get off on deception . Some couldn't tell the truth if they tried . I suspect some don't know what truth is .
If there is a general difference between the two ( rich and Sociopaths ) it is in degrees ;-) The level of parasitic behavior ;-) Basically they are both predatory opportunists who are centered on self gratification ;-) Again I'm generalizing ;-) And no I'm not a serial killer ! Of course I could be lying ;-)
Post a Comment