Upper class jerks

Are rich people jerks?  We need to be careful before generalizing, but some recent studies suggest that being monied tends correlate with insensitivity to the needs of others.   There are many exceptions to the rules, of course.  Many wealthy people dedicate their lives to helping the poor or the politically oppressed.   The tendency is the opposite, however.   Another caveat is the direction of causation:  Is it that the money corrupts or is it that the type of people who obsess about their own material cravings tend to accumulate more money.   Here's an excerpt from an article by Joshua Holland at Moyers & Company (A Plutocracy Ruled by Self-Centered Jerks?"):

In one telling experiment, the researchers observed a busy intersection, and found that drivers of luxury cars were more likely to cut off other drivers and less likely to stop for pedestrians crossing the street than those behind the wheels of more modest vehicles.  “In our crosswalk study, none of the cars in the beater-car category drove through the crosswalk,” Piff told The New York Times. “But you see this huge boost in a driver’s likelihood to commit infractions in more expensive cars.” He added: “BMW drivers are the worst.”

Summing up previous research on the topic, Piff notes that upper-class individuals also “showed reduced sensitivity to others’ suffering” as compared with working- and middle-class people.

Lower-class individuals are more likely to spend time taking care of others, and they are more embedded in social networks that depend on mutual aid. By contrast, upper-class individuals prioritize independence from others: They are less motivated than lower-class individuals to build social relationships and instead seek to differentiate themselves from others.

Continue ReadingUpper class jerks

Why non-believers don’t exist

Matthew Hut's "The 7 Laws of Magical Thinking" is one of the most challenging and well-written books I've read in the past decade. His premise is that ALL of us believe in "magical thinking," which he defines as the "mingling of psychological concepts with physical ones" (as opposed to another approach, which would have been "holding beliefs that contradict scientific consensus--he defends his approach on p. 7 of his book). In this article at Huffpo, Hutson elaborates:

Thanks to evolved habits of mind, we suspect the reality of essences, voodoo, luck, mind over matter, ESP, the soul, karma, and destiny. We attribute mental properties to nonmental phenomena (treating natural events as purposeful, say) and attribute nonmental properties to mental phenomena (treating thoughts as having force in the world). We mix up the realms of mind and matter. What's more, such illusions are not all bad--they can provide a sense of control over the events around us and a sense of meaning in life. So before you call someone with far-fetched beliefs stupid or crazy, read on and check out 13 of the many reasons the supposed "non-believer" is just one more figment of the imagination.
What follows, I guarantee, is that everyone of you will realize that you are believe in magical thinking.

Continue ReadingWhy non-believers don’t exist

Photography project: convince two strangers to pose as though they are intimate

Check out the images and video here. More images here. Since 2007, photographer Richard Renaldi has worked on a series of photographs for which he asks complete strangers to physically interact while posing together for a portrait. Working on the street with a large-format 8-by-10 view camera, Renaldi encounters his subjects in towns and cities all over the United States. Imagine being Renaldi, trying to recruit for each of these photos. He probably has only a few seconds to garner some semblance of trust. But then he makes it even more difficult by often pairing very different types of folks, and demanding the physical contact that would--for many people--cause the subject to jettison the project. And one more thing -- I'm not sure how this cuts --Renaldi uses a huge old fashioned camera in which he covers his own head. In other words, he has (intentionally, I assume) taken himself outside of the process (except as photographer). He is not longer able to coach with any facial expressions because he is under the cloak. This leaves the strangers to fend for themselves in their intimacy. This project fascinates me. I often think back to those fretful moments when I was trying to decide whether to say something in order to meet a stranger. That first thing out of our mouths is so often trite. "Nice weather." or "You eat healthy food" (peering into someone's shopping cart. But that's how it often starts, and virtually every one of my good friendships started with something saying something that was rather ordinary and even cliche. From there, the friendships often grow slowly, with back and forth bits of encouragement, and often with a step back before there are two steps forward. And only after trust has naturally developed, without either party forcing anything, will there be any spontaneous touching (something other than a handshake). Through his photography, Renaldi has conducted a powerful psychology experiment. I find his results stunning, because there is always a blend of recognition that the other person is a sentient human being, tinged with "but we aren't really supposed to be this intimate. Oh, yeah, we're abiding by the request of that photographer, who is yet another stranger. Somehow, Renaldi get it done often enough to assemble an impressive gallery (I do wonder what his batting average is--how many potential subjects abort the project for each successful photo?). When he pulls this off, does he do it because he has assumed the role of authority figure (I'm thinking of the Millgram experiment)? Or isn't there, in all of us, an insatiable craving for physical intimacy, at least on the level of simple touching? To what extent is Renaldi's job easier than it seems? And if someone came up to you, asking you to pose for a photo, touching a stranger as though you knew him or her well, would that be of interest to you? I assume that I would say yes without hesitation, but it would depend on how I was approached by the photographer. As I suggested above, he or she probably has only a few seconds to make their case that they (the photographer) is someone I can trust. That seems like the most difficult part of this project, much harder than convincing me to touch a stranger.

Continue ReadingPhotography project: convince two strangers to pose as though they are intimate