Witticism wrote:

The Damned wrote:Do you think having empathy for your fellow human being or charitable thoughts or such would inhibit your ability to make money, legitimately of course?

Short answer ... no.

I'm just bookmarking ... I don't have time to read past the above line at the moment but I wanted to bookmark so I can read later.

Personally I think 'creativity' is a better guide to someone’s ability to ‘create’ wealth.

And what gets lost in these discussions is that, like him or loath him, Bill Gates has created over 135,000 jobs … that’s 135,000 that can put food on their family tables …. Who have to buy food from supermarkets that employee people … and so forth and so on.

Also, Bill Gates pays more in tax than we would in 1000 lifetimes. Alas, these facts tend to go missing in these discussions.

Oh and remeber, 'C grade students hire A grade students' .. think about it

interesting view point, that's the point of at least making a vaguely scientific argument the other thread is deeply flawed and all the more interesting for it. But it isn't science.

Witticism wrote:

The Damned wrote:

tribalypredisposed wrote:As I posted early on in the "parent" thread, there are a number of clear advantages for those lacking in the empathy department when it comes to getting rich.

I gave the example of my grandfather allowing the theft of his medical advances to avoid them being kept off the market by litigation. Others made millions off of this theft, so the person with empathy lost out and those with no empathy or morals got rich.

Those with a lot of empathy also spend a lot of time and effort helping other people. My mom and her best friend started an orphanage and school in Zambia, and neither was even close to wealthy. The ability to fly to a country one has never been to before with less than a thousand dollars to your name and a vision and to go from there to many acres of land, scores of happy kids, housing, a school with a library and computer center, a farm, etc shows that the two of them could have achieved a lot for themselves if they had chosen to. (http://www.zambianchildrensfund.org/)

And the recent example of a couple who won the lottery and gave 98% of it to charity also shows that those on the high end of the empathy scale have a marked disadvantage when it comes to being wealthy.

I have yet to read the story of the self-made rich person who spent hours doing volunteer work on their way up.

I also think it is obvious that being good at lying confers an advantage, that is the point of lying, and that psychopaths are good liars is not really disputed.

At least at the ends of the bell curve, extreme empathy confers huge disadvanteges when it comes to the acquisition and maintenance of wealth while extreme lack of empathy does the opposite.

QFT I really can't argue with any of that. Thanks for your insight.

I can.

First of try avoid using the following fallacies:

Appeal to common practice
Questionable Cause
Confusing Cause and EffectBiased Sample

to make a point as they are easily criticized.

tribalypredisposed wrote:I have yet to read the story of the self-made rich person who spent hours doingvolunteer work on their way up

Well you just need to read more as appearance isn't all ways at it seems and education - specifically financial education has more to do with a person's ability to create wealth than whether or not they are empathitc.

You could be the least empathetic person in the world and have zero finacial literacy and hence zero wealth.

Or you could be the most empathetic person in the world, a lot of finacial literacy and a lot of wealth.

Here's an anecdote, (seeing as that is what is required in this thread) ...

My twin brother is far wealthier than I am but being twins we are probably identical when it comes to our 'empathy'. I think we probably donate about the same % of our wealth to charity .... but he employees 7 people ... and pays them all more than market value ... plus he helps his client create financial independence so they are not reliant on other taxpayers when they retire.

So by employing 7 people - in essence he is giving 'away' for more wealth than he could donate out of his own pocket.

Appearances are deceptive.

You have to separate the person from the Money.

Most people are good.

Some people are bad.

Some bad people have lots of money.
Some bad people have no money.

It really is that simple.

Hehe. I've just got owned.

I'll iterate my point further I don't believe for one minute that anyone has advanced a coherent scientific approach to this, even me.

I will say this though the more wealthy your parents are the more chances you will have to get good education and the more chances you will have to use your social network to become upwardly mobile. That however is beyond the remit of this thread. But it is an interesting aside.

Witticism,

So, making a logical arguement and offering a real-life example of what I was proposing logic would suggest to be true is a "fallacy?" Look, I am the new guy, but I am not an idiot or born yesterday. If you want to test me with stupid crap like that, do not bother.

Go ahead and make logical counter-arguements if you are able to. Show us why the ability to lie well is not advantageous for wealth accumulation, for example. Then explain why the ability to lie evolved if it did not result in a fitness advantage in the competition for resources (wealth).

You have made the fallacy of thinking you know where your ass is.

You still have not understood my post. Go back and read it some more until you think you have and then try again. Hint- I am only making claims about those who are abnormally empathetic or abnormally lacking in empathy.

It is a great story, the "I had to make billions of dollars so that I could help people" one. But you have even less evidence that anyone was motivated by empathy than I do. In my case, in fact I know the motivations of the people in the anecdotes because they are in my family or very close friends of the family.

And yeah, risking your life and large amounts of jail time twice a week while having to listen to refugees tell you about why they fled after their father was decapitated in front of them and their wife was raped and gutted of their unborn son and they were tortured for three days...it does require just a weee bit more empathy than starting a company and suffering at your mansion by the pool while your "empathy" employes some people.

tribalypredisposed wrote:Witticism,

So, making a logical arguement and offering a real-life example of what I was proposing logic would suggest to be true is a "fallacy?" Look, I am the new guy, but I am not an idiot or born yesterday. If you want to test me with stupid crap like that, do not bother.

Go ahead and make logical counter-arguements if you are able to. Show us why the ability to lie well is not advantageous for wealth accumulation, for example. Then explain why the ability to lie evolved if it did not result in a fitness advantage in the competition for resources (wealth).

You have made the fallacy of thinking you know where your ass is.

You still have not understood my post. Go back and read it some more until you think you have and then try again. Hint- I am only making claims about those who are abnormally empathetic or abnormally lacking in empathy.

It is a great story, the "I had to make billions of dollars so that I could help people" one. But you have even less evidence that anyone was motivated by empathy than I do. In my case, in fact I know the motivations of the people in the anecdotes because they are in my family or very close friends of the family.

And yeah, risking your life and large amounts of jail time twice a week while having to listen to refugees tell you about why they fled after their father was decapitated in front of them and their wife was raped and gutted of their unborn son and they were tortured for three days...it does require just a weee bit more empathy than starting a company and suffering at your mansion by the pool while your "empathy" employes some people.

Same. I was waiting for your post because atm, I'm thinking no one can actually define this experiment or cares to even dream. Make a post hell make.

There's no shame in sounding like a dick, hell I've been doing that since I was born.

Absolutely in science evidence is king not opinion!

I once saw George Bush give twelve million pounds to charity, who cares? Who is George Bush anyway?

Lordy, what the hell is next? Someone want to claim that all the good jobs were exported to China out of "empathy" for the poor Chinese who needed good jobs there while being held as political prisoners? That Maquiladoras and sweat-shops are "out of empathy for the poor who used to be able to earn more?" That union-busting is out of empathy? That banks are reposessing homes of people who are not only not delinquent but who never had home loans at all out of empathy? That corporations buy our politicians and political parties out of empathy to make sure the nations policies are good? That cutting taxes for the wealthy while raising taxes on families making less than $40,000 a year three days after the UN reported that America was in the bottom three of twenty four Western nations for offering equal opportunity and treatment to poor children?


Man, the wealthy sure do a lot of things so that they can make money to give away to help people by paying them. That sure is admirable. Are you fucking kidding me? Seriously, you think you can sell shit to a pig farm? The rampant greed of Wall Street all but collapsed the world economy just two years ago and the bastards who screwed us are still swimming in the huge bonuses while everyone else pays their bills, and they did that out of empathy? That is plain nucking futs, anyone who takes your line of thinking right now is suffering from some serious delusions.

tribalypredisposed wrote:Lordy, what the hell is next? Someone want to claim that all the good jobs were exported to China out of "empathy" for the poor Chinese who needed good jobs there while being held as political prisoners? That Maquiladoras and sweat-shops are "out of empathy for the poor who used to be able to earn more?" That union-busting is out of empathy? That banks are reposessing homes of people who are not only not delinquent but who never had home loans at all out of empathy? That corporations buy our politicians and political parties out of empathy to make sure the nations policies are good? That cutting taxes for the wealthy while raising taxes on families making less than $40,000 a year three days after the UN reported that America was in the bottom three of twenty four Western nations for offering equal opportunity and treatment to poor children?


Man, the wealthy sure do a lot of things so that they can make money to give away to help people by paying them. That sure is admirable. Are you fucking kidding me? Seriously, you think you can sell shit to a pig farm? The rampant greed of Wall Street all but collapsed the world economy just two years ago and the bastards who screwed us are still swimming in the huge bonuses while everyone else pays their bills, and they did that out of empathy? That is plain nucking futs, anyone who takes your line of thinking right now is suffering from some serious delusions.

I agree. But the point is to try and make it not fucking nuts with reason.

Thanks for that post it makes Americans sound like they are rational. And not dedicate followers of an ideology. To ruin and beyond!

Canada oh Canada, at least you still have some damned sense.

tribalypredisposed wrote:Lordy, what the hell is next? Someone want to claim that all the good jobs were exported to China out of "empathy" for the poor Chinese who needed good jobs there while being held as political prisoners? That Maquiladoras and sweat-shops are "out of empathy for the poor who used to be able to earn more?" That union-busting is out of empathy? That banks are reposessing homes of people who are not only not delinquent but who never had home loans at all out of empathy? That corporations buy our politicians and political parties out of empathy to make sure the nations policies are good? That cutting taxes for the wealthy while raising taxes on families making less than $40,000 a year three days after the UN reported that America was in the bottom three of twenty four Western nations for offering equal opportunity and treatment to poor children?


Man, the wealthy sure do a lot of things so that they can make money to give away to help people by paying them. That sure is admirable. Are you fucking kidding me? Seriously, you think you can sell shit to a pig farm? The rampant greed of Wall Street all but collapsed the world economy just two years ago and the bastards who screwed us are still swimming in the huge bonuses while everyone else pays their bills, and they did that out of empathy? That is plain nucking futs, anyone who takes your line of thinking right now is suffering from some serious delusions.

tribalypredisposed wrote:
You have made the fallacy of thinking you know where your ass is.

Here it is, but really ...


And technically not knowing where your ass is isn't really a fallacy is it?

Now, because you are ...

tribalypredisposed wrote:... the new guy ...

I'll let the ad hominem slide. But I will make a friendly suggestion and suggest that you may want to familiarise yourself with the Forum Users' Agreement

As for ...

tribalypredisposed wrote: If you want to test me with stupid crap like that, do not bother.

I apologise for pointing out that stupid crap.

It's just that I have a 'good eye for the obvious'

And thanks for the laugh btw. I'm sure I'm not the only one who had a good chuckle at the irony of someone complaining they don't commit fallacies by starting off their response with an ad hom and then summarising with an appeal to emotion. ... good one

tribalypredisposed wrote:Show us why the ability to lie well is not advantageous for wealth accumulation, for example.

Might be. Might not be. I never made the claim it wasn't.

Err

tribalypredisposed wrote: Then explain why the ability to lie evolved if it did not result in a fitness advantage in the competition for resources (wealth).

Sex

tribalypredisposed wrote:Hint- I am only making claims about those who are abnormally empathetic or abnormally lacking in empathy.

What is 'normal'

tribalypredisposed wrote:In my case, in fact I know the motivations of the people in the anecdotes because they are in my family or very close friends of the family.

More biased sampling.

tribalypredisposed wrote:It is a great story, the "I had to make billions of dollars so that I could help people" one.

Would you like me to type slower?

Again the point has flown straight over your head.

Its not just a story, it's a different perspective to try and get you to think out side your frame of reverence. You can have empathy focused at the individual level or focused at the group level. It would appear that to you, the only type of empathy that counts - is at the individual level.

I'm stating the alternative view that empathy can be aimed at the group level and be more effective if you can utilise the power of leverage. There is no leverage in an individual doing a 'selfless act'.

I am only one person and there are only 168hrs in a week. I'd rather create some wealth and help 100s more people than I could individually. I think that is far more empathetic than some of the examples you have given.

And as I've stated previously, I am happy to

Witticism wrote: cede the argument to you.

if you keep putting it in your terms of reference.

tribalypredisposed wrote:And yeah, risking your life and large amounts of jail time twice a week while having to listen to refugees tell you about why they fled after their father was decapitated in front of them and their wife was raped and gutted of their unborn son and they were tortured for three days...it does require just a weee bit more empathy than starting a company and suffering at your mansion by the pool while your "empathy" employes some people.

More strawmen

I don't mean to be presumptuous but your arguments appear to be incapable of separating negative emotions from the discussion of money.

These people who risk their, "life and large amounts of jail time twice a week " have families of their own

Cause if they do, then, how is the above showing empathy to their own families?

The examples of 'empathy' you've stated could also be described as reckless abandon, selfishness and arrogance.

The topic is not as one dimensional as you have tried to make it.

What is normal, something to be avoided at all times IMHO.

Witticism, please find a good dictionary or use Google to find a definition of the term "empathy." It is not "whatever I want the term to mean" as you are apparently using it.

I know this is a pointless response, since you have not proven able to grasp my simple points so far, but let me put is as simply as possible, literally, just in case you can make some progress.

1)Some people who are poor are psychopaths who do not care at all if you or anyone lives or dies.
2)Some people who are wealthy are also psychopaths.
3)Some people who are poor spend their lives helping others directly and sometimes even at great risk and personal sacrifice, because they have more empathy for others than most of us.
4)Some people who are wealthy spend their lives helping others directly and sometimes even at great risk and personal sacrifice, because they have more empathy than most of us.
5)Being a good liar helps you to become wealthy. Psychopaths are very good liars and have no empathy (it is one of the things that defines a psychopath). The existence of psychopaths should result in a higher percentage of wealthy people having less empathy than poor people, on average. If the existence of psychopaths does not skew the average empathy of wealthy vs poor then we have to explain why and how being a good liar evolved after rejecting the common assumption.
6)Whether or not a person MAY decide that the best way for them to help others is to found a company and make a lot of money and improve the economy or whatever is not a germain argument, which means it does not have any bearing, on the question at hand. It may be important to you, but it has no, literally no, importance for the question. This is true partially because -
7)No one is claiming that wealthy people cannot have empathy, see #4. And #6 is also true because -
8)It is freaking obvious from their actions that huge numbers of wealthy people would be happy to shit down your neck if there was a buck in it. So obviously not ALL wealthy people are motivated by empathy for the "group," and if America is any measure in fact very damned few wealthy would care if America was nuked and turned into a sheet of glass if they could make a good profit from it.
9)In fact I never "sampled" anything. Good golly, I never claimed to have any "results" either. What I showed was, among other things, one good example of how a person with a lot of empathy could have their potential wealth stolen by those who were both good at telling lies and lacking in empathy. Resulting in fewer wealthy people with lots of empathy and more wealthy people lacking in empathy. It is effectively impossible to run an experiment where people would be given the choice of keeping several million dollars and letting ten thousand people die or letting someone else take the money and have the people live. Your insistence that we have multiple samples of that scenario is comical.
10)It is offensive that you post BS claims that others have committed fallacies which you neither understand nor can show how the poster committed. It is offensive that you obviously have no grasp of science or logic yet post gibberish lecturing simplistic insulting garbage when you have no clue even what the question is.
11)I would not like you "to type slower," I would like you to type not at all until you understand what the thread is about and what I have posted.
12) Here again is the question: Do you think having empathy for your fellow human being or charitable thoughts or such would inhibit your ability to make money, legitimately of course?

In other words is their a correlation between your conscience and your wealth?

13)I gave some good examples of how having empathy could inhibit a person's ability to make money. Believe it or not, not wanting to allow innocent people to die can take a lot of a person's time. Time is money, as they say. If you think that smuggling a family of refugees across the border to keep them from being killed does not require more empathy than the person who ignores them and runs their business, then you just have no idea what the word empathy means.
14)I know you FEEL strongly about this, but if you try to use your rational side, should you have one, the logic will be obvious.

It's a poor-takes-care-of-the-poorer world. This is not a non sequitur. The previous sentence, I mean. And none of it is a joke.

No, really! People are losing their privacy day by day. The ones who give their stuff away intelligently for the right reasons and in the right ways are the ones who won't see their children treated like garbage.

I think this thread needs to define wealth properly, especially in todays climate when to be completely economically orientated is not the greatest attribute to have.

What psychopaths often do is tune well into where others in society place their emotional investments...and that is where the wealth in life truly is. It was even considered lowly in old europe to be economically orientated. Status and position was everything.

If you have spent time with psychopaths..(which i have..all kinds...and there are many flavours), you can watch, how they watch you...if you know what i mean. They tend to have one thing in common. They try to observe your pattern of confidence level (obviously just one interaction would not give a good reading of this). And they try to dig out what you have, and what you are likely to have that is of interest to others and themselves.

I notice when they observe im watching them watching me.(can get complicated)..my esteem in their eyes goes right up. Even if i have no definable wealth. That i would know the game at all, and not be bothered about it, hints to them I have the same trait in me, and they will often back off.

So, are you planning to write my book for me after I'm dead or wire me money? I thought it was going to a reasonable cause (and still do, without reservation, though getting to see in person would make an enormous difference) and I thought I'd quit smoking. A huge amount would be great, but I can actually clean my incredibly disordered room and a variety of other things more easily (or at all) if I just get enough for necessities (which still includes cigarettes until my place actually is clean). I can stop thinking I might get something from James Randi if your or some other country's intelligence service just gives the affirmative on what I'm doing? Then I can just worry about taking care of my obligations and not my needs nearly as much, though they are nearly the same thing. I might even consider paying a psychiatrist once I have a clearer perspective of the worth of what one might do for me. I understand there are always strings attached.

Not for me.
I try to separate the two.
Empathy (or even sympathy) are feelings that I have for other people based on their circumstances and my perceptions of those circumstances.
Making wealth is me playing along w/ the illusion that I'm contributing to society and some how making a "difference" by continuing to perform repetitive tasks and being pieces of paper (or these days, computer bytes) for my efforts.

Mixing the two will likely result in dissonance and cause me to fail in both areas.

Does anybody agree that perhaps a command economy is advisable on environmental grounds? Wartime economies make more rapid re-tooling. It seems a topic switch, but computers now can make a lot superfluous, including the market signals of human want, in my opinion.

Just for emphasis, this is in a second post instead of an edit. Quantum computers will be a giant leap forward. We will be creating our own God. It's a hopeless cause to try to corrupt the system that's about to take over. It will know our histories as well, I might add.

I don't see evidence that command economies have a better environmental record than market economies. There is no guarantee the 'economic commander' will prioritize minimizing environmental impacts. So, no, I don't agree.The PRC and the former USSR are not countries I would emulate economically because of their 'good' environmental records.

No, I don't suppose. I do think flexibility on the subject has a lot of value though. I see absolutely no sense in not recognizing that emergency needs can only be satisfied by using quick drastic measures that businesses haven't the authority for (or are not supposed to).