Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
December 8, 2014 at 1:29 AM in reply to: ot. the life changing magic of tidying up: the Japanese art of decluttering #780847
CA renter
Participant[quote=njtosd][quote=FlyerInHi][quote=scaredyclassic]
being empathetic brings benefits regardless of whether you receive empathy in return.[/quote]Of course. But empathy is limited, no? As a limited resource, maybe we should withhold it and direct to where we get highest ROI.[/quote]
I don’t completely accept the “liberals as empathetic” stereotype. Some are, some aren’t. I think you need to look more at actions more than words. As far as charitable generosity goes (money, blood, volunteering) conservatives are more generous, according to this article in the NYT:
From the linked op-ed:
“When liberals see the data on giving, they tend to protest that conservatives look good only because they shower dollars on churches — that a fair amount of that money isn’t helping the poor, but simply constructing lavish spires.
It’s true that religion is the essential reason conservatives give more, and religious liberals are as generous as religious conservatives. Among the stingiest of the stingy are secular conservatives.
According to Google’s figures, if donations to all religious organizations are excluded, liberals give slightly more to charity than conservatives do. But Mr. Brooks says that if measuring by the percentage of income given, conservatives are more generous than liberals even to secular causes.”
—————
I also think that conservatives donate more money/time privately because that’s how they tend to think we should take care of the neediest people in society — private charity. Liberals, OTOH, tend to believe that the government is best at allocating resources to the needy, so they tend to advocate for higher taxes which can be used to fund more services and a stronger, more generous social safety net for those in need.
We should not conflate the desire to “do the right thing” with empathy. People do good works for many reasons — religious, peer pressure, a desire to look good to others/social climbing, etc. And many people can feel empathy, but only for those with whom they can relate (same race, background, SES, religion, family status, etc.).
I think liberals are more willing to give to those whom they might not consider totally “deserving” of aid. Perhaps their definition of “deserving” is broader than how a conservative might define it, too.
Participant[quote=moneymaker]Read in the paper that for the average house (or was it mean?) in San Diego, anyway the household income would have to be 101K, problem is the average income is more like 63K.[/quote]
San Diego is definitely a tough place to live WRT living expenses and potential income-earning opportunities.
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=CA renter]
Conservatives are more likely to take personal credit for their success rather than acknowledging the role of luck (and other people, among other things) in their lives, IMHO, while a more liberal person is probably more likely to acknowledge the fact that they are not individually responsible for the successes (or failures) in their lives — giving more credit to coworkers, good timing, intellectual or physical gifts, the role of public infrastructure, etc…luck. [/quote]CAr, that assumes that conservatives are “successful.”
Can we say that conservatives voters in Mississippi, the lowest per capita GDP state in the nation, are successful?
With regard to empathy, I think it’s easier to dismiss problems out of hand than to try to understand them.
I have a friend who’s conservative. Former military. So his attitude is always “pull your head of your ass, and do something about it.” Everything is a one-liner. He would send me links to news articles with remarks like “because of Obama and fucking liberals like you.”
One day, I was sick of being circumspect and let him have some of his own medicine. Needless to say, we’re not talking much anymore. He has alcohol, obesity and pain issues and is living in a clusterfuck man-cave.
Can we say that “unsuccessful” conservatives are f’ing losers and deserve it? Would they agree?
I’m thinking that it’s a weakness to be empathetic towards people who lack empathy. You’re giving something and getting nothing in return. That’s a raw deal that a shrewd business person would never accept.[/quote]
While you and I might not think of them as “successful,” I’m willing to bet that they think otherwise. Based on my personal observations of what we would describe as “redneck Republicans,” this group of conservatives tends to put “being a white (usually male) American” at the top of their list of successes.
Many of them really do work hard as well, and they manage to make a life for themselves — however simple it may be — based on this hard work. In their minds, they are successful.
For those who are on welfare of some sort, yet still manage to be conservative Republicans…I can only guess that a low IQ and tons of peer pressure and brainwashing are responsible for their beliefs. Far too many of them don’t even realize that they are net recipients of government largesse.
Participant[quote=scaredyclassic]
some data..Thanks for sharing that, scaredy. Pretty much lines up with what I’ve observed in life.
Participant[quote=spdrun]I’ve never owned a fucking SUV and if someone gave me one, I’d part it out with a chain saw and send them pictures.
Then take a trip to Prague on the money gained from EBay sales while laughing all the way.
And don’t confuse editorials in op-ed pages with the feelings of the average employee in a given country. People who I know in northern Europe are quite grateful NOT to be Americans.[/quote]
Have to second what spdrun says here. Nobody in my European family has ever expressed a desire to come to the US and live/work the way we do. As a matter of fact, they laugh when you even suggest it. OTOH, my DH has two brothers who are US citizens (one US-born, the other German-born), and both live and work in Germany. My mother only came here because she was following her boyfriend…and she had always wanted to go back, but being married to an American with American kids put an end to that idea. Many (most?) Europeans think that Americans are rather backward.
I have yet to meet a European who is envious of our lifestyle. It’s pretty much a given, at least in their minds, that their lifestyle is superior to ours.
Participant[quote=spdrun]A nation is just an extended family unit, which in turn is an extension of an individual.
Talk to most Germans or French, and ask them if they’d want to work 50+ hours per week on average if salaried, have no time off guaranteed by law, or tell them that health insurance isn’t guaranteed, and they’d think twice about the US. Remember that there are street protests whenever some politico yakks about introducing reforms that even slightly approach US-style capitalism.
True, the wealthier ones visit the US to shop, but I don’t see hoardes of them clamoring to immigrate here.
The US might offer more of an opportunity to be super wealthy, but that’s an 0.0002% chance vs an 0.0001% chance. For the average working person, having hours limited by law, vacation guarantees, and health insurance covered by the welfare state is a great thing.
And really, how many iPads or TVs can one view at once? How many cars can one drive simultaneously?[/quote]
Well said, spdrun.
Participant[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=njtosd]
http://research.vtc.vt.edu/news/2014/oct/29/liberal-or-conservative-brain-responses-disgusting/So, it could be that like hair color and eye color, genetically related groups are more likely to share political opinions. It also suggests that no matter how much we think we’ve chosen our politics, we probably haven’t.
[/quote]Maybe conservatives’ responses to disgusting images show their lesser ability to think abstractly and separate their individual revulsion from the theoretical.
In talking to conservatives, I often hear arguments like “I’m successful, so why should I feed losers who don’t have the discipline and force of character to take care of themselves. I started from nothing, and I made it. So can they. They live pretty well already, so they have nothing to bitch about.”
Liberal are more likely to talk in broader terms about policies that work for everybody, taking their individual circumstances less into account.[/quote]
Have to agree with Brian on this. The level of disgust in those studies isn’t necessarily related to any kind of empathetic feeling on the part of the participants. I think it’s more related to their intolerance of things that don’t conform to their ideals and expectations.
Participant[quote=njtosd][quote=CA renter]
While jealousy and the desire to attain a dominant position and to remain on top are perfectly natural human emotions (and probably necessary for survival, especially in more primitive times), the extent of this empathy/lack of empathy for others is likely at the root of our political/sociological differences.
[/quote]
Wait – you can’t really be making the sweeping generalization that conservatives are less empathetic (are you? maybe I am misunderstanding). In fact, the heightened sensitivity among conservatives identified in one of the studies above would probably suggest the opposite. I have voted for presidents of both political parties and consider myself an independent. I don’t think there is a difference in ultimate goodness between members of the two parties. I do think there is a difference in terms of perspective. I also think that each party has its share of bad eggs, and when it comes time to criticize, those bad eggs make good targets.[/quote]
Yes, I am saying that, but I am not associating empathy with “goodness.”
A person can lack empathy but still have a strong drive to “do the right thing.” A person can be empathetic, but still commit horrible crimes (probably more likely to feel justified if they are crimes of passion).
IMO, conservatives tend to think in more binary terms: good/bad, right/wrong, deserving/undeserving, lazy/hard-working, bound for heaven/bound for hell, etc. Liberals tend to focus more on the grey in between: the background and conditions that might have led this person (or this group of people) to think or act in this particular way; the historical, geographical, cultural, or genetic causes of these behaviors and beliefs; etc., etc.
IMO, a more conservative person will look at a situation within the context of that more binary world, not really trying to feel and fully understand the background of others in an attempt to better understand why things have turned out they way they have. They are more inclined to assess things based on a very superficial cause-and-effect relationship like, “being lazy makes you unsuccessful,” instead of trying to determine if there are other reasons for that person’s difficulty in completing tasks or achieving some other metric of success — might he/she be suffering from emotional/mental/physical disabilities, or do they have other factors in their lives that might play a more important role than just “laziness.”
Conservatives are more likely to take personal credit for their success rather than acknowledging the role of luck (and other people, among other things) in their lives, IMHO, while a more liberal person is probably more likely to acknowledge the fact that they are not individually responsible for the successes (or failures) in their lives — giving more credit to coworkers, good timing, intellectual or physical gifts, the role of public infrastructure, etc…luck.
Bringing this back around to why Jewish people are more likely to vote for democrats, I think it has a lot to do with siding with the underdog (as they’ve been the underdog for so long) and having a more philosophical, as opposed to a dogmatic, approach to life.
Participant[quote=spdrun]Republicans are just as much about big government as Dems, despite their arguing. The programs that they propose are just less useful to the average person.[/quote]
Exactly right.
Participant[quote=EconProf][quote=livinincali][quote=CA renter]
While jealousy and the desire to attain a dominant position and to remain on top are perfectly natural human emotions (and probably necessary for survival, especially in more primitive times), the extent of this empathy/lack of empathy for others is likely at the root of our political/sociological differences.And I believe that it takes a certain intellectual perspective to be able to truly appreciate another person’s lot in life — especially if it’s very different from one’s own — and to have empathy for them…leading to a true desire to see them attain a higher socio-economic/power status that might feel more “threatening” to those already at the top.[/quote]
I don’t know that it’s a lack of empathy. It’s the fact that many people don’t behave as rational economic actors. If you give someone living paycheck to paycheck a $10/hr an hour raise are they going to use that addition money to save and behave rationally or are they going to blow it on junk from China.
No matter what people make there’s always going to be someone on the bottom and if your at the bottom you’re likely to be subject to some scarcity of some resource. The poorest of poor in this country live better than billions of other people on this planet.
I’ve come to realize I can’t put myself in some dumb persons shoes. I just can’t understand the decisions that they make or the things that they deem are important. I also can’t dictate how they should do things either. That’s where the Ivory tower types get it wrong. They can’t force people to behave in a logical economic manner.
I know the flaws with supply side economics but if you want everybody to have a higher standard of living you need to produce more quality goods and services.[/quote]
I think you nailed it Livinincali. A big difference between the poor and the middle class is their time horizon, their planning, and their ability to defer gratification. This is either taught by the parents or not, and it has a lifelong impact.
What is important that we inherit from our parents is not so much money but values which determine our lifetime spending, education, and work ethic.[/quote]Every bit as important as those things are genetic traits, SES, etc. The many factors that determine whether or not one will be “successful” are far more complex than just what one learns from his/her parents. I would say these other things are overwhelmingly more influential than what parents teach their children, and even a parent’s willingness/ability to teach his/her children about economics and finance is determined by so many other factors over which we have little to no control.
Participant[quote=spdrun]… or France. Or Germany. Or any number of countries where certain companies are publicly owned.[/quote]
Exactly, spdrun. Some people are clueless when it comes to the differences between economic systems, and they regularly confuse socialism with dictatorial communism. There are HUGE differences between the two.
Participant[quote=flu][quote=CA renter]
Correct. This is why I’ve always differentiated between founding CEOs and “professional” CEOs (and other executive positions).
But it’s not just a matter of corporate management. The financial industry is one of the biggest problems in this country, IMO. They set themselves up to skim a portion of almost every legitimate transaction out there, yet they do very little to benefit society or the economy. We could easily set up a public bank that could facilitate transactions and even make loans to people and businesses for a fraction of the cost.
[/quote][quote=spdrun]… or France. Or Germany. Or any number of countries where certain companies are publicly owned.[/quote]
..Or why not go fully monty and just say all rental properties should be publicly owned? Afterall, how dare us pigglords use on our capital and good credit scores to buy rental property, to provide housing for people that need/want rental in exchange for something called “profit” so we don’t have to work in the future when we’re too old to work and count on government provided benefits completely
…There should be no profit at all in the rental business for things such as providing bare necessities like shelter for the greater good of people, so that we can keep rent prices to the absolutely bare minimum and avoid “skimming” profits from rentals…
… But we don’t need to wait for government action before that goodness is done…We can do it right now together… Even though we might be several hundreds/month cash flow positive and very profitable, let’s think about the greater good of people and just stop doing that and offer rentals with rent prices really low at $0 profit…
Come on guys….Who’s with me?????[/quote]
You know how I feel about this. Housing/shelter is a basic necessity and, in my opinion, should not be subject to speculation. Personally, I have a problem with speculation where “investors” simply buy something that *already exists* in the hopes of extracting rent or selling it for a profit in the future — whether housing/land, agricultural commodities, industrial metals and other raw materials needed for production, etc. Some would argue that this makes a market more efficient, but it doesn’t. Speculators will enter and leave markets at exactly the wrong times — driving up prices in anticipation of shortages and/or unusually high organic demand, and selling in anticipation of supply gluts and/or unusually low demand. They cause greater volatility, and make the bubbles, booms and busts more pronounced; they do far more damage than good in most markets.
Of course, if you BUILD rental units and rent them out for a profit, I don’t have a problem with that, assuming that the land used for the units isn’t needed by others who would like to own their own homes, instead. As it works now, speculators/landlords are competing with people who are simply looking for a home of their own and they are driving prices well above where they should be. I most definitely have a problem with this.
Participant[quote=livinincali][quote=CA renter]
While jealousy and the desire to attain a dominant position and to remain on top are perfectly natural human emotions (and probably necessary for survival, especially in more primitive times), the extent of this empathy/lack of empathy for others is likely at the root of our political/sociological differences.And I believe that it takes a certain intellectual perspective to be able to truly appreciate another person’s lot in life — especially if it’s very different from one’s own — and to have empathy for them…leading to a true desire to see them attain a higher socio-economic/power status that might feel more “threatening” to those already at the top.[/quote]
I don’t know that it’s a lack of empathy. It’s the fact that many people don’t behave as rational economic actors. If you give someone living paycheck to paycheck a $10/hr an hour raise are they going to use that addition money to save and behave rationally or are they going to blow it on junk from China.
No matter what people make there’s always going to be someone on the bottom and if your at the bottom you’re likely to be subject to some scarcity of some resource. The poorest of poor in this country live better than billions of other people on this planet.
I’ve come to realize I can’t put myself in some dumb persons shoes. I just can’t understand the decisions that they make or the things that they deem are important. I also can’t dictate how they should do things either. That’s where the Ivory tower types get it wrong. They can’t force people to behave in a logical economic manner.
I know the flaws with supply side economics but if you want everybody to have a higher standard of living you need to produce more quality goods and services.[/quote]
Agree with your second paragraph, there will always been a top and a bottom, but the extent of the disparity is the issue here, IMO. While “rational” people might think it’s perfectly fine and truly believe with all their hearts and minds that those at the extremes of this wealth/income spectrum “deserve” to be there, more empathetic people will likely look into the “why” of these disparities.
Our circumstances are greatly affected by things over which we have little to no control: where we were born, when we were born, to whom we were born, what race/ethnicity we were born into, the mental and physical “gifts” and disabilities we were born with, our genetic makeup (affecting pretty much everything about us), our natural looks (including metabolism), our size, being in the right place at the right time, social networks, etc…in a nutshell: LUCK. All of this affects outcomes more than anything else…it even affects whether or not we are “go-getters” or “lazy slackers.”
You are coming from the perspective of someone who probably has an above-average intellect and who probably had a relatively easy time getting through school and life, in general. It might be easy for you to see the “rational” choices available to people, but not everyone is able to think in the same “rational” way.
A more empathetic person would understand that we cannot judge everyone else by the same standards that we can/should judge ourselves (assuming we’ve won the genetic/luck lottery). A more empathetic person would likely look to the circumstances from which these poor decision-makers come and try to ameliorate the circumstances that cause them to make these bad decisions.
A higher standard of living does not necessarily require us to produce more goods and services — destroying the earth in the process. There are other models that we can look to that would provide the same (or better) quality of life for the greatest possible number of people.
A Resource-Based Economy is just an example of a different way of looking at things (and I don’t necessarily agree with everything they advocate for). IMHO, we need to think outside of the box if we want to create a better world for ourselves and for future generations.
December 5, 2014 at 2:40 PM in reply to: ot. the life changing magic of tidying up: the Japanese art of decluttering #780788ParticipantYes, they sure are!
Oftentimes, simple really is better.
-
AuthorPosts
