Money can't buy generosity or sympathy, study finds

[Moonlight Graham]

Interesting article from Postmedia News that's worth a read & isn't a long article.

Intro of the article:

Though economically privileged, people from upper-class backgrounds consistently display deficits in empathy, social engagement, generosity and sensitivity as compared to those from the lower classes. The differences in behaviour are so marked, in fact, that naive observers are able to detect a person's socioeconomic background based on 60 seconds of interaction.

The findings, published in the journal Current Directions in Psychological Science, have researchers concluding that wealth comes at considerable personal cost — and that being poor isn't without its wages.

This finding was particularly interesting:

Statistics Canada reports that while wealthier families donate more money to charity in absolute terms, those earning less money donate a higher percentage of their income.

In 2007, donors with annual household incomes less than $20,000 gave an average 1.6 per cent of their pre-tax earnings to charity, compared to just 0.5 per cent for donors with household incomes topping $100,000.

[Oleg Bach]

Having no money...I am loved in my neighbourhood - dispite the fact that I can not materially enrich everyone I touch. The reason that I am respected is that I am truely generous - I give of myself - always asking in an honest way "how are you?" I chat - about personal issues _ I encourage the discouraged - I have nothing to give other than my heart - Recently a very fine buisness person passed away..

- He was a fixture on Queen Street for over 30 years...He was a person that generated (generous) power and love to everyone that he touched - but socially he would be considered a nobody...When he died hundreds of people showed up for the funeral..Professionals with wealth - average working people - the very poor - and yes even some of the local crack heads made a respectful appearance - after we buried him - we all ate a very fine meal and continued to pay tribute.

This man was Christ like - he was generous in spirit while alive - and generous in death as well - It was one of the finest feasts that I have ever attended. The poor sitting with the rich....all had something in common - that they had the privledge of knowing a truely generous person. NOW that is a successful life...to be loved - because YOU loved.

[Oleg Bach]

Lets paint a picture - Imagine that suddenly all the money in the world in all forms just disappeared - who would best survive? Would it be the poor honest kind man - or the rich self centered hater of humanity?

[Thorn]

Interesting article from Postmedia News that's worth a read & isn't a long article.

Intro of the article:

This finding was particularly interesting:

But not really supported by much. There are a number of thoughts which come readily to mind which would suggest that the conclusions of the researchers might be based more on their own biased assessments than anything which could be described as scientifically valid.

The poor give more to charity as a % of their income? But the poor also pay a higher % of their income for almost everything they do, simply because their income is so small. The 'rich' are less attentive to some conversations? Perhaps, being employed, and having high pressure jobs lends itself to more distraction than one who has no job and little thoughts in his or her head. The rich check their PDAs more often? Perhaps because they HAVE PDAs. They have less sympathy than the poor? To what? Certainly people who have worked hard at high pressure jobs are unlikely to feel much sympathy for those who never put in that effort and so never obtained much. But is that really a statement on their level of empathy?

[Moonlight Graham]

NOW that is a successful life...to be loved - because YOU loved.

Very well said Oleg. And nice story.

[Moonlight Graham]

But not really supported by much. There are a number of thoughts which come readily to mind which would suggest that the conclusions of the researchers might be based more on their own biased assessments than anything which could be described as scientifically valid.

You bring up some good points in the rest of your post. However, to make any conclusions about the conclusions of the researchers we'd have to look beyond this article and actually take a look at their research study and its methods. How did they operationalize "generosity" or "sympathy" etc.?

[Bonam]

But not really supported by much. There are a number of thoughts which come readily to mind which would suggest that the conclusions of the researchers might be based more on their own biased assessments than anything which could be described as scientifically valid.

A characteristic inherent to an overwhelming quantity of studies in the field of social "sciences".