I would be suspicious of the correlation was really so straight. There are a lot of complicated factors around why one might be nice or not nice and in my exper

I would be suspicious of the correlation was really so straight. There are a lot of complicated factors around why one might be nice or not nice and in my experience it hasn't been anywhere near this simple. As an example, people who had hard lives often become hard themselves, and that may make their conduct worse. People in countries where things are not going well are not exactly super duper nice. People also tend to treat different people differently, so they may be nice to one group and not nice at all to another group. People may especially be not nice to a group if they perceive that group as a threat. A lot of the definitions here seem rather tailored. Giving large tips is not really the information I'd use to determine whether or not someone was nice, especially since this gets layered on top of social signaling in a specific culture. Generally, things like giving money, donating to charity, etc., may be viewed as shallow level contributions by the rich and they'd rather do something they perceive as more significant, such as lobbying or starting a company. Some of this reminds me a bit of accusing meat eaters of animal cruelty. Meat eaters didn't invent it, even if they're receptors of the end product. There are some meat eaters that promote animal cruelty directly, though, and there are also systems that promote it, and those should be the subject of scorn. I'm sure there are empathy gaps because people don't share experiences. But a person is not evil if they simply don't support those less fortunate, or if they don't understand them. That's just an empathy gap, and people are generally quite bad at relating to experiences they don't have in general, in both directions. A person needs to actually be doing bad things to be classified as bad.