You've missed the point of the article. The world sucking makes people change their attitudes and err on the side of believing that people who are unfortunate a

You've missed the point of the article. The world sucking makes people change their attitudes and err on the side of believing that people who are unfortunate are in their situation due to character flaws (rather than bad luck or bad starting conditions). A more objective evaluation of these individuals should take instead into account these additional features. I've noticed a different dichotomy between people than what you describe. Some really pretend that the world is a meritocracy, and really go to extreme lengths to attempt to explain away differences from this position. They may be personally very compassionate to their close circle of friends and family, but have no "intellectual compassion" for third parties in bad situations. They do not contribute to charities, and feel cheated that "their money" is being "stolen" in tax dollars and redistributed to others. On the other hand, others realise that the world is not a strict meritocracy, and can extend at least "intellectual compassion" to third parties in bad situations, recognising that bad luck and unfair starting conditions are the biggest part of how they're in these situations. They're more likely to treat these people as individuals, are more socially progressive, and favour redistributive social policy. This article explains a fundamental bias that many people use in their judgements of others, especially the disadvantaged. As with other biases, if we are at least aware of it we can attempt to use this awareness to recalibrate our thinking slightly on social issues.