5 ms·

>Recent evidence indicates that chimpanzees (and likely other cognitively advanced social species) also change their behavior when they get more than a partner,

>Recent evidence indicates that chimpanzees (and likely other cognitively advanced social species) also change their behavior when they get more than a partner, at least when their partner has some recourse. I wonder if this is our current problem with inequality today. The poor don't have any real recourse against the rich and the rich know that. Sometimes I wonder if all this is a result of the decrease in church attendance (Note: I am not religious). We used to have a communal meeting ground where people across class came together once a week and were able to mingle, speak with and over long time periods form strong relationships/friendships with those who were not of the same class. We're much more socially stratified today.

groby_b 9y ago
If you go and visit a church, you will realize that no, you don't have a communal meeting ground across class. Class and geography is strongly correlated, so that pre-sorts already. Within that church, people self-select according to the smaller sub-strata of class they belong to. As placeholder for class, here's an interesting stat on racial diversity: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/07/27/the-most-and-least-racially-diverse-u-s-religious-groups/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/07/27/the-most-and... Most of the large denominations are quite homogenous. The same shakes out across individual churches, and across class. We tend to sort, as humans. (Then again, having a recourse does not rely on mingling)
- irrational 9y ago
  It depends on the church. In the LDS church each congregation covers a specific geographical area (everyone that lives between main street on the north and elm street on the south and maple street on the west and beach street on the east will to go such-and-such congregation). Almost nobody goes to a different congregation than the one they live within. The boundaries never have to do with where the rich and poor live, but rather how big do they have to make the boundaries to encompass enough people to achieve a minimum sustainable congregation. If too many people move into the congregation's boundaries, then it is split. If too many move out than the boundaries of surrounding congregations will be realigned until there is a sufficient number in each congregation. The result is that rich and poor are in the same congregation. I am LDS and the south half of our boundaries are multi-million dollar homes and the north half are low-income apartment complexes. In between are middle-class neighborhoods. Probably about 1/3 of the congregation comes from the three different areas. We have people that are CIOs of major corporations and people who are very poor all meeting and serving together.
  - groby_b 9y ago
    I think it's probably fair to say that in Utah, there is fairly strong social pressure to be a member of LDS. (58% of all denominations are LDS) Which gets you as close to a single church as you can be in a democratic society. Combine that with the fact that LDS always seems to take a very pragmatic approach to things (little "vanity" churches, congregations are need-based), and I wouldn't be surprised if this is a fairly unique outcome. But... I don't know. And I can't really find much data on income distribution in individual congregations. Well, one paper from Pew, and it confirms that the LDS split is quite close to the national split: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/10/11/how-income-varies-among-u-s-religious-groups/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/10/11/how-income-v... But still, nothing about how individual congregations sort.
    - irrational 9y ago
      I don't live in Utah (never have). I live in Oregon. But I've also live in Washington, Florida, Indiana, California, Colorado, Texas, and Puerto Rico and I've found that same congregation dynamics in all of those places.
- matt4077 9y ago
  > (Then again, having a recourse does not rely on mingling) "Mingling" is somewhat important because so much of our sense of right and wrong is shaped not by laws, or even popular culture, but by people we consider our "peers", and whose respect we want to earn.
- emmelaich 9y ago
  It's relative though; I think Church going (or Synagogue, Mosque, whatever) gives you a far stronger chance than not. Even in the unlikely event that you never speak to one of the other classes, most would have a significant charity associated that would have contact with all sorts of people.
ci5er 9y ago
"The poor" and "the rich" are categories. How can there be recourse when no individual harm has been done? If a single rich person did something wrong against a single poor person - then, of course, there is a path to recourse. Class-action suits exist for entire groups that have been harmed, but I don't think that would extend to greed or envy for wanting to level disparate levels of income or wealth and calling that "harm".
- thatcat 9y ago
  You can take recourse against non-specific action. For example the recourse to speeding at is using anti speeding laws and enforcement to create a disincentive. Labor laws, unions, and progressive taxes are the forms of class-action generally taken for recourse against this non-specific harm.

groby_b 9y ago

If you go and visit a church, you will realize that no, you don't have a communal meeting ground across class. Class and geography is strongly correlated, so that pre-sorts already. Within that church, people self-select according to the smaller sub-strata of class they belong to. As placeholder for class, here's an interesting stat on racial diversity: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/07/27/the-most-and-least-racially-diverse-u-s-religious-groups/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/07/27/the-most-and... Most of the large denominations are quite homogenous. The same shakes out across individual churches, and across class. We tend to sort, as humans. (Then again, having a recourse does not rely on mingling)

irrational 9y ago
It depends on the church. In the LDS church each congregation covers a specific geographical area (everyone that lives between main street on the north and elm street on the south and maple street on the west and beach street on the east will to go such-and-such congregation). Almost nobody goes to a different congregation than the one they live within. The boundaries never have to do with where the rich and poor live, but rather how big do they have to make the boundaries to encompass enough people to achieve a minimum sustainable congregation. If too many people move into the congregation's boundaries, then it is split. If too many move out than the boundaries of surrounding congregations will be realigned until there is a sufficient number in each congregation. The result is that rich and poor are in the same congregation. I am LDS and the south half of our boundaries are multi-million dollar homes and the north half are low-income apartment complexes. In between are middle-class neighborhoods. Probably about 1/3 of the congregation comes from the three different areas. We have people that are CIOs of major corporations and people who are very poor all meeting and serving together.
- groby_b 9y ago
  I think it's probably fair to say that in Utah, there is fairly strong social pressure to be a member of LDS. (58% of all denominations are LDS) Which gets you as close to a single church as you can be in a democratic society. Combine that with the fact that LDS always seems to take a very pragmatic approach to things (little "vanity" churches, congregations are need-based), and I wouldn't be surprised if this is a fairly unique outcome. But... I don't know. And I can't really find much data on income distribution in individual congregations. Well, one paper from Pew, and it confirms that the LDS split is quite close to the national split: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/10/11/how-income-varies-among-u-s-religious-groups/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/10/11/how-income-v... But still, nothing about how individual congregations sort.
  - irrational 9y ago
    I don't live in Utah (never have). I live in Oregon. But I've also live in Washington, Florida, Indiana, California, Colorado, Texas, and Puerto Rico and I've found that same congregation dynamics in all of those places.
matt4077 9y ago
> (Then again, having a recourse does not rely on mingling) "Mingling" is somewhat important because so much of our sense of right and wrong is shaped not by laws, or even popular culture, but by people we consider our "peers", and whose respect we want to earn.
emmelaich 9y ago
It's relative though; I think Church going (or Synagogue, Mosque, whatever) gives you a far stronger chance than not. Even in the unlikely event that you never speak to one of the other classes, most would have a significant charity associated that would have contact with all sorts of people.

ci5er 9y ago

"The poor" and "the rich" are categories. How can there be recourse when no individual harm has been done? If a single rich person did something wrong against a single poor person - then, of course, there is a path to recourse. Class-action suits exist for entire groups that have been harmed, but I don't think that would extend to greed or envy for wanting to level disparate levels of income or wealth and calling that "harm".

thatcat 9y ago
You can take recourse against non-specific action. For example the recourse to speeding at is using anti speeding laws and enforcement to create a disincentive. Labor laws, unions, and progressive taxes are the forms of class-action generally taken for recourse against this non-specific harm.