53 ms·

You did say they want to remain high status, likely due to their over indexing in narcissism. Even if that’s not your main point, the logical leap that we seem

by bumby 3y ago

You did say they want to remain high status, likely due to their over indexing in narcissism. Even if that’s not your main point, the logical leap that we seem to disagree on is that promoting illiteracy is the means to that end. Carnegie does provide evidence against that, as does all the libraries and educational buildings that are named for wealthy donors. There’s a philosophical argument that all altruism is actually selfish in nature, so I don’t think your premise holds that the wealthy are unique in this regard. What you seem to be saying is that they are complicated just the same as everyone else, just with more resources. If your only point is that wealthy people are status-minded, I don't disagree. I disagree that they are uniquely status-minded. As William Storr's work attests, we are all status-driven apes, whether wealthy or not. You also didn’t answer the question about what it would take to change your mind, which is usually indicative of a dogmatic, rather than reasoned, position.

loup-vaillant 3y ago
> You did say they want to remain high status, likely due to their over indexing in narcissism. Quote me, or I didn’t.
- bumby 3y ago
  >The prevalence of assholes is a documented thing...latest numbers I've heard was over 6% of clinical narcissists...who would ever be surprised that high-status people like being high-status?...the idea that rich assholes would like to keep the education level of the general population below a threatening threshold...it's just obvious." Feel free to clarify, but to me, this reads as, "Rich people, being narcissists, will try to maintain their high status by keeping the education level of the general populace low." It also reads as a narrative talking point without good evidence to support it. I.e., "I can't prove it, I just know it's true."
  - loup-vaillant 3y ago
    Wrong reading. I never intended to make a generalisation out of 6% or even triple that amount. I just wanted to establish that rich assholes are a thing.
    - bumby 3y ago
      You seem to imply they are a higher rate of rich assholes, no? The most cited research on this (Piff et al.) is highly flawed IMO and hasn’t been able to be replicated. Or is your point that people are assholes in general? If the latter, I’m failing to see how that gets connected to rich people actively suppressing education, especially when, as you say, they are the most likely to donate money to those causes.
      - loup-vaillant 3y ago
        > You seem to imply they are a higher rate of rich assholes, no? It seems likely. But that's a detail, because I believe the more important effect is the contempt higher-class people can have towards lower-class people. Some of it may even come from cognitive dissonance. See, barring a few exceptions, one does not get rich just by working. One also has to exploit other people, to spoil them of a fraction of their added value. The richer you are the truer this gets, and then you have to find some way to look at yourself in the mirror despite that. > actively suppressing education I don't recall saying that. My exact words were: "I don't know about libraries specifically, but the idea that rich assholes would like to keep the education level of the general population below a threatening threshold is not conspiracy thinking to me, it's just obvious." > especially when, as you say, they are the most likely to donate money to those causes. I didn't say that either. My exact words were: "the largest contributor to pretty much anything has to be ludicrously rich. Because the only way to give that much, is to own even more."
        bumby 3y ago
        You certainly did say those things. They are quoted from your posts, but abbreviated to be less verbose and wandering. I used ellipses to show where words were cut, and I think you understand this so you seem to just be difficult/obtuse out of a desire to argue. To be generous, you said they are the "largest contributors" which I agree is different than being "most likely." But the research does show they are more likely, possibly because they are in a position to do so. I think that's what connects to your point. Just as a counterpoint to your late-stage capitalism-esque viewpoint, wealthy are also shown to over index in conscientiousness in some studies. This is a personality trait that relates to persistence which is an alternate explanation for goal-attainment (ie wealth).

by bumby 3y ago

loup-vaillant 3y ago

> You did say they want to remain high status, likely due to their over indexing in narcissism. Quote me, or I didn’t.

bumby 3y ago
>The prevalence of assholes is a documented thing...latest numbers I've heard was over 6% of clinical narcissists...who would ever be surprised that high-status people like being high-status?...the idea that rich assholes would like to keep the education level of the general population below a threatening threshold...it's just obvious." Feel free to clarify, but to me, this reads as, "Rich people, being narcissists, will try to maintain their high status by keeping the education level of the general populace low." It also reads as a narrative talking point without good evidence to support it. I.e., "I can't prove it, I just know it's true."
- loup-vaillant 3y ago
  Wrong reading. I never intended to make a generalisation out of 6% or even triple that amount. I just wanted to establish that rich assholes are a thing.
  - bumby 3y ago
    You seem to imply they are a higher rate of rich assholes, no? The most cited research on this (Piff et al.) is highly flawed IMO and hasn’t been able to be replicated. Or is your point that people are assholes in general? If the latter, I’m failing to see how that gets connected to rich people actively suppressing education, especially when, as you say, they are the most likely to donate money to those causes.
    - loup-vaillant 3y ago
      > You seem to imply they are a higher rate of rich assholes, no? It seems likely. But that's a detail, because I believe the more important effect is the contempt higher-class people can have towards lower-class people. Some of it may even come from cognitive dissonance. See, barring a few exceptions, one does not get rich just by working. One also has to exploit other people, to spoil them of a fraction of their added value. The richer you are the truer this gets, and then you have to find some way to look at yourself in the mirror despite that. > actively suppressing education I don't recall saying that. My exact words were: "I don't know about libraries specifically, but the idea that rich assholes would like to keep the education level of the general population below a threatening threshold is not conspiracy thinking to me, it's just obvious." > especially when, as you say, they are the most likely to donate money to those causes. I didn't say that either. My exact words were: "the largest contributor to pretty much anything has to be ludicrously rich. Because the only way to give that much, is to own even more."
      - bumby 3y ago
        You certainly did say those things. They are quoted from your posts, but abbreviated to be less verbose and wandering. I used ellipses to show where words were cut, and I think you understand this so you seem to just be difficult/obtuse out of a desire to argue. To be generous, you said they are the "largest contributors" which I agree is different than being "most likely." But the research does show they are more likely, possibly because they are in a position to do so. I think that's what connects to your point. Just as a counterpoint to your late-stage capitalism-esque viewpoint, wealthy are also shown to over index in conscientiousness in some studies. This is a personality trait that relates to persistence which is an alternate explanation for goal-attainment (ie wealth).