5 ms·

> It's more that money and power enable you to be who you really are If you’re only a certain way when you have money and power, is it really “who you really a

> It's more that money and power enable you to be who you really are If you’re only a certain way when you have money and power, is it really “who you really are”?

Gooblebrai 3mo ago
Spot on
pdpi 3mo ago
If the only reason you didn't behave that way to begin with is that you lack the money and power to evade the consequences, then yes. You really are that person.
- chii 3mo ago
  while i somewhat agree with that reasoning, it can go too far - most people would murder and kill if there weren't any consequences to doing so. But is it right to say who they really are as being murderers?
  - pdpi 3mo ago
    Most people would what? No, I don’t believe that’s true.
  - hgffrur 3mo ago
    > most people would murder and kill if there weren't any consequences to doing so …yeah, it’s fitting that sama was the top user here. What a wretched hive of scum and villainy.
  - airstrike 3mo ago
    you should probably seek mental help and read them this specific thread to cut to the chase instead of paying for 10 sessions
  - ninjagoo 3mo ago
    > most people would murder and kill if there weren't any consequences to doing so Do you have any evidence to support this? Feels like this opinion is made up, for unknown reasons. In reality, psychopathic tendencies are about 4.5% in the general adult population, a far cry from 'most people', with the gold standard assessment being only 1.2%. [1] From that same article, "The construct of psychopathy is understood generically as a type of personality disorder characterized, among other important features, by the presence of behaviors that conflict with the social, moral, or legal norms of society, giving rise in many cases to clearly criminal behaviors ..." There's also the bagel experiment described in Freakonomics. [2] [1] https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.661044/full https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.... [2] https://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/WhatTheBagelManSaw.pdf https://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/WhatTheBagelM...
  - jamiek88 3mo ago
    That says a huge amount about YOU and nothing about ‘most people’. What a very revealing thing to say. Wow.
  - matwood 3mo ago
    > most people would murder and kill if there weren't any consequences to doing so Citation needed. There are a lot of ways I can improve as a person, but I can promise you I am not and not ever been a murderer or killer regardless of consequences. Even if someone threatened me or someone else, I would do my best to not kill them and simply diffuse the situation. Maybe take some time to reflect.
  - danudey 3mo ago
    > most people would murder and kill if there weren't any consequences to doing so This is what Christians tell themselves and others to explain why believing in their religion is so important, but it's not even remotely true. Humans evolved community and society long before we evolved organized religion. I constantly see Christians pitching this like some kind of gotcha: "If you don't believe in God, then how do you know what's right or wrong?" The simple answer is that I have empty and I care about how other people feel; I try to do things that make things better and avoid things that make things worse, both for me and for others. If the only reason that you don't rape and murder is because you're worried about consequences then that makes you a horrible person whether you act on it or not. Conversely, it seems as though Christians see these 'teachings' as a get out of moral quandary free card; if the Bible implies it's okay, or you can justify an interpretation where that's the case, then it's completely fine to do whatever you like. Harass or attack trans people, bomb Iran, make miscarriages illegal but refuse to feed the poor or help with daycare - all because one reading of the bible supports the things you want to do (even though it doesn't) but doesn't require what you don't want to do (even though it does, actually).
    - pdpi 3mo ago
      It's especially interesting when you consider that doing the Right Thing despite the consequences (like when challenging a tyrant) is seen as heroic. The logical consequence is that, if you view God as the ultimate tyrant, challenging him is supremely heroic.
dvfjsdhgfv 3mo ago
I believe the original statement is an oversimplification. What actually happens is that extreme situations, both positive and negative, can help you discover things about you that you didn't know before. Apart from that, the problem with "who you really are" is that individual is more of a process than a static thing, so any such reification becomes invalid in the next instant.
- ElProlactin 3mo ago
  You're right that people aren't static, but we should also acknowledge there are lots of people who become rich and powerful and they don't do horrid things. Many are perfectly decent people who care for their families, help those around them, contribute to their communities and use their wealth and power to support causes that are important to them. You don't hear about these people as much because they're not out looking for attention, making outlandish statements or even trying to "change the world" in a narcisstic Silicon Valley way. "Who you are" at your core drives the direction you go in when you acquire wealth and power.
xnx 3mo ago
Yes. "Power doesn't corrupt, it reveals"
- msdz 3mo ago
  Same goes for money: It enables greedy jerks to be more greedy and more of a jerky, and it enables people who e.g. voluntarily donated already to do much more in that direction, too.
sfn42 3mo ago
I'd say who you really are is whoever you really are. If you're acting like a dick then you really are a dick, I don't care whether your financial situation influences your behavior.
danudey 3mo ago
[dead]

> It's more that money and power enable you to be who you really are If you’re only a certain way when you have money and power, is it really “who you really are”?

Gooblebrai 3mo ago

Spot on

pdpi 3mo ago

If the only reason you didn't behave that way to begin with is that you lack the money and power to evade the consequences, then yes. You really are that person.

chii 3mo ago
while i somewhat agree with that reasoning, it can go too far - most people would murder and kill if there weren't any consequences to doing so. But is it right to say who they really are as being murderers?
- pdpi 3mo ago
  Most people would what? No, I don’t believe that’s true.
- hgffrur 3mo ago
  > most people would murder and kill if there weren't any consequences to doing so …yeah, it’s fitting that sama was the top user here. What a wretched hive of scum and villainy.
- airstrike 3mo ago
  you should probably seek mental help and read them this specific thread to cut to the chase instead of paying for 10 sessions
- ninjagoo 3mo ago
  > most people would murder and kill if there weren't any consequences to doing so Do you have any evidence to support this? Feels like this opinion is made up, for unknown reasons. In reality, psychopathic tendencies are about 4.5% in the general adult population, a far cry from 'most people', with the gold standard assessment being only 1.2%. [1] From that same article, "The construct of psychopathy is understood generically as a type of personality disorder characterized, among other important features, by the presence of behaviors that conflict with the social, moral, or legal norms of society, giving rise in many cases to clearly criminal behaviors ..." There's also the bagel experiment described in Freakonomics. [2] [1] https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.661044/full https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.... [2] https://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/WhatTheBagelManSaw.pdf https://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/WhatTheBagelM...
- jamiek88 3mo ago
  That says a huge amount about YOU and nothing about ‘most people’. What a very revealing thing to say. Wow.
- matwood 3mo ago
  > most people would murder and kill if there weren't any consequences to doing so Citation needed. There are a lot of ways I can improve as a person, but I can promise you I am not and not ever been a murderer or killer regardless of consequences. Even if someone threatened me or someone else, I would do my best to not kill them and simply diffuse the situation. Maybe take some time to reflect.
- danudey 3mo ago
  > most people would murder and kill if there weren't any consequences to doing so This is what Christians tell themselves and others to explain why believing in their religion is so important, but it's not even remotely true. Humans evolved community and society long before we evolved organized religion. I constantly see Christians pitching this like some kind of gotcha: "If you don't believe in God, then how do you know what's right or wrong?" The simple answer is that I have empty and I care about how other people feel; I try to do things that make things better and avoid things that make things worse, both for me and for others. If the only reason that you don't rape and murder is because you're worried about consequences then that makes you a horrible person whether you act on it or not. Conversely, it seems as though Christians see these 'teachings' as a get out of moral quandary free card; if the Bible implies it's okay, or you can justify an interpretation where that's the case, then it's completely fine to do whatever you like. Harass or attack trans people, bomb Iran, make miscarriages illegal but refuse to feed the poor or help with daycare - all because one reading of the bible supports the things you want to do (even though it doesn't) but doesn't require what you don't want to do (even though it does, actually).
  - pdpi 3mo ago
    It's especially interesting when you consider that doing the Right Thing despite the consequences (like when challenging a tyrant) is seen as heroic. The logical consequence is that, if you view God as the ultimate tyrant, challenging him is supremely heroic.

dvfjsdhgfv 3mo ago

I believe the original statement is an oversimplification. What actually happens is that extreme situations, both positive and negative, can help you discover things about you that you didn't know before. Apart from that, the problem with "who you really are" is that individual is more of a process than a static thing, so any such reification becomes invalid in the next instant.

ElProlactin 3mo ago
You're right that people aren't static, but we should also acknowledge there are lots of people who become rich and powerful and they don't do horrid things. Many are perfectly decent people who care for their families, help those around them, contribute to their communities and use their wealth and power to support causes that are important to them. You don't hear about these people as much because they're not out looking for attention, making outlandish statements or even trying to "change the world" in a narcisstic Silicon Valley way. "Who you are" at your core drives the direction you go in when you acquire wealth and power.

xnx 3mo ago

Yes. "Power doesn't corrupt, it reveals"

msdz 3mo ago
Same goes for money: It enables greedy jerks to be more greedy and more of a jerky, and it enables people who e.g. voluntarily donated already to do much more in that direction, too.

sfn42 3mo ago

I'd say who you really are is whoever you really are. If you're acting like a dick then you really are a dick, I don't care whether your financial situation influences your behavior.

danudey 3mo ago

[dead]