======================================================================
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
======================================================================


NY Times December 30, 2010
As for Empathy, the Haves Have Not
By PAMELA PAUL

THE GIST The rich don’t get how the other half lives.

THE SOURCE “Social Class, Contextualism, and Empathic Accuracy,” by
Michael W. Kraus, Stéphane Côté and Dacher Keltner, Psychological Science.

ARE the upper classes really indifferent to the hopes, fears and miseries
of ordinary folk? Or is it that they just don’t understand their less
privileged peers?

According to a paper by three psychological researchers — Michael W.
Kraus, at the University of California, San Francisco; Stéphane Côté, at
the University of Toronto; and Dacher Keltner, the University of
California, Berkeley — members of the upper class are less adept at
reading emotions.

Research on psychological effects of social status is recent in this
country, where the mere mention of class can set off Marxism alarms. “Only
in the last seven or eight years have we tried to capture all the nuances
of differences between the ways the rich and the poor experience the world
psychologically,” Dr. Keltner said. “It’s a really new science.”

The paper, published in October by the Association for Psychological
Science, recounts three experiments conducted among students and employees
of a large (unidentified) public university, some of whom had graduated
from college and others who had not. In American social science, the
definition of class is generally based on measures like income,
occupational prestige and material wealth. In these experiments, class was
determined either by educational level or by self-reported perceptions of
family socioeconomic status.

In the first experiment, participants were asked to look at pictures of
faces and indicate which emotions were being expressed. The more upper
class the judges, the less able they were to accurately identify emotions
in others.

In another experiment, upper-class participants had a harder time reading
the emotions of strangers during simulated job interviews.

In the third one — an interesting twist of an experiment — people of
greater socioeconomic status were asked to compare themselves to the
wealthiest, most powerful Americans, thus diminishing their own relative
stature. When asked to identify emotions by looking at 36 sets of emoting
eyes, they did markedly better than their upper-class peers.

Here’s why: Earlier studies have suggested that those in the lower
classes, unable to simply hire others, rely more on neighbors or relatives
for things like a ride to work or child care. As a result, the authors
propose, they have to develop more effective social skills — ones that
will engender good will.

“Upper-class people, in spite of all their advantages, suffer empathy
deficits,” Dr. Keltner said. “And there are enormous consequences.” In
other words, a high-powered lawyer or chief executive, ill equipped to
pick up on more-subtle emotions, doesn’t make for a sympathetic boss.

In an apocryphal but oft-cited exchange, Hemingway supposed the rich to be
different only because they had more money. But, as Fitzgerald rather
presciently wrote in his story “Rich Boy,” because the wealthy “possess
and enjoy early, it does something to them,” surmising, “They are
different from you and me.” Score one for Scott.






________________________________________________
Send list submissions to: Marxism@lists.econ.utah.edu
Set your options at: 
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Reply via email to