Community Notorious on Nostr: We have to save billionaires from themselves. What determines behavior more strongly: ...
We have to save billionaires from themselves.
What determines behavior more strongly: Nature or nurture? Internal or external factors? Personality and values or our life circumstances and events?
150 years of psychology research establishes that it's option B, overall (and pretty solidly). Internal factors matter--sometimes a lot--but in a head-to-head the external factors/situation/environment/nurture the vast majority of the time.
There is almost certainly a selection bias in who becomes extremely rich--people with psychopathic traits are probably more likely to become "self-made men" than less psychopathic people. However, most rich people just inherited their wealth, or enough to put them in a position to use wealth to make more wealth. And don't we all know of a performer or athlete who seemed cool for a while, but after becoming rich started saying and doing really assholey things?
Becoming rich changes people, kind of like moving to a small town or becoming disabled; when your environment and circumstances change, so does your behavior. "Billionaire behavior" feels like a cluster of actions and attitudes so predictable that they could be classified with DSM criteria.
Their changed behavior arguably threatens their own happiness and humanity but, more importantly, they reliably become the dragon on the hill, spewing their newfound (and disproportionately ultra-conservative) values all over innocent people.
Mostly we need to save ourselves and our neighbors from billionaires. However, seeing "billionaire" as a disease can (IMO) be quite beneficial. Preventing the existence of billionaires would save many people from themselves, as well.
#billionaires #wealth #incomeinequality #psychology #research #dsm #personality #behavior
What determines behavior more strongly: Nature or nurture? Internal or external factors? Personality and values or our life circumstances and events?
150 years of psychology research establishes that it's option B, overall (and pretty solidly). Internal factors matter--sometimes a lot--but in a head-to-head the external factors/situation/environment/nurture the vast majority of the time.
There is almost certainly a selection bias in who becomes extremely rich--people with psychopathic traits are probably more likely to become "self-made men" than less psychopathic people. However, most rich people just inherited their wealth, or enough to put them in a position to use wealth to make more wealth. And don't we all know of a performer or athlete who seemed cool for a while, but after becoming rich started saying and doing really assholey things?
Becoming rich changes people, kind of like moving to a small town or becoming disabled; when your environment and circumstances change, so does your behavior. "Billionaire behavior" feels like a cluster of actions and attitudes so predictable that they could be classified with DSM criteria.
Their changed behavior arguably threatens their own happiness and humanity but, more importantly, they reliably become the dragon on the hill, spewing their newfound (and disproportionately ultra-conservative) values all over innocent people.
Mostly we need to save ourselves and our neighbors from billionaires. However, seeing "billionaire" as a disease can (IMO) be quite beneficial. Preventing the existence of billionaires would save many people from themselves, as well.
#billionaires #wealth #incomeinequality #psychology #research #dsm #personality #behavior