1. Read the article. Consider the author's tone, structure of the essay, and your personal reaction.
2. Please add an intelligent comment (minimum 3 sentences) in response to the linked article from the NY Times. Be sure to reference specifics from the article.3. Optional: Comment on a classmates post in a second post (minimum 3 sentences)
*Use only your first name, last initial and class period.
Ryan C. Period 2
ReplyDeleteThe author of this article comes at an approach of a middle class person in our country. He makes great points that people with higher social rank look down on others. People with more money and fame look down on others, because they feel that something about them is better than the normal person. In the article it talks about when two people were put in a room to talk about their problems the one with the higher social rank didn't care about what the other person said. People who have a higher social rank can't relate to other people as well, because they think that they are better than you. People who are less fortunate tend to be able to relate easier to others, because they have experience similar hardships. I'm not saying that rich people are bad people, but they aren't as empathetic as the normal person.
MaryColleen Period 2
DeleteRyan reflects on a good point in the article. That poorer people or people of less importance tend to be more relatable and dependent on their society. And all throughout history we've seen that and heard stories about it. There's a story in the bible that talks about offerings and how the rich people put in a decent amount but the poor widow put in two very small coins. Jesus told them all that her offering was more than all of the others because even though money wise it wasn't a lot, to the poor widow it was all she had. This always spoke volumes to me because my mother has always taught me to give to others even when you have nothing. This show selflessness which as a society we see in the poorer parts because to "get ahead" and "succeed" by the American terms, we have to be selfish and lack compassion.
MaryColleen Period 2
ReplyDeleteThis article is very suggestive and general. There's no real data to back up the claim although this is probably something you can't measure. I feel that it generalizes the higher arches of any situation. When a lot of people may go out of their way to make sure they don't come across "better than then" or pretentious. The study where they found the more powerful people were less compassionate towards the hardships in the less powerful person's life I found very interesting. It makes sense and backs up this articles view. But in my experience people will try to "one up" me in their life struggles. Belittle mine and make theirs more important so they can get more sympathy. I find this concept very interesting. I don't necessarily disagree with the author but I don't necessarily agree with him either. I wish that I could conduct my own experiment or the ones that have already been done were more conclusive.
Jared C. Period: 2
DeleteI would have to disagree with you on the statement of there not being anything to back this up. There is an study mentioned that bolsters the argument of the author; this study for 2 large universities from 2 different countries, no less. But I do agree with your point on how people try not to act "better" than others and instead will use their manners.
Jared C. Period: 2
ReplyDeleteThe author brings up many points that reflect upon the subject of Social Inequality. Unlike the purely opinionated article that was presented last time to comment on, this article has studies to back up its claims. The author uses data from a study by the University of California and the University of Amsterdam to show difference between the less powerful vs. the more powerful and their respective responses to the stories of death and tough life events. It makes sense the more powerful of the group reacted less emotionally, though I don't believe it is because they are "better" than the other person. Someone with lots of social power must have talked with many people and have heard these types of things often and, though terrible, have become desensitized by the frequency and amount of tough life events. I would also like to mention that being rich does not entail people like you or you have any real social power over anyone; it's more likely to be rich and socially powerful but it is not necessary for both.
Alla M. Period 2
ReplyDeleteThis article brought up many good points on how the wealthy do not pay as much attention to the poor. This article relates back to the grapes of wrath because John Steinbeck said, "If you're in trouble, or hurt or need - go to the poor people. They're the only ones that'll help - the only ones." This article reminded me of this quote because the author believes the same things. Like in the article the author says,"Poor people are better attuned to interpersonal relations." This means that they are better at forming relationships and communication between people.
I believe that this article brings up a very good point that is currently plaguing our country; the upper class feel that they are more important than lower class individuals. As stated by the article, this problem can be very harmful to our society. The area that is of most concern, at least in my opinion, that the article touched on was the fact that these upper class citizens often run for and win public office. This poses a major problem in law making because if these senators and representatives look down on the people they are representing, it causes for the ideas of these people to be cast aside and forgotten about. This is a major problem because these people represent the majority of our country and need their voices heard in congress. I thought the author brought up very good points and agree that if this problem is not addressed it could soon spiral out of control.
ReplyDeleteJake S. Period 2:
ReplyDeleteThrough a political perspective, I feel as though there is a direct correlation between the amount of income a person receives and the amount of caring (or lack thereof). As stated in the article, "In politics, readily dismissing inconvenient people can easily extend to dismissing inconvenient truths about them. The insistence by some House Republicans in Congress on cutting financing for food stamps and impeding the implementation of Obamacare... may stem in part from the empathy gap." Many articles have criticized Republicans for their lack of empathy stating, "Republican governors who chose not to accept the Medicaid expansion and therefore leave millions of human beings without healthcare consider these people merely pawns in the political game. Bob Woodward has noted has much in his quintessential book on the debt ceiling debacle. Republicans, he witnessed, simply didn't care about the possibility that the US might default on the debt; some gleefully welcomed it. Some people just want to watch the world burn." This is just one of the many examples showing how selfish the wealthy are, and even more so showing how they lack empathy.
Although the idea of this article was fascinating, the author did not use good evidence to support his claim. The idea of power influencing attitude towards others can be skewed in so many different ways, that this claim does not seem to have any type of evidence that could make me, personally, wholly believe that this is the truth. Goleman states that "social power is relative; any of us may be higher or lower in a given interaction," which I can agree to, however this claim does not support the rest of the article, where the author also states that power is measured by government power as well as wealth. Overall, the idea of this article was good, but the execution and evidence should have been looked at more carefully.
ReplyDelete-Ahnna G
Iana W. Period 2.
ReplyDeleteI found this this article to have a very curious point. It suggest that people of "higher ranking" tend to lack empathy with those deemed "beneath" them because of a lack of dependency on socialization. While I have noticed this thesis to be generally true, I can't say I fully agree with the authors reasoning. The rich and the poor can often have remarkably different upbringings and even culture. The culture of the lower classes often incorporate the idolizations of those living upper class. Also, the social media tend to put an emphasis on these idols being "just normal people with problems of their own." The upper class culture doesn't seem to have an equivalent and so, these people don't have much connection to those in classes "beneath" them. Perhaps there indifference has more to do with naïveté rather than narcissistic attitudes.
P.2, Dan L
ReplyDeleteSomething that struck me in this article was when the author spoke of how research shows that the poor are commonly more attuned to interpersonal relationships than the rich and how that attributes to greater empathy from the poor than the rich. It immediately reminded me of Ma's quote in Grapes of Wrath, where she concludes, "If you're in trouble, or hurt or need - go to the poor people. They're the only ones that'll help - the only ones." It further empathizes Steinbeck's bold brilliance while also showing that historically, the idea of the poor being more empathetic than the higher classes has always existed.
This article portrays that people that are better off have less compassion for those are considered beneath them. Studies were conducted at the University of California that portrayed that they care less. The middle class or the poor experience struggles that aren't experienced by the upper class so the upper class can't be empathetic towards them. However, this may not always be the case . For example, a person could have been impoverished as a child and still become rich with hard work and perseverance. The author backs up the statement with data and studies, but I believe labels shouldn't be put on a group of people because you don't know their individual situations or backgrounds.
ReplyDeleteJoe Roca P 2
Skylar S. Period 2:
ReplyDeleteI believe this article makes generalizations about the social classes. To say that as a person earns more, he or she steadily "cares less", is ridiculous. Why is being successful and earning a high salary something that is coveted in our society? If being poor makes you a better person, why doesn't everyone want to be poor? In Nickel and Dimed, a coworker discussed how cleaning the houses of the wealthy made her want to work harder into order to achieve what the homeowner had achieved.Even the poor don't be poor, even if it means they "care more". Though this author backs up their opinions with studies, their idea is still just that- an idea. This is something that is very difficult to prove and something that has no yet been proven. How do you measure the amount of "caring"?
This article also generalizes the type of people from both social classes. Not to say that these don't hold some truths, they are not fact. While some are, not all rich people are born into wealth and therefore entitled and believe themselves to be above the poor. Some were once poor themselves and worked their way up to where they are today and should not feel ashamed of their success. For example, Robert Herjavec (Shark Tank) was the son of an immigrant factory work from Yugoslavia. You don't get much poorer than that. However, he worked his way up and is now worth over $100 million. Should he feel bad about the years and years of hard work he put in to be where he is because it makes him an bad person? On the similar note, not all poor people are as they are often painted to be, a unfortunate hard worker who can't catch a break because society failed them. Not to say some aren't, yet as with the rich, some are not hard workers and are playing the system that is government assistance programs. According to the article, "How much to millionaire give?", it is stated that "95% of the wealthy gave to charity in 2011, compared with 65% of the general population." Whether if you believe this only because the rich are more able to give or not, one cannot make the claim that wealth automatically makes you heartless. For example, JK Rowling, the first female novelist billionaire, dropped her billionaire status to millionaire due to her charitable donations. Though this is just one specific case, the article, starting with the title "Rich People Just Care Less," over generalizes the relationship between the rich and poor.
Jordyn B. P2
ReplyDeleteWhile reading this article, I found that it was terribly one sided, and not in the upper class' favor. The author constantly described how the "rich" people have little to no empathy for the poor. The main problem I have with this rhetorical statement is that the author is throwing the entire upper class into one category. This is extremely stereotypical, and to me personally, rude. I am not even close to "upper class" but the fact that this article makes every person that has money seem stuck up and unable to feel empathy for others just doesn't seem right. Empathy is a character trait that most people are taught. Just because you are rich, does not automatically result in a lack of empathy. Also, this article leaves out a main part of our society, the middle class. From this author's perspective, it seems to me that the middle class obtains some qualities of empathy, but not as much as the poor, and not as little as the rich. This mindset makes no sense to me. Maybe it is society’s fault that everyone in certain classes only "obtains" certain amounts of empathy.
sdjghsdgfjkfgsdfjkaasdgfhjgfasdbgfgasdf
ReplyDeleteI agree with your point.
ReplyDeleteCaroline M. 2
ReplyDeleteThis article speaks the obvious, what is in plain sight for everyone to see. I'm almost positive most people can agree with this article that the rich look down upon the poor. It's sad to think about this but we all know its true. The poor tend to be more caring towards all people because of their way of life compared to the rich who enjoy talking to someone with the same social and class status as them. Everybody should treat each other they way they would like to be treated.
I believe this is it ridiculous that there is a generalization that poor people are nice and rich people are not. I believe it completely depends on how they were raised, if they started out living above everyone else and were taught to look down on the poor, then yes they will fall into the stereotype. It is all about how they were raised, so people are determined by their parents. If rich parents teach their kids that everyone is equal, then more people will be good to each other, and America will continue down the path to equality that established a long time ago.
ReplyDeleteHolly P. period 2
ReplyDeleteThis article expressed many key points about how the rich tend to look down on the poor and think less of them. However, I don’t believe that this is always true and I think that it depends on the person. While some upper class people are ignoring and looking down on the poor, other rich people are using their money to help them. It all depends on how the person is brought up and what their morals are. I didn’t like how the author was one sided throughout the article. I think that everyone should respect each other and not be judged based on the amount of money you have.