I want you to, for a moment, think about playing a game of Monopoly, except in this game, that combination of skill, talent and luck that help earn you success in games, as in life, has been rendered irrelevant, because this games been rigged, and you've got the upper hand. You've got more money, more opportunities to move around the board, and more access to resources. And as you think about that experience, I want you to ask yourself, how might that experience of being a privileged player in a rigged game change the way that you think about yourself And regard that other player? So we ran a study on the U.C. Berkeley campus To look at exactly that question. We brought in more than 100 pairs of strangers into the lab, …show more content…
and with the flip of a coin randomly assigned one of the two To be a rich player in a rigged game. They got two times as much money. When they passed Go, they collected twice the salary, and they got to roll both dice instead of one, so they got to move around the board a lot more. (Laughter) And over the course of 15 minutes, we watched through hidden cameras what happened. And what I want to do today, for the first time, is show you a little bit of what we saw. You're going to have to pardon the sound quality, in some cases, because again, these were hidden cameras. So we've provided subtitles. Rich Player: How many 500s did you have? Poor Player: Just one. Rich Player: Are you serious. Poor Player: Yeah. Rich Player: I have three. (Laughs) I don't know why they gave me so much. Okay, so it was quickly apparent to players That something was up. One person clearly has a lot more money Then the other person, and yet, as the game unfolded, we saw very notable differences and dramatic differences begin to emerge Between the two players. The rich player started to move around the board louder, literally smacking the board with their piece As he went around. We were more likely to see signs of dominance and non-verbal signs, displays of power And celebration among the rich players. We had a bowl of pretzels positioned off to the side. Its on the bottom right corner there. That allowed us to watch participants consummately behaviour. So were just tracking how many pretzels participants eat. Rich Player: Are those pretzels a trick? Poor Player: I don't know. PP: Okay, so no surprises, people are onto us. They wonder what that bowl of pretzels Is doing there in the first place. One even asks, like you just saw, is that bowl of pretzels there as a trick? And yet, despite that, the power of the situation seems to inevitably dominate, and those rich players start to eat more pretzels. Rich Player: I love pretzels. (Laughter) PP: And as the game went on, one of the really interesting and dramatic patterns that we observed begin to emerge was that the rich players actually started to become ruder toward the other person, less and less sensitive to the plight of those poor, poor players, and more and more demonstrative of their material success, more likely to showcase how well they're doing. Rich Player: I have money for everything. Poor Player: How much is that? Rich Player: You owe me 24 dollars. You're going to lose all your money soon. I'll buy it. I have so much money. I have so much money, it takes me forever. Rich Player 2: 'I'm going to buy out this whole board. Rich Player 3: You're going to run out of money soon. I'm pretty much untouchable at this point. PP: Okay, and here's what I think was really, really interesting, is that at the end of the 15 minutes, we asked the players to talk about their experience during the game. And when the rich players talked about why they had inevitably won in this rigged game of Monopoly -- (Laughter) — they talked about what they'd done to buy those different properties and earn their success in the game, and they became far less attuned to all those different features of the situation, including that flip of a coin that had randomly got them into That privileged position in the first place. And that's a really, really incredible insight Into how the mind makes sense of advantage. Now this game of Monopoly can be used as a metaphor for understanding society and its hierarchical structure, wherein some people have a lot of wealth and a lot of status, and a lot of people don't. They have a lot less wealth and a lot less status And a lot less access to valued resources. And what my colleagues and I for the last seven years have been doing Is studying the effects of these kinds of hierarchies. What we've been finding across dozens of studies and thousands of participants across this country is that as a persons levels of wealth increase, their feelings of compassion and empathy go down, and their feelings of entitlement, of deservingly, and their ideology of self-interest increases. In surveys, we found that its actually wealthier individuals who are more likely to moralize greed being good, and that the pursuit of self-interest Is favourable and moral. Now what I want to do today is talk about some implications of this ideology self-interest, talk about why we should care about those implications, and end with what might be done. Some first studies that we ran in this area looked at helping behaviour, something social psychologists call Pro-social behaviour.
And we were really interested in whose more likely to offer help to another person, someone whose rich or someone who's poor. In one of the studies, we bring in rich and poor members of the community into the lab And give each of them the equivalent of 10 dollars. We told the participants that they could keep these 10 dollars for themselves, or they could share a portion of it, if they wanted to, with a stranger Who is totally anonymous. They'll never meet that stranger and the stranger will never meet them. And we just monitor how many people give. Individuals who made 25,000 sometimes under 15,000 dollars a year, gave 44 percent more of their money to the stranger Then did individuals making 150,000 Or 200,000 dollars a year. We've had people play games to see who's more or less likely to cheat To increase their chances of winning a prize. In one of the games, we actually rigged a computer so that die rolls over a certain score Were impossible. You couldn't get above 12 in this game, and yet, the richer you were, the more likely you were to cheat in this game to earn credits toward a $50 cash prize, sometimes by three to four times as
much. We ran another study where we looked at whether people would be inclined to take candy from a jar of candy that we explicitly identified as being reserved for children -- (Laughter) — Participating -- I'm not kidding. I know it sounds like I'm making a joke. We explicitly told participants this jar of candy for children participating In a developmental lab nearby. They're in studies. This is for them. And we just monitored how much candy participants took. Participants who felt rich took two times as much candy As participants who felt poor. We've even studied cars, not just any cars, but whether drivers of different kinds of cars Are more or less inclined to break the law. In one of these studies, we looked at whether drivers would stop for a pedestrian That we had posed waiting to cross at a crosswalk. Now in California, as you all know, because I'm sure we all do this, its the law to stop for a pedestrian who's waiting to cross. So here's an example of how we did it. That's our confederate off to the left Posing as a pedestrian. He approaches as the red lorry successfully stops. In typical California fashion, its overtaken By the bus who almost runs our pedestrian over. (Laughter) Now here's an example of a more expensive car, a Prius, driving through, and a BMW doing the same. So we did this for hundreds of vehicles on several days, just tracking who stops and who doesn't. What we found was that as the expensiveness of a car increased, the drivers tendencies to break the law Increased as well. None of the cars, none of the cars in our least expensive car category Broke the law. Close to 50 percent of the cars in our most expensive vehicle category Broke the law. We've run other studies finding that wealthier individuals are more likely to lie in negotiations, to endorse unethical behaviour at work like stealing cash from the cash register, taking bribes, lying to customers. Now I don't mean to suggest that its only wealthy people Who show these patterns of behaviour. Not at all. In fact, I think that we all, in our day-to-day, minute-by-minute lives, struggle with these competing motivations of when, or if, to put our own interests Above the interests of other people. And that's understandable because the American dream is an idea in which we all have an equal opportunity to succeed and prosper, as long as we apply ourselves and work hard, and a piece of that means that sometimes, you need to put your own interests Above the interests and well-being of other people around you. But what were finding is that, the wealthier you are, the more likely you are to pursue a vision of personal success, of achievement and accomplishment, to the detriment of others around you. Here I've plotted for you the mean household income received by each fifth and top five percent of the population Over the last 20 years. In 1993, the differences between the different quantiles of the population, in terms of income, are fairly egregious. Its not difficult to discern that there are differences. But over the last 20 years, that significant difference has become a grand canyon of sorts Between those at the top and everyone else. In fact, the top 20 percent of our population Own close to 90 percent of the total wealth in this country. Were at unprecedented levels Of economic inequality. What that means is that wealth is not only becoming increasingly concentrated in the hands of a select group of individuals, but the American dream is becoming increasingly unattainable For an increasing majority of us. And if its the case, as we've been finding, that the wealthier you are, the more entitled you feel to that wealth, and the more likely you are to prioritize your own interests above the interests of other people, and be willing to do things to serve that self-interest, well then there's no reason to think That those patterns will change. In fact, there's every reason to think that they'll only get worse, and that's what it would look like if things just stayed the same, at the same linear rate, over the next 20 years. Now, inequality, economic inequality, is something we should all be concerned about, and not just because of those at the bottom of the social hierarchy, but because individuals and groups with lots of economic inequality do worse, not just the people at the bottom, everyone. There's a lot of really compelling research coming out from top labs all over the world showcasing the range of things that are undermined As economic inequality gets worse. Social mobility, things we really care about, physical health, social trust, all go down as inequality goes up. Similarly, negative things in social collectives and societies, things like obesity, and violence, imprisonment, and punishment, are exacerbated as economic inequality increases. Again, these are outcomes not just experienced by a few, but that resound Across all strata of society. Even people at the top experience these outcomes. So what do we do? This cascade of self-perpetuating, pernicious, negative effects could seem like something that's spun out of control, and there's nothing we can do about it, certainly nothing we as individuals could do. But in fact, we've been finding in our own laboratory research that small psychological interventions, small changes to peoples values, small nudges in certain directions, can restore levels of egalitarianism and empathy. For instance, reminding people of the benefits of cooperation, or the advantages of community, cause wealthier individuals to be just as egalitarian As poor people. In one study, we had people watch a brief video, just 46 seconds long, about childhood poverty that served as a reminder of the needs of others in the world around them, and after watching that, we looked at how willing people were to offer up their own time to a stranger Presented to them in the lab who was in distress. After watching this video, an hour later, rich people became just as generous of their own time to help out this other person, a stranger, as someone who's poor, suggesting that these differences are not innate or categorical, but are so malleable to slight changes in peoples values, and little nudges of compassion And bumps of empathy. And beyond the walls of our lab, were even beginning to see signs of change in society. Bill Gates, one of our nations the wealthiest individuals, in his Harvard commencement speech, talked about the problem facing society of inequality as being the most daunting challenge, and talked about what must be done to combat it, saying, Humanities the greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied To reduce inequity. And there's the Giving Pledge, in which more than 100 of our nations the wealthiest individuals Are pledging half of their fortunes to charity. And there's the emergence of dozens of grass roots movements, like We are the One Percent, the Resource Generation, or Wealth for Common Good, in which the most privileged members of the population, members of the one percent and elsewhere, people who are wealthy, are using their own economic resources, adults and youth alike, that's what most striking to me, leveraging their own privilege, their own economic resources, to combat inequality by advocating for social policies, changes in social values, and changes in peoples behaviour, that work against their own economic interests But that may ultimately restore the American dream.
...ciously brutal the game can get. Ken Kesey knew that he would get his main idea of how twisted society truly is by using the symbol Monopoly. Statistically, by obtaining control and power people feel hopeful, freedom, and more pleasure in their life than without. Without the feeling of control, people become more at risk for disorders and develop more stress in their life. Unfortunately, there is only one “winner” with many “losers” in Monopoly and also in society.
Yesterday night I reviewed the play “The Miss Firecracker Contest” In Wilmington, North Carolina at Big Dawg Productions. The play started out as Carnell Scott, 24-year-old orphaned southern girl who lives in Brookhaven, Mississippi. She is tap dancing in her room with a purple leotard and some kitchen utensils used as creative batons practicing her routine for The Miss Firecracker Contest.
“The Singer Solution to World Poverty” by Peter Singer is a persuasive article trying to influence people to donate money to save children’s lives. Peter Singer stated, “Evolutionary psychologists tell us that human nature just isn’t sufficiently altruistic to make it plausible that many people will sacrifice so much for strangers… they would be wrong to draw moral conclusions to that fact”. First, Singer tells a story about a retired school teacher who doesn’t have extra money. Dora, the school teacher, is given a chance to make a thousand dollars by walking a homeless child to a house, in which she was given the address for. She then walks the child to the house, and then later Dora’s neighbors tell her that the child was probably killed
The holocaust is known for the great number of deaths; including the six million Jews. Ida fink is a writer that captures this time period in her works. In “The Key Game” she appeals to pathos because of imagery used, connections to your own family, and dialog used by both the father and mother. Through her fiction stories, she tells tales that relate to what could have been and probably what was. Ida Fink is known for telling her stories in a journalist like tone with very little color. In her stories, she does not like to tell you how to feel she instead leaves that up to the reader. Fink does place some hints of emotion just by writing the story alone. The interpretation of her works is left up to the reader. As you read through her stories some will find more emotion, some will find more logic, and some may see more ethics. At the moment, we will be looking more on the side of emotions within this story.
Facing hardships, problems, or obstacles shouldn’t discourage one from completing their task or job. Many of authors usually put their characters through tough complications to show the reader that no matter what happens; anyone could pull through. In the short story, “The Most Dangerous Game” by Richard Connel, the main character Mr. Rainsford gets stranded on an eerie island with a bad reputation. He meets General Zaroff and gets thrown into a huge hunting game, where his life is on the line. In the end, he wins the game and will continue to hunt animals, but not people, as the general once did. He will continue to hunt because one, hunting means everything to him. Two, he will not continue the general’s crazy ways, and resort back to the legal and non-dangerous to other humans sport. Third, he feels powerful when he becomes the hunter and not the hunted. Giving up hunting would be like giving up his life, so just because of a minor block he had to overcome, he will not give up hunting.
In 2011 Yurcich decide to take on his next challenge as he moved again to Shippensburg, Pennsylvania and became Shippensburg University's offensive coordinator and quarterbacks coach. During Yurcich's first season Shippensburg saw immediate success as Yurcich's offense set school records for almost every offensive statistical categroy for points, touchdowns, total plays, first downs and total offense. In 2012 in his second season as the Raiders leader of offense, Shippensburg led the NCAA Division II rankings in total offense with 529.2 yards per game and was second nationally in scoring as Yurcich's offense put up a staggering 46.9 points per game, while the passing game finished with 387.7 yards per game. While at Shippensburg, Yurcich found
In The Outsiders by S.E. Hinton, there is always the question. Does wealth in a person’s life determines how their life will turn out? Most citizens in the book criticize people because of their wealth. The Greasers of being hoods with no education because of their low income, Socs being high class citizens with education. They’re people in this world that want to learn and want to succeed in life, but cannot afford for their own education. They’re people in this world that have the chance to succeed in life, but blow it because they think they can go without education because of their wealth. The Socs and the Greasers are a prime example that wealth does not determine the quality of life, because Darry is poor, but athletic, Bob is rich,
Once upon a time, William Kamkwamba was a poor farmer in Malawi, but now he made a life for himself as an innovator that gained fame through his change in life. In life, change happens because different events occur. Some of those alterations are for the better. However, many of them turn out for the worse. In the story “The Most Dangerous Game” by Richard Connel, the theme demonstrates change happens for the better or worse.
The standard views on the influences of social class on behavior in the article “No Money, No Time” by Maria Konnikova is that the less fortunate individuals do not make enough money to get themselves out of poverty and never have enough time to focus on the important things in life. The viscous cycle never seems to end and continues to be repeated by future generations. Although, some of these statements are true, Konnikova also shows us a new perspective on how wealth and poverty plays a role with the lack of money and time. Konnikova uses research data provided by Sendhil Mullainathan, a Harvard economist and Eldar Shafir, a Princeton psychologist to see how wealthy and poor individuals succeed in their game “Angry Blueberries.” The results showed that the poor participants were more focused and engaged with each individual shot knowing they had fewer. While the wealthier participants on the other hand had 12 more shots than their counterparts.
This is evident with volunteers at food banks or homeless shelters. The volunteer is assumed to have higher social and financial standing than the people they’re helping, and these sort of assumptions should be put to an end. These assumptions lead to a subconscious thinking that the helper in these circumstances is entirely better than the helpee, but this is without knowing why the helpee is in their current situation. It could be that their situation is due to outside forces and is out of their own control, or it could be that they did it to themselves, so until this has been established the social hierarchy shouldn’t be assumed. The helper thinking that they’re better than the helpee can easily lead to abuse of power and the helper may take advantage of the helpees situation. Many cases of abuse in nursing homes are due to helpers abusing the power that they have over helpees because they think that they’re superior. In reality, the elderly person isn’t responsible for their decline of power with age and they should be viewed as equals by the nursing home staff and by society as a
In Dead Men’s Bluff, there are nude dead bodies in the first scene in the movie, and they are mostly females. Balabanov objectifies feminine body in his movies as much as opportunities allowed him. Giggling naked girls who were running around in Sauna in Brother2 (2000) with characters that didn’t have any actual role but asking guys for beers and hearing “don’t you see we are talking here?” from them could be seen as anti-feminine scene. In another scene Balabanov demonstrate audience a sexist scene. Sergey and Simon verbally harassing the waitress at the bar, and at the end of the movies Simon has the same waitress in his office as secretary, and his mistress. A new rich guy with his trophy and the hero who got money and can touch her inappropriately
Within the first season of House of Cards, Frank Underwood has to make a series of decisions which he uses to strategically move him forward on his path back to the white house from the senate. There are four key strategic interactions that allow Underwood to fully be in control of his own destiny as he pursues breaking into the white house these are, helping pass an educational bill, working with Zoe Barnes, working with Peter Russo, and agreeing to vet possible Vice Presidential candidates. As Underwood’s strategy goes on it is clear that each step he takes will move him closer and closer to the white house and will eventually land him a seat as the Vice President of the United States. Throughout the first season of the show, Underwood uses strategic thinking, framing, and commitment devices to negotiate efficiently with others and change their perceptions to allow him to gain political power in the most efficient manner possible. While Underwood uses these tools in his strategies, it is clear he also uses a great deal of misdirection in order to get others to collude with him in his actions to gain political clout.
They’re given more leeway and are more socially acceptable in their daily lives, and they can better deal with the consequences of getting caught, by higher better lawyers or paying their way off . They’re also generally less dependent on others, making them more self-focused. So they behave more unethically, but only when it benefits them. People with less money (and therefore less power), however, are more dependent. Lower class individuals with less power need the help of others more often to get by, and as a result, research shows, they’re more helpful and compassionate. Breaking rules is always risky, but social cohesion is paramount so you do what it takes to help those around
Although the poor citizens participate in the money game, their mind set is to not lose money, instead of making it. This is a negative mind set, that will only attract more of what they do not want. The two groups have two completely different mindsets. The poorer citizens today are terrified to try and succeed out of fear of failure, so they avoid it. The wealthier citizens today had the idea of investing into things, and NOT lose money, only focusing on winning. All while wealthy individuals can visualize what it is they need to do, and take those steps in order to reach their goal, and be successful in this game of life. They will think, and act from the view of playing the game to win. As for the poorer class individuals, they will never invest, and make that jump out of fear of failure, which will in return always hold them back until they change their mind
Gregory M. Herek, Professor of Psychology at the University of California at Davis, once said, “To be a man in society is to be homophobic.” In making this comment, Herek believes men are taught to endorse a more traditional view about gender roles than women are. Thus, men often have a more negative perspective towards homosexual men than they do about women. In discussions of male homosexuality, one controversial opinion suggests that it is a crime because it does not fit into male gender norms. On the other hand, some maintain that homosexuality is not a choice but a biological predisposition that cannot be changed through acquiring new gender norms. Such a conflict is the case with Alan Turing, who exposes his gender identity in non-traditional ways in the movie The Imitation Game (2014),