LiveScience published another interesting article on the human mind's interaction with money. From the article:
Research has shown that people become emotionally distressed when confronted with inequality. The privileged minority is particularly affected, and they are likely to have a nagging worry that their cash and prizes are undeserved.
To keep a clean conscience and legitimize privilege, individuals often alter their perceptions of the status quo.
The details of how that mental distortion provides the relief, however, remained a mystery until now.
and
“We assume that people care about justice, at least to some degree, and are bothered by potential departures from fairness,” the scientists wrote in a report of their work published in the current issue of the journal Psychological Science. “In order to maintain their perceptions of the world as just, however, people do not necessarily strive to make changes that will increase the overall amount of fairness and equality in the system.”
So it appears that even the most altruistic among those with wealth might not have the ability to feel compassion for those without. In the case of the environment or Peak Oil, this research could shed some light on why it is so difficult for many people to grasp the idea that their actions are unfairly hurting future generations -- even their own progeny. If wealth blinds us to seeing the damage we cause to the less fortunate (in this case our own children), how can we tailor our message on these issues to elicit a more positive response?
For that matter, how do we establish an economic or social system within a community to get around this human tendency?
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Magnoliacom
Furl
Money Can't Buy You Love
Well . . . there's always the French Revolution style of waking the elite up. ;) I can't really offer a serious answer. But I find it interesting that there seems to be a trend now for rich parents to avoid leaving large sums of money to their children. I think that's a step in the right direction and good role modeling.
The article also goes on to
The article also goes on to say the following.
The two stories used in this experiment mirror the reality we live in with the affluent congregating in neighborhoods that are segregated from poor neighborhoods. Out-of-sight out-of-mind appears to be true in both the laboratory and real world.
Having no genetic makeup for materialism makes the accumulation of wealth an unnatural endeavor. Guilt is therefore a natural response to the realization that ones own actions make life worse for others. To feel, or be in a state of guilt is a powerful experience, so it's no wonder most of the rich mentally block out injustices that don't directly affect them. Dealing with powerful emotions requires subtlety and finesse.
On the other hand it is natural for the poor to become enraged when faced with inequality, more so when it persists over long periods of time. Expressing outrage in non-threatening ways, however, is usually ineffective at coaxing those powerful feelings of guilt to the surface. If anything it only encourages the rich to further bury those feelings. So there is an additional unfairness, or burden on the poor to remain calm and rational when sending a constructive message to those who so dramatically affect their lives. Studies like the ones in this article are one way to deal with the problem, so long as the message reaches the rich.
In building new communities a prominent set of values is needed. Emphasis should be placed on the natural world and humanity, not on careers and materialism.
Few affluent people find true happiness when all their wealth is stripped from them. That's sad, but it says a lot.
Sharon at Casaubon's Book
Sharon at Casaubon's Book has a good post today concerning buying stuff.