--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new_morning_blank_slate 
> <no_reply@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new_morning_blank_slate 
> > > <no_reply@> wrote:
> > > > > When rich people talk about money, they're talking
> > > > > about something entirely different from what poor and
> > > > > middle-class people mean when they talk about it.
> > > > > They might as well be on different planets.
> > > > 
> > > > Your speculations of how others', or perhaps your own, values
> > > > and motivations may change with substantial wealth is simply 
> > > > speculation -- not a well reserched set of studies developing a 
> > > > concensus view of researchers on this issue. Same with my 
> > > > speculations.
> > > 
> > > <snore>
> > 
> > Yes, my comment was a bit leaden. But I could not think of a better
> > alternative to counter the, IMO, weak writing that conveys a broad
> > sweeping generalization about a group, as if its universal, when it 
> > at best applies to only a portion of the group.
> I believe the portion you quoted above applies
> across the board, even to people like Bill Gates.
> The <snore> was because mine was a pretty unexceptional
> observation, almost a truism;

That the rich lack empathy towards the non-rich perhaps it is almost a
truism to you and perhaps to your peers, but its far from universl. To
me, to imply its "universal" (which I infer from your comments) is a
cognitive error, a social myth, a quite empirically ungrounded
specualation. Perhaps if you (to coin an "insult" :)) that 'you read
my post' :) you would have seen a few examples and my personal
observation that a number of wealthy have high degrees of empathy
(empathy being the trait you observed or speculated was low among the
rich). Additionally, as I observed, (and am NOT claiming that you also
observed), there is a high degree of compassion and deep values among
at least some rich. And some notable exceptions, such as Paris Hilton.

>but you have a habit of
> taking exception to such observations even when there's 
> virtually no little excuse to do so, 

I am not citing small exceptions, but quite large ones, in my experience. 

More broadly, I am campaigning against weak sweeping universal
generalizations made to an entire class,when there is little  evidence
for such universality other than your (quite limited,IMO) personal
sense of truisms.

> apparently just to
> hear yourself talk.

If you wish to start a new thread on "The Massive Shortcommings of
New.Morning" I could start it with at least several 100 points. But I
am biased. I am sure you cite 1000's of points, real or imagined. And
just let Unc get started. Perhaps you and others can start the thread
and I will add as my time, deep introspection and humor enable.

However, I do think such a topic should be in its own thread, and not
mixed in with discussions of ideas. Arguments and points taken should
be strong enough to stand on their own merits -- and not rely on
suppositions that the poster has weak character traits (my inference,
perhaps incorrect, of what you wrote above.) 

And some people will not be interesed at all in "The Massive
Shortcommings of New.Morning", and skip over the post. Others will
jump right to it, like  some skip the front page to get to the comics.
I know I will, being a superficial kind of guy, I will jump right to
that thread, and ignore the substantive ones.

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
Great things are happening at Yahoo! Groups.  See the new email design.

To subscribe, send a message to:

Or go to: 
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:

Reply via email to