My first reaction was to think the same, but this kinda assumes class mobility. Which is rare.

I think it's more likely that upper class kids are more likely to be entitled and grow up to become entitled adults.

Unlikely. If that was true, we would have more people of higher social class, because there are a lot of pieces of shit out there that are middle or lower class.

it isn't though.

it's that when you accumulate power and privileged... you tend to be more likely to exercise it indiscriminately, because temptation to do so is strong and the consequences lesser.

i know people who grew up poor and became rich... it was only after they were rich... for awhile, after their hedonistic treadmill had readjusted, that they became greedier and greedier and more sociopathic.

it's a basic facet of human psychology you have backwards. when you don't have power over others... you can't abuse them. when you do have power over others, you can.

that doesn't mean the powerless are good, it just means they have less opportunity to be evil. and there are plenty of powerful folks who aren't evil.

a lot of rich people are rich because that way you don't have to see any affects of a lack of wealth.

that's the point. that's why they social isolate themselves in gated communities and exclusive resorts.

being subject to having to look at poor people suffering is a thing only poor people have to suffer.

your idea that rich people have 'feelings of immorality' makes me laugh, because you clearly dont' know any rich people, they don't have these feelings at all. that 'feeling 'is a projection of the poor onto the wealthy who think they know how the wealthier live and feel.... you don't. they live in another plane of existence and the concept of 'uneven distribution' doesn't exist to them.

you can't care about stealing candy from babies if you don't even know the babies exist. that's the element you are missing.

Thanks, fixed

The stated goal of the Ig Nobel prize is to highlight science that first makes people laugh then makes them think. Its not the razzies. Its not laughing at science its having fun with it.

They do select 'funny' science, but not in any way to ridicule it, I think, but to highlight that science can be useful and goofy at the same time. And also because it's fun, I guess :)

I agree that it's something that needs to be practiced, like a muscle.

I treat my dog better than most parents treat their crotch goblins.

Steal candy from a few kids and you're a monster. Steal candy from every kid and you're a god.

So that scene with the egg yolk, not kissing. Which is fine because it's clearly oval sex.

upper class people are more likely

WOOSH

yep, and they all see the class above them as 'rich' and themselves as 'working-class/normal/struggling'.

i remember my own parents going on about 'poor' and 'rich' in our town, and the income differential was like, maybe a factor of 4-6x. the poor people made 20k, we made 30k and the 'rich' people made like 50k. but this was in a rural area where we had no exposure to people making 100K+ let alone millions.

people don't get how the psychology of wealth is all relativistic. where i live now people making 300K+ think they are 'poor' because they compare themselves to people making millions. and the people making millions think they are poor because they compare themselves to people making 10s of millions.

my sister makes 500K a year, lives in a 5million dollar house, and endless talks about the people living in 10 or 20 million dollar homes and how she is 'just a normal working person', and she thinks those are the 'rich' and she is the 'poor'. the place she lives the 'poor' people make like 150-200K, and well people making under 100K just don't exist.