
How can you tell if someone is kind? Ask how rich they are - davesque
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/10/21/how-can-you-tell-if-someone-is-kind-ask-how-rich-they-are
======
tajen
I've tried being generous (and still donate, probably more than all my
coworkers together), and I still get pissed upon by leftists. Talk about
empathy.

I live in France, my parents weren't even _that_ rich, but we strive to work
hard. Being motivated by good marks at school makes you bullied because you're
a krelboyne. At work, as soon as colleagues learn you've been to a private
high school and top college (both of which cost <$100/month and have active
policies for lower income families), people come up to you and explain all the
reasons why students from good schools aren't so good at work ("They don't
have the grit", they say, "They aren't street-smart" – Happened to me 4 days
ago again). A lot of citizen in France think it's fine to be jealous to
someone because he was good at school, comes from a good background or is
Christian. It would be ok if there weren't actual discrimination from people
who want to offset the supposedly "easy life" you've had: The boss who bullied
me in plain sight of everyone also was the only boss who had a shorter degree
than I had.

I've donated _thousands_ to charities. I've volunteered for immigrants, kids
of immigrants, I've volunteered in detention centers, I've volunteered in free
events aimed at lower-income families, and with a team we went to help an
orphanage abroad. I've given more than a thousand hours of volunteering in 5
years, in parallel to my studies and work. I never expected a "thank you". But
a little consideration and respect from the leftists would do. But my life is
still considered like a result of sheer luck, not a result of my hard work.

The problem isn't the poor: They do need help. The problem is the leftists who
give lessons. There's a non-stop _cliche_ that, since you're rich, you're an
asshole. Even if you are generous and litteraly more generous than them, they
won't stop the hate. This article is one of them, generalizing about "riches
are assholes".

All in all, living in France, taxes are supposed to provide support for the
poor. I'm tempted to leave it at that and stop donating, because I need to
focus on my life now (no gf, no kids yet). But somehow I keep donating.

~~~
trabant00
I have a somewhat similar background. When I was young (<18) I used to feel
guilty from time to time. I mean there is no denying that I got a head start
by being in a family that could support me in school, pressure me into getting
an eduction, etc.

But after a while I started noticing a pattern. The people that are into
shaming me are the ones that never do anything, never get involved into
anything, all they do is attack others to feel better about their lack of
results. Somebody who wants to change the world for the better sees an asset
in me. I am smart, educated, have financial stability, I have resources to
help others and it pays to have me working by their side.

So now in my middle age I laugh at these original sin proponents. White guilt,
middle class guilt, born into money, cis, heterosexual, etc, just endless
emotional bullshit by drama queens who never accomplished anything. I work and
produce results. They just wanna tear down everything that makes them feel
weak without having anything to replace it with. The freaking internet would
stop without people like me and they would have no facebook and salon to bitch
on.

~~~
scalio
The internet's infrastructure is a good example of relatively rich people
doing good for everybody. Our digital world is built on tech developed largely
for free by people rich enough to be able to afford this unpaid labour. Nobody
ever thanks them, yet they go on because work, not complaint, is the only way
to make an actual difference.

Keep laughing! It's the only weapon against malevolent idiocy.

~~~
uola
> Our digital world is built on tech developed largely for free by people rich
> enough to be able to afford this unpaid labour.

Citation needed. As far as I know most Internet infrastructure was developed
by government funded or commercial entities.

~~~
shshhdhs
I think OP meant Open Source software? I still don't agree with OP's sweeping
statement

~~~
scalio
Yes, should have clarified, obviously hardware wasn't built for free.
Regarding the sweepiness of my statement: I feel like digital freedom would be
in a much, much deeper hole if it weren't for the loads of FOSS software
running our servers. Sure, there are proprietary solutions, sure some dev time
gets paid, but a lot of work is being and has been done only, afaict, to make
the world a better place.

------
bubo_bubo
When you buy a BMW, you have an extra asshole installed.

/snark

But seriously, in my early 20s I did land surveying. I found that the richer
the neighborhood, the nastier the neighbors were. I've had people be rude to
me because they think "something is up" when we were simply trying to document
how one neighbor can buy 6 inches from another to make a legal setback for a
garage. And then I've had just random people offer me coffee on a chilly
morning. I'll let you guess which was the upscale and which was the working
class neighborhood.

~~~
derekp7
There is also a big difference between old money and new money. And hard-
earned money vs. inherited money.

My dad used to deliver furniture as a side job for a local upholstery shop.
Most of the clients had money, but some were rude while others (esp. the "old
hard earned money" types) were extremely friendly.

~~~
Mz
I am sure it doesn't help that plenty of people say ugly things like "eat the
rich." Plenty of rich folks "have dozens of friends and the fun never ends --
that is, as long as they're buying." If you know all the people around you
would not hesitate to sell you out and only have any so-called respect
whatsoever because you have money and power, it isn't like _you_ are getting
any empathy.

That shit cuts both ways.

~~~
erikpukinskis
My sense is the kind of people who say "eat the rich" actually are rich,
they're just cash poor and pretending that's the same as real poor.

In my experience actually poor people want to be rich and would rather they
not be eaten when that happens. It's the kids from privileged backgrounds with
self-loathing and anger issues who embrace "black bloc" politics most warmly.

I am probably biased coming from mostly urban environments lately.

~~~
mempko
Seriously wtf. Black bloc is hated by yuppie liberals the most.

------
notyourwork
> Americans gave nearly $1 billion more to the approximately 3,000 victims of
> the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks than they gave to victims of the South
> Asian tsunami three years later, even though the latter tragedy killed more
> than a quarter of a million people

Does anyone else find this conclusion unfair? I am not trying to down play
what happened in Asia but American's uniting for their country isn't able to
be compared to American's supporting crisis in other parts of the world. I
suspect their conclusion is true but suggesting American's give less because
of how much they donated to 9/11 versus a storm on the other side of the world
isn't a fair comparison.

~~~
jaggederest
Objectively, a tragedy that killed 83 times as many people is deserving of at
least the _same_ funding as a local tragedy, I would hope.

That said, locality bias is a strong thing, and to some degree what makes us
human. I don't find it to be critical, merely descriptive of the way people
work.

~~~
enraged_camel
It's not about locality but about identity.

An American in San Diego is much more likely to contribute funding to aid
disaster victims in New York than in Tijuana (which is only 20 miles away, but
across the border).

------
cperciva
Talk about stereotyping! This headline is no better than "how can you tell if
someone is a criminal? Look at their skin colour".

Correlations in large populations do not mean that every individual shares the
identified characteristics. I find it absolutely shocking that a paper at the
level of the Washington Post would publish such drivel.

~~~
uola
Socioeconomic status is an important factor in how we behave. The argument
here is that people with more money are less kind because having more money
makes them less kind. Unless you're making a specific argument were someones
skin color is the prime factor in making someone more criminal that statement
isn't factually correct. So no, it's not the same thing, but your frequent
rhetorical outrage is noted.

~~~
kahirsch
Rich people are also taller than poor people, on average, but how silly would
it be to write "How can you tell if someone is tall? Ask how rich they are."

The research is about average differences in people's empathy correlated with
their education and socioeconomic status.

The headline is talking about _judging individuals_ based on their
socioeconomic status.

------
oldmanjay
I'm not sure I believe any politically convenient social science anymore.

~~~
adiabatty
I'd wait for a bunch of other studies that back this up, or fail to.

The trouble is that there may be loads of studies that find the opposite, but
they are more likely to be stuffed in a file drawer somewhere because they
contradict what we'd like to believe is true.

~~~
crdoconnor
Yeah, the media _always_ passes on opportunities to lionize the rich and
powerful. /s

------
thekevan
I really wonder about the methods of this study.

In my area, in the fun, dirty and gritty part of the city is where there are
dive bars, vape shops and crazy little variety stores and head shops, you have
to have your head on a swivel when crossing the road to not be sideswiped by
some rusted out Geo or Nissan with the tailpipe being held up by a coat
hanger.

On the flip side, in our most affluent immediate suburb, people give you right
of way constantly. Everyone stops for pedestrians, even if they had plenty of
time to go anyway. I mean they are almost religious about it.

~~~
yummyfajitas
I don't know about driving offenses, but we can quantify other harmful
behaviors. The poor are far more likely than the rich to deliberately do
things that harm others - rob them, engage in violence, etc.

Economic motivation for crime is a possible confounder. But we can eliminate
that confounder by examining crimes with no plausible economic motive:
intimate partner violence, assaulting family members, rape. Poor people engage
in these crimes at 4x the rates of others.

[http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/hpnvv0812.pdf](http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/hpnvv0812.pdf)

(Another interesting fact - contra Trump - is that poor Hispanics seem far
less criminal than poor whites/blacks. This also contradicts popular left wing
narratives - if poverty makes poor whites/blacks beat their wives via
"stressors" or other mysterious phlogiston, why are Hispanics immune?)

~~~
projektir
I think you're conflating terms here.

The left wing narrative is closer to saying that growing up poor in a given
country is likely to generate heavy stressors. And I think this is correct,
because growing up poor in a country implies that your family is very low
status, which is all sorts of bad from all sorts of sides.

The people immigrating to your country are probably not very low status in
their country, as they had enough mobility to immigrate, OR growing up low-
status in their country had different effects. I don't know enough about
Hispanics to say much, but I think family structure and philosophy may be
factors.

There's also a difference between having no money and having a potato yard and
some goats and having no money. Poor Americans often literally have nothing -
no money, no food, no parents, no education, no philosophy, etc. In other
places, the amount of money you have doesn't correlate so obviously, so when
you immigrate, a lot of stuff sticks around, even if it's invisible in the
simplistic model of money=success, especially given that immigration itself
often gives you an arbitrary pay cut that may take a while to compensate.

You can move to the US, and lose your certification to be a doctor because
your degree doesn't count in the US, but that doesn't make everything leading
up to you becoming a doctor magically evaporate.

~~~
yummyfajitas
Your idea that poor Americans "literally have nothing" is simply incorrect.
Poor Americans have obesity-inducing quantities of food, good quality housing
[1] and high quality free education (teachers actually show up!!!). You could
be right about "no parents, no philosophy" \- I don't have data on this.

Is it the really the left wing position, that family structure (traditional
family vs single mother) and philosophy (work hard, go to church vs feel envy
of the neighbors) are the secrets to success? Having a bad work ethic and
feeling envy towards those with more than you will likely cause bad behavior,
and that bad behavior causes bad outcomes?

But a person with a good philosophy (e.g. your doctor who lost certification)
will escape poverty that they are thrust into by chance?

I'd love to know what left wing sources you are reading. To me these claims
sound like something George Bush or Mitt Romney would say, and then get
crucified by the media for saying.

[1] This document provides information on virtually any specific aspect of
housing you want to know, sliced by income level. E.g. # rooms/person, sagging
roof, plumbing issues, washer/dryer/AC/kitchen, etc.
[http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/h150-07.pdf](http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/h150-07.pdf)

~~~
Applejinx
It's more accurate to say obesity-inducing qualities of food, since decades of
work has gone into optimizing that. It's kinda like if you can make all food
function like a very salty glazed donut, you get obesity (especially when it's
large quantities of very CHEAP very salty glazed donuts: and bear in mind we
also drink our very salty glazed donuts)

------
imgabe
Alternate theory: being less empathetic makes it more likely you'll get rich

~~~
jondubois
I think that's true. Rich people are often jerks.

People are nicer to you if you're a jerk (I say this from my personal
experience having being both a nice guy and a jerk).

No one respects nice people.

Nice people don't get promoted, they don't get funding, they just don't get
invited places.

~~~
rokhayakebe
Can you please expand on this: _People are nicer to you if you 're a jerk_?

~~~
jondubois
Rich people like jerks. It's about respect - Maybe related to our animal
mentality. Being a jerk is an 'alpha' male/female trait.

As much as people try to pretend that they're rational human beings, the laws
of nature are still running the show. Unfortunately, we haven't yet evolved
enough to view 'intelligence' as an alpha trait when it comes to social
hierarchy.

~~~
_0ffh
And never will. How would anyone be able to judge someone else's
"intelligence"? The simplest thing might be by proxy, testing how
knowledgeable someone is. But knowledge is highly diverse, and I'd have a hard
time to judge someones knowledge about something where I am not an expert
myself.

I've more than once witnessed people impress others with their deep
"knowledge" about subjects where I was in a situation to discern that they
were spouting superficially informed hogwash.

It's one of the central societal problems: How can I know who's expertise I
can trust unless I have that expertise myself?

------
dkarl
Empathy does not seem to be an involuntary ability like eyesight or smell. We
smell regardless of the circumstances, but empathy can be keen or absent.
Empathy for someone seems to come naturally to the extent that they can be
helpful or loyal to us, and it requires discipline to extend our empathy to
those who are useless or opposed to us.

It is interesting that the ability for someone to be a powerful force in our
lives does not naturally elicit empathy for them. It suggests that we suppress
empathy when we anticipate the need to act aggressively towards someone.
Empathy for our enemies could be very valuable except that it might make us
hesitate to hurt or kill them. We can see this in the U.S. elections right
now, when both sides encourage us to believe that the motivations of the other
side's voters are either inscrutable or malevolent.

~~~
pessimizer
Empathy isn't a sense, it's derivative from the senses and works by analogy
with one's self. When what you sense from others seems similar to what you
imagine others sense from you, by analogy you imagine that they have a similar
inner life to you. The more difference from how you imagine that others would
sense you, the more different you imagine their inner life to be from yours.
When you see them to be similar to you, but more perfect in your opinion, you
imagine that their inner life is more perfected than yours. If you see them as
less contrived; less put together, you see their thought process as more
honest, or more grounded than yours. If you see them as dirty or sloppy, you
imagine their thoughts to be more perverse or more slipshod. If their
movements or speech are slower than yours, you imagine them to be more stupid
or more careful than you are.

It's the search for souls in other people, required to decide whether they
feel pain in the same way that you do. You can never confirm that other people
have souls and feel pain, it's a leap of faith that you have to make - what
Hobbes would call a covenant - a unilateral agreement that you make with
others without their participation in the hope that your good faith will lead
them to reciprocate.

It's best if we just assume that everyone else is just like ourselves, and
reserve our distrust for people that try to tell us otherwise.

~~~
yummyfajitas
Empathy is a catch-all phrase describing two separate concepts, and the
psychological literature is careful to distinguish them:

Cognitive empathy is the ability to know what others are feeling. Affective
empathy is when cognitive empathy causes you to have similar feelings to
others.

 _It 's best if we just assume that everyone else is just like ourselves, and
reserve our distrust for people that try to tell us otherwise._

No, this is the typical mind fallacy, where we assume our mind is typical.
It'll fail you wildly if you leave your local culture.

------
todd8
For an interesting contrast, see _Who Really Gives? Partisanship and
Charitable Giving in the United States_ , by two political scientists at MIT
[1]. The results there surprised me, for example, there is a positive
correlation between the states that voted for Bush in 2004 and charitable
giving.

Also from the conclusion "Although previous research indicates that
conservatism is a reliable proxy for identifying potential donors or donor
communities, our results suggest that organizations would be better off simply
targeting wealthier donors, regardless of political beliefs."

[1]
[https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1100...](https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1100129/who-
gives.pdf)

~~~
arjie
As this paper and others describe, the difference is almost entirely
attributable to giving to religious causes, most notably the local church. I'm
not going to say it's not charity to give to a thing that's a charity, but if
the cause is evangelizing Christianity, then that's not the same as giving
some poor kid food and education. Of course, the whole thing is confounded by
the fact that the guy evangelizing is often also providing food and education,
but without knowing the percentages it's hard to see if the numbers still line
up when you subtract that cost.

~~~
akvadrako
According to a well-researched article [1], in 2010 Catholic Chartities USA
spent about 85% of it's $170 billion budget on health care and colleges.

Based on what I've seen in poorer countries, my personal take is they do
provide high quality education and care without much overhead. The
evangelising is mostly implicit and doesn't take many resources. More than
anything, it provides a soft filter for who gets those services.

[1]
[http://www.economist.com/node/21560536](http://www.economist.com/node/21560536)

~~~
arjie
Ah, and local churches (the majority of the difference between red/blue
states) transfer donations to CC USA? If so, that's pretty damned good.

------
ars
This is hardly surprising.

The rich person: "What's $5 for a tip? It's nothing, so why bother."

The poor person: "$5? That's a lot, and I can afford it, so let me give it."

Basically rich people value money less, and it doesn't occur to them that
giving small amounts can still help people. And obviously it's not the custom
to give large amounts as a tip.

~~~
projektir
Rich people value money _more_ , and compared to them, depending on how rich
they are, effectively _everyone_ needs it more. And they know if they start
giving money away to everyone that needs it more they'll run out of it pretty
quickly.

Poor people don't realize the predicament they're in and give away their money
because they think someone needs it more, yet they're at a very high risk of
becoming someone who cannot live independently and then needs to go find
another source of charity to support them. This does not scale well. I
understand why it happens but it's not something we should be raising to a
level of sainthood.

The need for charity is a symptom of a dysfunctional social system and people
falling through the cracks. There shouldn't be any mothers earning 19k in the
first place. Giving them $5 doesn't fix anything, because you know there are a
few million more of them and when you really want to change things it's really
not enough and you need to attack it at the higher level.

~~~
_0ffh
How does that apply to tipping? You eating out at millions of places every
week? Also, tipping is not charity, it is recognition of work well done.

------
hsitz
The title of this piece seems misleading to me, and an example of how many
people misunderstand statistics. I haven't seen any of the studies referred
to, but I'm sure they don't establish a connection between wealth and empathy
as strong as the one suggested. More likely, they show that rich people, on
average, tend to have less empathy than less-rich people. But surely some very
rich people have great empathy and some very poor people have very little
empathy. And all combinations in between, even if, on average, greater wealth
tends to correlate with less empathy.

The point above, I'm sure, is obvious to most people reading HN. But certainly
not to everyone, especially people with poor understanding of statistics. So
it bothers me that the title seems calculated to increase the likelihood of
misunderstanding. Okay, rant over.

~~~
projektir
There seems to be a glaring problem in statistics in general that large scale
statistics may completely hide small group effects. I.e., if there is
something that really benefits from X for 5%, but doesn't benefit from X for
95%, statistics will make it look like it doesn't benefit anybody. Yet that 5%
group may absolutely be relevant. This always sits in the back of my head when
I read things like: "Children are not influenced by their parents but by their
peers", or "twin study proves this".

But I haven't seen this discussed much or brought up, even though it sounds a
lot like what you're saying. Is this relevant? Is there a name for this? Is
there some reason as to why I shouldn't worry about this that I'm missing?

------
hossbeast
The whole concept of tipping is broken and needs to be done away with. The
restaurant in the story should be charging the customers more than $11, so
that it can pay its staff properly.

~~~
ac29
Not sure why you were downvoted, but some states allow paying wait staff less
than minimum wage. What most needs to change is not allowing sub-minimum wage
jobs subsidized by tips.

For people who live in California, FYI, wait staff is required to be paid
minimum wage, which can not have tips counted against it.

~~~
vinay427
No, "some states" do not allow for paying wait staff less than minimum wage
after tips. The federal minimum wage in theory enforces this. It's rather
misleading to point out that they might be making less than minimum wage
without tips, especially when the average hourly wage after tips is well above
the average minimum wage at $11.82.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipped_wage_in_the_United_Stat...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipped_wage_in_the_United_States)

------
code_sardaukar
It's only natural to feel more empathy for people in situations we've been in,
but this isn't the entirety of morality. I've never been a cow but I go out of
my way to avoid causing suffering to cows and other animals.

Rich people haven't necessarily experienced much hardship, so they need to
have a more abstract kind of empathy, but this doesn't make them worse people.
Indeed, if a rich person felt that had done enough by paying taxes, I wouldn't
blame them. From a utilitarian perspective, I would rather have another person
who pays $100,000 in taxes and gives $0 to charity than someone who pays
$20,000 in taxes and gives $1,000 to charity.

------
projektir
I would be suspicious of the correlation was really so straight. There are a
lot of complicated factors around why one might be nice or not nice and in my
experience it hasn't been anywhere near this simple.

As an example, people who had hard lives often become hard themselves, and
that may make their conduct worse. People in countries where things are not
going well are not exactly super duper nice. People also tend to treat
different people differently, so they may be nice to one group and not nice at
all to another group. People may especially be not nice to a group if they
perceive that group as a threat.

A lot of the definitions here seem rather tailored. Giving large tips is not
really the information I'd use to determine whether or not someone was nice,
especially since this gets layered on top of social signaling in a specific
culture. Generally, things like giving money, donating to charity, etc., may
be viewed as shallow level contributions by the rich and they'd rather do
something they perceive as more significant, such as lobbying or starting a
company.

Some of this reminds me a bit of accusing meat eaters of animal cruelty. Meat
eaters didn't invent it, even if they're receptors of the end product. There
are some meat eaters that promote animal cruelty directly, though, and there
are also systems that promote it, and those should be the subject of scorn.

I'm sure there are empathy gaps because people don't share experiences. But a
person is not evil if they simply don't support those less fortunate, or if
they don't understand them. That's just an empathy gap, and people are
generally quite bad at relating to experiences they don't have in general, in
both directions. A person needs to actually be doing bad things to be
classified as bad.

------
lucio
really? all rich people are jerks?

Any article claiming all $x are (not nice|$y) will be marked as
classist|sexist|racist.

Let's talk about double-standards.

------
throw2016
Breezing through life without life changing adversity gives little opportunity
for self reflection and contemplation unless one happens to be interested in
problems beyond one's own.

And if the thinking of 'us and them' takes hold whether in the rich, poor or
other groupings there is always dehumanization, reductionism, blame and
sociopathy.

Those in adversity or have faced adversity will identify with others and may
need or have received the help of other people leading to some kind of mutual
empathy.

------
bachmeier
Does anyone have a two sentence summary? I am not a subscriber so I'm blocked
from reading the story, and clicking the "web" link doesn't help.

~~~
tajen
The article provides ~12 examples of how rich people are less generous. It
proxies "rich people" with parameters such as nicer neighbourhoods. It shows
that proximity to the victims creates more empathy (e.g. 9\11 victims vs
Tsunami victims, or experience being a waiter, etc) and gives it as a reason
for the rich people being less empathetic towards poor.

------
Tomte
I think another aspect might play a role: when you're well-off, but not
obscenely rich, you're probably risk-averse. You don't want to end up in the
lower-class, dependent on other peoples' charity, so you're holding your money
together.

When you're already within reach of that you're more likely top end up there,
but the difference isn't as stark.

------
Mz
AKA you don't _have to be_ a callous jackass to get rich and stay rich, but it
probably helps.

------
partycoder
This video presents a study on the subject:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IuqGrz-
Y_Lc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IuqGrz-Y_Lc)

------
galfarragem
I think it goes both sides: the richest and the poorest neighborhoods are the
nastier. They will segregate/bully who doesn't match their lifestyle.

~~~
briandear
I might anecdotally argue that the upper-middle 'near-rich' neighborhoods are
'nastier' than the more upper class 'rich' neighborhoods-- perhaps the 'almost
rich' have more insecurity than the comfortably rich. Just an observation from
personal experience.

------
user5994461
What is poor? What is rich?

Is being poor when you can only get one iPhone per children... but cannot
replace one when it accidentally falls down and break after 6 months?

------
rokhayakebe
I used to be a bartender and that makes me a good tipper I think knowing what
they have to go through. Also I feel like giving back.

~~~
adrianratnapala
I'm Australian, and most Aussies will tell you that Australia is a no-tipping
society.

But the waiters and bartenders I've known don't beleive this.

------
nitwit005
Some of the examples made me wonder if only the most empathetic poor would
agree to participate in a study.

------
davesque
tl;dr Wealth has a measurable effect on empathy. Individual stories and
exposure to lower-income people can still compel wealthy people to be more
generous in spite of this effect.

------
mgleason_3
Has "Rich" become the new quasi-racial slur - with studies to show that the
Rich are genetically stupid, greedy and now mean.

Does the story really not link to even one "Study"? If the studies exists, are
they pier reviewed?

What happened to the Washington post? Didn't they report news at one point?

~~~
cokernel
The article links to multiple studies, for example:

* Social Class, Contextualism, and Empathic Accuracy: [http://pss.sagepub.com/content/21/11/1716](http://pss.sagepub.com/content/21/11/1716)

* Higher social class predicts increased unethical behavior: [http://www.pnas.org/content/109/11/4086.full](http://www.pnas.org/content/109/11/4086.full)

* The Psychological Consequences of Money: [http://science.sciencemag.org/content/314/5802/1154](http://science.sciencemag.org/content/314/5802/1154)

* Social status modulates neural activity in the mentalizing network: [https://keelyamuscatell.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/muscatel...](https://keelyamuscatell.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/muscatell_2012_neuroimage.pdf) (from NeuroImage)

* Noblesse Oblige? Social Status and Economic Inequality Maintenance among Politicians: [http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal....](http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0085293)

* Having Less, Giving More: The Influence of Social Class on Prosocial Behavior: [http://www.krauslab.com/SESprosocialJPSP.2010.pdf](http://www.krauslab.com/SESprosocialJPSP.2010.pdf) (from J. Pers. Soc. Psych.)

* Class and Compassion: Socioeconomic Factors Predict Responses to Suffering: [https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4MZvkUMsuJ_dmtEZUxOaFJZaFU...](https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4MZvkUMsuJ_dmtEZUxOaFJZaFU/view?pref=2&pli=1) (from Emotion)

I omitted the study in the Chronicle of Philanthropy from this list because I
couldn't find the actual data.

