Do Rich People Just Care Less?

The hugely influential sociologist and author of the landmark work Emotional Intelligence, Daniel Goleman visits the RSA to ask how it is possible to close the empathy gap, and what the preconditions for a compassionate society might be.
SUBSCRIBE to our channel!
Follow the RSA on Twitter: / rsaevents
Like RSA Events on Facebook: / rsaeventsoff. .
Listen to RSA podcasts: / the_rsa
See RSA Events behind the scenes: / rsa_events

[@MrMalibujunkies]

This was fantastic! Thank you very much Daniel and RSA.

[@AlElliottPlus]

It's truly sad that almost every conversation about mental health ends up with finger pointing. This is a very powerful concept in this video that needs to be discussed more openly.

[@Dunaldango]

Well, problem is money and power attrackt people who have no empathy. And they might benefit from not having empathy in the money game. I have known some rich people and talked to people in those circles. Many of them are monsters and will do only harm when they are bored.

[@Thaulopi]

Our mental capabilities are limited by education, rank and gender. But, there is a lot of time left for us to learn. Maybe I will not life to see that, but others will. My life is good. I do not step away if somebody needs me, I care for others, I care most for animals and I am a vegetarian. There is nothing more I can do.

[@rickfakhre2400]

. “Willed attention becomes more and more scarce. It’s a rare commodity. Attention is a mental muscle. We need to exercise it. And the more we exercise it, the stronger it becomes. And what I am worried about is that kids are growing up in an environment where they’re going to become flabby, attentionally.” -Daniel Goleman

[@rickfakhre2400]

an unintentional poem by Daniel Goleman

[@SIMKINETICS]

Brilliant!

[@chodeshadar18]

Best social philosophy to teach both children and adults is in the Talmud, Avot Chap. 1, Verse 14, "If I am not for myself, who will be for me? If I am ONLY for myself, who am I? And if not now, when???" Best way to teach it? By making being a good person more important in our culture more important than being famous, rich or sexually attractive. I know that most will consider this too much to ask for, but hey, what are you at this channel for?

[@justgivemethetruth954]

> By making being a good person more important in our culture more important than being famous, rich or sexually attractive. Wow, do I ever agree with that. I think the model for this comes from the sports world, where they never enforce any kind of morality. If there is a hotshot athlete they are able to do whatever they want and never pay any price. That meme has just taken the rest of the world by storm and now everything is like that. There is no incentive to having good behavior or character ... the meme is that it just makes you a loser, but the whole rot of our country falls out behind this change as far as I can see.

[@chodeshadar18]

Justgivemethetruth And now, let's you & me spread this truth one person at a time...

[@rh001YT]

While perhaps "kids of today" are overly interested in their electronic communication devices, there really is no sign that a lack of focused attention afflicts any modern or modernizing nations. The move to modernity has always required more focused attention, since the 1800s (roughly) and such continues today. Even clerks have to more focused as with software they are required to process more forms (on the screen) than in past times, using mouse, typing correctly, saving to the correct folder, etc., and producing reports for the boss using Excel or something similar. Adults now mine "big data" to find trends, engineers can design in 3D and check the fit of parts provided by subcontractors, and so on and so on. Most of what adults now do daily in the modern world requires much more focus than in past times. Even driving requires more focus than riding in a horse drawn wagon, and the number of drivers increases everyday.

[@SliC3oFicE]

Typing correctly is a myth, go into an actual tech company and see how many people are mashing out words typing with 5 fingers resting in the all to classic WASD configuration.

[@DreamWizard9]

Nobody cares more than what suits them.

[@DreamWizard9]

***** Being totally objective.

[@Ypthor]

DreamWizard9 Science objective, or Ayn Rand "objective"?

[@DreamWizard9]

Science isn't objective, my friend. Science is funded by corporations.

[@Ypthor]

DreamWizard9 I meant "Science" as in the results of the scientific method, which is a philosophical concept and is not being funded.

Daniel goleman talks about schools teaching empathy and social émotions to kids - can u share the named or links ? Either by MP or through this comment area? Thank you very Much. A french fellow.

[@DanielRamBeats]

I think banking on empathy is a difficult sell. I mean, you can't make someone empathetic to a situation if they don't want to be. Unless they go through that situation themselves, how could they truly be empathetic? If they did, isn't this something they'd come to themselves through introspective research?

[@Ypthor]

Do you want to mean something special when saying "truly" empathetic, like "mind melting or something", or would it suffice to make them simply empathetic, to whatever degree possible? Do you believe that everyone DOES introspective research therefore those lacking empathy wouldn' have it anyway? Why couldn't you "make" them? Unless they are psychopaths or have been deeply conditioned in the opposite they should have the capacity to feel empathy just by seeing or even hearing about the situation. I believe that empathy - the extreme cases excluded - is a matter of understanding the situation and of course getting rid of any demonizing or justification as in the common psychological misconception of :"The world is just therefore they must be deserving their fate", which you're probably familiar with. DISCLAIMER: This is a KZbin comment, not a philosophical essay. The statements above may be oversimpliying and inaccurate.

[@DanielRamBeats]

Ypthor you can't make anyone, do or feel anything, they don't want to. To attempt to is a version of dictatorship. This isn't to say that change would not occur from a catalyst of people that do care, but it wasn't because they were made to.. They realized it upon their own accord. Introspective research is a natural thing. We always question our own decisions, actions and wonder if it was the best choice we made. The problem is that we are flawed into building stories of why our choices were the best at the time, even if they were not logically so. Such as buying a brand new car vs a used car.. Later on we deceive ourselves, that the new car was better because, x y z. Look the point I am getting at is, you can't change people. That's true in any relationship, period. If someone smokes, you can't even make them empathetic towards the risk to their own life, they won't quit the habit until they themselves, make that choice. We can encourage empathy. But what is the chance a life-time smoker, will actually quit based on that encouragement, especially if they see nothing wrong with the way things are from their perspective?

[@Ypthor]

Daniel Ram "make" By "make" I meant "actively do something about it", not to coerce in any way (at least not in any generally unaccepted way), in fact I only used the word - in parentheses - to quote you, so I don't see the need to reply to that part. "you can't change people they realized on their own" You seem to claim that you can't change people, they can only change by themselves. I claim that although you may not (yet) be able to directly reach into someone's brain and rearrange what they think, you can expose them to relevant thoughts, experiences and fellings, give them thinking tools and encourage thorough introspection - and do whatever else is available / necessary - thereby (note the parentheses) "making" them realize stuff on their own. Apart from the criticism of the apparently fallacious expression "truly empathetic", my main point about your original comment was that you seemed to claim people can not be changed from the outside at all, while I believe what I (vaguely and certainly inaccurately) outlined above IS changing them from the outside. Do you still think we disagree? I'm not as optimistic about the "depth" of introspection in people as you are, and even less so about the quantity, and I would like to see things actively done about it. Maybe I'm wrong and there is more going on than I imagine and it's just the social masks and costumes we wear that block it out, in which case there's another area we can work on. And sure, I know about the deceptions and addictions and all that and I agree that our thinking is not as orderly as we would like. Addressing this (through education) is another thing I think should be actively done. BTW I did recently - during a bus ride - encourage a smoker to consdier quitting alltogether and she said she would consider it :)

[@DanielRamBeats]

Ypthor I don't disagree with your intent, meaning, I agree with the idea that in an ideal world, people would care for one another, as we care for our children. The problem is. that isn't the reality. You can't change anyone. You can only connect and influence a small few people from a large group and the success of your influence is based on the depth of how much the person being influenced can, own their own, empathize with whatever you're talking about or see you as someone worthy to influence them. People can only be influenced in three ways. Through an existing relationship with someone in their own network that they routinely listen to, through celebrity, in which someone likeable of a social status can cause them to take action because they asked and finally through someone of a higher social class or status then them, That's why banking on empathy and changing them is stupid. It would cost a lot of money, time and effort. It is way better to not participate in their system. In the words, if you want real change. Don't vote in a two party system, don't participate. Trying to change someone who likely, does not want to be changed.. Will NEVER work. That is marketing 101. Think about it, if I have a million dollars and you only have five dollars. How successful do you think you will be at influencing me on anything let alone, to be more empathetic? That's not how this world works. I am happy you tried to persuade someone on the bus you met randomly to quit smoking. But the truth is, you are not within their own personal network and probably have the least amount of influence on them to actually quit. Even people with people who have influence within a network can't get people to quit, not even celebrity endorsements work.

[@Ypthor]

Daniel Ram "that isn't the reality" It is not the rality now, but isn't it the point of the "human endeavour" to strive for the ideal even if it is ultimately unreachable? Maybe not everyone is capable - by nature or by nurture - of such behaviour, but do you think that this could not at least be made the norm from which some will deviate? That this reality can not be "improved" through the ways I mentioned (and others I have not)? Killing each other for petty reasons was quite comon for a long time, but not so much anymore - at least not where I live - even if there are exceptions. "You can't change anyone." You're using this universal-sounding once-and-for-all expression again, when each of its words can be interpreted to mean so many different ways that I don't see how it could be meant as a statement without defining them thoroughly. You do elaborate what you mean to an extent, but not to my satisfaction. I understand it to be claiming quite a lot? "You can only connect and influence..." "People can only be influenced in three ways" Sure, it's difficult, most of MY attempts have failed so far. I can accept that these are facts about the way it IS in general, but are you claiming that it can not work otherwise? That this can not be changed? Are you claiming that empathy can not be developed or trained, or simply awakened? Are you claiming that the circle of "being worth listening to" can not be extended? Couldn't educating people "properly" make them more conscious and open their minds to an extent that they can be influenced by anyone's reasonable arguments? Couldn't their "networks" be extended, the same way the tribe has been extended to nation? I know that I don't only accept input from those three. "That's why banking on empathy and changing them..." Oh, you mean...no of course not. I don't mean to change the power structure just by having a nice talk with "rich bastards". If this was suggested in the video - I don't exactly remember this part - then I don't agree, but I do with the point about "divides" weakening empathy and being more "mindful" strenghtening it. And I do think that the change of the inner world and the change of the outer world have to happen simultaneously, so just "not voting" is not enough. As for the bus story, let me elaborate. It was a 20 hour ride so, although we may not have become friends as such, but we did share a lot and both having the right mindset we did connect to an extent. After connecting in such a way was I able to have an effect, even though I wasn't really persuading, just pointing out a few things she hasn't thought about. She was the one who said she might consider quitting. I'd like to believe, that if such an openness between two random people coming across each other could become the norm, we would live in a better world. It's the middle of the night around here and I'm sleepy so I'm not going to check again if the above really makes sense :) Please forgive - and point out - any inconsistencies if necessary.

[@igendoppis]

can someone tell me, who the man is, speaking at the beginning?

[@mba2ceo]

Humanity is ruled by self interest. Poor ppl do not care either about their own social class & actually cause MORE harm to their own kind.

[@justgivemethetruth954]

How can they care about others when they do not have sufficient resources to care about themselves?

[@mba2ceo]

By organizing & colluding resources. #1 creation of poverty are the poor. The poor as a community are 99% responsible for their status. It is that simple.

[@justgivemethetruth954]

mba2ceo Honestly, I think it's just that you are that simple. No serious person thinks that. Goleman is being charitable when he says that people do nothing because of time pressures ... some people are just aholes.

[@TheKyotey]

The number of inaccurate statements based on preconceived incorrect assumptions made by Professor Goleman may produce a feel good scenario for those that consider themselves poor, but there really is little to be gained by his premise.

[@TheKyotey]

Typical