Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Although much of your post is anecdotal (sample size = 1), you do bring up a further issue with the study conclusions that somehwat conflate situation recognition/willingness to help with kindness and then further with initiating action.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion_of_responsibility

Diffusion of responsibility is a well accepted and pretty rigorously tested theory within behavioral psychology and is a really big 'yeah but' to anyone trying to conflate poverty with righteousness. Even if you do recognize someone in a bad situation, and even if you feel you should help them, and even if you decide that they need help in a timely manner... it's likely that you'll just let someone else do it.

I see how valid this is in a work setting to the effect that if everyone is responsible for a task to be done, no one feels responsible and the task does not get done.

I think the study would have been better conducted if the students had been actually put into conditions of poverty, living among poor people with varying degrees of income, for a couple of months between semesters with no lifeline.

We have too little information about the study to draw any kind of conclusion about the quality of its methodology or the likely accuracy and validity of its findings.

About the biggest piece of evidence is that it's a peer-reviewed study published in one of the APA's journals. Which, for my money, inclines me to believe that it's credible.

Yes, but you're not a scientologist.

I think it can credibly show that Berkley undergrads from lower economic circumstances can better identify trouble situations than Berkley undergrads from higher economic circumstances, but that's about it.

Anyone remember the story of the Widow's Mite?

sourclams wrote:I think it can credibly show that Berkley undergrads from lower economic circumstances can better identify trouble situations than Berkley undergrads from higher economic circumstances, but that's about it.

Ah, the Achilles Heel of all psychology research.

Looking at that, yeah. The methodology is way flawed. If you are attending a college like Berkley, it's highly unlikely that you are that poor. Lower middle class at worst, probably. And given the way the middle class has been treated the past few years, that could well be right around the 50% mark of Americans overall.

You read the study, then, Vulcan? Do you have a link so I can read it too?

So, this thread is now about criticizing a study we haven't read because we either assume that the methodology was flawed or because a poor person kicked our ass once?

I would be interested in the socioeconomic breakdown of students at UC Berkeley.

I frequently hear that Private institutions can give better scholarship and grants than public institutions, so may be a "better" deal financially for students in the long haul.

By that reasoning, it maybe imprudent to speculate ont eh socioeconomic breakdown of a college without knowing the facts. I did a basic search on the Google, but didn't really find anything.

well i agree, because for poor people its harder in live than billionaires

My favorite quote I've seen today, posted by http://www.thisistrue.com/

Going around: You can tell Monopoly is an old game because there's a luxury tax and rich people can go to jail.