Upper Class citizens and Social ability

[180]

An interesting read:

Upper-class people have trouble recognizing others' emotions

Upper-class people have more educational opportunities, greater financial security, and better job prospects than people from lower social classes, but that doesn't mean they're more skilled at everything. A new study published in Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science, finds surprisingly, that lower-class people are better at reading the emotions of others.

The researchers were inspired by observing that, for lower-class people, success depends more on how much they can rely on other individuals. For example, if you can't afford to buy support services, such as daycare service for your children, you have to rely on your neighbors or relatives to watch the kids while you attend classes or run errands, says Michael W. Kraus of the University of California-San Francisco. He co-wrote the study with Stéphane Côté of the University of Toronto and Dacher Keltner of the University of California-Berkeley.

One experiment used volunteers who worked at a university. Some had graduated from college and others had not; researchers used educational level as a proxy for social class. The volunteers did a test of emotion perception, in which they were instructed to look at pictures of faces and indicate which emotions each face was displaying. People with more education performed worse on the task than people with less education. In another study, university students who were of higher social standing (determined from each student's self-reported perceptions of his or her family's socioeconomic status) had a more difficult time accurately reading the emotions of a stranger during a group job interview.

These results suggest that people of upper-class status aren't very good at recognizing the emotions other people are feeling. The researchers speculate that this is because they can solve their problems, like the daycare example, without relying on others -- they aren't as dependent on the people around them.

A final experiment found that, when people were made to feel that they were at a lower social class than they actually were, they got better at reading emotions. This shows that "it's not something ingrained in the individual," Kraus says. "It's the cultural context leading to these differences." He says this work helps show that stereotypes about the classes are wrong. "It's not that a lower-class person, no matter what, is going to be less intelligent than an upper-class person. It's all about the social context the person lives in, and the specific challenges the person faces. If you can shift the context even temporarily, social class differences in any number of behaviors can be eliminated."

[brendannz]

That kind of makes some sense.. I guess being highly educated can make you less flexible socially, in terms of finding commonality. . perhaps?

[votoshka]

Hmm interesting...it's sort of saying that people who don't have to rely on others as much don't develop such good social skills, and maybe that's true for me?

Hard to say I wouldn't say I'm "upper class", well at least I'm certainly not NOW...but I was raised in a well off family and went to private school. My parents were fairly insular and didn't socialise much or have a lot of friends... if they needed something done they'd just get it done?

And me, although I'm not what I'd think of as upper class (although I'm well educated), I tend to rely on myself not others, because I guess I was rised to do so. So umm... yeah, I'm not the sort who would want to ask others for help, I'd rather do stuff on my own. And maybe that's all a part of it??!!

Or maybe I'm just naturally shy and introverted

[Brutha]

Maybe a similar process also explains that female have in general more social ability than men.

If I remember right than black people also outperform whites on emotional intelligence tests.

[180]

I think it's very valid in terms of evolution principals. We adapt what we need in order to survive. IF you don't need to depend on people you never develop those skills.

I think a lot of people on this forum maybe fall into this category. Votoshka maybe you in particular? Upper class really isn't totally about income as much as where you live and how you grew up (in my opinion)

[VinceG]

It's got nothing to do with class.

If you read the article carefully, it's all about perceived status, not actual status. It's basically saying that "Egotistical people are egotistical." Which is what we all knew anyway.

[votoshka]

Originally Posted by VinceG

It's got nothing to do with class.

If you read the article carefully, it's all about perceived status, not actual status. It's basically saying that "Egotistical people are egotistical." Which is what we all knew anyway.

This isn't how I read it at all

It was saying that people who are "upper class" for want of a better term, and thus have access to more money/resources, tend not to have to rely on the kindness of neighbours etc. to help them out. They are more self reliant, and thus don't develop good "social cues" I guess.

This may not be just "upper class" people, but perhaps people who are raised to be more independent and not rely on others for help? If you are raised in a fairly insular home, where everyone keeps to themselves and does as much as they can without relying on others, then it's the same thing.

It isn't anything to do with being egotistical!

[elucidate]

Originally Posted by votoshka

This isn't how I read it at all

It was saying that people who are "upper class" for want of a better term, and thus have access to more money/resources, tend not to have to rely on the kindness of neighbours etc. to help them out. They are more self reliant, and thus don't develop good "social cues" I guess.

This may not be just "upper class" people, but perhaps people who are raised to be more independent and not rely on others for help? If you are raised in a fairly insular home, where everyone keeps to themselves and does as much as they can without relying on others, then it's the same thing.

It isn't anything to do with being egotistical!

I thought the same thing...although people from the upper class may be more egotistical than others just because they are used to feeling pretty self-important!

[votoshka]

Originally Posted by elucidate

I thought the same thing...although people from the upper class may be more egotistical than others just because they are used to feeling pretty self-important!

Oh well some definitely are I knew quite a few of these types at school! But it's definitely not all

[aelle]

There is a possible completely different approach to explaining this phenomenon.

Anyone heard of the straight edge movement? Sobriety as a political statement? One of its underlying theories is that the numbing of the senses, including but not only through drugs and alcohol, is a necessary part of an opressive society. It is difficult to keep opressing a group of people if your senses are acute, if you can empathize with them. It is much easier if you just don't think about it. Oppressive groups throughout history have set up many coping mechanisms to achieve this anesthesia.

A quote from activist Nick Riotfag:

[...]A key strategy for maintaining white privilege is the anesthesia of white people towards the suffering of people of color, through distance (out of sight, out of mind), rationalization, intoxication and other methods.
Likewise, masculinity operates by forcing men to stay detached and impassive in the face of phsyical or emotional pain, setting up sensitivity and empathy as “female” (and therefore inferior) characteristics. Constructing masculinity as unfeeling - anesthetized - makes possible the incredible suffering inflicted by men upon women (and other men) through violence, rape, child abuse, denial of access to birth control and medical care, and so many other means. In this context it make perfect sense that intoxication would be linked with masculinity. Intoxication often reduces the ability of people to empathize with others, an integral part of being an oppressor.

The findings of these studies are perfectly aligned with this theory. If upper class people are less able to read emotions, and therefore to empathize -whether they taught themselves to disregard emotions or did not learn to read them is irrelevant- it makes it easier for them to maintain their upper class status. It maintains the status quo.

[elucidate]

I would go with this as well. Given that so many people have had such horrors happen to them in childhood and adulthood as well, there are many many , MANY people who choose to numb out, and when you can't feel your own feelings, it's very hard...nigh on impossible actually to feel anyone elses either.

Since it's so socially acceptable for people to drink, and drugs are so easy to come by, it really has nothing to do with class at all, but more to do with how much an individual has been through in their life which causes them to block off from their own emotions. The more damage a person has endured without seeking any form of therapy or without embarking on their own healing journey, the more cut off from their own empathy they are.

Since there is still such a stigma surrounding therapy and healing modalities, that means there are still a lot of people who are in denial of the effects of their past.

I've been one of these people, and I know many people like this...and they aren't from the upper class I can tell you that much!

Originally Posted by aelle

There is a possible completely different approach to explaining this phenomenon.

Anyone heard of the straight edge movement? Sobriety as a political statement? One of its underlying theories is that the numbing of the senses, including but not only through drugs and alcohol, is a necessary part of an opressive society. It is difficult to keep opressing a group of people if your senses are acute, if you can empathize with them. It is much easier if you just don't think about it. Oppressive groups throughout history have set up many coping mechanisms to achieve this anesthesia.

A quote from activist Nick Riotfag:



The findings of these studies are perfectly aligned with this theory. If upper class people are less able to read emotions, and therefore to empathize -whether they taught themselves to disregard emotions or did not learn to read them is irrelevant- it makes it easier for them to maintain their upper class status. It maintains the status quo.

[VinceG]

My main point is, is that this isn't an article on class. It's an article on psychology. These two fields have very, very different cultures and ideas and thinkers. Clearly psychologists wrote this one and not economic philosophers.

Shrinks have been trying to figure out class for decades, to no avail. Perhaps this will be a useful bridge.

[ChrisGinsburg]

It is also possible that people of the "upper class" have intentionally ignored others emotions as a way to make themselves feel superior. This has potentially evolved into a societal norm and a way for the upper class to artificially boost their self-esteem even when deep down they know it's a lie.

[AndrewJen]

Originally Posted by aelle

There is a possible completely different approach to explaining this phenomenon.

Anyone heard of the straight edge movement? Sobriety as a political statement? One of its underlying theories is that the numbing of the senses, including but not only through drugs and alcohol, is a necessary part of an opressive society. It is difficult to keep opressing a group of people if your senses are acute, if you can empathize with them. It is much easier if you just don't think about it. Oppressive groups throughout history have set up many coping mechanisms to achieve this anesthesia.

A quote from activist Nick Riotfag:



The findings of these studies are perfectly aligned with this theory. If upper class people are less able to read emotions, and therefore to empathize -whether they taught themselves to disregard emotions or did not learn to read them is irrelevant- it makes it easier for them to maintain their upper class status. It maintains the status quo.

An intimate example is an ex-roommate of mine who I (and my other roommates) lived with for awhile. He had a mostly upperclass upbringing so he never meshed well with any of us. Also we are all involved with long-term plans to become successful together but he always kept a distance from them even though he believes in our future success. Well to make things short he constantly isolated himself from us emotionally and this study totally reminds me of him (upper class) and us (low or middle class) and the distance he kept from us while trying to maintain some weird form of "friendship."

[180]

Something we have to question is

1) The lack of social ability due to be being "high class"?

2) Or is being high class a result of "lack of social ability"?

I tend to think it's the 2nd. Reason being because, like most things, the ability to resist temptation correlates with how much money or "success" they have in life. (If anyone is familiar with the marshmallow experiment. A child can choose to eat one right now, or if he waits, he can have a much greater amount later).

The more I try to be less emotional... I've noticed my social abilities have plummeted. Which is rare because I'm usually the life of the party if I want. But for the last 2-3 years I've been training myself to control my impulsiveness and try to choose the best long term solution. So many of the activities that I did, Heavy drinking, nasty sex, eating junk food, spending money carelessly, seemed to all go away. But with that, I just wasn't as much fun as I used to be. I also find it harder to "understand" people. Like I just don't get it anymore why someone would want to touch a guys ass in public and run. BUT that's something I used to do all the time... and it was fun.

I'm starting to think it's because these children lack social ability or "emotional" recognition that they can learn to do things based on logical premises and make decisions that are practical. If you think about it, emotional and social people tend to do what everyone else is doing. As an example, one of my Ex girlfriends was really popular but she always did what other girls were doing. Like the new "in thing" would always be something expensive like a new bag, horseback riding, skydiving, traveling to mongolia, buying a small dog that fits in a bag, etc... I always thought she had no mind of her own and basically did what her friends were doing. That made her popular but also poor and mindless. If she didn't have "daddy's money" she would be indistinguishable from white trash at wal mart.

There are upsides and downsides to being popular. I guess the "higher class" don't feel the need to have relationships or the need to feel popular and therefore can avoid a lot of temptation and self destructive behavior like drugs and wasteful spending. They also tend to plan more for their future.

Just something to think about. It's questionable what's the cause of correlation.

[ellie]

Well I posted similar topic the other day, but it was more related to upper to middle class being successful, rather than talking about their emotions. I'm posting here what I said.

"Outliers: The Story of Success" by Malcolm Gladwell has many ideas how one becomes successful, but what I took away from it was, that social class is quite important and education.

One study, from what I understood...suggested that children from wealthier families obtain more confidence because their parents were heavily involved in shuttling their children to one activity to another, like sports, music lessons, etc. They also reasoned with their children more, they expected them to think for themselves and negotiate to question authority. Parents of these classes would also step in and stand-up for their children with their teachers and trainers. Middle class children are also taught how to interact with adults and speak-up and form their own opinions.

Upper to middle class parents teach their children "a sense of entitlement", but not in a bad way, but rather allowing them to manage their own interactions and settings.

Lareau, who was taking this study, noticed one of the mothers she was observing, whilst taken her child to the doctor, prepped her child beforehand, asking what questions she would like to as the doctor (the child that is). Thus teaching the child she has the right to speak-up. They also are more poised and better dressed, and well kept.

Poor parents on the other hand are intimidated by authority so would stay passively in the background. Poor parents tend to follow.

I know I didn't go into too much about the study with the poor parents, but the study wasn't saying that children from lower class are totally worse off, but that they did have a disadvantage with social skills.

So what do you think? Agree, disagree. How important overall do you think coming from a middle to upper class background is?

I see both sides, especially because I have friends and family that are from upper to middle class backgrounds. I certainly have noticed confidence, with middle/upper class children, they may not be necessarily smarter, but they have been groomed to speak well, which thus in turn oozes confidence. I also see that these classes, tend to have friends that they have known forever and a day which I think helps with connections later in life. They all seem to help each other out, via word of mouth in their social scene.

Incidentally, I am the only child in my family that has not gone to an elite school. I did attend a girls school through part of highschool, but it wasn't anything brilliant. All my cousins did attend elite schools (my father included), and I always felt I missed out on something. But on the other hand, my final 2 years of school I attended an alternative art school, and I would say 80% of the students were made up of kids from upper to middle class backgrounds (who had attended very elite schools). It was rather interesting, they were all trying to rebel from their upbringing. I always wonder what they are all up to now If only I could of done a 7-up documentary on them.

[Benton]

Originally Posted by ellie

[S]uggested that children from wealthier families obtain more confidence because their parents were heavily involved in shuttling their children to one activity to another, like sports, music lessons, etc. They also reasoned with their children more, they expected them to think for themselves and negotiate to question authority. Parents of these classes would also step in and stand-up for their children with their teachers and trainers. Middle class children are also taught how to interact with adults and speak-up and form their own opinions.

I wrote a whole post commenting on this. Then I realized that I was stereotyping the affluent.

My post boiled down to (and I think it's pretty true) that it's much easier to be confident when you have money behind you, when a single mistake won't cause a financial mess for a long period of time.

[Servina]

Interesting......I worked in a very expensive private school for a number of years and the confidence, achievement and ambition was much higher for a greater number of students than it is in state schools. I agree with the "sense of entitlement" theory. The students also worked longer hours and did lots of different activities, some of which I ran. I myself, went to an ordinary state school and there is a marked difference between the opportunities and home lives of these children and the children from lower socio-economic groups. There's such inequality in education, which is being reinforced by lots of parental apathy. If you want your child to be confident and successful in the long run, then I think you have to give them the opportunity to try things out and put your own time and effort into doing that, including bothering to make sure they've done their homework and checking their exercise books.

I also think private schools should be made illegal, mostly because they reinforce social difference and encourage twisted thinking aobut social status, which is completely down to nurture and not nature.

Just think, if no-one in the UK went to a private school, all the upper to middle class parents would form a PTA and fix the state schools, because they wouldn't want their little darlings having their education ruined by crap teaching and poor behaviour. Also, the disgustingly wealthy would be forced to donate all kinds of facilities and activities, because if they didn't, what would little Tarquin's school day be like? It'd be the end of the old school tie network and maybe.....just maybe......there'd be a meritocracy. It's just a dream I have.

[ellie]

Originally Posted by Servina

Just think, if no-one in the UK went to a private school, all the upper to middle class parents would form a PTA and fix the state schools, because they wouldn't want their little darlings having their education ruined by crap teaching and poor behaviour. Also, the disgustingly wealthy would be forced to donate all kinds of facilities and activities, because if they didn't, what would little Tarquin's school day be like? It'd be the end of the old school tie network and maybe.....just maybe......there'd be a meritocracy. It's just a dream I have.

That's a really good dream, something I had never thought about

[votoshka]

Originally Posted by Servina

I also think private schools should be made illegal, mostly because they reinforce social difference and encourage twisted thinking aobut social status, which is completely down to nurture and not nature.

Just think, if no-one in the UK went to a private school, all the upper to middle class parents would form a PTA and fix the state schools, because they wouldn't want their little darlings having their education ruined by crap teaching and poor behaviour. Also, the disgustingly wealthy would be forced to donate all kinds of facilities and activities, because if they didn't, what would little Tarquin's school day be like? It'd be the end of the old school tie network and maybe.....just maybe......there'd be a meritocracy. It's just a dream I have.

Now there's an interesting thought there... but I kind of disagree, on the grounds that people need to be given choice with respect to their kids' education.

Oh, and I dunno if it'd work in Australia, in some towns there are more private schools than public lol! I'm sure I read somewhere that about 1/3 of kids in this country attend private school at least for some of their education.

Private schools also offer a bit of flexibility if you don't like the way the public school system is run. At the moment my kids are all at public school, but my oldest son won a scholarship to private school for next year (he's starting high school), and I'm really happy with the way the school is being run, and on the vibrant learning community there!

[Indiana]

Originally Posted by votoshka

Now there's an interesting thought there... but I kind of disagree, on the grounds that people need to be given choice with respect to their kids' education.

They would have a choice... their kids could go to any public school they wished to apply for and that they qualified to get into.

[votoshka]

Originally Posted by Indiana

They would have a choice... their kids could go to any public school they wished to apply for and that they qualified to get into.

True, there are some pretty good select entry public schools that do as well (if not better) than many private schools. And, if there were no private schools, there would probably be more room for select entry schools, or schools with select entry programs to attract the brightest and best kids?? (Not that I really agree with "brightest and best" lol).

One thing I like about the school my son's going to is that they get really great results from all kids, whether they're really smart or just average (or probably less than average lol). However, I don't think this is ALL about it being private, and more to do with the attitude and enthusiasm of teachers and staff, and the overall positive vibe that you get from the school!