Research shows what you say about others says a lot about you

Aug 02, 2010

How positively you see others is linked to how happy, kind-hearted and emotionally stable you are, according to new research by a Wake Forest University psychology professor.

"Your perceptions of others reveal so much about your own personality," says Dustin Wood, assistant professor of psychology at Wake Forest and lead author of the study, about his findings. By asking study participants to each rate positive and negative characteristics of just three people, the researchers were able to find out important information about the rater's well-being, mental health, social attitudes and how they were judged by others.

The study appears in the July issue of the . Peter Harms at the University of Nebraska and Simine Vazire of Washington University in St. Louis co-authored the study.

The researchers found a person's tendency to describe others in positive terms is an important indicator of the positivity of the person's own . They discovered particularly strong associations between positively judging others and how enthusiastic, happy, kind-hearted, courteous, emotionally stable and capable the person describes oneself and is described by others.

"Seeing others positively reveals our own positive traits," Wood says.

The study also found that how positively you see other people shows how satisfied you are with your own life, and how much you are liked by others.

In contrast, negative perceptions of others are linked to higher levels of narcissism and . "A huge suite of negative personality traits are associated with viewing others negatively," Wood says. "The simple tendency to see people negatively indicates a greater likelihood of depression and various personality disorders." Given that negative perceptions of others may underlie several personality disorders, finding techniques to get people to see others more positively could promote the cessation of behavior patterns associated with several different simultaneously, Wood says.

This research suggests that when you ask someone to rate the personality of a particular coworker or acquaintance, you may learn as much about the rater providing the personality description as the person they are describing. The level of negativity the rater uses in describing the other person may indeed indicate that the other person has negative characteristics, but may also be a tip off that the rater is unhappy, disagreeable, neurotic—or has other negative personality traits.

Raters in the study consisted of friends rating one another, college freshmen rating others they knew in their dormitories, and fraternity and sorority members rating others in their organization. In all samples, participants rated real people and the positivity of their ratings were found to be associated with the participant's own characteristics.

By evaluating the raters and how they evaluated their peers again one year later, Wood found compelling evidence that how positively we tend to perceive others in our social environment is a highly stable trait that does not change substantially over time.

Explore further: Vets' alcohol problems linked to stress on the home front (w/ Video)

Related Stories

Why some couples look alike

Feb 11, 2006

Facial characteristics can be indicative of personality traits and may be why some couples may look similar, says a University of Liverpool study.

Personalities judged by physical appearance alone

Dec 10, 2009

Observers were able to accurately judge some aspects of a stranger's personality from looking at photographs, according to a study in the current issue of Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin (PSBP), the official monthl ...

Confidence key in gauging impressions we leave

Feb 23, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- The gift of "seeing ourselves as others see us" is particularly beneficial when we judge how we’ve made a first impression - in a job interview, during a sales pitch, on a first date.

Recommended for you

Dyscalculia: Burdened by blunders with numbers

18 hours ago

Between 3 and 6% of schoolchildren suffer from an arithmetic-related learning disability. Researchers at Ludwig-Maximilians-Universitaet (LMU) in Munich now show that these children are also more likely to exhibit deficits ...

Free help for expecting and new mums at risk of depression

20 hours ago

With postnatal depression affecting almost one in seven women giving birth in Australia, QUT and the White Cloud Foundation have launched an innovative model of care to provide early access to treatment for expecting and ...

User comments : 68

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

CSharpner
4.8 / 5 (9) Aug 02, 2010
A link to this article will be immensely useful in almost every comment thread on almost every website.
croghan27
4.5 / 5 (2) Aug 02, 2010
Not sure quite what they are getting at here .... they ask for a judgenment, then announce that the judger is a negative person if they say something they find negative.

Are they not as guilty of that sin, exposing their biases, as the person asked?
CSharpner
5 / 5 (3) Aug 02, 2010
Crofhan27,

LOL! Yep. They demonstrated that you can't always judge everybody as positive. If one did, perhaps tha's another kind of disorder.
bottomlesssoul
5 / 5 (2) Aug 02, 2010
@croghan27
Not sure quite what they are getting at here .... they ask for a judgenment, then announce that the judger is a negative person if they say something they find negative.

Are they not as guilty of that sin, exposing their biases, as the person asked?
No, they asked people to judge other AND collected a psychometric profile of the person and noticed the persons mood determined how they perceived others.

However this the same idea that for any estimated sense we consider, we consider it held by our peers in roughly the same way. It's why doctors think patients understand relevant details the same way the doctor does. Every part of our senses are prefiltered in this way by default, we sense what we expect to sense for the most part. Forest Gump will always see the bright side.

Self doubt which is a learned behavior can change perceptions but only if it's practiced.
satyricon
not rated yet Aug 03, 2010
What happens if you have to judge someone who has a lot of negative traits to them?
frajo
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 03, 2010
They demonstrated that you can't always judge everybody as positive. If one did, perhaps tha's another kind of disorder.
There are not very many people of this kind. Which is a pity as otherwise, there would be not so many hostile or OT comments.

Self doubt which is a learned behavior can change perceptions but only if it's practiced.
Self doubt is unpopular as it leads to dialectical thinking and this in turn may infect you with Marxism.
frajo
4.3 / 5 (3) Aug 03, 2010
What happens if you have to judge someone who has a lot of negative traits to them?
One judgement does not matter in this case. But if you see "a lot of negative traits" in nearly everybody whom you encounter, you either are a psychiatrist or you should see one.
croghan27
5 / 5 (2) Aug 03, 2010
frajo .... you mean that grumpy people, who give grumpy replies need help?

Grumpyness is its' own reward.
MustaI
1.4 / 5 (10) Aug 03, 2010
..negative perceptions of others are linked to higher levels of narcissism and antisocial behavior....A huge suite of negative personality traits are associated with viewing others negatively..
Now I know, what to think about all these lovely great guys - like the yyz, frajo, Ethelred, Skeptic_Heretic, Caliban or otto1923...
CHollman82
4.8 / 5 (6) Aug 03, 2010
Now I know, what to think about all these lovely great guys - like the yyz, frajo, Ethelred, Skeptic_Heretic, Caliban or otto1923...


What? That intelligence leads to impatience and scorn for the willfully ignorant?

I'd agree with that.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.8 / 5 (5) Aug 03, 2010
Now I know, what to think about all these lovely great guys - like the yyz, frajo, Ethelred, Skeptic_Heretic, Caliban or otto1923...
Identified and added to the list of Alizee aliases within my profile.
marjon
2.1 / 5 (7) Aug 03, 2010
Now I know, what to think about all these lovely great guys - like the yyz, frajo, Ethelred, Skeptic_Heretic, Caliban or otto1923...


What? That intelligence leads to impatience and scorn for the willfully ignorant?

I'd agree with that.

'Intelligence' obviously does not lead to tolerance.
Ethelred
4.2 / 5 (6) Aug 03, 2010
Well that post confirms it, Mustal is another sockpuppet, that is used to give fives to Zephir's many post under many names, and ones to those the Zephir is pissed at. Thus it is NOT a newbie nor is objective in this latest statement of self-serving pique.

LIST OF KNOWN SOCKPUPPETS OF Zephir the MultiNamed Crank.

slotin alizee zephir jigga VestaR nisaJ MustaI seneca

There are likely others but those are certain. Some are even tacitly acknowledged by one puppet or another.

Ethelred
Ethelred
4.3 / 5 (7) Aug 03, 2010
'Intelligence' obviously does not lead to tolerance.


Marjon-

I, and possibly others, will start having more tolerance for the MultiNamed Crank when it stops having more names than a Russian novel. The multiple names are not because it forgets it passwords as it has falsely claimed many times. The names are used to uprate itself and down rate its enemies thus showing the excuse to contain the miracle ingredient Frauduline.

And I missed Alexa in my list.

Ethelred
Skeptic_Heretic
4.3 / 5 (7) Aug 03, 2010
Well that post confirms it, Mustal is another sockpuppet, that is used to give fives to Zephir's many post under many names, and ones to those the Zephir is pissed at. Thus it is NOT a newbie nor is objective in this latest statement of self-serving pique.

LIST OF KNOWN SOCKPUPPETS OF Zephir the MultiNamed Crank.

slotin alizee zephir jigga VestaR nisaJ MustaI seneca

There are likely others but those are certain. Some are even tacitly acknowledged by one puppet or another.

Ethelred

Current known Alizee aliases:
seneca, broglia, Alizee, alexa, Slotin, NisaJ, VestaR, jigga, MustaI, GravityPhD, sckavassalis
Skeptic_Heretic
3.6 / 5 (7) Aug 03, 2010
Self doubt which is a learned behavior can change perceptions but only if it's practiced.
Self doubt is unpopular as it leads to dialectical thinking and this in turn may infect you with Marxism.

Very true, but one must ask, what are the megativities contained within marxism?

Now the above isn't a statement of support for marxism, simply an objective question.
frajo
3.9 / 5 (8) Aug 03, 2010
Current known Alizee aliases:
seneca, broglia, Alizee, alexa, Slotin, NisaJ, VestaR, jigga, MustaI, GravityPhD, sckavassalis
Add ZeroX and GeneH.
There are some more suspicious accounts which are not yet confirmed. The most stable indicator is a fresh account voting 5 points for a comment of an Alizee-clone. Other indicators are his tendency to use pictures to explain "theories", his very special English grammar and orthography, and his inability to improve the latter even after hints from someone else.

And, marjon, did you note his comment where he got a score of "3" because there were 4 votes of proper users and another 4 votes by four of his own accounts? You don't have this chuzpah to cheat this way, so I assume you don't approve his behaviour.
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (9) Aug 03, 2010
Add ZeroX and GeneH.
Added.
And, marjon, did you note his comment where he got a score of "3" because there were 4 votes of proper users and another 4 votes by four of his own accounts? You don't have this chuzpah to cheat this way, so I assume you don't approve his behaviour.

This is part of the reason why I'd never want to see marjon banned. His views may be different from the norm but they are his views and he stands behind them himself. This shows a sense of ethics.

Alizee/manyothernames has no sense of ethics.
marjon
3 / 5 (4) Aug 03, 2010
Very true, but one must ask, what are the megativities contained within marxism?

What is 'megativities'? It was not in the OED.
You don't have this chuzpah to cheat this way, so I assume you don't approve his behaviour.

A back handed compliment?
I don't care about ratings. Anyone enganged is science shouldn't care about 'consensus', only what can be supported by theory and data.
If the science process is not up to the challenge, then individuals will develop their own heuristic of life.
It has been shown and demonstrated that positive thoughts and comments lead to positive results. People CAN choose the positive path so the jist of the article is supported in my heuristic.
marjon
1.8 / 5 (4) Aug 03, 2010
Well that post confirms it, Mustal is another sockpuppet, that is used to give fives to Zephir's many post under many names, and ones to those the Zephir is pissed at. Thus it is NOT a newbie nor is objective in this latest statement of self-serving pique.

LIST OF KNOWN SOCKPUPPETS OF Zephir the MultiNamed Crank.

slotin alizee zephir jigga VestaR nisaJ MustaI seneca

There are likely others but those are certain. Some are even tacitly acknowledged by one puppet or another.

Ethelred

Current known Alizee aliases:
seneca, broglia, Alizee, alexa, Slotin, NisaJ, VestaR, jigga, MustaI, GravityPhD, sckavassalis

How is anyone 100% certain of aliases unless one has access to registration data?
Skeptic_Heretic
4.3 / 5 (7) Aug 03, 2010
What is 'megativities'? It was not in the OED.
Typo, should read "negativities".
How is anyone 100% certain of aliases unless one has access to registration data?
In many cases an individual cannot change their writing style substantially. Alizee's style is so unique as to be automatically distinguishable.

The content is also consistently devoid of accuracy and knowledge.
frajo
4.3 / 5 (7) Aug 03, 2010
How is anyone 100% certain of aliases unless one has access to registration data?
Jigga/VestaR/Slotin/... did admit in several comments that he's using multiple accounts.
Ethelred
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 03, 2010
How is anyone 100% certain of aliases unless one has access to registration data?


Frequently Alizee/Zephir/whatever posts continuing conversations under multiple accounts. This makes it pretty easy. He often responds to a question for one account with another account.

Then there is bits about dense vacuum foam, aetherwave theory and claims that AWT shows that human behavior is whatever the article is about. And I mean WHATEVER the answer is AWT. The only reason he dropped that behavior is that was getting his accounts blocked.

Of course the main reason for the recent cross thread debate is its pernicious behavior with ranking. It is often so pronounced you have to be completely oblivious to not figure out which accounts belong to the same entity.

Even registration data wouldn't allow 100% certainty due to several ways of spoofing things. Some of which he doesn't seem to know yet so I am not going into it. Maybe he just hasn't felt the need yet rather not know.

Ethelred
Gawad
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 03, 2010
@Marjon

I don't care about ratings.


And well you shouldn't; Science isn't supposed to be a popularity contest. But, at the risk of being accused of missing the point, I don't think the rating system was put into place for quite that reason. If I recall properly, at the time there was an outcry from users for some way to filter out posts that were considered of dubious interest. So pretty much a la Slashdot, PHYSorg implemented a way for users to rate posts and a slider to filter out those considered of lesser value. The problem is that the ranking becomes an ego thing (for some crank(s) as for many non-cranks...we're all humand after all) in and of itself. The latter is unfortunate, but becomes very problematic when some posters start to engage in voting wars with armies of sockpuppets. In such a case their ill behavior ends up defeating the reason for which the filtering system was put into place to begin with. (And that's more than just a little annoying, btw Alizee).
croghan27
4.3 / 5 (3) Aug 03, 2010
If there are moderators floating about .. could you explain the function of the star facility.

I took it as a place to indicate if you agree with someone or not, than I was accused to choosing a low star (to the right)so someone would not be read by others.

I do not use it now at all.
Jigga
1 / 5 (9) Aug 03, 2010
The problem is that the ranking becomes an ego thing
I don't care about ranking at all, but it serves as a censor filter here. This is the true reason, why my posts are downvoted at per-person basis.

Before some time I proposed a private ranking system - you could filter out the posts and people, which you want, but this setting wouldn't affect the other readers - its statistics could serve only as a default filter for other people.

Such voting would eliminate the cases, when haters are downvoting particular posters, although they're actually interested about their posts more, then the about those of others. They could still downvote such people, but after then they wouldn't see their posts at all - which would make systematical persecution more difficult for them.

Actually I don't know, why such system isn't used somewhere already - it seems, I can bring only ideas, which no one has considered the more, the more trivial these ideas actually are.
frajo
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 04, 2010
Actually I don't know, why such system isn't used somewhere already
How do you know?
it seems, I can bring only ideas, which no one has considered the more, the more trivial these ideas actually are.
There are three types of arrogance. You are a textbook example of arrogance by stupidity. You really think you know better than everybody else although there is ample evidence to the contrary.
otto1923
4 / 5 (4) Aug 04, 2010
alizee-
Solipsism
http://en.wikiped...olipsism
-Ring any bells? How about:
Narcissism
http://en.wikiped...rcissism
-got a mirror?
Jigga
1 / 5 (6) Aug 06, 2010
How do you know?
Because I never met with this forum - and I visited many of them.
you really think you know better than everybody else
You cannot know what I think without reliable brain scanner.
frajo
3.8 / 5 (4) Aug 06, 2010
Before some time I proposed a private ranking system - you could filter out the posts and people, which you want
Actually I don't know, why such system isn't used somewhere already

How do you know?
Because I never met with this forum - and I visited many of them.
Many is not all. The German "telepolis" forum has this feature since more than 10 years now.
Jigga
1 / 5 (5) Aug 06, 2010
The German "telepolis" forum has this feature since more than 10 years now.
Link? We're on the internet, a single link says more then the thousands of words...
frajo
4 / 5 (5) Aug 06, 2010
frajo .... you mean that grumpy people, who give grumpy replies need help?

Grumpyness is its' own reward.
Had to look up "grumpy" - think I like that word.
frajo
4 / 5 (4) Aug 06, 2010
Self doubt which is a learned behavior can change perceptions but only if it's practiced.
Self doubt is unpopular as it leads to dialectical thinking and this in turn may infect you with Marxism.
Very true, but one must ask, what are the megativities contained within marxism?
As I'm neither a certified marxist nor an expert on that matter I prefer not to give false impressions. I'm sure, though, Marxism has its drawbacks.
frajo
4 / 5 (4) Aug 06, 2010
The German "telepolis" forum has this feature since more than 10 years now.
Link? We're on the internet, a single link says more then the thousands of words...
Google for "german telepolis forum". It's the first link.
Jigga
Aug 06, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
croghan27
5 / 5 (1) Aug 06, 2010
"Self doubt is unpopular as it leads to dialectical thinking and this in turn may infect you with Marxism."

Do you mean that both Scrooge and George Steinbrenner were closet commies?

Next thing I will learn is that Marxism contributes to tooth decay. (maybe that is why they are bad mannered ... tooth aches?)

Of course then again the Catholic Church with the concept of 'original sin' institutionalized self doubt (and maybe poor oral hygiene).
Au-Pu
not rated yet Aug 06, 2010
I find these results difficult to accept as being a valid and transferable method of assessment.
I know a man who saw only good and positive things in all people. He was so positive that I would jokingly suggest that the Japanese government should have hired him to review the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki because he would have found positives in them for the Japanese.
This extremely positive man is now suffering fairly serious depression and has become fairly negative. His positive attitude towards himself and all others has gone.
This is contrary to what this research would suggest.
frajo
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 07, 2010
He was so positive that I would jokingly suggest that the Japanese government should have hired him to review the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki because he would have found positives in them for the Japanese.
There are more than 300 million people of that kind.
His positive attitude towards himself and all others has gone.
This is contrary to what this research would suggest.
No. The results are statistical correlations only. Like in smoking.
cmn
Aug 07, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 07, 2010
As I'm neither a certified marxist nor an expert on that matter I prefer not to give false impressions. I'm sure, though, Marxism has its drawbacks.
Same here, but with how often I hear people toss it around these pages I'd like to have someone explain their stance.
frajo
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 07, 2010
As I'm neither a certified marxist nor an expert on that matter I prefer not to give false impressions. I'm sure, though, Marxism has its drawbacks.
Same here, but with how often I hear people toss it around these pages I'd like to have someone explain their stance.
There are several marxist schools which like to wage verbal wars with each other. As it's very much coupled to economics, it doesn't attract me at all.
But I appreciate their stance that behind all wars and most crimes are economic reasons. "Religion", "freedom", "democracy", "patriotism", "grandeur" etc. are nothing but pretexts to persuade the uneducated masses to kill and to be killed for the better of the wealthy and the rich.
otto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 07, 2010
But I appreciate their stance that behind all wars and most crimes are economic reasons.
And behind all economic reasons is inflation, caused by the growing scarcity of resources, which is always engendered in... overgrown populations. Enabled and required of course by RELIGIONS, each of which are intent on being the first and only one to fill up the earth.

Religion also demands that the uneducated masses kill and be killed for the protection of it, when the results of religious-mandated overpopulation become apparent.

Religious-mandated pop growth is the Prime Mover- the Ursache- of war and revolution.

Marxism cannot acknowledge that labor is a commodity in itself and is also subject to supply and demand. Pop growth inevitably makes it a buyers market. The more workers there are, the less they are worth per capita.

Of course they will be pissed. But the realities of overpop and inflation exist under marxism as well.
otto1923
1 / 5 (2) Aug 07, 2010
This is the main reason that 'communism' is so intent upon destroying religious culture, in addition to impoverishing the people and enabling wholesale abortions- the People who concocted it knew that overpop was the main problem behind all of it.

'Communism' was only ever a brutal form of martial law, constructed to destroy the obsolete cultures which caused overpopulation; religionism being pervasive and pernicious factor among them all.

Cultures can only be effectively destroyed by killing large numbers of the people who perpetuate them; or by otherwise preventing them from being passed on to subsequent generations.

Western culture has discovered how to accomplish the latter; where it does not exist today in the world, we can observe cultural destruction being waged by more traditional Methods.
otto1923
1 / 5 (1) Aug 07, 2010
He was so positive that I would jokingly suggest that the Japanese government should have hired him to review the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki because he would have found positives in them for the Japanese.
Japan was one of the first countries to legalize abortion. The decisive destruction of the japanese culture during the war was the only thing which enabled these 50 MILLION abortions to occur, as well as the institution of massive family planning programs, and thus end chronic imperialism and the export of armies and colonists.

http://www.johnst...310.html
croghan27
Aug 07, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Ethelred
not rated yet Aug 08, 2010
But I appreciate their stance that behind all wars and most crimes are economic reasons.
Only that isn't true. While you CAN come up with economic reasons for all wars you can give equally valid reasons to claim all wars are due to sex. Even more so for crimes.

The US Civil War was about slavery. All claims of economics that are involved in that war involve ... wait for it... Slavery. The side that started the war chose the issues. And the Articles of Session for all the states that I have seen, four, have had slavery at the base. Three tried to hide it in terms of States Rights or economics or way of life but all the issues were created by slavery. One state, Texas, just plain came out and said it was about slavery.

Or there is Boudica's war. That was caused by bad behavior by the Romans. The economics were on the side of sticking with the Romans.

More crap to come
Ethelred
5 / 5 (1) Aug 08, 2010
Crap - now there is an economic issue

Its not economics. Its POWER, mostly. Power to contol people or to escape the control of people. Marx was just fixated on money. Kind of like Freud and sex. Or Otto and religion based what I just noticed.
"Religion", "freedom", "democracy", "patriotism", "grandeur" etc. are nothing but pretexts to persuade the uneducated masses to kill and to be killed for the better of the wealthy and the rich.
You might do some reading about the American Revolution. It was about economics to a very large degree but it wasn't to make the rich more so. There just weren't that many truly wealthy people in the Colonies and many of those were Loyalists. They were ALL at hazard of being killed. The richest man in the Colonies in particular, John Hancock. If there was ever a war for the middle class that was it.

Ethelred
frajo
5 / 5 (1) Aug 08, 2010
While you CAN come up with economic reasons for all wars you can give equally valid reasons to claim all wars are due to sex.
Not equally valid. There are not that much serious books about war and sex.
The US Civil War was about slavery.
Slavery is about the most important economic ressource for several millennia. The slavery states wanted to keep their wealth and therefore wanted to leave the US. The non-slavery states wanted to participate in their wealth by abolishing slavery in the south.
Or there is Boudica's war. That was caused by bad behavior by the Romans. The economics were on the side of sticking with the Romans.
The Romans annexed the Celtic kingdom. This is an act of war in order to steal the treasures of another people.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Aug 08, 2010
Its not economics. Its POWER, mostly. Power to contol people or to escape the control of people. Marx was just fixated on money. Kind of like Freud and sex. Or Otto and religion based what I just noticed.

Yes, but what is an omnipotent indicator of power?

Wealth.
frajo
not rated yet Aug 08, 2010
Its not economics. Its POWER, mostly. Power to contol people or to escape the control of people.
Yes. Power to control who is in possession of the goods and riches.
You might do some reading about the American Revolution.
I need the time to learn other things.
It was about economics to a very large degree
Of course not only. All the people who have nothing to lose but their lives have different motivations. But these people don't decide about war and peace.
but it wasn't to make the rich more so.
It's equally about not becoming poor once you are wealthy.
John Hancock. If there was ever a war for the middle class that was it.
The distribution of wealth always is very uneven. If the middle class wants more than before, this is threatening the wealthy class. When the the wealth of the wealthy class is threatened, war time is there.
marjon
1 / 5 (1) Aug 08, 2010
Its not economics. Its POWER, mostly. Power to contol people or to escape the control of people. Marx was just fixated on money. Kind of like Freud and sex. Or Otto and religion based what I just noticed.

Yes, but what is an omnipotent indicator of power?

Wealth.

How much power does Buffet, Gates, or the many other billionaires wield?
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Aug 08, 2010
How much power does Buffet, Gates, or the many other billionaires wield?
An unbelievable amount. Gates could crash the world economy overnight if he wanted to. Buffet makes recommendations and the entire market turns on his every word. Forbes effectively tells businesses what to do and how to do it.

It's almost unfathomable.
frajo
5 / 5 (1) Aug 08, 2010
How much power does Buffet, Gates, or the many other billionaires wield?
The power to pay media, shares, ads and a lot of things which influence the outcome of "democratic" elections. The power to sponsor political campaigns for their friends. The power to bribe and corrupt. The power to purchase whatever is purchasable - killers, statesmen, lawmakers, agencies, dictators.
marjon
1 / 5 (1) Aug 08, 2010
Why would Gates or Buffet want to crash an economy that creates wealth for them?
Gates did a very poor job buying politicians as MS was sued by Clinton.
That sounds more like an organized crime gang advertisement for protection money.
Who has the real power? The state. They control ALL the wealth which none of you seem to mind and, as a matter of fact, want a piece of that control yourself.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Aug 08, 2010
Why would Gates or Buffet want to crash an economy that creates wealth for them?
Well I don't think either would, but if they had evil intent, what a great way to seize political power. destroy everyone's wealth and then use yours to buy their trust.
Gates did a very poor job buying politicians as MS was sued by Clinton.
Well that'd be because he doesn't buy off politicians, he doesn't have much concern for his wealth. He's quite ethical and thinks big picture in terms of the human species. He's also an atheist and philathropist.
That sounds more like an organized crime gang advertisement for protection money.
Standard Oil
Who has the real power? The state. They control ALL the wealth which none of you seem to mind and, as a matter of fact, want a piece of that control yourself.
Well actually no. The state can't control wealth any longer as wealth is global in nature. If the middle east stopped trading in the US dollar for oil, our wealth would greatly decline.
Sneebli
not rated yet Aug 08, 2010
When you wake up in the morning, tell yourself: The people I deal with today will be meddling, ungrateful, arrogant, dishonest, jealous, and surly. They are like this because they can't tell good from evil. But I have seen the beauty of good, and the ugliness of evil, and have recognized that the wrongdoer has a nature related to my own—not of the same blood or birth, but the same mind, and possessing a share of the divine
marjon
1 / 5 (3) Aug 08, 2010
The state can't control wealth any longer as wealth is global in nature.

The state prints the money. Of course they control the wealth.
It is government control that is causing the current weak economy. I
It is widely reported businesses are holding on to their cash as they don't know what the government will do to them tomorrow regarding taxes and regulation.
Who broke up Standard Oil? The government. In the end, who had the power?
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Aug 08, 2010
The state prints the money. Of course they control the wealth.
Money isn't a measure of wealth, it's merely an indicator of power. Like collecting baseball cards.
It is government control that is causing the current weak economy. I
It is widely reported businesses are holding on to their cash as they don't know what the government will do to them tomorrow regarding taxes and regulation.
Yes I agree. They need to stop making these stupid adjustments and knee jerk reactions to the economy and simply rewrite the rules properly.
Who broke up Standard Oil? The government. In the end, who had the power?
The Rockefeller family is still far more powerful than the US government. They have the financial strength to do some serious damage if they so chose. The government didn't remove the power of the men, they removed the power of the name. It's all politics, Marjon.
YawningDog
not rated yet Aug 08, 2010
I read enough of these postings to conclude that there are some very lonely people who meet here. And after reading what they have to say, it becomes very clear why they are so lonely.

Hey guys, try getting outside for some sunshine, fresh air and exercise. Once these things begin to have their salutary effect, these goofy postings won't seem so important to you any more.
TheWalrus
1 / 5 (1) Aug 08, 2010
This is a stupid article! The people who wrote it are fascists! I can't stand science that doesn't make sense!
Jigga
2 / 5 (8) Aug 08, 2010
In dense aether theory a deep principle "similia similibus observatur" exists. It means, you cannot perceive things, which differ from your nature, size, mass/energy density scale too much. For example, because you're object of positive curvature, you could see mainly objects with positive curvature aka particles and symmetry of Universe will be broken for you in such a way. Because we're ~ 2 meter tall, you cannot recognize shape of Earth globe or microbes well, because your waves interfere with waves of the same wavelength only. If you're Chinese, you'll able to distinguish faces of Chinese rather then people of other race. When you're rich, you cannot see the problem of poor people well - but you'll able to recognize a money sources better.

http://bayarearea...fferent/

When you're of positive altitude, you will recognize and interact with positive people rather then negativists. It's basically geometry stuff.
Jigga
2 / 5 (8) Aug 08, 2010
We have a proverb in our country: "The optimist sees the doughnut. The pessimist sees the hole."

In fluid mixture the bubbles or droplets bounce mutually, so they can interfere. Whereas the bubbles are rather transparent for droplets. The droplet will fall through foam (a bubble system) like through empty space.

You can imagine, we are hyperdimensional objects interacting through overlapping invisible surfaces. Our motivations and preferences are making invisible spheres of influence around us, which can be of positive or negative curvature. Our decisions correspond the finding of fastest path through these invisible fields by principle of least action. Actually I do believe, the gradients of individual preferences are physically established inside of our brain and neural solitons are trying to find optimal paths by trials an errors. We are following the retrieved path less or more consciously after then.

http://www.wired....decision
marjon
1 / 5 (1) Aug 08, 2010
The Rockefeller family is still far more powerful than the US government. They have the financial strength to do some serious damage if they so chose. The government didn't remove the power of the men, they removed the power of the name. It's all politics, Marjon.

So let's give the government MORE power to control us?
I would rather have corporations compete for our 'vote', our purchase, than keep bribing government agents to control their competition.
croghan27
5 / 5 (1) Aug 08, 2010
Salient comment SH - Saddam was a jerk, but no worse a jerk than Suharto or any of a dozen tin pots the US supported in S. America. Yet as soon as he talked about pricing his oil in the European currency he had to go.

"If the middle east stopped trading in the US dollar for oil, our wealth would greatly decline."

Now Iran is talking about it .... and guess who the next candidate for invasion/destruction is - even if done by proxy. (Israel). They are even using the same lie to justify it .. a WMD. that both the UN and the CIA, no less, says does not exist
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (4) Aug 09, 2010
So let's give the government MORE power to control us?
No moron, you're not getting it. The marriage of corporations and government leads to the detriment and creation of individual power. Individual power leads to totalitarianism through oligarcy. Free markets allow the unchecked growth of personal power. The thing you fear is the exact thing you support, sheep.
I would rather have corporations compete for our 'vote', our purchase, than keep bribing government agents to control their competition.
Then prevent the free market.
frajo
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 09, 2010
In dense aether theory a deep principle "similia similibus observatur" exists
I have told you already that your Latin is incorrect. As "similia" is plural the verb has to be "observantur".
Have a look at http://cs.wikiped...meopatie , the Wiki page on homeopathy, which inspires you and your AWT. Obviously you try to impress some people by using Latin phrases you don't understand.
Unfortunately for you, there are people who do understand Latin (or Physics or English).

Well, I'm impressed. Never met anybody whith such an inhibition of learning.
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Aug 09, 2010
The marriage of corporations and government leads to the detriment and creation of individual power. Individual power leads to totalitarianism through oligarcy. Free markets allow the unchecked growth of personal power.

How does empowering individuals lead to totalitarianism?
Free markets do not allow unchecked growth of personal power as each participant in that market must persuade, NOT FORCE, other individuals to buy what he is selling.
Rockefeller persuaded people to buy his kerosene because he made the best quality at the lowest price.
Wal Mart persuades people to shop for prices as does Costco. Target persuades partly on price and partly on service.
People have the power at the political ballot box and in the economic ballot box when free markets prevail.
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Aug 09, 2010
More data:
"Cuts in income taxes at every level, reductions in taxes on capital gains, and cuts in the highest income tax rate during the Reagan years, from 70 percent to 50 percent and then 28 percent, turned that capital loss around and created what the National Bureau of Economic Research called "the longest sustained period of prosperity in the twentieth century," the creation of 17 million new jobs from 1981 through 1989.

Obama is moving in exactly the opposite direction."
http://www.pittsb...792.html
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (4) Aug 09, 2010
Free markets do not allow unchecked growth of personal power as each participant in that market must persuade, NOT FORCE, other individuals to buy what he is selling.
Persuasion and forced capitulation are one in the same. If I persuade you to stop posting that means I have, through some mechanism forced you to stop posting. The only difference between the two is connotation. Mastering applied language helps understand media spin. Both sides use it, both sides are horridly bad at it, hence why you're so confused.
Rockefeller persuaded people to buy his kerosene because he made the best quality at the lowest price.
He also FORCED his competition out of business. In short he persuaded his competition to sell their business or close down, thereby FORCING people to buy from him. See how interchangable the two words are?
People have the power at the political ballot box and in the economic ballot box when free markets prevail.
Who else could people buy kerosene from?
Skeptic_Heretic
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 09, 2010
Rather funny how you think that Standard Oil's form of customer coersion wasn't force.

"Buy Kerosene from me or freeze to death when winter comes."

Yep, that wasn't force. He simply made his customer base larger by keeping prices artifiicially low through his ownership of the railroads.
CSharpner
1 / 5 (2) Aug 09, 2010
Ummmm. What was this article about again?

The ranking system is about /relevance/, right?

;)