# "The Power of Good" survey, Australia...



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I just came across survey, The Power of Good, funded in part by the Reader's Digest group. The home page is HERE.

Some interesting statistics based on the questionairres answered by Australians.

It kind of makes me think, we may well not be the materialistic and selfish society that it's easy to think we've turned into? Of course, this is a relatively small survey though, of under one thousand people.

Eg., some results from the survey -

*Top 3 "extremely important" attributes in determining how we think of someone* (percentages given are that of respondents to survey) -
How someone treats others - 76%
Attitude/outlook on life - 44%
Intelligence - 24%

*Top 3 "not at all important" attributes"*
How much money someone has/their material possessions - 65.5%
Success/status - 40%
Looks/appearance - 25%

*Another one is a graph, represtenting answer to the question "What motivates you to perform a good deed?"*
The pleasure I get from putting a smile on another's face - 73.8%
My conscience - if somebody is in need, I have to help out - 69%
God/belief in an afterlife - 22.9%
Other - 15%
Pride - I don't want people to think I'm heartless - 13.2%

There are also stories on the website by real Australians, some famous and some not so famous, of how good acts and such things have changed their lives for the better. Or even just changed a particular day for the better. That type of thing. Australians can also add their own story, filling out the online form.

*Just putting this out there, because I think it's interesting and might form basis for some sort of discussion...*


----------



## Dodecaplex (Oct 14, 2011)

The only difference between the 74% that said they get pleasure from helping others and the 13% that said they do it because of pride is that the second group is actually being honest.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

^^That's a rather cynical attitude, I'd say. So you think the hundreds of thousands of Aussies who for example donated last year to the flood appeal - to help those areas devastated by those shocking floods here - did it due to pride? I can give you other examples. This country has some good values, I think that's what the survey highlights (although as I noted, it's not a huge sample, but for what it's worth, it does match up with general attitudes here)...


----------



## Dodecaplex (Oct 14, 2011)

The numbers don't add up. In such a small survey, you're bound to have a huge list of people who'd claim to be as angelic and virtuous as possible.

For instance, if the percentage is so large that it reaches 73%, wouldn't you agree that at least half of the population would be donating money? Yet, in a population of 22 millions, only a few hundred thousands (as you claim) actually donated. Odd that.


----------



## rojo (May 26, 2006)

I'd be willing to wager that many more people donated time and services instead of money to the cause mentioned.

I'm with Sid on this. If one were to believe mainstream media news reports and cynics, one would think the world is filled with cold, selfish, dangerous people. I think the contrary is true because the vast majority of folks I know are good, helpful, kind and generous people. It comes naturally to humans, imo.


----------



## Amfibius (Jul 19, 2006)

rojo said:


> I'm with Sid on this. If one were to believe mainstream media news reports and cynics, one would think the world is filled with cold, selfish, dangerous people.


But the world _is_ filled with cold, selfish, and dangerous people! If you left a wallet with $100 on it lying around in a public place ... what are your bets that you will get it back with your money intact?


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

The problem with surveys like these is two-fold:

1) Concious lying.
2) Unconscious untruths.

With the first, there are obviously many people who will lie to surveys like these. Our desire to present ourselves as good human beings extends to survey-takers as much as to people we know well. And with value based questions like these, we all have a sense of what the 'right' or most respectable answers are, so many people will choose them even if they don't accurately represent their feelings.

With the second, a much more pervasive problem is that most people aren't aware of their unconscious motivations. Some people may genuinely believe that they only judge a person by their actions, and that may be true on a fully conscious, rational level, but their unconscious brain may instinctively drive them towards respecting people with material wealth more than others. This is a problem these surveys don't address, which is why I take much more interest in studies conducted with the use of brain imaging rather than easily deceived questioning.


----------



## rojo (May 26, 2006)

Amfibius said:


> But the world _is_ filled with cold, selfish, and dangerous people! If you left a wallet with $100 on it lying around in a public place ... what are your bets that you will get it back with your money intact?


It is, but they're not the vast majority. As for the wallet, it would depend on if one of the vast majority of us found it or one of the slim minority, I guess. 

Although I should admit, once I found $15 on the ground outside and kept it, because it was not apparent who it belonged to. I guess I could have investigated more. In my defense, I give $ to people who beg in the street.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I have actually found a wallet, decades ago this was, with quite a large amount of cash (hundreds) and handed it into the police. Fully intact. People who know me, some of them, say I'm a total idiot for doing that. But that's how I operate, basically above board. & I was by no means well off when I did that. So basically, if you're a cynic, good for you. Not all people are. I'm not saying this survey, the results, are watertight or definitive. There are probably holes in it as much as any other survey. But the gist of it fits my experience.

As for how many people donated to Flood RElief here last year, I'm not sure of what percentage of the Australian population, exactly. But many did, and as rojo says, a lot of people who couldn't donate did other things to help. Eg. help clean up afterwards or volunteer in other ways.

If we were all as bad as some people think, humanity I mean, this website would probably not exist. The guy who funds this website, Mr. Magle, I don't think he's doing it for financial gain. Not from what I can gather. If he garners a small profit from the advertising revenue generated by this site, well he deserves it. I'd guess whatever he earns off this site he would plough back into the running and maintenance of the site. This is what I'm saying, not everybody operates on the lowest common denominator, eg. Gordon Gekko's "greed is good" mentality...


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

I thought this said "Power of God" Survey lol I got a knot in my stomach thinking about how controversial it was going to be.


----------



## TresPicos (Mar 21, 2009)

Sid James said:


> If we were all as bad as some people think, humanity I mean, this website would probably not exist. The guy who funds this website, Mr. Magle, I don't think he's doing it for financial gain. Not from what I can gather. If he garners a small profit from the advertising revenue generated by this site, well he deserves it. I'd guess whatever he earns off this site he would plough back into the running and maintenance of the site.


He could be doing it out of pride... Not wanting people to think he's heartless by not supplying classical music lovers with a top class discussion forum. 

Nah, I think he does it because he's a good guy.



> This is what I'm saying, not everybody operates on the lowest common denominator, eg. Gordon Gekko's "greed is good" mentality...


Exactly! While I think it's appropriate to be quite the cynic when it comes to human behavior, applying this cynicism on all of humanity is a big mistake if you want to see the world as it really is (which is after all what a cynic claims to do).


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

I think we're all presenting extremes of each other. You can be a cynic without thinking that all humanity is essentially evil or greedy, and you can be an optimist without thinking that there is good in everyone. Personally, I think there are oases of kindness and free-thought in an otherwise apathetic (or worse) world. But then this is because I operate on a general level of misanthropy, making most probably "OKish" people seem like total ******** to me! No one of us can get a true sense of humanity through personal experience, but what we can say for certain is that, if you take one look at any newspaper around the world, all our civilizations are _seriously_ ****ed up.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Things are ****** up due to politics. I can only deal/form an opinion about people on a personal level. It's very easy for me to size up an individual right off. I can smell a phony a mile a way. I'm only interested in sincere, straightforward people.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

What happened to the censor? That F word wasn't supposed to come out that way.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

starthrower said:


> Things are ****** up due to politics. I can only deal/form an opinion about people on a personal level. It's very easy for me to size up an individual right off. I can smell a phony a mile a way. I'm only interested in sincere, straightforward people.


That's true for many people, but politicians partly pander to the people, so taking a look at politics provides a shortcut to taking a look at certain portions of society. Of course, when it comes to corruption, politicians only reflect their own greedy selves, but on matters of social policy, it's quite easy to see that many people you've never met must be intensely unlikeable.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Politicians promise many things they have no intention on delivering. Why people get their hopes up every election year is beyond me? I guess like most of us we want to concentrate on the things we enjoy, and pretend the politicians will deal with and fix society's problems, so we keep casting our vote for these phony ********!


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

Art Linkletter wrote many books, but perhaps the two most-remembered were/are, "People Are Funny", and "Kids Say The Darndest Things." Some of the anecdotes used were quite edgy for those times, the 1950's. The ante on social behavior has grown enormously since then. 

I occasionally think about what today's Art Linkletter might have written, before I catch myself and tell myself, that there ARE NO Art Linkletters these days. The age of innocence has long since gone.

What Sid's survey tells me is that innocence has not fled altogether. There's still remembrance of it, but it's not out in the open. It's in the closet. Perhaps one day we'll come full circle and start talking sense again. Instead of constantly partaking of defensive posturing, denial, lieing.

It doesn't help that many of us are re-educated in this false prophecy each day on television. Especially now in a US presidential election year. Wait 'til silver-tongued Obama gets into the fray. We won't know which end is up. Borrowing, It is what It is.

The closest we get to honesty these days, is the half-truthing purposely-spun damage control. Damage is controlled through admitting one's transgression, even though both the sayer and receiver know it's not sincere. It's simply a sweep-it-under-the-rug charade.

I've been watching with interest this week, the media-handling of professional golfer Matt Every at the Sony tournament in Hawaii.

One versed in such things can easily spot Matt's ineptness. In the spotlight for two days because of his fine play, he's automatically thrown into third-degree-type Q & A sessions.

Some of this has been brought on by himself...some not. What he won't or can't do, is offer his pound of flesh for his transgression, which dates back a couple of years. Until he can find a way to do this, as phony as it might be, he will not be let off the hook.

Isn't life grand? I've digressed.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

On a large scale, aren't honesty and innocence incompatible?


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

On a large scale everything sucks.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

^^^^^^^^
It can always get worse! I count myself lucky.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Polednice said:


> ...No one of us can get a true sense of humanity through personal experience, but what we can say for certain is that, if you take one look at any newspaper around the world, all our civilizations are _seriously_ ****ed up.


It's basically because they focus on the negatives which tend to motivate people. If I'd done a controversial topic on this thread, eg. a finding that's more divisive, it would have probably gone into a dozen or more pages by now.

Also as for what Vaneyes suggests. Things like politics can be very divisive. The media likes to focus on things like that. If a politician says something nice about another politician, esp. one in the opposite political party, if it gets reported by the media, it isn't usually prominent. This kind of thing has happened here, it sometimes does happen, but it's not emphasised as much as the negative things coming out of parliament.

As for people handing in lost money, HERE's one that I remember from last year. A guy who found $50,000 in a suitcase on a train and handed it in to the police. Now I bet you cynics think this guy was an idiot? Well I would reverse that, I would think he is doing what is normal. Stealing it would be abnormal. I think this is a very inspiring REAL story, not plastic pollie waffle we get day after day in the newspapers (which is why I don't read them, except maybe briefly the covers in a newsstand or if a colleague at work lends me his for lunch).

This is what a policeman said of Mr. Adra, who handed him the money at a police station in Sydney's West - 
*"It does show there are people in our community who do the right thing"...*


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Sid James said:


> As for people handing in lost money, HERE's one that I remember from last year. A guy who found $50,000 in a suitcase on a train and handed it in to the police. Now I bet you cynics think this guy was an idiot? Well I would reverse that, I would think he is doing what is normal. Stealing it would be abnormal. I think this is a very inspiring REAL story, not plastic pollie waffle we get day after day in the newspapers (which is why I don't read them, except maybe briefly the covers in a newsstand or if a colleague at work lends me his for lunch).


I don't think it's a question of rightness or wrongness or idiocy or virtue. I accept that people are motivated differently, and I try not to judge, especially as these examples are never clear-cut. I don't think a fundamental principle can be given in response to these hypotheticals, like "always hand in money that you find if it's not yours." Instead, I think these kinds of ethics are much more fluid and need to be dealt with on a circumstantial basis.

For example, let's say I lost £10 one day. If you come across it and consider somehow getting it back to me (though you don't know who I am), I think your actions ought to partly depend on the value of £10 to you. If you were an investment banker, that £10 to you is like 1p to me, so you should recognise the (probable) greater value of it to whoever might have lost it and so return it. If you were a homeless person, £10 to you is like £100 to me, so keep it for your benefit. I'll get a nasty shock, but **** happens. There is no right answer to that dilemma.

Now, if you find £50,000 in a suitcase, you should hand that in, no question, if only because you'd otherwise put yourself at risk of being caught up in a crime! But I don't think there's any need to get into self-righteous moralising over it. There may be some people living comfortably but entirely selfish who would keep it, but also someone else who might take it because their life genuinely sucks. We can't judge without contextual information.

This reminds me of when I went to Philadelphia on a student exchange. The university gave me (and each to the others there) $500 maintenance money, but, one day, the cleaners at the university I was staying at stole $100 from my envelope of cash and did the same with some others. Hell knows it pissed me off no end, but I was personally no worse off for it - it wasn't strictly my money - and the people who stole it were working a ****** job on minimum wage, probably in part because of institutionalised racism. On reflection, I say power to them in grabbing cash from a lower middle class white university student who got it as a freebie and left it out unprotected.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Polednice said:


> Now, if you find £50,000 in a suitcase, you should hand that in, no question, if only because you'd otherwise put yourself at risk of being caught up in a crime! But I don't think there's any need to get into self-righteous moralising over it. There may be some people living comfortably but entirely selfish who would keep it, but also someone else who might take it because their life genuinely sucks. We can't judge without contextual information.


Why can't you just admit the obvious? You've already provided the contextual information. Someone has found a large sum of money that doesn't belong to them. There is only one right thing to do. Turn it over to the authorities.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

starthrower said:


> Why can't you just admit the obvious? You've already provided the contextual information. Someone has found a large sum of money that doesn't belong to them. There is only one right thing to do. Turn it over to the authorities.


I refer you to my other paragraphs.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

So what are you trying to say? Certain personal circumstances justify theft and dishonesty?


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

starthrower said:


> So what are you trying to say? Certain personal circumstances justify theft and dishonesty?


I would not use the word "justify", but I would say that certain circumstances make theft easier to understand and forgive. As such, while I would positively encourage people to make every attempt to return _substantial_ items that do not belong to them, I would not extend this to an outright condemnation of every conceivable person who chooses not to. I will not indulge in that kind of moral absolutism, proclaiming that Everyone No Matter What Must Always Do This Or Meet My Disapproval.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I think people should read the article I posted above. The guy who found the $50,000 was a factory worker who earned much less than that per year. He lives in Mount Druitt, which is not an affluent area, it is what you may call a "working class" area. We can complicate things or just make the conclusion that the policeman made, what he said (his quote I posted above), he was surprised that Mr. Adra handed in the money, but he said it shows there are people in the community doing the right thing.

But history also tells us this. What about all those people who did good in history, even in the face of possibly very bad consequences for them, sometimes death? Eg. the people who shielded Jews during the war? Or the people, both white and black, who spoke up against Apartheid in South Africa? Or Rosa Parks, who sat in the white person's section on a bus in the Deep South of the USA, which lead eventually to the Civil Rights movement? I mean are these people not simply doing what was right (& in the context of this thread, GOOD) at the time?

I'm just talking common sense here, basically, not complicating things, not proving any "political" points...


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

OK, I make quite a bit more than minimum wage, but compared to my boss who is a millionaire I make peanuts. Who's going to understand and forgive me if I decide to steal from my employer? Yes, yes, thank you Poley, but I'm still fired if I get caught because stealing is dishonest and I can no longer be trusted.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Sid James said:


> But history also tells us this. What about all those people who did good in history, even in the face of possibly very bad consequences for them, sometimes death? Eg. the people who shielded Jews during the war? Or the people, both white and black, who spoke up against Apartheid in South Africa? Or Rosa Parks, who sat in the white person's section on a bus in the Deep South of the USA, which lead eventually to the Civil Rights movement? I mean are these people not simply doing what was right (& in the context of this thread, GOOD) at the time?


These are not at all comparable to the £50,000. He didn't stand to lose anything by doing the "right" thing, so the acts of those in the quotation above are far more virtuous.



starthrower said:


> OK, I make quite a bit more than minimum wage, but compared to my boss who is a millionaire I make peanuts. Who's going to understand and forgive me if I decide to steal from my employer? Yes, yes, thank you Poley, but I'm still fired if I get caught because stealing is dishonest and I can no longer be trusted.


So don't do it! Like I said, I'm not dealing in absolutes. I'm not saying everyone would be bad to keep the money, and I'm not saying everyone should be forgiven. There are a thousand shades of grey, and you have adequately identified some significant contextual factors that would make the _wise_ decision - right or wrong - to not steal the money.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

But I don't think that way in real life. I don't consider any significant contextual circumstances when deciding to be honest. That's just the way I was raised. I don't not steal from my employer because I risk getting fired. If I could do it with impunity I still would choose not to do it. This is no great virtue on my part, it's just my nature. I don't covet money or materialism.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Polednice said:


> These are not at all comparable to the £50,000. He didn't stand to lose anything by doing the "right" thing, so the acts of those in the quotation above are far more virtuous.
> 
> ...


I wasn't saying what Mr. Adra did was exactly like those people in history. What I am saying is that there wasn't any rational reason - "hard" rationalists would argue - for him to return the money. Just as there was no fully explainable reason why you, for example, have to shield a person who's Jewish if you're not Jewish, you have nothing to gain from it (& yes indeed, it can land you in hot water), and the rest of the society, or many of them, are turning a blind eye to the horrors going on around them. Or worse still, some of them are actively supporting the genocidal maniacs.

It's the old "good Samaritan" principle, I'm sure you've heard of that?...


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

starthrower said:


> But I don't think that way in real life. I don't consider any significant contextual circumstances when deciding to be honest. That's just the way I was raised. I don't not steal from my employer because I risk getting fired. If I could do it with impunity I still would choose not to do it. This is no great virtue on my part, it's just my nature. I don't covet money or materialism.


That's a good way to live, and I would say that I am reasonably similar. However, there are many people who are crushed by a social system that does covet money and material goods who I would not condemn absolutely for certain "soft" crimes like keeping a lost item (active theft is another matter, though my Philadelphia anecdote gives an interesting example which, again, is not black and white).

I'm not saying that such people _should_ be dishonest or unlawful, but that I think their actions are to be expected given the social constructs we find ourselves in, and I don't rate them as vile, unrighteous, morally corrupt human beings (_some_ may be, but not all). This is a spectral issue. At one end you have the child starving to death who has no option but to steal a loaf of bread. I wouldn't condemn that child. Or indeed an adult in the same situation.



Sid James said:


> I wasn't saying what Mr. Adra did was exactly like those people in history. What I am saying is that there wasn't any rational reason - "hard" rationalists would argue - for him to return the money. Just as there was no fully explainable reason why you, for example, have to shield a person who's Jewish if you're not Jewish, you have nothing to gain from it (& yes indeed, it can land you in hot water), and the rest of the society, or many of them, are turning a blind eye to the horrors going on around them. Or worse still, some of them are actively supporting the genocidal maniacs.
> 
> It's the old "good Samaritan" principle, I'm sure you've heard of that?...


I've also heard of the notion that every generous act is a fundamentally selfish act, not that I'm saying that's the case here. The "hard" rationalists would contend that the motive for returning the money would be reciprocal altruism. We don't have to consciously acknowledge that motive for it to drive our decisions.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Polednice said:


> ...
> I'm not saying that such people _should_ be dishonest or unlawful, but that I think their actions are to be expected given the social constructs we find ourselves in, and I don't rate them as vile, unrighteous, morally corrupt human beings (_some_ may be, but not all). This is a spectral issue. At one end you have the child starving to death who has no option but to steal a loaf of bread. I wouldn't condemn that child. Or indeed an adult in the same situation...


Well here I think we've gone over more to what's the job of the legal system. If someone steals because they're starving, then the courts do take these things into account. It's called something like a contributory factor to the crime. But if you argue against absoulutes, relative things can be taken too far as well. That is outside of this thread, I think. Let's maybe leave it.

I have helped and been helped in my life. As starthrower said, and the survey suggests, I don't really care about the status of somebody, I'm much more interested in their human qualities. The basics. I speak the same way, with respect and naturally, to my boss as to the guy who cleans my office. This is what I do, I'm not bluffing here. Same with the Queen of England, Prime Minister of Australia or some "star" musician who I like. We're all just humans.

Of course, I'm not a saint. I'm not saying people have to act like saints. But I do not like people who pull others down for doing good, just because (perhaps) of their own ideology or the way they live their life.

Eg. the late Steve Jobs of Applecorp criticised Bill Gates for being too philanthropic and being not as innovative as he was in his earlier days. Basically what Jobs was saying is that Gates had kind of gone soft and not focussed on running Microsoft. Gates said this is true, he's not interested in that now, other people do the main part of his old job (as CEO, I don't think he's doing that role anymore?). Anyway, Gates could have lashed out at Jobs, but he showed his humanity and restraint. He's got better things to do. Like his aim is to end malaria in his lifetime.

& Gates isn't the only one. A whole lot of millionares in the USA have jumped on his bandwagon, donating a lot of their profits/money to causes like that. You can be cynical and say it's all tax deductable, but nobody is forcing them anyway.

I won't speak ill of the dead but you can guess who I respect more as a human, Mr. Jobs or Mr. Gates...


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Sid James said:


> I have helped and been helped in my life. As starthrower said, and the survey suggests, I don't really care about the status of somebody, I'm much more interested in their human qualities. The basics. I speak the same way, with respect and naturally, to my boss as to the guy who cleans my office. This is what I do, I'm not bluffing here. Same with the Queen of England, Prime Minister of Australia or some "star" musician who I like. We're all just humans.


This is the kind of perspective I wish all people had. We are indeed all humans, and we need to stop ourselves being deceived by titles and dress bestowed on our fellow primates. Having said that, if I were walking past Buckingham Palace and spotted that the Queen had dropped a thick wad of cash, I would most definitely keep it!


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Further to that, I'd actually like to ask: would you give the money back to the Queen?


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

I'd have to be in England for this to happen. Maybe I'd slip a few bills in my pocket, return the rest, then buy Poley dinner on the queen! :devil:


----------



## HarpsichordConcerto (Jan 1, 2010)

(Micro)economic theory perfectly explains whether one would hand in $50,000 cash randomly discovered or keep it. The person who decides to keep it will consider the benefits to his/her own situation of having this amount versus the risks of getting caught, and or the negativities of guilt upon keeping it. So keeping the amount is often a function of "how large" this sense of satisfaction he/she expects to derive from the $50,000, versus the risks of getting caught and feelings of guilt (if any). On the other hand, the individual who decides to hand it in, also does the same assessment: he/she decides that the sense of honour for doing the socially correct thing outweighs any benefits to his/her own situation of having this amount of money. The point is, individuals who choose to do either, act more or less selfishly - in the case of keeping, its because he/she wants the money for some other purpose; in the case of handing it in, its because of the sense of pleasure he/she gets from doing the legally recognised thing.

The interesting point would be at what figure of cash it causes the individual to switch? Of course, many would keep whatever amounts they find regardless, while others would hand in whatever amounts they find regardless, but there would be a significant number of folks who presumably would hand in lesser amounts of cash, but might decide to keep if the amount of was "sufficiently large". This can also depend on how much wealth the individual already has. A multi-millionaire is less likely to bother with keeping the $50,000, whereas say, a debt-ridden individual might be more inclined to do so.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Polednice said:


> This is the kind of perspective I wish all people had. We are indeed all humans, and we need to stop ourselves being deceived by titles and dress bestowed on our fellow primates. Having said that, if I were walking past Buckingham Palace and spotted that the Queen had dropped a thick wad of cash, I would most definitely keep it!


Just in that case, I'd advise giving it back for practical reasons: some camera would have seen you.

The ability of the privileged elite to protect their privilege may have never been more assured in the history of the world than it is now.


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> A multi-millionaire is less likely to bother with keeping the $50,000, whereas say, a debt-ridden individual might be more inclined to do so.


Can't be sure, but I wouldn't be surprised if it went the other way.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

On returning money to the Queen...

What does the Queen need money for? She's a corpse they wheel out every once in a while to make it look like there is a purpose behind the existence of that lingering mediæval **** gas we call the royal family. I'd steal every penny I could get and organise a redistribution on as large a scale as possible so that the poorer among us can actually afford basic comforts like heating and electricity. Depending on how much I could steal, perhaps investing in reasonable sized housing dotted around the country to turn in to communal homeless shelters wouldn't be a bad idea either.


----------



## Igneous01 (Jan 27, 2011)

cant say for certain If I would return a lost wallet or not, depends on the situation and context. 

But what about the thrill seekers who steal for the thrill of it? There have been alot of stories of criminal masterminds who only did what they did because they enjoyed the meticulous planning and thrill of stealing, not the actual object in question. I wonder how society judges these kinds of people who have a different value system from the norm?

I sometimes get impulses in stealing from some places that interest me, not primarily because of whats being held, but the sensation of sneaking around like a ghost and having a heightening of senses  I wonder if I should be frowned upon 

I have yet to see someone steal something and then return it a week later as if it never left, now that would be something


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

HarpsichordConcerto said:


> ... The point is, individuals who choose to do either, act more or less selfishly... in the case of handing it in, its because of the sense of pleasure he/she gets from doing the legally recognised thing.....


...which is basically similar to the motivation for doing a good dead in the survey this thread is about -



Sid James said:


> ...
> 
> *Another one is a graph, represtenting answer to the question "What motivates you to perform a good deed?"*
> The pleasure I get from putting a smile on another's face - 73.8%
> ...[/B]


The Reverend Bill Crews of the Uniting Church has been behind improving lives, helping, etc. disadvantaged people in Sydney for decades. When talking on the radio about why we give presents, he said we're really giving something to ourselves. Yes, we are being selfish in a way. But in a good way. You cannot pay for the smile you get from the person who gets your present, big or small. It's priceless. It's the thought that counts is the old saying, but I would add it's also the smile that counts...


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Dodecaplex said:


> The only difference between the 74% that said they get pleasure from helping others and the 13% that said they do it because of pride is that the second group is actually being honest.


I find this to be true for myself. Thank you for bringing that point up. I think we're all motivated by quite a bit of pride, if not entirely by it. But I wouldn't say that I'm a bad person because of it. I can change what I do, but its a different matter to change why I do it. The only thing you can really do is be aware. I'm a little too much of that sometimes, I think.


----------



## Dodecaplex (Oct 14, 2011)

clavichorder said:


> I find this to be true for myself. Thank you for bringing that point up. I think we're all motivated by quite a bit of pride, if not entirely by it.


Well, what I forgot to point out is that it shouldn't be this way. It really shouldn't. Yet it is.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Dodecaplex said:


> Well, what I forgot to point out is that it shouldn't be this way. It really shouldn't. Yet it is.


It really isn't in my experience.

I only know a few cynical and bitter people (thank God for that) and I give them a wide berth if I can.

Most people I know are in the middle of the attitude spectrum. Hard to measure, but not everyone is a Scrooge. Anyway, I came across a few Scrooges last Christmas. They wouldn't accept my presents to them. Well good for them. They own their attitude and outlook on life. If it's that bad, well I don't think that is helpful for them to live like that, carrying that.

But from my real life interactions, and also in general, most people are not bitter and twisted, they don't have a totally or almost fully jaundiced attitude to their fellow man...


----------



## Dodecaplex (Oct 14, 2011)

Sid James said:


> It really isn't in my experience.
> 
> I only know a few cynical and bitter people (thank God for that) and I give them a wide berth if I can.
> 
> ...


Each of us lives in his world, which is nothing but a by-product of the experiences we go through, which is all about the people and the environment that surround us. I'm not really that cynical though. Depends on the day.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

^^I wasn't targeting you in particular, but what you said triggered off my reply.

My problem is that cynical people can be "interesting" or whatever for like 5 minutes, but spend enough time with them and they can drag you down with them to that kind of attitude which I think is not helpful.

I have cynics or let's say people similar to that (people living under a constant cloud, that sort of thing) that I'm okay with now, but it takes a huge amount of work to bring them to middle ground, where I am or like to be generally. We all have bad days, but if a person just wants to radiate negativity, well I don't see that as good for me, I don't need extra "baggage" of that sort, etc.

So if I can get them to act naturally and not put on their "attitude," which can be over a period of time to get that kind of result, it's fine. Most people are flexible and respectful in some way. The small percentage who are not able to communicate without only being negative, I give them a wide berth, as I said...


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

Igneous01 said:


> cant say for certain If I would return a lost wallet or not, depends on the situation and context....
> I have yet to see someone steal something and then return it a week later as if it never left, now that would be something


I've returned two of two lost wallets I've found. The first one contained $160. I received a thanks, but no reward. The second contained no money or credit cards. Maybe the first finder got those. It did have important I.D., including a phone number, which I called. The person who answered was incomprehensible, so I just dropped it in a mailbox.

Re "late returns", I've heard and read of many instances of people's consciences getting the better of them. Some involve a return-and-no-questions-asked scenario.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

No way I could keep 'found money' - $5 or $50000 - if I knew who it belonged to. I have enough regrets without saddling myself with that one.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Sid James said:


> ^^I wasn't targeting you in particular, but what you said triggered off my reply.
> 
> My problem is that cynical people can be "interesting" or whatever for like 5 minutes, but spend enough time with them and they can drag you down with them to that kind of attitude which I think is not helpful.
> 
> ...


Bear in mind that cynic probably can't stand the company of a non-cynic either.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Polednice said:


> Bear in mind that cynic probably can't stand the company of a non-cynic either.


I think regarding the hard-core cynics, it's not only non-cynics (eg. from what you suggest, very optimistic or cheerful) people they can't stand, it's basically most of the rest of the "average" population. I'm not a smiley or happy go lucky person, I'm pretty "average" in outlook, I have good days, bad days, but mainly in-between. But when I come into contact with a person who is pulling me down due largely or totally to his/her own issues, well nobody can blame me, I think, if I want to disengage from that kind of negative space...


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

I think I'm the most cynical person you'll ever meet (if cynicism means complete distrust of others' motives) but in real life I'm essentially a clown, because I figure if they're happy in their matrix of deception, there's no need to ruin anything for them.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

science said:


> I think I'm the most cynical person you'll ever meet (if cynicism means complete distrust of others' motives) but in real life I'm essentially a clown, because I figure if they're happy in their matrix of deception, there's no need to ruin anything for them.


I think earlier I was not only talking of "cynics" but also just negative people in general. People with what I call a negative vibe. These are just labels of course.

As I said, I can deal with a diversity of people, character types, etc. There is only a small minority who I can't communicate with without it becoming negative experience overall for me...


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Sid James said:


> I think earlier I was not only talking of "cynics" but also just negative people in general. People with what I call a negative vibe. These are just labels of course.
> 
> As I said, I can deal with a diversity of people, character types, etc. There is only a small minority who I can't communicate with without it becoming negative experience overall for me...


Rather than present my friends with untainted, raw cynicism, I tend to deliver my pessimism coated in thick layers of chocolatey humour. It goes down well!


----------

