Rich people: a mirror of emerging social problems

[Back]

An amusing article from ChinaView.com (http://www.chinaview.cn). I’m mostly indifferent on what it talks about. Perhaps there is some merit to the idea that as you aquire more wealth you have more to worry about. But does monetary gain (or loss) really change the core of a person, or does it have more to do with how we all view/attribute a person’s status based on material wealth?



Rich people: a mirror of emerging social problems

www.chinaview.cn 2005-05-23 11:42:44

BEIJING, May 23 -- Society does not usually recognize some important contributions of wealthy individuals.

For one thing, their ups and downs, successes and failures, and their pleasures and sufferings, can be a mirror for other people for others to realize that, actually, there are many ways to do better.

Indeed, many people can do better by learning from others' failures, according to specialists at the Centre of Clinical Psychology, Peking University.

Although those who are less materially successful do have simple things to worry about, psychologists at Peking University have discovered that the wealthier individuals become, the more problems they may have. Despite the sometimes carefree and glamorous appearance such people may have, they tend to have more complicated problems.

They may be trying so hard to earn physical comforts, they have forgotten what a happy heart means. That can lead to broken relationships, or irritation or substance-abuse problems. Some simply ruin their lives.

Most of us had no idea how serious all these things were until the beginning of this year, when two billionaires, Zhao Enlong, the tycoon in middle China's Shanxi Province, and Xu Kai, vice-president of a big corporation with 4,000 employees with total assets of 7.1 billion yuan (US$ 0.8 billion) in West China's Sha'anxi Province, each committed suicide in their mid-50s.

And the mirror effect from their deaths has seen a surging number of psychological consults in China's major cities, most of them only affordable to rich souls.

The Peking University Centre of Clinical Psychology charges 1,200 yuan (US$ 145) for a 50-minute consulting session.

Some Guangzhou and Shenzhen consultants charge as much as 2,000 yuan (US$ 242) for a session (also 50 minutes), and there is great demand for people who are eager to pay for anything with an instant soothing effect.

Now, from the mirror of rich people's psychology, the view that we get seems pitifully distorted. Is this the price China has to pay for its unprecedented development? Can its citizens be assured of any sense of security if people with such unstable mental conditions run more and more companies?

Some columnists in the Chinese-language press have even cited what Karl Marx once wrote, that if there is a chance for a 300 per cent profit, capitalists are willing to do whatever they can to get it, even it means they may get themselves hanged.

Yet those determined to get themselves hanged would be cold hearted enough as not to have any sense of remorse. What society should do is not to hold those queuing up at the psychological consulting services for criminal investigations, but to provide them with real help.

Nor are the rich the only people who are queuing up for psychological help. All who are involved in modern industries and urban lifestyles tend to need it. People all have to cope with changes. Things like broken family ties, loneliness, dealing with strangers and managing new relationships, and chasing new jobs and new opportunities are part of people's everyday lives.

The seriousness of rich people's conditions, including suicides of seemingly successful entrepreneurs, only signals the change that many other members of society are going to go through.

And people can also learn, from what can and what cannot help their wealthy fellows, what kind of help they should look for.

While rebuilding the sense of community and self, though sounding somewhat like empty slogans, are the things that must be part of everyone's happy life. This is why, perhaps, other people should thank rich individuals pioneering the demand for psychological help in modern China. They are showing the pitfalls ahead.

(Source: China Daily)

[edited for formatting]

[Edited on 5-23-2005 by Backlash]

[Edited on 5-23-2005 by Backlash]

[longshot]

Originally posted by Backlash


Some Guangzhou and Shenzhen consultants charge as much as 2,000 yuan (US$ 242) for a session (also 50 minutes), and there is great demand for people who are eager to pay for anything with an instant soothing effect.



I've never been there before.

However, I do have close friends and business contacts that do considerable business in Guangzhou and Shenzhen.

The best way I can describe this area is the "Deadwood" of China. Meaning Deadwood the HBO drama.

These are gigantic cities that didn't even exist 25 or 30 years ago. Everyone that is there is out to make money. That's it.

If that means you step over a dead baby in the street on the way to work, then so be it...

It doesn't surprise me that a few people have begun to question what it all means.

[Apotheosis]

Sounds like a good place for my message to be spread. I believe the answer for them is to give me all of their material wealth in order for them to be happy.

[Edaarin]

I remain convinced that money buys happiness.

[Doyle Hargraves]

psychologists at Peking University have discovered that the wealthier individuals become, the more problems they may have.

That's only because they were too stupid to realize "Hey I have more money than I can ever spend. Fuck working and its bullshit, I'm retiring."

Happiness buys happiness.

Being poor is society's painful way of reminding us of this. In general, even poor happy people will be less poor than poor sad people.

Upper-lower class vs. Lower and Middle-lower class and that whole business.

[sahra]

I think all this reflects a set of linked facts about human nature:

1) That people prioritize what they value, and conversely, value what they prioritize. So a person who feels compelled to earn tends to judge their own self-worth (and that of others) in terms of earning. Or more generally: "To a hammer, everything looks like a nail."

2) That people tend to look to material qualifiers rather than inner state in deciding whether or not they're happy.

3) That people tend to measure (and in a sense, experience) their own happiness by comparing themselves to others whom they consider "appropriate competition." Thus a person who has prioritized earning will not compare their earning-power, temporal power or material possessions to those of someone much poorer (or, for that matter, much richer), but will tend to look to those of approximately-equal position for a metric.

4) That the hardest thing in the world is simply to "be here now." Most people perceive security only in constant motion (i.e., "Okay, I'm rich -- but if I step off the treadmill, I'll somehow lose the power to _stay_ rich."). And this compulsion to remain in motion, to grow constantly, is mapped into the nature and theory of capital economies.

Universal human issues. What's so poignant about the Chinese situation is that their economic renaissance has been compressed into the space of a generation, instead of a hundred or more years. So they're simultaneously in all phases of the evolution towards an urban-centric, post-industrial society: one rich guy will be a robber-baron, the next a white-shoe investor, the next an internet entrepreneur. And the first guy will be building himself a mansion out of solid jade, the second will be founding an exclusive club to keep the first and third guys out of; and the last guy will be getting serial divorces, seeing shrinks and wondering whether to give it all away and go surfing. And all of this, happening against a cultural backdrop that -- until yesterday afternoon at 2:03 PM Beijing time -- didn't even _have_ (for 99.999% of souls) a concept of happiness divorced from the most stoic materialism (i.e., have I eaten today?) or even a concept of the 'self' as something deserving of cultivation (or even recognition) separate from the weave of filial pieties, familial and social duties.

Not entirely true about Guangzhuo -- East of Shamian Island there's an (admittedly fast-diminishing) neighborhood whose bone-structure dates back to the 1600s or earlier, where they sell dried scorpions and live pangolins. But it's mostly go-go neon craziness and incredibly cool cell phones.

[Back]

Glad some of you found this interesting enough to post in. Really enjoying the responses. One thing this topic is making me consider is is the drive for excesive material gains a sociopathic psychosis?

Joe Schmoe sees Joe Blow riding jets, driving expensive cars, and living in big homes. Schmoe starts to feel inadequate. This drives him to aquire what Blow has. Does Schmoes motive come from low self esteem/feeling of inadequacy, and aren’t those traits considered psychological complexes?

Or is Schmoe driven by convetiousness/envy/jealousy?

Are they all driven by greed? And is greed based on low self esteem?

I think greed can also be based on high-self esteem and a strong superiority complex.

Take an example like this for instance, "Why should someone like *HIM* be better off than me? I won't stand for this" This would drive the person to better himself and his situation due to the fact that he couldn't stand someone that he views as inferior as better off.

- Arkans

[Apotheosis]

Money is a means to an end, that is all it simply is.

Rich people view money differently then poor people.
One shoud also consider that socio-economic and social class are completely different.
Philanthropy is a dying value, watch what happens when that disappears.
I won't even begin to pretend that I understand the cultural breakdown/makeup of China, but I am sure people should point out the fact that they've only really recently began to come to terms with the fact that they are a superpower, and a fast growing one at that.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Backlash
One thing this topic is making me consider is is the drive for excesive material gains a sociopathic psychosis?
I'd have to say no unless an individual is already exhibiting the excessive drive for material gain. Since sociopathic tendencies and psychosis in general are anti-social disorders which inhibit normal societal functing, and as it pertains to material wealth these people are not hard to root out. I believe that those who exhibit the most intensive drives for material wealth, fame, success, and what have you are ones who get so caught up in their greed they'll usually either succeed by any means possible, or bury themselves in the agony of knowing they won't attain to the level they seek.

I know this is a little off topic but sort of pertaining to the idea of your initial post but I wanted to state the obvious anyway. Most white collar sociopaths are those who will go to great lengths to defraud a company, its employees, its employers and so forth for personal financial gain. Pure greed. The Enron fiascle is a great example of this and it happens on a much smaller scale daily.

Back on topic...

[Back]

Originally posted by Arkans
I think greed can also be based on high-self esteem and a strong superiority complex.

Take an example like this for instance, "Why should someone like *HIM* be better off than me? I won't stand for this" This would drive the person to better himself and his situation due to the fact that he couldn't stand someone that he views as inferior as better off.

- Arkans

Your post demonstrates the paradigms that we’ve all been bombarded with all our lives. But I want to break it down a bit for closer examination.

First, a superiority complex is as bad as an inferiority complex, just the opposite extreme. Basing your life on either is going to be basing it on a falsehood.

Then, what is bettering oneself? We’re told its having all the money in the world. But as you seem to already know, as most of us do, that does not make a person intrinsically better than another.

In today’s culture being a kick-ass take-names fuck-off-I-could-buy-your-family-billionaire seems to be our highest standard. But isn’t that really more of the magnum opus of sociopathic behavior?

This is where we disagree.

I don't see a superiority complex being anywhere as bad as an inferiority complex. I believe that on sabotages one's ability to achieve many different goals (inferiority), where the other helps them achieve great gains. It is better to consider yourself better, more able, and having the desire to prove yourself above and beyond than just giving up due to the fact that you believe you will fail or are meant to fail.

Now, on to the main part of my point. The money itself does not guarntee that you are better than another person, but barring extreme luck (winning the lottery, inheriting vast sums of money) the person that earns more generally is the better person.

This can be based on common sense, intelligence, or just ability to gauge situations and making smart choices. Either way, it shows somebodies capacity to survive in a society. It's no different than in a natural world.

Imagine that our society doesn't exist and we are in a pre-historic era. Money would not exist, but food would. The one with more food would be considered more capable to achieve and thus be considered "better".

- Arkans

[Back]

Originally posted by Arians
Imagine that our society doesn't exist and we are in a pre-historic era. Money would not exist, but food would. The one with more food would be considered more capable to achieve and thus be considered "better".

- Arians

This hypothetical woris for both points. My point is what iind of person ieeps more food than they can eat?

And to digress a bit from my last post, the worst sociopath is the serial iiller, not the wealthy. But in a society, where people depend on each other even if in very small ways, the one who hordes to the extreme is acting anti-social. In my opinion anyway.

The survivalist keeps more food than they can eat. Back then, when you didn't know how you could get your next meal (or even if you would) then it would be a very normal and viable options to store food for later.

This very logic applies to our society today. Just replace money with food. When we are on our own, there really is nobody that really pushes us along, feeds us, clothes us, and takes care of us. We need to make something of ourselves by ourselves. Why would anyone want to limit that? It's that security blanket that keeps us from "starving".

Also, as far as wealth is concerned, the vast majority of the taxes payed in this country are by the wealthy. They pay more taxes than all the middle and lower classes combined. Their wealth isn't just theirs! So in way they are the most social people of them all!

- Arkans

[xtc]

The desire to be successful is similar to a male lion holding the most desirable land. It is in my opinion an inbred motivation for survival and dominance.

Now the obsessive desire to own an excess of material things could be tied to low self esteem. That doesn't mean that all successful people have low esteem, if any I think the obsession poor people have about rich people's money shows their low self esteem.

[Apotheosis]

Originally posted by xtc
Now the obsessive desire to own an excess of material things could be tied to low self esteem. That doesn't mean that all successful people have low esteem, if any I think the obsession poor people have about rich people's money shows their low self esteem.

Good point. actually, the one I was trying to make, but couldn't quite formulate...I mean, we're such a celebrity crazed society, I mean, really, we idolize the people that we see as "making it", whether it's tiger woods, or madonna, or britney spears, or donald trump or peter north.

They embody what people THINK they want to achieve when it's really something else.

[Back]

Well, we are talking about EXCESS material gain as opposed to normal everyday material gain.

[Apotheosis]

look, in the end, obsession over material wealth is the same across the board and stems from the same roots...

feeling inadequate, feeling jealous, "because one can", or "because it's all they know"


it's definitely pathological behavior

Or because they want to make the most of themselves. Wanting that is not pathological at all.

- Arkans

[DeV]

Originally posted by xtc
Now the obsessive desire to own an excess of material things could be tied to low self esteem. That doesn't mean that all successful people have low esteem, if any I think the obsession poor people have about rich people's money shows their low self esteem. I agree somewhat. Some people can develop a superiority complex after suffering from an inferiority complex for some time. On the other end, an inferiority complex could be considered a cluster of repressed fears to which the individual usually overcompesates for which can bring on a superiority complex.

I think its more of a societal issue in general and more along the lines of one's socio-economic status and certain personality traits that are inherent in all of us.

[Apotheosis]

I just think that any extreme in social behavior is pathological in nature.
it's not good or bad. it's just how it is.

[Edited on 5-25-2005 by Yswithe]

I don't see how the extreme gathering of wealth is linked to a complex. It could just be a goal like any other.

- Arkans

[Back]

Originally posted by Arkans
I don't see how the extreme gathering of wealth is linked to a complex. It could just be a goal like any other.

- Arkans

How then do you define greed? And, do you feel greed is a negative trait?

[DeV]

Originally posted by Arkans
I don't see how the extreme gathering of wealth is linked to a complex. It could just be a goal like any other.

- Arkans Almost everything can be related to a complex because through our complexities we form patterns of feelings, behaviors, thoughts, and ideas. It just is so to speak. Since every overt act is a product of the stimulating condition or our mindset or our environment and so on...

Edited for spelling

[Edited on 5-26-2005 by DeV]

[HarmNone]

I think the definition of "rich" changes from person to person. A person with an annual income of $250K might consider $2 million excessive, while a person with an annual income of $50K might consider $250K excessive. Some people might not consider any amount of annual income excessive, feeling that an individual has a right to accrue any amount of wealth they wish to accrue. It's all in the eye of the beholder.

I, personally, don't measure the value of a person by the amount of money, or material goods, they accrue. For me, there's a lot more to it than that.