Malevolent vs. benevolent dispositions and conservative political ideology in the Trump era

[Larniavc]

Studies over the past few decades have consistently found that lower-income individuals tend to give a higher percentage of their income to charity than the wealthy. SURPRISE! I asked ChatGPT to give me a breakdown of the research:

Funnily enough I knew that was the case but must have buried it in my memory when I arrived somewhat over confidently at my over generalised stated conclusion.

But as most long time posters on this most august of websites know I’m an outlier in selflessness and a societal trend breaker.

A generally great person; if you will.

 

[com7fy8]

It could also just be that self-centeredness is the default position for most folks and always has been,

There can be the ones who get the most attention, by being aggressive. And such can appear as Republicans or Democrats.

But ones more caring and kind might not be so aggressive, but they see a need and help.

Why follow a leader who appeals to emotions, prejudices, and fears rather than to their rational thought , empathy and wisdom?

Well . . . it seems possible that both "sides" have used criticism and fears to get votes, but they have not agreed on the same causes.

And it is possible each side has selected voting groups and have made promises that their selected groups would want. It seems, this time around, though, the Joe people supposed they would win the Hispanic vote, but the Hispanics went with Donald enough to help Donald to win. So, any way the Joe's offered things to the Hispanic, the Hispanics did not jump for what the Democrats were claiming.

And there were other things. Perhaps, one might have cared about trans people, for one example, but they also cared about the economy, and they were more drawn to the Republican offerings for economy, than to "rights" for the trans's.

May be we could say the Democrats invented false needs which groups did not need, plus it would have gotten worse economically to meet those false needs. But the Republicans stayed more with genuine needs. So, Democrats lost votes by being unrealistic.

 

[Aaron112]

Clearly, this not saying that all Trump supporters are psychopaths.

Maybe three are. VS all the ones supporting other societal money-mongers ?
http s:/ / www . facebook.com/reel/1448840042820821%20toxic%20pharma
(why bad guys oppose truth and garlic) hint; m o o n e y

 

[joechristianwarrior]

I agree and think our society is becoming more and more merciless. I wonder if conservatism has shifted from trying to maintain a certain status quo to primarily supporting whatever serves self-interest.

I think you have hit the nail on the hammer with this observation... generally speaking, that is. Obviously, I think there would be individuals who choose to vote conservative who are not just doing so out of self-interest, or some other selfish motivation. But those individuals would (IMO) be few and far between. By and large, Trump-lovers are such because ultimately, they are lovers of self.

 

[joechristianwarrior]

I don't doubt that. When I was young and poor and under the obvious pressures getting by I was incredibly focussed on money and very ungenerous. Now I'm older and richer with fewer pressures I'm far more generous and easy going with money. I might surmise that the general difficulties Americans have getting by with their low wages and poor conditions contribute to a 'survival mode' schema.

And then this schema is enshrined in the America Dream but is really the screw you I got mine mentality. America has perhaps breed generations of selfish people which might explain it's outlier status as a heavily conservative western nation if one adheres to the findings of the study.

I appreciate your honesty in sharing about your lack of generosity while younger, and your apparent increase in generosity as you got older and richer. That said, I think it's worth pointing out that, with God, it's not all about how much you give, e.g. giving out of your abundance. (Mark 12:41-44) The real question is how much you have left...

 

[Aaron112]

I agree and think our society is becoming more and more merciless. I wonder if conservatism has shifted from trying to maintain a certain status quo to primarily supporting whatever serves self-interest.

Some clear observations posted recently in forum show that Scripture was true all along when written in Galatians: all society is pernicious/ death dealing..... as well as demonstrating the utter evil/wickednesses of mankind coming forth daily.

 

[Robban]

Some clear observations posted recently in forum show that Scripture was true all along when written in Galatians: all society is pernicious/ death dealing..... as well as demonstrating the utter evil/wickednesses of mankind coming forth daily.

You have surely heard, "Serve the Lord your God with joy."

Transform darkness into light.




The Divine Presence does not rest upon one who is a state of sorrow or in a state of torpor-------

only upon one who is in a state of joy.

Talmud Shabbat 30b.

 

[o_mlly]

The rise of Trump has led me to believe that America has become more and more callous with disregard to the most needy. I've recently been looking into this area and found this. It's relatively recent in a decently respected Journal. This snippet sums it up quite well.

• Conservative political ideology represented by symbolic and operational ideology and positive view of Trump
• Psychopathic traits and malevolent disposition predicted increased conservative political ideology
• Benevolent disposition predicted decreased conservative ideology--i.e., more liberal ideology
• Those viewing Trump favorably reported elevated malevolent and reduced benevolent dispositions, and less empathy

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0092656625000704?via%3Dihub

Clearly, this not saying that all Trump supporters are psychopaths.

It seems to me that in scanning the article cited that a strong liberal bias may infect this branch of scientific inquiry.

Liberal bias and the five-factor model
By Evan Charney
Publisher: Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Liberal bias and the five-factor model | Behavioral and Brain Sciences | Cambridge Core

Abstract: Duarte et al. draw attention to the“embedding of liberal values and methods” in social psychological research. They note how these biases are often invisible to the researchers themselves. The authors themselves fall prey to these “invisible biases” by using the five factor model of personality and the trait of openness to experience as one possible explanation for the under representation of political conservatives in social psychology.​

 

[Larniavc]

It seems to me that in scanning the article cited that a strong liberal bias may infect this branch of scientific inquiry.

Of course it does. The study I posted does not use the Five Factor Model that the opinion piece you posted criticises.

 

[J_B_]

Before I reply, let me first say how wonderful it is that you have become more charitable!

Now let's look at the actual facts, because there are always going to be anecdotes of people who are exceptional.

Studies over the past few decades have consistently found that lower-income individuals tend to give a higher percentage of their income to charity than the wealthy. SURPRISE! I asked ChatGPT to give me a breakdown of the research:

By Income Bracket (Percent of Income Donated)​

• Poor (lowest 20%): Give around 3% to 5% of their income on average.
• Middle class: Give about 2% to 3%.
• Rich (top 20%): Give around 1.3% to 2.1%, though this varies widely depending on the study.
• Ultra rich (top 1%): Give less than 1% on average — although some give very large sums in absolute terms (e.g., Bill Gates), they often give a smaller percentage of their wealth.

Key Findings from Major Studies​

• The Chronicle of Philanthropy (2012): People earning $50,000–$75,000 gave an average of 7.6% of their income, while those earning $100,000 or more gave just 4.2%.
• UC Berkeley & Indiana University studies: Found that lower-income Americans donate more generously relative to their income, often motivated by empathy, community solidarity, and religious commitments.
• Harvard Business School: People with lower income were more likely to help a stranger or give to a cause, even though they had less disposable income.

Why Might the Poor Give More (Proportionally)?​

• Empathy and identification with need: They understand financial hardship firsthand.
• Community reliance: Stronger communal or religious ties often encourage mutual aid.
• Trust in direct impact: They may believe their donations make a more immediate difference.
• Less hoarding behavior: The wealthy are often more focused on wealth preservation, tax strategy, or legacy-building.

The statistics are what they are, but I'd be careful about drawing moral conclusions from numbers.

As it happens, I began life in a lower middle-class family and I am now considered upper middle-class. Not exactly rags to riches, but still I live a much different life as an adult than I did as a child. Throughout it all my giving (as a percentage) has always been about 10% - more than that some years, less than that others.

That anecdote may be your first insight into the trouble with statistics. Given what year the survey was taken, I may have been called a credit to my class or a disappointment. In other words, I've been a generous giver from the lower class and a stingy giver from the lower class - a generous giver from the upper class and a stingy giver from the upper class. One statistic from one year does more to tell a false story than a true one.

And I've been applauded for my giving (for money, time, and skill) as well as sneered at for being privileged. That anecdote may offer some insight into why people's motivations waver.

Finally, as one becomes more involved in civil service, one sees more and more mismanagement, bickering, and corruption - even in charities. A determination to keep giving becomes one of accepting that only 10-20% of what you give will find its way to help someone. The rest is waste.

But I needn't have said all that. The best summary is: it's complicated.

 

[FireDragon76]

The rise of Trump has led me to believe that America has become more and more callous with disregard to the most needy. I've recently been looking into this area and found this. It's relatively recent in a decently respected Journal. This snippet sums it up quite well.

• Conservative political ideology represented by symbolic and operational ideology and positive view of Trump
• Psychopathic traits and malevolent disposition predicted increased conservative political ideology
• Benevolent disposition predicted decreased conservative ideology--i.e., more liberal ideology
• Those viewing Trump favorably reported elevated malevolent and reduced benevolent dispositions, and less empathy

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0092656625000704?via%3Dihub

Clearly, this not saying that all Trump supporters are psychopaths.

Not in a clinical sense, perhaps, but I have noticed as people gravitate into the Trumpian camp, they do tend to take on more Dark Triad traits to some degree: machiavellianism, sociopathy, etc. However, in the average MAGA supporter, it's compartmentalized and uneven.

I think the article you mention resorts to a kind of genetic determinism a bit too much. What genetics probably does is cause some people to gravitate towards certain existential crises more than others. A large minority of American society have physical security fears as their primary motivator, and these types of people make easy prey for demagogues. Some of this orientation is due to genetics, but alot is probably due to early childhood experiences. However, that doesn't mean being this type of personality that it's inevitable they will be MAGA/Trump supporters. It's just one factor among many.

 

[BryanJohnMaloney]

Ayn Rand is now foundational to American conservativism. Ayn Rand once stated that Christianity is the perfect kindergarten of communism.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

The “Trump era” is characterized as America First which is not much more than Me First in plural. It aggrandizes self interest. But in this case it is also brutish as well as unwise. We have alienated long term allies and granted our enemies more than they could have imagined.

I hated to see cuts to cancer research. But that seems small in the face of what continues to happen in Ukraine snd Gaze. We are mocked.

 

[Meowzltov]

That anecdote may be your first insight into the trouble with statistics.

Not at all. In fact, I already dealt with that in my last post. Anecdotes are never evidence BECAUSE all rules have their exceptions, and any anecdote may simply be the exception to the rule.

A determination to keep giving becomes one of accepting that only 10-20% of what you give will find its way to help someone. The rest is waste.

All it means is to be more careful which charities you give to. For example, about 85 cents out of every dollar given to the Salvation Army goes to actually helping someone. Catholic Charities is about the same, although the Galveston-Houston branch gets a whopping 97 cents out of every dollar to those in need.) The Jewish Family Foundation here in Orange County similarly gets 97% to those in need.