Do Some People Want To Live In Poverty And Pain Subconciously

[GelatinGoblin]

I’d be interested to see the medical literature, but I’m quite wary of calling psychology a science, and the implications of saying we know for certain the source of human motivation.

If there's nothing to keep you going make it up

 

[opethfeldt]

It takes energy to improve your situation. Someone in a hypo metabolic state doesn't usually have that energy and if they do, it's temporary from stress hormones. I believe this is one of the main functions of serotonin. It numbs you to how bad your situation is and allows you to endure absolutely awful circumstances. Note it's increase in pain tolerance. It also increases in poverty. The downside being you're basically in a state of hibernation and have little chance of improving your situation unless you change your chemistry or get lucky and have someone help you.

 

[Luann]

Yes, a percent yes, call it Puritanism or cultural suicide or literally whatever, but yes. As it's been pointed out on this forum before, doesn't take that many people to make a difference - if they believe they deserve better.

 

[michael94]

I have noticed that when a society has a problem,
health or environment or the economic system or whatever,
and someone presents a solution to that problem,
they are shot down and destroyed by the media and online.

Yea I wonder who could be behind that... Its not the poor and in pain.

 

[MeatOrchid]

I have noticed that when a society has a problem,
health or environment or the economic system or whatever,
and someone presents a solution to that problem,
they are shot down and destroyed by the media and online.

People live without technological commodities until their autonomous culture is technified and monetized.

 

[pro marker]

same reason some people will never get physical no matter what. its easier to just roll over and take it than to fight. you have to put a ton of effort into getting out of the rat race and live a happy life. its easier for the weak to just accept a low standard. most people today won't hit back after being hit.

 

[tankasnowgod]

I have noticed that when a society has a problem,
health or environment or the economic system or whatever,
and someone presents a solution to that problem,
they are shot down and destroyed by the media and online.

Wait, what are you talking about?

You present two different ideas- First, that some people subconsciously want to live in pain or poverty.

Second, that solutions are "shot down" by the media or online.

Both can be true, but they are two different issues.

Most of the media is owned by six different companies. Their true customers are advertisers (with possible exceptions like HBO and Netflix). Viewers are actually the commodity being sold. So, an agenda of "the media" is likely very different from an average human, especially if they are in poverty.

Online, the attacks can be wider, but those same entities pop up, as well as other powerful entities, and also, a bunch of "bots," which can, on a surface level, almost seem human.

Also, you shifted from people to society in from the title to your post.

 

[BearWithMe]

Often the association is true...

Yes, but the same association is true for poor people. People are just immoral in general. There is nothing inherently immoral on being rich and there is nothing inherently virtuous on being poor.

Rich people have more power to do immoral things, though. And also are often more exposed.

Money doesn't change your character, they just expose your real character.

 

[lvysaur]

Money doesn't change your character, they just expose your real character.

I would argue that rich people are more immoral than poor people.
Having a certain degree of immorality is a necessary, but not sufficient prerequisite to becoming rich.

There is probably a personality type that is exceptionally moral, egalitarian, empathetic, and it only finds its way into the rich through women marrying rich males.

 

[BearWithMe]

Having a certain degree of immorality is a necessary, but not sufficient prerequisite to becoming rich.

Why?

Let's say Joe starts a company that builds affordable and high quality houses. He doesn't cut corners, he use good materials, he is responsible to the environment. Joe makes the lives of other people better, by providing them high quality living place at the cost they can afford.

Many people want to live in high quality, affordable houses, so his company quickly grows, he employs many workers, pays them good money and treat them well, and he become rich in the process.

What exactly is immoral that Joe did?

There is probably a personality type that is exceptionally moral, egalitarian, empathetic, and it only finds its way into the rich through women marrying rich males.

I would argue that female getting rich by marrying rich male is the only case when getting rich is pretty much guaranteed to be immoral.

 

[Gustav3Y]

The problem with morality is that is changing based on century and decade. I do not mean what in a single person's eyes something is moral or not, but rather what certain societies.
It may have been immoral to be with 10 guys before you marry as a woman, this is mostly for the western world not a morality issue anymore.
A guy that is seeking sexual pleasure outside his marriage while not praised by the society gets now to be understood by others and not called immoral, something like it's his life he does what he want.
If someone lived in old communist societies knows how immoral the west was considered, just because private business existed and not everything was controlled by the state. Something which if someone has not lived in may have not only a hard time comprehending (feudalism was abolished, peasants started having land, able to go to school and occupy leading positions, then socialism came and took all propriety away, locking up those who didn't agree and torture them)