Not long ago, I noted to an acquaintance of mine that I felt one-third of the people you meet on the street immediately tried to size you up to see what they might get out of you, while one-third would befriend you and could be trusted unless there was an incentive to cheat you and once that threshold of their integrity had been crossed, they'd take advantage at your expense.
The final third was benevolent and would probably assist you with something especially if you had asked them too.
Let's talk.
My acquaintance, Jared Kent stated; "With the 1/3's I would say that is probably pretty accurate, but which 1/3 is worse, the befriending 1/3 or the direct screw you over 1/3?" and he also stated that he liked "like transparency," so he'd be inclined to "say the befriending [later traitor] is worse.
" Okay so, now we have a rather interesting scenario to discuss, don't we? Yes, he makes a good point, and I really don't know the percentages, those were guestimates for the sake of argument.
Luckily, the less intelligent people you can really read them quickly, it's obvious they want to chat you up to get something.
In business it's fairly obvious too.
Every once in a while some scam artist will come along with an amazing line of crap, and you don't see it coming, psychopaths are often good at this, because they actually believe what they are doing is good.
Now then, who can you trust more, the rich or the poor? A wealthy person may not need or want to screw you over, because it's not worth the hit to their reputation unless there is a big pay-off, that is if they fall into the second one-third percentile of those you might meet on the street, plus there are fewer of them, so you might find yourself able to trust them more, not less.
Of course, this is opposite of what the average person in our population believes because of the media attack on the 1%.
This does not attempt to let anyone off the hook or claim one socio-economic member is better than the other, it only illustrates the fallacy of the negative attacks on the 1% wealthy minority.
If the hypothetical break-down of human ethics is one-third, the whole divided in three, then it is a human issue, not a wealth issue.
And that is an important factor to breaking this un-politically correct profiling against the rich in this case.
Please consider all this and think on it.
The final third was benevolent and would probably assist you with something especially if you had asked them too.
Let's talk.
My acquaintance, Jared Kent stated; "With the 1/3's I would say that is probably pretty accurate, but which 1/3 is worse, the befriending 1/3 or the direct screw you over 1/3?" and he also stated that he liked "like transparency," so he'd be inclined to "say the befriending [later traitor] is worse.
" Okay so, now we have a rather interesting scenario to discuss, don't we? Yes, he makes a good point, and I really don't know the percentages, those were guestimates for the sake of argument.
Luckily, the less intelligent people you can really read them quickly, it's obvious they want to chat you up to get something.
In business it's fairly obvious too.
Every once in a while some scam artist will come along with an amazing line of crap, and you don't see it coming, psychopaths are often good at this, because they actually believe what they are doing is good.
Now then, who can you trust more, the rich or the poor? A wealthy person may not need or want to screw you over, because it's not worth the hit to their reputation unless there is a big pay-off, that is if they fall into the second one-third percentile of those you might meet on the street, plus there are fewer of them, so you might find yourself able to trust them more, not less.
Of course, this is opposite of what the average person in our population believes because of the media attack on the 1%.
This does not attempt to let anyone off the hook or claim one socio-economic member is better than the other, it only illustrates the fallacy of the negative attacks on the 1% wealthy minority.
If the hypothetical break-down of human ethics is one-third, the whole divided in three, then it is a human issue, not a wealth issue.
And that is an important factor to breaking this un-politically correct profiling against the rich in this case.
Please consider all this and think on it.
SHARE
