Nerd Mentality

SYRACUSE, N.Y. -- Syracuse University professor Arthur C. Brooks is about to become the darling of the religious right in America -- and it's making him nervous.

The child of academics, raised in a liberal household and educated in the liberal arts, Brooks has written a book that concludes religious conservatives donate far more money than secular liberals to all sorts of charitable activities, irrespective of income.

In the book, he cites extensive data analysis to demonstrate that values advocated by conservatives -- from church attendance and two-parent families to the Protestant work ethic and a distaste for government-funded social services -- make conservatives more generous than liberals.

The book, titled "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism" (Basic Books, $26), is due for release Nov. 24.

When it comes to helping the needy, Brooks writes: "For too long, liberals have been claiming they are the most virtuous members of American society. Although they usually give less to charity, they have nevertheless lambasted conservatives for their callousness in the face of social injustice."

For the record, Brooks, 42, has been registered in the past as a Democrat, then a Republican, but now lists himself as independent, explaining, "I have no comfortable political home."

Since 2003 he has been director of nonprofit studies for Syracuse University's Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs.

Outside professional circles, he's best known for his regular op-ed columns in The Wall Street Journal (13 over the past 18 months) on topics that stray a bit from his philanthropy expertise.

One noted that people who drink alcohol moderately are more successful and charitable than those who don't (like him). Another observed that liberals are having fewer babies than conservatives, which will reduce liberals' impact on politics over time because children generally mimic their parents.

Brooks is a behavioral economist by training who researches the relationship between what people do -- aside from their paid work -- why they do it, and its economic impact.

He's a number cruncher who relied primarily on 10 databases assembled over the past decade, mostly from scientific surveys. The data are adjusted for variables such as age, gender, race and income to draw fine-point conclusions.

His Wall Street Journal pieces are researched, but a little light.

His book, he says, is carefully documented to withstand the scrutiny of other academics, which he said he encourages.

The book's basic findings are that conservatives who practice religion, live in traditional nuclear families and reject the notion that the government should engage in income redistribution are the most generous Americans, by any measure.

Conversely, secular liberals who believe fervently in government entitlement programs give far less to charity. They want everyone's tax dollars to support charitable causes and are reluctant to write checks to those causes, even when governments don't provide them with enough money.

Such an attitude, he writes, not only shortchanges the nonprofits but also diminishes the positive fallout of giving, including personal health, wealth and happiness for the donor and overall economic growth.
All of this, he said, he backs up with statistical analysis.

"These are not the sort of conclusions I ever thought I would reach when I started looking at charitable giving in graduate school, 10 years ago," he writes in the introduction. "I have to admit I probably would have hated what I have to say in this book."

Still, he says it forcefully, pointing out that liberals give less than conservatives in every way imaginable, including volunteer hours and donated blood.

In an interview, Brooks said he recognizes the need for government entitlement programs, such as welfare. But in the book he finds fault with all sorts of government social spending, including entitlements.

Repeatedly he cites and disputes a line from a Ralph Nader speech to the NAACP in 2000: "A society that has more justice is a society that needs less charity."

Harvey Mansfield, professor of government at Harvard University and 2004 recipient of the National Humanities Medal, does not know Brooks personally but has read the book.

"His main finding is quite startling, that the people who talk the most about caring actually fork over the least," he said. "But beyond this finding I thought his analysis was extremely good, especially for an economist. He thinks very well about the reason for this and reflects about politics and morals in a way most economists do their best to avoid."

Brooks says he started the book as an academic treatise, then tightened the documentation and punched up the prose when his colleagues and editor convinced him it would sell better and generate more discussion if he did.

To make his point forcefully, Brooks admits he cut out a lot of qualifying information.

"I know I'm going to get yelled at a lot with this book," he said. "But when you say something big and new, you're going to get yelled at."

this article will be discredited in 5.. 4.. 3.. 2.. 1...
___________________
JFK: Ich bin ein Berliner
BHO: Ich bin ein beginner

Xavius

Yeah I would like to know the motivations for giving and how that plays into the equation. I just wish more people were giving, period.

I think the flip side is that church's are generally geared towards participating in charitable causes. It's part of the culture. So while the giving of tithes/offerings might seem socially pressured, church's do plenty of other things that are exclusively voluntary. Food drives, work at homeless shelters, selling various things for charitable causes, etc., etc.

So I don't have any doubt that Christians are more charitable. My concern is just how much more charitable they actually are. There are plenty of secular organizations that engage in charity. They just don't have near the attendance draw that a church/religion does unless they're stupid (like abortion groups).
___________________

Advance

I think the flip side is that church's are generally geared towards participating in charitable causes. It's part of the culture. So while the giving of tithes/offerings might seem socially pressured, church's do plenty of other things that are exclusively voluntary. Food drives, work at homeless shelters, selling various things for charitable causes, etc., etc.

So I don't have any doubt that Christians are more charitable. My concern is just how much more charitable they actually are. There are plenty of secular organizations that engage in charity. They just don't have near the attendance draw that a church/religion does unless they're stupid (like abortion groups).

the basic idea of this is that liberals see it as the governments job to feed, cloth, house people, etc. raising taxes and redistribution of wealth is their version of charity. we have seen that argued here on these boards countless times, conservatives are always demonized when they speak out against high tax rates and social programs.
___________________
JFK: Ich bin ein Berliner
BHO: Ich bin ein beginner

Drunken Savior

I think Bill Gates/Warren Buffet is still several billion dollars above y'all, Snuggles...

here is some more info on this: http://newsbusters.org/node/9156

sure, gates and buffet have donated lots of money, but you cant argue the facts. the guy that did this study and wrote this book isnt a christian or a conservative.

i dont know why the libs here try arguing against this. arent social programs and government mandated redistribution of wealth better and more righteous that giving to a charity?
___________________
JFK: Ich bin ein Berliner
BHO: Ich bin ein beginner

MrSnuggles

the basic idea of this is that liberals see it as the governments job to feed, cloth, house people, etc. raising taxes and redistribution of wealth is their version of charity. we have seen that argued here on these boards countless times, conservatives are always demonized when they speak out against high tax rates and social programs.

I wouldn't say it's the government's job is to give out charity. I'd say it's maintaining the well-being of its citizens.

MrSnuggles

i dont know why the libs here try arguing against this. arent social programs and government mandated redistribution of wealth better and more righteous that giving to a charity?

Why would they be?
___________________
"I have captured the enemy for meat testing! Praise me! PRAISE ME!!!" -GIR
Wi-Fi ID: 1627 8934 4983 8539

MrSnuggles

this article will be discredited in 5.. 4.. 3.. 2.. 1...

If it's so easily discredited, why post it?

A couple of things..

1) Can you come back and post some actual facts? Some data? Right now we don't know anything about it.

2) How did this study treat religious liberals? Are they included in either group?

3) Were donations to the church included?
___________________
5983-5392-0493-5427 pm if you're adding

I'm watching this guy on 20/20 right now.

Apparently religious people don't just donate to church--they're more likely to donate in every facet of charitable giving: they give more blood, give more to purely secular charities, give more to the homeless, and give more overall (four times more than non-religious people, in fact). The single biggest predictor of charitable giving is religious participation.

Also interesting, the working poor gives the greatest percentage of its wealth to charity--nearly a third. The non-working poor (i.e. welfare queens), give almost nothing. The rich give almost nothing as a comparison of their wealth. The middle class give comparatively less than the working poor. The upper-middle class (incomes between $100,000 and $200,000, as far as I could tell on the graph they showed), give the next most behind the working poor.

I wouldn't doubt it.
___________________
"Do you understand the difference between dying for something and dying for nothing? Today I can die for something, my way, my choice."

MrSnuggles

i dont know why the libs here try arguing against this. arent social programs and government mandated redistribution of wealth better and more righteous that giving to a charity?

The problem with your argument is that you're trying to construe it into some divisive issue. The fact is, liberals are less charitable because, yes, they do think it's the job of the government to redistribute wealth. Therefore, subconciously perhaps, they give less to charity because they don't see it as their direct personal resoposibility to help people. They see it as society's duty to provide for people's needs (as well as people around the world, ex: Africa).

A church, being the orginization that is based in giving (or at least should be), natrually gives more, while lliberals, whose end goal is to force society to care for itself, use political action orginizations to help the poor by getting elected.

The main problem with conservatives cutting taxes is that people are inclined to actually give less, when people are more sharply divided into wealth classes (which tax cuts do natrually), and therefore people see think less of the poor and more of themselves (see the data that advance posted before me as an example). This hurts the poor directly as well, because with the idea of "presonal responsibility", you give less hope to those that are actually poor. When the government actually helps you directly through afterschool programs or daycares or whatever, you actually give the poor hope. This is because with the greater tax burden on the rich, plus the help with actual living conditions, the poor have more time and money to experiment with, whether that be by going to college, or starting a business.

The problem of course, with taxing too much, is that people eventually get angry and throw out the liberals to get fewer taxes.
___________________

Advance

The single biggest predictor of charitable giving is religious participation.

Does no one see why this is a wrong way to test these levels?


Funny people.



Hmmm.....let me think....


Religious participation is the biggest predictor....hmmm....Non-religious people don't do that????


Anway I know lots of good/bad religious/non-religous people....THIS IS HONESTLY THE STUPID DISCUSSION EVER!

Its like one side has to prove something over the other...

is

Christians are only doing it so they can get into heaven. Its a completely selfish act.

Sure, it is useful, and i have nothing but support for people who want to give to charity. But ill laugh at any self-righeous hypocrite christian who wants some recognition for his 'good deed', which flies in the face of a specific bible teaching, and is itself a complete joke, as the only christian motivation comes from a desire to get pleasure and avoid pain, motivated purely by self interest, which is why religious ideas are such sucessful memes.

Actually, the notion of the importance of works is a highly debated aspect of Christianity.

A big reason why the religious donate more is probably because the churches facilitate it. My church always has stuff in their newsletter about different charities (a couple weeks ago it was for helping distribute turkey dinners to the poor, etc).
___________________
steamid: chowdy

Its like one side has to prove something over the other...

Well when one side is constantly saying the other is stupid, ignorant, backward, hateful, and uncaring, the expectation is kind of created. It's nice to see it fulfilled and the real idiots with their feet in their mouths.

Robjomak

Well when one side is constantly saying the other is stupid, ignorant, backward, hateful, and uncaring, the expectation is kind of created. It's nice to see it fulfilled and the real idiots with their feet in their mouths.

Takes one to know one I guess...
___________________

is

Christians are only doing it so they can get into heaven. Its a completely selfish act.

I've always found this a completely stupid and bitter point to make. Does it make you feel better that you'll be going to hell even though you make charitable giving?

There is countless evidence, some of it presented in the program last night, that no matter who you are, donating to charity reduces stress, improves mood, brightens your self-worth, and boosts your confidence.

OMG EVERYONE WHO DONATES TO CHARITY IS A SELFISH BASTARD. I WISH NO ONE DONATED TO CHARITY BECAUSE GOD FORBID THEY FEEL GOOD ABOUT THEMSELVES WHEN THEY HELP PEOPLE.

Atheists who wallow in their own self-worthlessness like it's a badge of honor make me want to vomit.
___________________

Advance

There is countless evidence, some of it presented in the program last night, that no matter who you are, donating to charity reduces stress, improves mood, brightens your self-worth, and boosts your confidence.

I hate to break it to you, Advance, but if people are donating to charity to reduce their own stress, improve their mood andor brighten their self worth... those are selfish reasons.

Oh, and it's not self worthlessness, it's self-ritiousness, which is something that the religious are not immune to either.
___________________
Xbox LIVE gamertagPSN id: DrSquigglyPants

Gorosaurus

Feeling good is an affect, not an instigator.

If people know it makes them feel better beforehand it is not a affect per se, at that point it acts as a motivator. I hate to get all existentialist, but there is no such thing as a selfless act.
___________________
Xbox LIVE gamertagPSN id: DrSquigglyPants

thaddius

I hate to break it to you, Advance, but if people are donating to charity to reduce their own stress, improve their mood andor brighten their self worth... those are selfish reasons.

Oh, and it's not self worthlessness, it's self-ritiousness, which is something that the religious are not immune to either.

That's retarded. You're retarded. I was going to argue against you but that's like spanking a down syndrome kid for sucking on his fingers.

thaddius

I hate to break it to you, Advance, but if people are donating to charity to reduce their own stress, improve their mood andor brighten their self worth... those are selfish reasons.

Oh, and it's not self worthlessness, it's self-ritiousness, which is something that the religious are not immune to either.

what? yes, people ALL the time say to themselves "you know what, im depressed, i think ill go donate my last paycheck!". sorry, that aint how it works. those positive side effects are unintended consequences.
___________________
JFK: Ich bin ein Berliner
BHO: Ich bin ein beginner

Game Guru

The problem with your argument is that you're trying to construe it into some divisive issue. The fact is, liberals are less charitable because, yes, they do think it's the job of the government to redistribute wealth. Therefore, subconciously perhaps, they give less to charity because they don't see it as their direct personal resoposibility to help people. They see it as society's duty to provide for people's needs (as well as people around the world, ex: Africa).

which is... exactly my point. i just want to know why libs immediately take defensive manuevers in response to info like this.

A church, being the orginization that is based in giving (or at least should be), natrually gives more, while lliberals, whose end goal is to force society to care for itself, use political action orginizations to help the poor by getting elected.

what you mean to say is that libs want to use OTHER PEOPLES MONEY to help the poor. not their own, hard earned money. thats for themselves and ONLY themselves.

The main problem with conservatives cutting taxes is that people are inclined to actually give less, when people are more sharply divided into wealth classes (which tax cuts do natrually), and therefore people see think less of the poor and more of themselves (see the data that advance posted before me as an example). This hurts the poor directly as well, because with the idea of "presonal responsibility", you give less hope to those that are actually poor. When the government actually helps you directly through afterschool programs or daycares or whatever, you actually give the poor hope. This is because with the greater tax burden on the rich, plus the help with actual living conditions, the poor have more time and money to experiment with, whether that be by going to college, or starting a business.

no, infact you are wrong. by handing out "tax credits", which in reality are welfare checks, you are discouraging people from going out and getting jobs and helping themselves and encouraging them to be dependent on government help. which is what the left wants, people that absolutely must depend on them. otherwise, who will vote democrat?

The problem of course, with taxing too much, is that people eventually get angry and throw out the liberals to get fewer taxes.

again, wrong. the problem with high taxes is it dampens economies and takes money out of peoples pockets.
___________________
JFK: Ich bin ein Berliner
BHO: Ich bin ein beginner

thaddius

I hate to break it to you, Advance, but if people are donating to charity to reduce their own stress, improve their mood andor brighten their self worth... those are selfish reasons.

I don't think people donate to charity to receive those benefits, but clearly people continue to donate to charity and volunteer their time because it makes them feel good.

I don't see the point in calling that selfish other than, as I said, to wallow in one's own self-pity. "It's okay that I don't donate to charity because they're all selfish pricks, so it's not like they're better than me or anything." Except that kind of thinking is much more self-serving... and that person's not even donating anything to charity.

Selfishness on an existential level and selfishness on a practical level are two entirely different things. Everything we do is selfish at some level. That doesn't make it less praiseworthy or somehow intrinsically bankrupt of any positive morals.

I find $50 on the ground and use it to buy Zelda for myself even though I've got $300 in the bank and no expenses whatsoever. Daisy finds $50 on the ground and donates it to charity even though she's only got $100 in the bank (and needs to pay the bills next month), and she takes pride in it because it makes her feel good about herself. Those are two entirely different planes of selfishness, and the second is in no way deserving of contempt simply because Daisy benefits personally from donating to charity.

thaddius

Oh, and it's not self worthlessness, it's self-ritiousness, which is something that the religious are not immune to either.

No, it's righteousness about being worthless, which is a thousand times more contemptible. Self-righteous religious folks are only misguided. Self-righteous idiots who think recognizing that they're worthless puts them on a higher intellectual plane than others are completely pathetic.
___________________

MrSnuggles

what? yes, people ALL the time say to themselves "you know what, im depressed, i think ill go donate my last paycheck!". sorry, that aint how it works. those positive side effects are unintended consequences.

So you're saying that people give to charities because they can do wtihout the money? No one ever takes personal satisfaction in knowing that they helped someone, somehow? You're saying that people put no emotion behind giving to charities? That if there was no karmic motivation behind giving money away that people woul still do it?

Unintended consequences? You know this is how it will make you feel. It is called positive reinforcement: if it feels good, you continue to do it. It is not the sole motivation, but it is, like I said, a motivating FACTOR.

Coconut

That's retarded. You're retarded. I was going to argue against you but that's like spanking a down syndrome kid for sucking on his fingers.

Coconut here, did not call me retarded because he was making fun of me. No! Accroding to you, Coconut did it out of genuine concern that I may need medical attention of some kind. He derived no satisfaction at all from calling someone he doesn't know a retard.

I did not say 'people only donate to charity out of pure selfishness' as you both seem to have overgeneralized. I reiterate: there is no such thing as a selfless act. I specify: there may be other factors including genuine concern for the well being of those in need, but there will always be a personal motivating selfish factor, no matter what. I assure you.
___________________
Xbox LIVE gamertagPSN id: DrSquigglyPants

MrSnuggles

what you mean to say is that libs want to use OTHER PEOPLES MONEY to help the poor. not their own, hard earned money. thats for themselves and ONLY themselves.

Yeah, if you want to put it that way. But I'd say if you elect a liberal person into office, you're pretty much accepting the viewpoint that the rich are inherently obligated to help the government pay for society whether they like it or not. I simply don't see that as a bad thing.

no, infact you are wrong. by handing out "tax credits", which in reality are welfare checks, you are discouraging people from going out and getting jobs and helping themselves and encouraging them to be dependent on government help.

well. maybe tax credits aren't the way to go, but that's not the only way people can help. My US History teacher pointed to Mississippi as an example of welfare done right. Apparently, the state at some point got fed up with paying for welfare checks, and just gave people cars and a house to stay in as long as they went to college. Eventually, many, if not most of the people on the program got off welfare. Government can be efficient if it's run correctly. Your notion that government is inherently inefficient is simply due to a lack of optimisim and probably overall disdain for the federal government.

again, wrong. the problem with high taxes is it dampens economies and takes money out of peoples pockets.

There is a point were taxes can become too heavy, but there's also a point where taxes can become too low.
___________________

MrSnuggles

what you mean to say is that libs want to use OTHER PEOPLES MONEY to help the poor. not their own, hard earned money. thats for themselves and ONLY themselves.

Huh? What? Liberals don't pay taxes? Damn, what the hell is up with the deductions off my pay cheque?
___________________
"I have captured the enemy for meat testing! Praise me! PRAISE ME!!!" -GIR
Wi-Fi ID: 1627 8934 4983 8539

Caster13

Huh? What? Liberals don't pay taxes? Damn, what the hell is up with the deductions off my pay cheque?

I think he's saying that Liberals are communists which is a little inaccurate.
___________________
Xbox LIVE gamertagPSN id: DrSquigglyPants

Advance

I don't think people donate to charity to receive those benefits, but clearly people continue to donate to charity and volunteer their time because it makes them feel good.

I don't see the point in calling that selfish other than, as I said, to wallow in one's own self-pity. "It's okay that I don't donate to charity because they're all selfish pricks, so it's not like they're better than me or anything." Except that kind of thinking is much more self-serving... and that person's not even donating anything to charity.

Selfishness on an existential level and selfishness on a practical level are two entirely different things. Everything we do is selfish at some level. That doesn't make it less praiseworthy or somehow intrinsically bankrupt of any positive morals.

I find $50 on the ground and use it to buy Zelda for myself even though I've got $300 in the bank and no expenses whatsoever. Daisy finds $50 on the ground and donates it to charity even though she's only got $100 in the bank (and needs to pay the bills next month), and she takes pride in it because it makes her feel good about herself. Those are two entirely different planes of selfishness, and the second is in no way deserving of contempt simply because Daisy benefits personally from donating to charity.



No, it's righteousness about being worthless, which is a thousand times more contemptible. Self-righteous religious folks are only misguided. Self-righteous idiots who think recognizing that they're worthless puts them on a higher intellectual plane than others are completely pathetic.

How'd I get brought up into this?


Also donating is good. People should donate when they can. I tithe* my 10% even though 10% of next to nothing isn't worth anything to anyone. It adds up though, so I'm cool with that. So donate. To N-Philes. Because it's mega-expensive to run now that we're so super popular and it would be stupid to have to shut down because we're too big for our britches. So do that.

Also what are britches?






*Despite being a single parent that's a non-practicing Catholic living way below poverty level. It doesn't make you a saint.

Daisy

Also what are britches?

Old timey short-pants. Often called 'smallclothes'. They covered the hips and thighs. Sort of proto-shorts. Basically no one wears that style of garment anymore.
___________________
Xbox LIVE gamertagPSN id: DrSquigglyPants