would you give it all up to be super rich ??

Discussion in 'Psychology' started by marketsurfer, Jan 22, 2004.

  1. I am not trying to prove anything or convince anybody about some kind of a belief system. Everybody has his own understanding and experiences.
    It's just that word 'metaphysical' implies a belief system of afterlife...
    And it doesn't matter what do you believe or do I believe.
    I respect and accept both.

    p.s. Rule number one: You don't talk about Fight Club...

    :D :D :D

    p.p.s. no offence intended, brother...
    #41     Jan 22, 2004
  2. stocon


    :D :D :D
    #42     Jan 22, 2004
  3. rgelite


    None taken, bro. :)

    And I see where the minor disconnect occurred. By metaphysics, I was merely referring to what we study as real, i.e. existing apart from human creation.

    Mysticism, and the various belief systems that project from its definitions of reality, are a subset of the study of metaphysics, as are the strict reality-based philosophies.

    This dovetails nicely with the premise within the original question because one's beliefs (including philosophical of which religion, again, is a subset) AND life experiences (as many posters have pointed out the importance of context) will shape the decision to take the money or not. And, as you correctly pointed out, those decisions are personal.

    I've found this to be an enjoyable and wholly unexpected thread in a trading site, though appropriate I think in a Psychology area.

    (Thank you again, surfer.)
    #43     Jan 22, 2004
  4. No one has mentioned this yet because I think people naturally think about their own self interest first and foremost.

    However, consider the people that you leave behind. No doubt that your life in your current situation has made an impact on the lives of the ones that LOVE YOU.

    So the tough thing is knowing that you are leaving them for good. And it's even tougher for them to know that you are leaving them for money. It's like betrayal.

    Think about how you would feel if someone that you love, (wife, g/f, brother, sister, mother, father) said to you tomorrow, "Good-bye son, I'll never see you ever again. Have a good marriage and good life and take care of your sister. I'm going away because I now have the money to live how I always wanted to live..."

    #44     Jan 23, 2004


    Wealth with liquidity is great, but over rated. Under that trade, not in a million years or for $100MM, $80 Billion.....hmm? I'll wait for that thread. Cool question Surf.
    #45     Jan 23, 2004
  6. cdbern


    Anyone who would walk away from their family and friends for any amount.......... well THEY are better off without you.
    #46     Jan 23, 2004
  7. Marky33


    I did it. Not for money, but to give life to my dreams. Lots of people do it everyday.
    #47     Jan 23, 2004
  8. Exactly!

    I'm a far cry from being wealthy - yet I'm pretty dog gone rich.

    I don't have a lot of money = (wealthy)
    But, I don't need a lot of money = (rich) :my view of it anyway, maybe not websters dictionary.

    Don't get me wrong - I wouldn't mind having a lot of money :) then I could be rich and wealthy but, I wouldn't want to be wealthy and not be rich.

    So, no amount of cash could get me to even consider leaving my family and friends forever. Well, maybe some of my friends....:D....but not my dogs.
    #48     Jan 23, 2004
  9. No without hesitation but I suppose it depends on the family and friends you have. And it's not only a question of family or friends it's also a question of staying yourself. I have refused in the past some affairs or connections which would give me access to great opportunities in business but these people suck and I don't want to commit with them. Also I don't see why you can't reach 50-100 millions without sacrifying your family - as for "friends" I am reserving the term as I choose them very carefully: I don't label somebody as friend easily only after at least 10 years of moral commitment.

    #49     Jan 23, 2004
  10. we can look at this from another evolutionary psychology perpecstive. this is probably one fo those mathematical problems about maximizing the replication of your genes.

    there is two purpose of life, gene survival/self perservation and gene replication. With the first, the second cannot occur. so in essence, money comes first..but there is a steep diminshing return on the utility of money...

    money represent the means to self perservation and family represents the replication of your genes.

    I think there are two scenerios:

    1) you don't have a family(no children, few close relative) and surviving on bare subsistence,then of course, the answer is yes, because the money increase your chances of mating and the survival of your future offsping..

    2) If you have a family and kids are young, unlikely to start a new family in the near future, then you have vested interest in your family .The answer is no, you are unlikely to give up your family for money.

    this is of course a simplistic analysis, the real world is much more complicated, but I think everyone falls in between these two more extreme scenerios. generally, in this wealthy time, it doesn't make sense to trade money for family because you are not in self-preservation mode..

    but it's noted that during famine in ancient china, families have exchange their own childern as food(barter as oppose to money)to cannbalise. which I guess makes sense from this perspective, if the family is not going to survive anyway, it's better to trade them for "money".

    friends is a special case, they are form of "money", human capital, because they come into help when you are in trouble, but they don't share your genes and if you have real money, their value diminish in anyway. it's seldom that people give up their money for friends, and I have never seen people give up their family for friends.

    given some assumptions and numbers, we might be even calculate precisely how much money would you be willing to give up ONE family member or one friend.. ^^
    #50     Jan 23, 2004