« IELTS Reading: always review keywords | Main | IELTS Writing Task 2: 'artists' topic »

Tuesday, July 09, 2013

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Dear Simon, here is my answer. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
1. wealth
2. likely/standard
3. in headlines
4. nerve
5. consistent

Thank you.

1. wealth
2. likely - standard
3. main headlines
4. nerve
5. consistent

1.Wealth
2.Likely, Status
3.Made headlines
4.Nerve
5.Consistent

1.wealth
2.likely status
3.made headlines
4.nerve
5.consistent

Wealth
Likely
Expensive
Made headlines
A nerve
Consistent

*Likely, status

1.wealth
2.likely
3.status
made headlines
4.nerve
5.consistent

wealth
likely
status
made headlines
nurve
consistent

Dear All
Ramadhan Kareem(a very happy month of fasting)

to all IELTS test takers.May Allah bless all of us with success.

Hello everyone,
My answer is..

1.Welth
2.likely status
3made headline
4nerve
5consisten

It was interesting content,thanks.

1. wealth
2. likely, standard
3. make headlines
4. nerve
5. consistent

1.Wealth
2.Likely/Status
3.Made headline
4.N.....
5.Consistent

CORRECT ANSWERS FROM SIMON:

1. wealth
2. likely, status
3. made headlines
4. nerve
5. consistent

1. wealth
2. likely /standard
3, made headline/ nerve
4. consistent

1. Wealth.
2. Likely.
3. Status.
4. Main headlines.
5. Nerve
6. Consistent.

My transcript:

Last night the question was: Can more money make you a happier person? Tonight: Does the amount of wealth you have affect the kind of person you are? Use our economic course correspondence Paul Simon is added again part on his on-going reporting of making sense of financial news.

Paul: In California, you are supposed to stop for a pedestrian in a crosswalk. And a recent study says some ninety percent of drivers did, except for those driving luxury cars like this BMW. They were almost likely to run into the intersection as we for a person who crosses the street.

Paul Piff (PP from henceforth): Drivers of those BMW's, those Porsches, those Mercedes were anywhere from three to four times more likely to break the law than drivers of less expensive, low status cars.

Paul: In a country more and more polarised by any quality, U Cal Berkeley's Paul Piff led a series of startling studies showing in a power link between a wealth and well, unseemingly behaviour.

Experimenter: Oh, by the way, there is candy there. It's actually for children for another study. You are welcome to get pieces if you want to.

Paul: That is a script an experimenter recited to every subject, and results?

PP: Wealthier participants took two times as much candy for children as did the poor participants.

Paul: Another experiment tested honesty in reporting dice scores when cash was on the line.

PP: People all the way the top who made 150-200 thousand dollars a year were actually cheating four times as much as someone all the way at the bottom who made under 15 thousand a year just to win credits for a 15 dollar cash price.

Paul: So experiment or evidence that rich people were more likely to break the law while driving, help themselves to candy made for children, cheat in a game of chance, also to lie during the negotiations and endorse unethical behaviours including stealing at work. The academic paper resulted made headlines everywhere. The Wall Street Journal article leading with the question: Ready for the pitchforks?

It is very clear that the study of social class touched a nerve.

Paul: Psychology professor Dacher Keltner is Paul Piff's boss and co-author.

Dacher Keltner (DK from henceforth): We published these studies in relatively scared scientific journals and literally the next day we're getting hundreds of females from around the world and a lot quite hostile.

PP: I've gotten a lot of ... calling me out for "junk science" having a liberal gender.

Paul: Hey, wait. Didn't those who complained have a point? The research was done in a famously, some might say, infamously liberal university. Hey, they are Berkeley. What other results you expect them to get.

PP: I regularly hear that the Berkeley idiot scientist who's finding what they expect them to find. Let me tell you. We did not expect to find this. Our findings apply to both liberals and conservatives. It doesn't who you are. If you are wealthy, you are more likely to show these patterns of results.

Paul: Results consistently crossed 13 studies these run on thousands of people all over the United States. So what is about the wealth? They might make people behave differently.

Paul: What are we doing here?

PP: We're playing a game, a game of monopoly. That is rate.

Paul: This game is typical of another kind of experiment Piff likes to run. Instead of studying actual rich people Piff gets subjects to feel rich in the lab. The designated monopoly money bags start with a few legs up two thousand dollars versus the poor man's one thousand and play pieces the Roles versus an old shoe. The ... two days instead of just one.

Paul: Two. I get sniguy ...

Paul: Meaning I assigned the rich person get an extra turn.

Paul: So I roll it again, because I get ..

PP: Yeah. Because you rolled doubles.

Paul: Six. One-two-three-four-five-six and that's Tennessee avenue and of course I buy that ...

Paul: Poorer Paul Piff.

PP: I only get to roll one die and it says here when I passed a goal I collect the lower salary. I collect one hundred dollars.

Paul: Here's your one die.

PP: Great. Thank you so much! I can't roll doubles and don't get opportunity to move very far along the board.

Paul: Piff has run this experiment with hundreds of people on the Berkeley campus. The rich player are determined randomly by coin toss. The game rakes so they cannot moves. ... Despite their presumably liberal bend going in.

PP: When we asked them afterwards how much you felt like you deserved to win the game. The rich people felt entitled they felt they deserved to win the game and that's a really incredible insight into what mind does to make sense of advantage and disadvantage.

Paul: So even though a subject like myself is just playing acting.

Paul: You consistently find that I begin to attribute success to myself even though it's coin flip that got me on this side of board across that.

PP: You like a real rich person start to attribute success to your own individual skills and talents and you become less tuned to all the other things that can attributed to you being in the position you are in.

Researcher: How's the American agreement achieved?

Paul: Piff's part of the team headed by Dacher Keltner that studies the psychological affects that both absolute and relative poverty of wealth.

Researcher: Can also ask people believing these dreams?

Paul: What they are studying is economic inequality which in our view is probably known is as high as it's been in almost century in this country.

DK: There are new data coming out on a daily basis from top laboratories showing no matter how you look at the facts of inequality of
pernishes upon things like bulling on school playgrounds, the quality of physical health, how you handle disease.

Paul: What's somehow surprising says Keltner is that even the halves suffer.

DK: One of the things wealth money does is comes with a sense of value in a .. if you wanna ... . One of them is generosity is for suffers right and ... is good. But it turns out that there are a lot of new data that show if your generosity is charitable ultralistic, you'll live longer, you feel more fulfill, you feel more expressed of who you are as a person. You probably will feel more control and freedom in your life.

Paul: Of course there are plenty of wild ... generous rich fox. Just look at the growing list of billionaires who pledged to give the bulk of their fortunes to charity.

Paul: And six, I got doubles of them ..

Paul: But statistically speaking there are significant tendency to look out for number one if you are at the top.

Paul: What I get?

PP: You got out of jail for free calls.

Paul: Oh, excellent. That's very nice. Or I can give the fact that rich person get bill out.

Paul: And Piff observed when he ran this experiment for hundreds of dogly, friendly Berkeley types, those of the roll of top dog began to bark like I was.

Paul: So I get two hundred dollars ..

PP: Yeah, you get two hundred bucks.

Paul: Give me one forty because I'm gonna buy Mediterranean.

PP: OK, done. Now listen to the way you just spoke to me as very directive you know almost like a demand. We found consistently with people who were the rich players they started to become in their behaviour as if they were like rich people in real life. They were more likely to eat from a board of bretzel we position stuffed from a side. They ate with their mouth full, so they were a little ruder in their behaviour to the other person.

Paul: While I was thinking god no bretzel was present. Piff continued. Those arbitrarily assigned the role of low dog became nearly men's best friend.

PP: If I take someone who's rich and make them feel psychologically a little less well off they became way more generous, way more charitable, way more like to off help to another person.

Paul: So when people are playing this monopoly game and they are in the poor person role that you are playing, they, if they were rich in real life, became more understanding, more passionate?

PP: Not just in this game of monopoly, but a whole bunch of other experiments that we've run, where we make rich people feel poor or poor people feel rich, you find the same kind of differences.

Paul: Differences that could conceivably help people understand that their subconscious biosis and perhaps even moderate, the costly effects of economic inequality. But until that happens we suggest you look both ways before crossing.

We have more Paul's conversation with psychologist Dacher Keltner about how wealth influences generosity and we are making sense page.


Hi Simon,
Can we find transcript somewhere?

Good work Ferdi.

I'm afraid I don't have time to check everything, but you've certainly put the effort in!

Unfortunately there isn't a transcript for this.

1. wealth
2. likely status
3. made headlines
4. nerve
5. consistent

Hi Simon,

I only can understand 30% of the whole for the first listening.

If I want to completely understand and hear radio program like that, what do I need to do in the future?

Can you give me some sugguestion?

Andrew

1. wealth
2. likely,status
3. made it headlines
4. nerve
5. consistent

1. wealth
2. likely
3. standard
4. made headlines
5. nerve
5. consistant

hi these are my answers please correct them
1.wealth
2.likely, status
3.made,headlines
4.nerve
5.consistant

thank you

wealth, likely ,status main headlines nerve consistence

1. wealth
2. likely sted
3. made headlines
4. nerve
5. consistent

This is my answer.
It would be so kind of you if you can check my answer.
1. wealth
2. likely,standard
3. made headlines
4. nerve
5. consistent
Thank you

Corrected transcript:

cted transcript:

Transcript:
Last night the question was: Can more money make you a happier person? Tonight: Does the amount of wealth you have affect the kind of person you are? This hour our economic correspondent Paul Simon is at it again – part of his on-going reporting on making sense of financial news.
Paul Simon (Paul): In California, you are supposed to stop for a pedestrian at a crosswalk. And in a recent study, some ninety percent of drivers did, except for those driving luxury cars like this BMW. They were almost as likely to the intersection as wait for a person who crosses the street.
Paul Piff (PP): Drivers of those BMW's, those Porsches, those Mercedes were anywhere from three to four times more likely to break the law than drivers of less expensive, low status cars.
Paul: In a country more and more polarised by inequality, U Cal Berkeley's Paul Piff led a series of startling studies showing an apparent link between wealth and well, unseemly behaviour.
Experimenter: Oh, by the way, there is candy there. It's actually for children for another study. You are welcome to get pieces if you want to.
Paul: That is a script an experimenter recited to every subject, and results?
PP: Wealthier participants took two times as much candy from children as did the poor participants.
Paul: Another experiment tested honesty in reporting dice scores when cash was on the line.
PP: People all the way the top who made 150-200 thousand dollars a year were actually cheating four times as much as someone all the way at the bottom who made under 150 thousand a year just to win credits for a 50 dollar cash prize.
Paul: So experimental evidence that rich people are more likely to break the law while driving, help themselves to candy made for children, cheat in a game of chance, also to lie during the negotiations and endorse unethical behaviours including stealing at work. The academic paper that resulted made headlines everywhere. The Wall Street Journal article lead-in with the question: Ready for the pitchforks?
Dacher Keltner (DK): It is very clear that the study of social class touched a nerve.
Paul: Psychology Professor Dacher Keltner is Paul Piff's boss and co-author.
DK: We published these studies in relatively obscure scientific journals and literally the next day we're getting hundreds of emails from around the world and a lot quite hostile.
PP: I've gotten a lot of vitriol and hate male from a lot of people calling me out for "junk science" having a liberal gender.
Paul: Hey, wait. Didn't those who complained have a point? The research was done in a famously, some might say infamously, liberal university. Hey, they are Berkeley. What other results you expect them to get?
PP: I regularly hear that the Berkeley idiot scientist who's finding what they expect them to find. Let me tell you. We did not expect to find this. Our findings apply to both liberals and conservatives. It doesn't who you are. If you are wealthy, you are more likely to show these patterns of results.
Paul: Results consistent across 30 studies he’s run on thousands of people all over the United States. So what is it about wealth that might make people behave differently?
Paul: What are we doing here?
PP: We're playing a game, a game of monopoly that’s rigged.
Paul: This game is typical of another kind of experiment Piff likes to run. Instead of studying actual rich people Piff gets subjects to feel rich in the lab. The designated monopoly money bags starts with a few legs up, two thousand dollars, versus the poor man's one thousand, an upscale playing piece the Rolls versus an old shoe, and the right to toss two dice instead of just one.
Paul: Two. I’ve got snake eyes.
Paul: Meaning I, assigned the role of rich person, get an extra turn.
Paul: So I roll it again, because I get ..
PP: Yeah. Because you rolled doubles.
Paul: Six. One-two-three-four-five-six and that's Tennessee avenue and of course I buy that ...
Paul: Meanwhile, poor Paul Piff.
PP: I only get to roll one die and it says here when I passed a goal I collect the lower salary. I collect one hundred dollars.
Paul: Here's your one die.
PP: Great. Thank you so much! I can't roll doubles and don't get opportunity to move very far along the board.
Paul: Piff has run this experiment with hundreds of people on the Berkeley campus. The rich players are determined randomly by coin toss. The game is rigged so they cannot lose. And yet despite their presumably liberal bent going in…
PP: When we asked them afterwards how much you felt like you deserved to win the game. The rich people felt entitled, they felt they deserved to win the game and that's a really incredible insight into what the mind does to make sense of advantage and disadvantage.
Paul: So even though a subject like myself is just playing acting,
Paul: You consistently find that I begin to attribute success to myself even though it's a coin flip that got me on this side of board as opposed to that side.
PP: You, like a real rich person, start to attribute success to your own individual skills and talents and you become less attuned to all the other things that can attributed to you being in the position you are in.
Researcher: How’s the American Dream achieved?
Paul: Piff' is part of the team headed by Dacher Keltner that studies the psychological affects that both absolute and relative poverty and wealth.
Researcher: We can also ask do people believe in this dream?
Paul: What they are studying is economic inequality which our viewers probably know is as high as it's been in almost a century in this country.
DK: There are new data coming out on a daily basis from top laboratories showing no matter how you look at the facts of inequality are pernicious, upon things like bullying on school playgrounds, the quality of physical health, how you handle disease.
Paul: What's somehow surprising says Keltner is that even the “halves” suffer.
DK: One of the things wealth and money does is it comes with a sense of values .. if you want, a deeper ideology, one of them is generosity is for suckers and greed is good. But it turns out that there are a lot of new data that show if you’re generous, charitable and altruistic, you'll live longer, you feel more fulfilled, you’ll feel more expressive of who you are as a person. You probably will feel more control and freedom in your life.
Paul: Of course there are plenty of wildly generous rich folks. Just look at the growing list of billionaires who pledged to give the bulk of their fortunes to charity.
Paul: And six, I got doubles again..
Paul: But statistically speaking there’s a significant tendency to look out for number one if you are at the top.
Paul: What did I get?
PP: You got a “Get out of jail for free” card.
Paul: Oh, excellent. That's very nice. Or I can, given the fact that I am the rich person, get bailed out.
Paul: And, as Piff observed when he ran this experiment for hundreds of doggedly, friendly Berkeley types, those in the role of top dog began to bark like it.
Paul: So I get two hundred dollars ..
PP: Yeah, you get two hundred bucks.
Paul: Give me one forty because I'm gonna buy Mediterranean.
PP: OK, done. Now listen to the way you just spoke to me as very directive you know almost like a demand. We found consistently with people who were the rich players they started to become in their behaviour as if they were like rich people in real life. They were more likely to eat from a bowl of pretzels we positioned off to the side. They ate with their mouth full, so they were a little ruder in their behaviour to the other person.
Paul: While I was thinking thank god no pretzels were present, Piff continued. Those arbitrarily assigned the role of low dog became more nearly man's best friend.
PP: If I take someone who's rich and make them feel psychologically a little less well-off, they became way more generous, way more charitable, way more likely to offer help to another person.
Paul: So when people are playing this monopoly game and they are in the poor person’s role that you are playing, they, if they were rich in real life, become more understanding, more passionate?
PP: Not just in this game of Monopoly, but in a whole bunch of other experiments that we've run, where we make rich people feel poor or poor people feel rich, you find the same kinds of differences.
Paul: Differences that could conceivably help people understand that their subconscious biases, and perhaps even moderate, the costly effects of economic inequality. But until that happens we suggest you look both ways before crossing.
We have more Paul's conversation with psychologist Dacher Keltner about how wealth influences generosity on our Making Sense page.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment