Here is that matrix from "A Framework for Understanding Poverty" mentioned earlier.
Some pretty gross generalizations there, though they're probably true as generalizations. The description of the wealthy is straight out of _Theory of the Leisure Class_... which is still largely correct, but the obsession of the wealthy with the past has actually declined, practically disappeared, and been replaced with an obsession with the perceived future.
The thing is, socially, there are far more than three classes. (The old phrase was "the middle classes", plural, because academics, bureaucrats/middle managers, professionals from each of the professions, shopkeepers, and entrepeneurs are wildly different from one another socially. Most of today's middle class are bureaucrats or professionals.)
The academic class -- from which I come -- really behaves like none of the classes in this chart.
The academic class does not view education in ANY of these three ways, which is why the academic class is always somewhat contemptuous of people who view education in such petty, transactional ways. The academic class views education as inherently valuable in itself, as "self-improvement", as something which makes you better in every way, not merely as a stepping stone to something else. As the path to enlightenment. If this achieves other things along the way, well of course it does, since the enlightened person will be more capable of interacting with the world competently -- but it is not *for* that purpose.
This is why your social status in academic circles is quite independent of your wealth: it is based on your demonstrated willingness and ability to learn, teach, argue, invent, analyze, and generally *understand*.
The primary possession of an academic is knowledge (traditionally in the form of books, but there are plenty of other forms too). Personality is for the acquisition of connections which allow acquiring or dissseminating knowlege and wisdom (learning and teaching). The social emphasis is on, as Intl Professor has mentioned, "surrounding yourself with people smarter than you" (though often people misjudge this and try to be the smartest person in the room). Food is judged like middle class people; clothing like poor people (both as expressions of individual taste)... unless there's an argument to be made that one thing is more *practical* than another, which wins. Decisions are based on consideration of the future, but with priorities (*teaching* people) which might not be understood by non-academics. Destiny is not a matter of doctrine; the relationship of chance vs. cause-and-effect to the world is a problem to be studied scientifically. Language is not about survival, negotiation, or connection: it is about communication. Family structure is dominated by whoever is the smartest or knows the most, or can credibly claim to. Sees the world through a *universal* viewpoint (humans are only a tiny part of a huge universe). Love and acceptance is based on perceived *competence*.
Unsurprisingly, in the academic class, the driving force is the desire to KNOW, with a secondary desire to teach.
The academic class is not well-understood by people in most of the other social classes, which may explain why universities traditionally put up walls to defend themselves.
To swing the topic back around to Tesla, the academic class has of course been aggressively early adopters of electric cars; you'll find huge numbers in any college town. Tesla has basically taken over mindshare of the portion of the rich who are obsessed with the "future". They've made the cars aspirational status symbols for the ladder-climbing bureaucrat or middle manager.
