News:

If you have any trouble logging in, please contact admins via email. tankathaf *at* gmail.com or
recusantathaf *at* gmail.com

Main Menu

Empathetic Civilization

Started by Sophus, December 02, 2010, 12:22:48 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Sophus

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"4. On what does he base his assertion that we only empathize with people we identify with?  In my case the reverse causality is frequent.  First I empathize, then I identify.

Actually, I thought this was the most accurate and overwhelmingly evident thing he said. It's not anything relatively new to psychology and goes back at least to the 50's during the psychoanalyst/philosopher Erich Fromm's concept of man searching for "oneness". We search for belonging and something to identify with or relate to because humans are constantly trying to define themselves (Fromm concluded often through their possessions). Fromm's metaphor was that we draw "circles of love" and those outside of the circle could end up being perceived as nothing but a potential threat to all that's within it (also why he concluded love wasn't really love if the circle wasn't all encompassing). Love, I realize, is different from empathy, but it would necessarily include empathy. From an evolutionary perspective, it makes sense that we would need to find a strong loyalty to a particular group and help keep them safe from others.

I think I understand what you're referring to, however. A person is more likely to empathize more with a group if they visually see the pain being inflicted on them. Not always though, obviously, as some beliefs are strong enough to keep a person from ever viewing certain people as people.

Quote3. On what does he base his assertion that medieval brains were wired differently than ours today? All those old brains are gone. They decomposed. We can't investigate them. Is he extrapolating from skull shape or size, perhaps? He doesn't say.

Good catch. I wondered about that too but had forgotten about it since it was so brief. There's a chance the artist portrayed that concept in an entirely different way the speaker intended.

Quote2. On what does he base his assertion that our brains aren't wired for aggression? Being wired for empathy doesn't preclude being wired for aggression also.

Yes, he could have worded that better. But I think the point was that we primarily search for a sense of unity and identity first, ergo empathy, and that aggression can be the response wherever empathy lacks. Seeing aggression as a result of closed off empathy makes sense when you think about wars between nations or tribes. Your empathy is loyal to your fellow "true Americans" and all that threatens it should be attacked. This sort of mentality also tends to lead toward not really caring if what you're attacking is a legitimate threat. We become hypersensitive to "outsiders", maybe even almost paranoid (ahem - McCarthyism), under nationalism.

It's the same sort of mentality makes otherwise normal functioning people with families and dear friends capable of condoning the murder of gays or terrorist attacks because their religious doctrine tells them it's only attacking those who their God sees as evil-doers. Yet within their religious community their is essentially no lack of empathy problem. And that's all a man really needs to feel connected in some way to the world.

Quote1. On what does he base his assertion that empathy is tied to our awareness of inevitable death? I certainly don't find myself thinking about death when I find myself empathizing.

If anything it would be subconscious, or why our brains are wired the way they are. Not that we're always thinking about death when empathizing. I'm not even entirely sure to what he is referring to. I was hoping someone here would know.

I am very interested in learning more about the science behind all this though. I wonder how much Sam Harris' new book on morality relates to this since its premise is that science can gauge human suffering.
‎"Christian doesn't necessarily just mean good. It just means better." - John Oliver

Inevitable Droid

Quote from: "Sophus"Fromm's metaphor was that we draw "circles of love" and those outside of the circle could end up being perceived as nothing but a potential threat to all that's within it (also why he concluded love wasn't really love if the circle wasn't all encompassing).

Take out the bit about love and I agree with the rest, as it accurately describes xenophobia.  It also helps points us at one of the (at least) four possible reasons person X may fail to empathize:

1. X may not have achieved the capacity to do so.
2. X may never have experienced what the observed creature is experiencing.
3. X may be so emotionally opposed to the observed creature that the resulting aggression short-circuits empathy.
4. X may be so sexually attracted to the observed creature that the resulting lust short-circuits empathy.

The third point is what I get from what you say above if I delete the bit about love, which unfortunately I have to delete because that word has lost all capacity to clearly denote, at least for me.  Interestingly, the third and fourth points, taken together, imply something important, namely, that a completely detached observer is more likely to experience empathy than one who is already being triggered in some way by the creature being observed.  More on the detached observer concept further down.

QuoteLove, I realize, is different from empathy, but it would necessarily include empathy.

Depends on what we mean by love, and I never consider that to be known unless the person using the word defines it.

QuoteFrom an evolutionary perspective, it makes sense that we would need to find a strong loyalty to a particular group and help keep them safe from others.

Certainly plausible as a proto-hypothesis.  For it to be honed into a hypothesis, a method of falsification would need to be suggested.

QuoteI think I understand what you're referring to, however. A person is more likely to empathize more with a group if they visually see the pain being inflicted on them. Not always though, obviously, as some beliefs are strong enough to keep a person from ever viewing certain people as people.

Apparently the monkey empathized with the researcher who walked into the lab and ate the nut.  Do we retain, for the monkey, this notion that X only empathizes with Y if X perceives Y as being a member of X's group?  I think it's enough to say that the monkey (1) had the capacity for empathy; (2) had experienced the eating of nuts; and (3) wasn't being triggered by the researcher in some other overwhleming way, albeit after empathizing there might have been some triggering in the form of resentment, which is actually the most interesting concept I got from the clip.  Empathy by itself won't necessarily result in the kinds of behaviors this clip was trying to promote.  Empathy toward a positive experience might result in vicarious gladness, but might also result in envy.  Empathy toward a negative experience might result in vicarious distress, but might also result in sadistic pleasure.

Quote
Quote3. On what does he base his assertion that medieval brains were wired differently than ours today? All those old brains are gone. They decomposed. We can't investigate them. Is he extrapolating from skull shape or size, perhaps? He doesn't say.

Good catch. I wondered about that too but had forgotten about it since it was so brief. There's a chance the artist portrayed that concept in an entirely different way than the speaker intended.

Presumably there was an opportunity for comparing notes and editing afterward.  Frankly, this wasn't the only part of the clip that gave me twinges around the failure to distinguish between brain structure as causal and cultural imprinting as causal.  This was merely the best example.  Unfortunately video clips aren't conducive to searches the way written articles are, so finding other examples would be labor-intensive.
 
QuoteBut I think the point was that we primarily search for a sense of unity and identity first, ergo empathy, and that aggression can be the response wherever empathy lacks.

I agree that aggression can short-circuit empathy and xenophobia can prompt aggression.  But the clip was making the point that our brains are wired preferentially for empathy.  That's what I question.  Our brains are clearly wired for empathy, and also aggression, and also xenophobia, and also tribal loyalty.  The last three work together quite often.  The wiring for them seems pretty preferential, judging by human behavior.

His main philosophical point was this: If we can get humans to identify tribally with all living creatures, xenophobia will be rendered highly unlikely, and thus one source of aggression will be mitigated.  Certainly plausible.  He would have had more of a philosophical point if he would also have claimed that empathy helps trigger tribal identification, but unfortunately he claimed the exact opposite, and ironically so, given his later discussion surrounding technology's ability to bring people on the other side of the planet right in front of our eyes.  Had he claimed the causal link that I'm suggesting, rather than the reverse, he could have coherently presented how the triggering and short-circuiting might actually flow: direct visual experience triggers empathy triggers tribal identification short-circuits xenophobia short-circuits aggression.
 
QuoteIt's the same sort of mentality makes otherwise normal functioning people with families and dear friends capable of condoning the murder of gays or terrorist attacks because their religious doctrine tells them it's only attacking those who their God sees as evil-doers. Yet within their religious community there is essentially no lack of empathy problem. And that's all a man really needs to feel connected in some way to the world.

Ah.  So let's append some more links to the back end of the flow I suggested above: direct visual experience triggers empathy triggers tribal identification short-circuits xenophobia short-circuits aggression enables detached observation enables empathy.  Now we're getting somewhere.  There's a strong possibility of setting up an infinite loop and a beneficial one, since our main mode of detached observation is direct visual experience.
 
Quote
Quote1. On what does he base his assertion that empathy is tied to our awareness of inevitable death? I certainly don't find myself thinking about death when I find myself empathizing.

If anything it would be subconscious, or why our brains are wired the way they are. Not that we're always thinking about death when empathizing. I'm not even entirely sure to what he is referring to. I was hoping someone here would know.

I don't get the impression anyone does.  I sure don't.
 
QuoteI am very interested in learning more about the science behind all this though. I wonder how much Sam Harris' new book on morality relates to this since its premise is that science can gauge human suffering.

The only hard science I detected in the clip had to do with mirroring, which explains how empathy happens neurologically, but tells us nothing else, certainly nothing about how to trigger the event, or how to use it to our advantage, or the pros and cons of attempting to do so.
Oppose Abraham.

[Missing image]

In the face of mystery, do science, not theology.

Wilson

When it comes to understanding how certain personality and emotional traits evolved in us, scientific research can take us only so far.  We have to use logic more than experimentation.  That's why the mirror neuron finding was so cool - an actual insight into how the brain works.  Now the original finding - that the same neuron was activated whether it was the test subject doing an action or someone observed by the test subject - was not exactly the same as what we think of as empathy.  That finding was interpreted more as being a mechanism for learning how to do something by watching another doing it.  Empathy we think of as emotion, not mechanical actions.  Empathy may be experienced through a similar mechanism, but not at a single neuron level, maybe involving large numbers of neurons.  But it seems logical that if the same area of the brain is activated when we experience pain or when we observe someone in pain, this could be the general explanation of how empathy works.

We have to use logic rather than scientific research to figure out why we evolved the capacity for love and hate and good and evil.  Think about those little groups of hunter-gatherers.  Dangerous lives, sometimes not enough food, predators, other groups or tribes wanting to take your food and women.  Not all those groups are going to survive.  Which ones will?  In other words, which ones will have their genes go forward?  The ones that survive will be the best at cooperating with each other to get food, provide everybody with good shelter, and fight off predators and other tribes.  Those groups with a higher percentage of members with empathy, sympathy, community identification, and altruism will cooperate better and survive better.  But the empathy, sympathy, community identification, and altruism should not extend outside their group, if they want to survive.  Share your food with another tribe, and you won't have enough.  It was beneficial to have the qualities of aggression, hatred, and fear of everybody not in our tribe.  So those groups with the best chances of surviving must have been those who not only had cooperation within their group, but also drew a firm dividing line between their group and others.  Since those were the genes that made it through to us, we also have the same capacity for dividing the world into "us" and "them".  So as far as I'm concerned, our capacity for aggression and hatred is just as basic as our capacity for love, altruism, and cooperation.  As we've become more civilized, we've expanded our "circle of love" - moved that dividing line between us and them to include more - but if somebody is threatening our families, he is still on the other side of that dividing line, and we'll hurt him if we can.