Students Show a Dramatic Drop In Empathy 659
MotorMachineMercenar writes "Several news sources report that today's college students show a precipitous drop in empathy (here's MSNBC's take). The study of 14,000 students shows that students since the year 2000 had 40% less empathy than those 20 and 30 years before them. The article lays out a laundry list of culprits, from child-rearing practices and the self-help movement, to video games and social media, to a free-market economy and income inequality. There's also a link so you can test your very own level of narcissism. Let's hope the Slashdot crowd doesn't break the empathy counter on the downside."
Feel empathy for the students and their debt (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Oh god.. (Score:4, Interesting)
But - humans, like everything else that walks or swims or flagellates in nature, are just animals. The primitive, tribalist pack mentality is seen at all levels of human interaction, from sports teams to H.O.A.'s to the ethnocentricism of entire corporations, countries, and races. Modern technology enables the development and prosperity of more and more lone wolves. People are becoming greedier and greedier with unprecedented thirst for power and control. Think about the countless empires of the past, and recently Nazi Germany and now the United States. Only the naive believe that their bleeding-heart protests and righteous indignation will force the arm of nature itself. We are wicked creatures. The meek will not inherit the Earth.
Why do we find pleasure in others' pain? Why do we laugh when Wile. E. Coyote has an anvil dropped on his head or when Dick Van Dyke trips over the ottoman? Simple: more resources are available to us when others are taken outta the game.
We. Are. Fucked. The best thing you can do is just get yours -- live your life under the radar, grab a bag of popcorn, and chuckle bitterly at the evening news.
Not true (Score:2, Interesting)
People were self-centered before, and is self-centered now. The fortunate few who work with spiritual / humanistic matters, are the lucky few to reap most benefits off empathy, helping their fellow neighbours in the process as well as uplifting their own spirit.
However, the environment is much different now. Many people are today free to chose whatever they want. The resources and assistance is available everywhere.
When life is HARD, you will see a big rise in empathy..
This will never be modded up though, due to the retarded system that hides posts. So most people will never actually get this in this lifetime..
Ah Yes Evil Capitalism (Score:3, Interesting)
So am I the only one noticing the growing trend to vilify capitalism and individualism in this country? Last I checked self-determination and free market capitalism were some of the founding principles of this country, yet I'm increasingly seeing these traits being blamed for all of society's problems. I find this highly disturbing, along with the disappearance of a major political party interested in smaller, less pervasive government.
Highly subjective test is highly subjective! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Broken test (Score:2, Interesting)
Rather a Poor Metric (Score:5, Interesting)
OK, while I can imagine a lot of reasons why the current generation of college kids might be less empathetic than 20 years ago*, this is not a good way to measure that. For all the researchers know, students are just more self-aware and self-critical today than they were 20 years ago. In some ways, getting a high score might be more likely to say that you're less empathetic and just oblivious to your callousness.
* This isn't my experience, though. I feel, as a college professor, like my students behave just as empathetically towards each other as we did 15 years ago.
Terrible test (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Feel empathy for the students and their debt (Score:5, Interesting)
I found a decent summary article at http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-10-23-gen-next-cover_x.htm [usatoday.com] which had some intersting counter points
Maybe I'm overstating the point but I just don't see how volunteering as a local fireman whilst studying Physics, or working with disabled kids whilst studying History, or spending hours in retirement communities while trying to do something fancy with election data from the last 20 years, can be defined as anything but empathetic. That's the kind of thing my peers were fulling their time with.
Finally, regarding the debt question - in my experience I've found that those with the biggest debts are the ones with most empathy. Those with debts of over 200k are damn near living saints. Same goes for those on financial aid really. It's a damn small sample I know but it sure as hell felt like the ones doing the most good on my campus were also the ones recieving the most aid. There's always space for a cynical interpretation but it's of unknown value in this situation.
Re:Ah Yes Evil Capitalism (Score:2, Interesting)
WTF are you talking about?
Eating McDonald's Happy Meals and Spaghetti-O's were a couple of my founding principles--I used to eat that shit all the time when I was five years old. Nowadays, it has no place in my life.
Just... maybe... just... maybe... we're... outgrowing... capitalism...?
And what major political party is disappearing, again?
Re:Oh god.. (Score:3, Interesting)
In fact, this test is worse than that: it asks for your ethnic background. Basically, it assumes that you feel that you are more connected to a group of human based on essentially the colour of your skin.
And then the bastards claim that "young people these day have no empathy".
Also this test does not measure actual empathy (as in, what you do for your neighbour -- where current generations are in fact better than their elders) But essentially how good you are at emoting over things.
Claiming you care emotionally about the fate of uncounted souls less fortunate than you are is a lie. You are human, you can only feel about people you can see/know. But you can intellectually wish for a better world and work actively towards realising it.
That may not mean you will score high on this test, but that the world is in fact becoming a better place.
Re:Oh god.. (Score:5, Interesting)
That pretty much describes the entire process.
Don't spend time helping those on objects that are out of your scope. Actively dissuade others from wasting your time regardless of the benefits you can bring to their team. Assisting teammates and other competitive entities will reduce your overall time spent on your projects.
When possible, shout as loudly as you can regarding the faults of those who are in direct competition or could at least could be blamed for your problems. In the game who shouts the loudest it is he with the deepest lungs who wins!
While I recognize all of these things are true I did not practice them. I likely could have been promoted faster had I not taken a more altruistic tact with regards to those around me. However, I felt it made my life and others around me a bit better if I focused on things other then completing my major projects and career growth.
However, life would probably have been a good deal easier if I was a complete bastard. Possibly, it could have resulted in even further monetary gain. The mistakes of youth!
I am mostly out of the rat race now and I actually make a good deal more. I suspect hell is much like corporate america, but with better benefits and more free time.
Re:Oh god.. (Score:4, Interesting)
The corporate culture, such as it is, is that of a sociopath against a sociopath. Such behavior is expected, promoted and nurtured.
I would not like living in it one little bit. I do not want the stress of fending off those who are out to get me nor the effort of setting them up for failure. It seems like too large a waste of effort. And while I am and can be a complete and utter bastard, I like myself much more when I’m not being one.
I am well aware that in certain ways I will never be considered successful by the majority. I am fine with that.
After all, what I think of the majority isn’t something to be talked about during dinner.
Empathy burnout (Score:3, Interesting)
I blame Sally Struthers. You deluge people for years and years and years with the plight of others and demand they feel bad about it (usually in a cynical attempt to obtain donations), and people grow themselves a nice hard shell.
Re:If true, is this a good or a bad thing? (Score:5, Interesting)
Well I can actually see that sort of thing as causing a lack of real empathy. You get fed up with people being coddled, and when someone finally feels the consequences for their actions, there's a part of you that thinks, "it's about damn time!"
On the other side there's the Ayn Rand neocon capitalism-as-morality stuff which is opposed to that sort of coddling and believes that people always get what they deserve. This doesn't encourage empathy either, because those people are prone to assume that people who suffer have brought it on themselves.
Plus a lot of younger people have been raised to think that you can't help people, they can only help themselves. You can't make someone happy, only they can make themselves happy. Part of that whole new age pop psychology is that it implies that sadness is a sign of perrsonal weakness, and that "good people" can just make themselves happy all the time.
Re:what did you expect (Score:3, Interesting)
you (the west) hold up crack dealers and gangsters as heroes (50cent et al), corporate psychopaths are held up as examples of "successful business leaders" and have TV shows (the apprentice) where people are expected to emulate these leaders in "ruthless business decisions", where kids see a class of people rip off their savings and retirements (bankers) and have 0 consequences, where a celebrity class are held up as models of behaviour where you dont work but shop on your working husbands/wifes credit cards or your rich dads inheritance
and you are surprised there is less empathy ?
i'm surprised there are no fucking lynch mobs
I don't disagree with you that we have poor role models, and it's not a counter-argument, but implicit in your post appears to be the suggestion that other parts of the world have better role models.
So, who shall we emulate?
Africa: corrupt, murderous tyrants widely revered as great leaders because at least they're not white colonialists; ancient tribal divisions regarded as more important than justice or democracy; women and minorities openly oppressed in many places
Asia: systematic corruption considered normal; democracy widely looked down upon as dangerous because it provides "too much freedom"; women and minorities openly oppressed in many places; many nations have dynastic style leadership systems where control passes from one anointed leader to the next. "Heroes" typically either appointed by governments or else sporting/pop idols.
India: systematic class/race based oppression built into the fabric of the culture; widespread religious violence. Many people idolise sports or pop stars.
Middle East: do I really need to go into it? Racist, religiously bigoted nutcases rule. Women and minorities in any given country systematically oppressed. "Heroes" tend to be individuals who have murdered others in furtherance of religious or political causes.
Russia: one man allowed to run former great nation as his own cult of personality; anyone who attempts to stand up to government ends up dead or in jail; most of the populace appears to be either happy with this arrangement or would prefer a return to the savage totalitarian government of the previous century. Heroes: V. Putin, Puppetmaster for Life.
South America: numerous examples of far right military dictatorships murdering innocent people. Many citizens maintain view to this day that past acts are acceptable. Slavish devotion to a major religion based in central Italy which is known to have systematically covered up the rape of children by its agents. Soccer players typically revered as heroes.
Also, despite what you suggest, if you look at a longer timeline than just a few years, I think you will realise that "the west" actually holds up some interesting people are heroes. Say, for example:
1. Rosa Parks
2. Guy Fawkes
3. George Washington
4. Jean Moulin
5. Martin Luther
6. Numerous non-westerners who champion freedom, democracy and human rights (Mandela, Dalai Lama, Aung San Suu Kyi, Ghandi)
Would these people (or their equivalents) be regarded as heroes outside "the west"?
Re:Oh god.. (Score:3, Interesting)
A surprisingly large portion of the movie audienced laughed when Heath Ledger's Joker performed his "disappearing pencil trick."
But the relevant question is whether audiences in the 40s and 50s would have laughed also. One hears stories of people running from the cinema crying and even vomiting upon seeing footage of the Hindenburg disaster screened. Perhaps Wile. E. Coyote (but more likely the nightly news) is just a stepping stone on the way to the loss of empathy?
Dark animal urges dwell in all of us, even if we never act on them.
And compassion, or failing that a deeply ingrained cultural belief in the unacceptability of certain behaviours keeps us from them. Anyone who can entertain the cold calculus of "one less person to compete for resources" (which, as a young man, was my attitudes towards gays :) ), without simultaneously experiencing the compassion of "there but for the grace of God ...," is symptomatic of a civilisation which is losing it's empathy. While that calculus may be valid of any individual, it does ensure the well being of the tribe. And remember the human is a pack animal. This is why that attitude is pathological.
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Ah Yes Evil Capitalism (Score:3, Interesting)
I notice this too, and when I saw this on reddit before it got on slashdot I noticed how "individualism" is lumped in with all sorts or negative personality traits--there's nothing wrong with individualism, and nothing wrong with helping other people out, the two are not mutually exclusive even though many view "collectivism" to be more caring, etc, and it is often treated that way in the very confused (IMO; on this topic..) social science literature, and it should be noted that more individualistic countries, these so-called selfish, me-generation uncaring individualistic countries, are typically much less authoritarian and much more permissive...
It's telling how they don't try to connect this rampant lack of empathy (in college students, the test groups) to the notorious liberal-leaning political culture (as a college student myself, Republicans are often few and far between; I am not one, either...) but they are more than willing to connect it to capitalism and individualism so on and so forth.
Re:Oh god.. (Score:3, Interesting)
>And all the questions are the same.. they could have essentially made the whole thing two questions: 1) are you empathetic 2) are you _NOT_ empathetic
It's very typical Sociology 101 assignment. If you click through to the results, all they did was add up the questions and then compare you to the average. Umm...
This would fail Sociology 101. First of all, the questions are supposed to be cross-referenced to the population groups (age, gender, and ethnicity). You might as well not answer those first three because they didn't use them.
Second, the questions have no absolute value and are certainly not equal in weight. What you're supposed to do is regard each question as a raw data pool and look for trends. If the trends are random or statistically boring, then the question is tossed out.
For example, I'm sure there are certain questions where everybody scores 5. "Do you like good things? Y/N." Conclusion, those questions sucked. When you have a good dispersion, you have a good question and that's where you draw results from.
Here's how you do it: "Mia Farrow is pretty 1-5" cross-indexed by age. If everyone scores 1 it means Mia Farrow is ugly. But if the score increases with age, it means Mia Farrow was pretty in her youth.
Re:Oh god.. (Score:3, Interesting)
And all the questions are the same.. they could have essentially made the whole thing two questions:
1) are you empathetic 2) are you _NOT_ empathetic
Exactly. My thought while taking the test was that it's pretty useless, because true narcissists (with the cluster-B personality disorder) often lack the ability for introspection. They'll THINK they're the most caring, kind-hearted person in the world (because let's face it, they're great people, and great people are caring and kind-hearted, so they MUST be). You should really be asking their friends and family members these questions.
Re:Oh god.. (Score:4, Interesting)
Trait group selection has two rules.
From an evolutionary perspective, this translates to a group with 7 altruists and 3 cheaters increasing in size to 10 altruists and 5 cheaters. The portion of altruists in the group decreases, the total number of altruists increases, the large group fragments into smaller groups with varying portions of altruists, and the process is repeated.
Applying that to humans, in a small company altruism ensures the company's growth and everyone's paycheck (theoretically) increases. In a large company there are far too many selfish individuals for an altruist to really get ahead. OTOH, humans are skilled at detecting and excluding selfish individuals, and the selfish individuals are skilled at evading detection. So it's definitely more complicated than simple natural selection, though with reduced interpersonal interaction this confounding effect would be minimized.
Blame Aspartame (Score:3, Interesting)
Okay, wild, but stay with me here. Aspartame is a known [diet-and-e...health.com]
neurotoxin (i.e. mildly toxic to brain tissue) and previous studies
have shown that damage [sfgate.com]
to certain areas of the brain reduces empathy. Personal
experience with two friends who became addicted to diet pop and
suffered significant personality changes including a major loss of
empathy first suggested this. Okay, this is anecdotal
but what's a better theory?
Who is asking for it? (Score:4, Interesting)
At least here in Norway, which I must admit has experienced an extreme rise in wealth over the last decades due to oil, I would say that by far most people trying to appeal to my empathy in daily life don't deserve it. I'm very fond of our many social securities for the disabled, elderly, unemployed, our socialized health care and pay a pretty penny in taxes without grumbling too much - but the flip side of that is that I know that people are also quite well taken care of. What I get in my daily life is usually obnoxious rom (that's gypsies with a PR touch) beggars who are really organized bands placing them out, protecting their territory and faking their desperation. The same bands who are grossly overrepresented in our criminal statistics by the way, supporting them is supporting organized crime.
To continue on that, I have very little empathy with criminals and very much empathy with victims, when we create what is probably the world's most luxurious prison [bitrebels.com] I feel like puking. Not because I'm in favor of stuffing them in a dark hole with a mud floor, but because I want that money put into police protection and getting more criminals off the streets. Quantity, not quality absolutely does matter in this respect. The punishments in this country is an insult to everyone who has been beaten, mugged, raped or murdered. The money spent is an insult to all those elderly who spent their best years rebuilding after WWII and need help on their elder days and instead we spend it on the people bent on tearing society down instead of building it up.
I'm very much in favor of programs that provide opportunity, like for example here in Norway there is a lot of public higher education and a government sponsored grant/loan institution which means that practically everyone that wants to can take an education. I come from a family that would no doubt have sponsored a college education and a college fund, so quite likely I'm losing money by this being a public system. But at the same time I feel very empathic to children that grow up in less fortunate families or perhaps more egoistic families who don't have that backing. I know it's not fully that black and white in the US either, but your background definitely has much more impact there than here.
What I notice is that in the US there's much stronger opposition to any form of government "empathy" so to speak, Obama would be a right-wing extremist in most European coutries. Everybody should fend for themselves, and if they can't they should beg for private charity. My impression is that both for people and corporations it's whatever position is most opportunistic at the moment though. Here on the other hand the government should provide most of the first and second level of Maslow's pyramid, physiological and safety needs. Maybe it's just because we're richer, but I don't think so because I see the difference in our neighboring countries too which aren't that rich - not richer than the US anyway. I'm not sure whether it's because we're more empathic and just accept this as natural, or more collectivist and figure that deciding it by popular vote is justification enough. Either way, it also lowers the need for personal empathy, I don't give two bucks to a beggar because I give that and much more each day through taxes.
The other big difference is in health care, the US seems very happy to meter our medical punishment for bad lifestyle. While we tax the hell out of alcohol, tobacco and all other sorts of unhealthy things here, we don't ever withhold medical help. Despite being very big on individuality and freedom of life, if you want a band aid either from charity or the government then most seem to think your life should be splayed wide open for inspection to determine if you're worthy. Here there's a different interaction between the health system and patient, trust me the doctors will give you straight talk about what you are doing to your body but we won't play t
Re:Oh god.. (Score:3, Interesting)
As an animator and a fan of comedy... You're correct.
We dont laugh at Wile E Coyote because we enjoy his suffering. We laugh at it because we know its not real. I always find it interesting that some people can enjoy racial humor, and not be racist. Its completely possible to separate yourself from reality in humor. Humor is based on truth and exaggeration.
We've all heard a great Christopher Reeve joke in our life time... and we probably laughed. That does not mean that we honestly take pleasure in his suffering. There is more to a joke than meets the eye. Riddles can be fun because they can rhyme. Its the writing technique and style mixed with the content that makes it interesting. In a joke the same can be true. Its often the construct that is funny, and the content is secondary, although extremely important. But the construct is what makes a joke work. Thats why some people cant tell a good joke. They have no timing, or they simply fuck up someone else's great line.
Back to content. Most comedians do not like to hurt the weak. Most comedians know that if there is someone in a wheelchair in the audience, they're probably their to find some happiness in life. It's rare that a comic will just start telling Christoper Reeve jokes or single out the person in a wheel chair to insult them. A comic would generally feel terrible doing that. But on the next night, when theres no wheel chair riding audience members, they'll let the cripple jokes fly!
I dont think people like humor because of some kind of superiority complex. I think it may be part of it, but you forgot the important part, that many people do have hearts... and do not want to insult someone they feel empathy for.
That doesnt mean we cant laugh at offensive material... It just means while we laugh, many of us have a heart that is grounded... and when not enjoying the horribleness of humor... we do care.
Carlin did. Pryor did... and they both told Nigger jokes.... and they both united generations of all kinds of people.
Listen to Bill Hicks...
The best of comics have a bit of soul to them.
Willie E Coyote, we laughed at for sure... but many people identified with his endless attempts at success... and his constant failure. Thats why it was funny. We've all been there... and laughing at ourselves is what humans do best... even if its about the most horrible of subject matters. Its our gift, we can reflect on ourselves.
Sure we often fail to build that "Star Trek Utopia"... but at least deep down we all know whats wrong with the world. So might as well laugh at it
Re:Oh god.. (Score:3, Interesting)
There was an interesting point in the article. They said that test is obviously subjective and easy to game, but they said that very few students bothered to do so. Their conclusion is that students these days don't care about looking empathetic as much as they used to. That seems like a pretty unarguable conclusion.
But the researchers went on to say that this tendency to not care how one appears shows that something is not right. I do not agree with that. Seems fine to me. Students are apparently less willing to lie in general, or less willing to BS, or at least less willing to lie on a survey, and I am okay with that.
Re:Oh god.. (Score:1, Interesting)
In today's society it has become necessary to shut down the part of the mind that handles empathy.
In other societies things were so "totally" different, right :
This is what it lead to yesterday in our own society [wikipedia.org] ... ahem ... enjoying themselves
And let's not forget America's "neutrality" that had oh-so-great results, in that same part of history
Here's another culture that shut down empathy and levied a "child tax" (yes literally) on people it conquered, why not ask a muslim about this once ? [wikipedia.org]
How about the late middle ages ? Where empathy with either pox or plague victims was basically a death sentence (just to introduce one instance in which it wasn't humans that caused the suffering in this list)
And that's just for starters, how about the Mayans who cut out the heart of random slaves, after torturing them for a whole month ?
How about the muslim ("mongol") invasion in India, an incursion lasting nearly 1000 years, with an average of 5-6 genocides per year, for a total death toll of at least several hundred million ? Same goes for other places [firstprinc...ournal.com]
How about the pre-Christian Carthagens who ate their own children in order to ask the Gods for military and/or economic success ?
How about the "hash-hassins" (assasins), a muslim sect that kidnapped young boys, then let them enjoy themselves in a fake "72 virgins" paradise for a few weeks, and then sent them on suicide missions against defenseless civilians (part of the Iraqi resistence against the US did the same, kidnapping children, drugging them, and then sending them on suicide missions) ?
How about the Gaia worshippers who buried innocent young women alive to ensure a good harvest ?
How about the worshippers of Juno, which were women that had themselves fucked by "priests" while a black slave (sometimes dozens) was getting his throat cut, the blood emptied into the bath while they were
How about the muslim black gold trade, that lasted 1000 years and killed at the very least 300 million black "slaves", far, far more than any European or American state ever dreamed of ?
History, I'm afraid, seems to indicate that empathy only does well for very limited portions of history, if at all.
Re:Oh god.. (Score:2, Interesting)
Of course the intention was to laugh at this scene. I laughed too.
Now, when it comes to serious stuff nobody is laughing (mostly).
The most horrific thing I ever saw on screen was not a movie or a game but the central news at 20:00h on Channel I in my country – supposedly the most serious journalism available.
What they showed was part from a video, taken by Chechen rebels and distributed by them. I was playing bridge with my friends and had the volume of the TV to zero, but unfortunately my partner played the contract, so I was watching the screen. They decapitated a captured Russian soldier. With a very big knife. The part of the murder that was shown did not include any gore at all. Yet it was absolutely horrific! You know what made me rush to the bathroom? They laid the soldier down and stepped on his head. Then the executioner drove the knife in his neck, twisted and started cutting towards the Adam apple. At that moment the body of the soldier reacted just like a chicken or a rabbit you decapitate (my grandparents were farmers, I have killed myself animals on the farm). The body started to shake without control, reacting on its own, trying to get away from the imminent death. It drove me nuts! It brought me nightmares!
All people involved in this particular news item were fired in the scandal afterward. But I think every chair warmonger should be shown this video with perhaps sticks preventing the eyes to close, like in Clockwork Orange. If there is a person out there that would laugh at this, they should be killed on the spot without trial. But I think you will find out that almost everyone will puke, rather than laugh. Cause its real.
On a related note – I always liked the Dune books from Herbert, because the battles were mostly hand-to-hand. You are no warrior if you do not kill hand-to-hand. You are a weasel pushing buttons and people die off hundreds of kilometers away. If you have to kill in person, your attitude towards violence and wars in general will change. Granted the few psychopaths do not count, but for most it will. Ask any sane veterans from wars where they had to meet the enemy face to face.