Empathy Represses Analytic Thought, and Vice Versa 293
hessian sends this quote from a Case Western Reserve University news release:
"New research shows a simple reason why even the most intelligent, complex brains can be taken by a swindler's story – one that upon a second look offers clues it was false. When the brain fires up the network of neurons that allows us to empathize, it suppresses the network used for analysis, a pivotal study led by a Case Western Reserve University researcher shows (abstract). ... At rest, our brains cycle between the social and analytical networks. But when presented with a task, healthy adults engage the appropriate neural pathway, the researchers found. The study shows for the first time that we have a built-in neural constraint on our ability to be both empathetic and analytic at the same time. The work suggests that established theories about two competing networks within the brain must be revised. More, it provides insights into the operation of a healthy mind versus those of the mentally ill or developmentally disabled."
Oblig (Score:5, Funny)
[spock]Fascinating.[/spock]
Re:Oblig (Score:5, Funny)
The "spock" tag has been deprecated in favor of the less implementation-specific "eyebrow" tag. Optionally use the "height" attribute with the following values: spock, jeeves, therock, connery, or scully.
Re:Oblig (Score:5, Funny)
The "spock" tag has been deprecated in favor of the less implementation-specific "eyebrow" tag. Optionally use the "height" attribute with the following values: spock, jeeves, therock, connery, or scully.
You forgot Teal'c.
Re: (Score:2)
I approve of this.
Re: (Score:2)
I trust my friends, and while when I meet someone new, I certainly am hesitant, and looking for trouble when someone new comes into my area....
Do that many people give a shit or have feelings for strangers they happen across / first meetings?
Re:Oblig (Score:5, Insightful)
Do that many people give a shit or have feelings for strangers they happen across / first meetings?
The fact that people can successfully panhandle suggests yes.
Re: (Score:2)
Panhandling is very similar to spam or telemarketing. Even if a fraction of a percentage of people give money, that's enough to "succeed".
Just because (panhandling|telemarketing) lets a (homeless person|business) get by doesn't mean that the majority of people respond positively to it.
Re: (Score:3)
The Monkeysphere (Score:5, Insightful)
Do that many people give a shit or have feelings for strangers they happen across / first meetings?
Yes they do, it's instinctive behavior for most primates, and the more the stranger looks and acts like a member of your "tribe" the more empathy they get. But who's talking about strangers? - This finding goes a long way to explaining why I tolerated my ex-wife for 20yrs. ;)
Empathy travels in both directions, although I suspect your question was rhetorical, the fact that you asked it reduces the initial empathy I had for you. This is probably because at 53 I'm the "silverback" of my own little tribe and subconsciously judge you as a prospective associate from a similar tribe. Competition for resources (particularly territorial resources) dictates nobody can have the same level of empathy towards everyone but the tribe is always looking for social/political alliances to boost their standing in the neighborhood. You can see the same thing at work in the royal families of Europe both past and present, they were so busy using their children to seal territorial alliances that many of their descendants now suffer complications from inbreeding. In many ways our brains simply were not built to handle the civilizations we create, for example most of my tribe live more than an hour's drive away. Excluding my parents my own tribal elders live on the other side of the planet and are more or less strangers to me. I can't even name all my Uncles and Aunt's, I just know I had ~20 of them somewhere in the UK, I've met a few and a few are already dead. As a child these people were replaced by adult neighbors and family friends, in fact back then children were expected to address adult family friends as "Uncle" or "Aunt" as a sign of respect, similar as to how US kids today address adults as "Sir", etc.
Citation: The Monkeysphere [cracked.com]
Re:Oblig (Score:4, Insightful)
It breaks down like this.
Empathy, we are part of a social group and we continue to survive as part of that social group. Hence the normal social human brain is hard wired to support the group over individual survival.
Analytic thought. Screw the group, how will I as an individual best be able to get ahead by victimising the rest of the group. A minority of broken people are hard wired to see human society in this way. You can imagine what happens if the majority attempt to function in this manner.
A majority psychopathic society that lacks empathy, is no longer a society. It completely breaks down to core individual survival, no longer primates in empathic social groups but reptiles looking to feed off each other as readily as any other creatures in that environment.
Re: (Score:2)
I would fall for the 'damsel in distress' trap every time, because I am your typical not-quite-aspie geeky tech student...
FTFY.
Finally explains it (Score:3, Funny)
So this is why girls aren't good at math?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because girls were raised to empathize? I'm not sure I buy that male/female is "better" at either. Just more experienced.
Re:Finally explains it (Score:4, Interesting)
"Raised" you say. When I drop my kids off at daycare, the little girls my son's age come to check out his baby sister. The little boys are too busy playing and couldn't care less. At that age (barely verbal) kids just do what comes naturally, and not really what society expects of them.
Mind you, this doesn't mean the GP isn't full of manure. Girl's lack of aptitude in math compared to boys is a matter of culture, not nature. It's not constant over different cultures or in the same culture over time.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Finally explains it (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Finally explains it (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Finally explains it (Score:5, Funny)
With such mad parents, they would probably have the baby wear thongs and make-up if born a girl.
Re:Finally explains it (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Finally explains it (Score:5, Funny)
I think this explains why conversations on facebook back when I used to have an account were ridiculous stupid and conversations on /. are usually well above room temp IQ but perhaps lacking in some civility.
FB: "Boo hoo I think I'm catchcing a cold, ironically; I can't figure the first derivative of 1/x"
FB: Oh you poor baby lets play farmville together till you feel better, have you tried aromatherapy yet for the cold?
/. : "Boo hoo I think I'm catchcing a cold, ironically; I can't figure the first derivative of 1/x"
/. : "You Fing idiot you can't even spell catching, don't know what irony is, and if you could spell google correctly instead of spelling it as /., you'd see its -1/x^2"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Celsius, of course!
Re:Conservatives vs Liberals (Score:4, Interesting)
"Show me a young conservative and I'll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old liberal and I'll show you someone with no brains."
--Georges Clemenceau (approximately)
Re: (Score:2)
Conservative economic plans are as bad as liberal.
This is because almost all economic ideas, of any school, are disastrous in the long term, and most are unverifiable in the short to medium term (many of the ones that are verifiable are verifiably bad). Economics is a fucked field.
I would say conservatives tend to have empathy issues to some extent, but I do not think that primarily drives those issues. Those issues tend to be related to conservatives being, well, conservative (literal meaning), and liking
Stupidity Represses Insight (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Can I have my Phd now?
If you showed it "for the first time", sure you can. With a publication on a "high-profile journal" on the side.
Teachers / Salesman (Score:2)
Makes sense why sales pitches given in the context of "hands-on" training work so well...
(they are evil I tell you)
Re: (Score:2)
WTF - don't link your soci(opathic)-political rants to my post!
"hands-off" jack
Re:Teachers / Salesman (Score:4, Interesting)
Yep, I've also first taught about sales pitches.
The worst kept secret on the world is that it is way easier to sell if you put something you client emphatises with in front of him. The web is full of testimonials because of that, also salesmen try to dress correctly, use the words the clients are used to, and so on. There is an entire crop of salesmen that'll throw poersonal stories around every time, and it seems to work.
Observed this many times in women... (Score:5, Funny)
Just swap empathetic with emotional (Yeah different, but related definitions.) and all I have to do is look/listen to my spouse in the morning to see what wife I will spend the day with.
If she is overly emotional, no amount of logic or analysis with help with anything. It's gonna be a rough day for me.
If she is overly analytical of what I do or say, there is nothing I can do or say, even gifts of chocolate, will not sway her from her incorrect analysis of my mistakes.
Women, you can;t live with 'em.
(Posting as AC becuace my spouse reads slashdot and this post will cause her to fly off the handle.)
Re:Observed this many times in women... (Score:5, Funny)
Slashdot husbands of even semi-suspicious wives around the world have to hide now thanks to this one AC.
Well done sir.
(Posting to hopefully clear my own name)
Re:Observed this many times in women... (Score:5, Funny)
(Posting to hopefully clear my own name)
Yeah that's exactly the kind of post I'd write to clear my own name if I was the OP. Unless she knows that I know that she knows... I believe this is a recursive trap we've entered here.
Re:Observed this many times in women... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Just swap empathetic with emotional (Yeah different, but related definitions.) and all I have to do is look/listen to my spouse in the morning to see what wife I will spend the day with. If she is overly emotional, no amount of logic or analysis with help with anything. It's gonna be a rough day for me. If she is overly analytical of what I do or say, there is nothing I can do or say, even gifts of chocolate, will not sway her from her incorrect analysis of my mistakes.
Women, you can;t live with 'em.
(Posting as AC becuace my spouse reads slashdot and this post will cause her to fly off the handle.)
I know it's you: we will discuss this VERY carefully later today. Now, take the trash out.
Re:Observed this many times in women... (Score:4, Insightful)
.
For the not joking part of this comment, I have to say that I'm not (yet?) experiencing the monthly moody emotionalness that I observe in many of my female peers. I do have the physical water-retention, the physical pain that ibuprofen cannot solve, and the aches, but not the emotional stress aspect. Maybe that happens a little further in life? Or is it a psycho-social thing: you expect it to happen so you make it happen... The packs of women/girls roving together in a high-school do form cliques and do reinforce each others' behaviours and attitudes...
Re: (Score:2)
I prefer Norm's version
Women, you can't live with them . . . pass the beer nuts.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=weBbZ11d5LM [youtube.com]
Sooooo..... (Score:4, Funny)
Paradox. (Score:5, Insightful)
Rational analysis will lead to better outcomes than emotionally driven behavior. So if you want good things to happen to the most people, which most empathetic people would, then you should eschew empathy and be as rational as possible.
Not a Paradox (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
That empathic behavior is more likely to get you laid and produce children than rational behavior.
More likely to get you hooked up with a psycho too.
Re: (Score:2)
covered by his qualifier "... to the most people" and not "to your self"
Re:Not a Paradox (Score:4, Funny)
But then again, him reproducing may not be what's best for everyone.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Empathy is the capacity to recognize feelings that are being experienced by another sentient being, not necessarily to want good things for them.
You can imagine what it is like to be in another person's shoes without caring about the person currently in them.
No Paradox.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Can you, though? From my past reading on human behavior, we do essentially imagine what it is like to be in another person's shoes by mentally modelling the same experience applied to ourselves - i.e. if you see someone being embarrassed (and empathize), the same neural pathways are actuated as when you're embarrassed yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
If I always followed my rational mind, I would miss out of the greatest opportunities in my lifetime, and I consider them far greater than any mean or average you see the world through. I pity such small-mindedness, however, I also disagree with this research that empathy and rationality are opposed to eachother, just that the majority of people have neither noticed- or nurtured the skill to balance empathy (inspiration) and rationality (vehicle).
Re: (Score:2)
"If I always followed my rational mind, I would miss out of the greatest opportunities in my lifetime"
Nope, you just don't know enough about modern neuroscience. All of you who responded to the OP are scientifically illiterate about what rationality requires, rationality requires emotion. Link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYmi0DLzBdQ [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Rational analysis will lead to better outcomes than emotionally driven behavior. So if you want good things to happen to the most people, which most empathetic people would, then you should eschew empathy and be as rational as possible.
Except that, without empathy, you don't want good things to happen to the most people. You'd only care about the good things happening to you.
Re:Paradox. (Score:5, Interesting)
Why do you assume that? If anything a rational person would better understand the concept of the greater good than an empathically driven person.
It's not about understanding the concept, it's about subscribing to it.
For example, you can rationally understand that cooperation from individuals can lead to increased success of the species. However, rationally, why is the survival of the species important to you? Why is anything that happens after you are dead important to you? You're not going to be there to see it, or to experience it, or to suffer from the consequences. The only thing you have to tell you that it would be bad to selfishly care only about your own well-being at the expense of others is by putting yourself in their shoes. In other words, empathy.
Re: (Score:2)
The only thing you have to tell you that it would be bad to selfishly care only about your own well-being at the expense of others is by putting yourself in their shoes. In other words, empathy.
I guess this is an example of how empathy clouds rational thought. After all, we have plenty of examples of people who rationally have subscribed to cooperation and such. Sometimes it's a recognition that cooperation can yield greater rewards. Sometimes it is a desire to accomplish far more than one can accomplish by themselves in a lifetime.
As to "success of the species", it's worth mentioning that that will likely be considered a provincial, backwards attitude in a few centuries when a number of specie
Re: (Score:2)
No fundamental goal can be rationally justified, only steps to achieve that goal can.
Fundamental goals are arbitrary, irrational, and fall in line with emotion and empathy. Once established, however, you can use rational analysis to figure out how to achieve that irrational goal.
Empathy also bounds the space in which rational analysis searches, because irrationality allows for conflicting and competing goals, having some arbitrary measure to weight and decide between what is offered in the search to reduce
Re: (Score:2)
[[citation needed]].
In the absence of a rational analysis supporting your claim, I can only conclude it is purely emotional (wishful thinking). See also a a recent Dilbert cartoon [dilbert.com].
Re: (Score:3)
Not having empathy can lead to one missing out on many facts and understanding of people... and thus hurt empathy.
You really need both to make a good decision.
As a very simplistic example...
A 'rational' medical professional might think that we should ban soda because it is unhealthy.
But someone with empathy will recognize that people feel and don't like being told what to do.
Similarly, we see what is happening in Europe right now. The politicians are pushing austerity. But they are not empathetic to how peo
No Paradox (Score:2)
The actual finding is about "social cognition, i.e., reasoning about the mental states of other persons" inhibiting "physical cognition, i.e., reasoning about the causal/mechanical properties of inanimate objects." "Emotionally driven behavior" is not at issue in the research.
Social cognition will lead to better outcomes if the problem you are addressing is largely related to the mental states of other persons. Physical cognit
E-mail (Score:5, Interesting)
Never send an important e-mail when you've just been coding for several hours.
All you complainers (Score:5, Funny)
See all of you kept crying about how all our C?O and Political leaders are psychopaths were wrong. You should be happy about that. They are better at thinking than you are and no doubt producing more optimal solutions than you could.
Thank goodness we have these unfeeling psychopaths to lead us.
Nothing new here... (Score:3)
Faulty Jump (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The Fear Factor (Score:2, Interesting)
I guess that explains the constant focus on fear by conservatives. If you focus on that most powerful emotional response, people lose the rational ability to question the long term consequences of those actions. Like say, for example, starting a useless protracted war in a middle east nation, or cutting back at personal liberties to 'protect from the terrorists'.
Re: (Score:3)
"Laziness" is an easy claim to generalize, but it not always so easily stands up to scrutiny. Other possible explanations are: insufficient education, insufficient opportunity, and to risk being politically incorrect, insufficient IQ. Sufficient ambition may be able to counter some of these in some circumstances, not all. And someone who would think everyone who does not pay taxes is la
Empathy != social cognition (Score:4, Insightful)
Smart people more easily fall for complicated lies (Score:2)
Won't someone PLEASE think of the children! (Score:3)
Must be a third factor.... (Score:5, Funny)
Blaise Pascal knew this... (Score:3)
"The heart has its reasons which reason knows nothing of." - Blaise Pascal (1623-1662).
I shall name this neurological effect... (Score:2)
Anyone with a GF should know this (Score:2)
The moment she starts crying, any bullshit she's been putting you through instantly goes out the window.
If you read the actual Abstract (Score:2)
It's about two types of problem solving: reasoning about causal relationships of inanimate objects and reasoning about the mental states of other persons. Those are the two that are, according to this research, neurologically mutually exclusive.
By racing off into stereotypes, the most obvious implication has been missed. At least one of them
Re:the Democrat party (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:the Democrat party (Score:5, Insightful)
Really? I've never seen any evidence of that.
Okay, what about the notion that rape is what god intends? That the female body just shuts down in case of rape? What about all the people who believe the earth is 6000 yrs old? that dinosaurs and man coexisted? and ignore science fact. That evolution is "just a theory" with no evidence to support it? That they insist on less government EXCEPT when it comes to enforcing their moral beliefs and dogma on everyone else?
(ie, caring for the poor/disadvantaged/discriminated against). As it's a quality that I've personally always recognized as the fatal flaw of Liberal Ideology
The best way to experience empathy is by personally going through the hardships that others have been through, in which case, you will understand their pain. Don't think it can't happen to you. I was poor a few years ago, largely because of outsourcing and the state of the economy. There was really nothing I did (or neglected to do) that put me in that situation. I had to bust my ass to climb out of it and return to financial stability and independence. So, what's wrong with having empathy? I strive to be balanced. I empathetic. I'm also analytical...and you'd be hard pressed to argue against that, knowing that I'm a successful electrical engineer and software developer. I really don't understand how you can call empathy a weakness but, if you enjoy being a robot who doesn't get laid, knock yourself out.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What is this "Democrat Party" you speak of? Democrats belong to the Democratic Party.
I can only assume that either:
A) You are illustrating your vast intellect and knowledge of American political parties
B) You are quacking out an automated emotional response from the canned set of approved Republican put-downs (Call them the DEMOCRAT party so they won't sound like they're democratic - i.e. believe in democracy).
I hope it's B. That means you're a puppet and I can make you dance when I pull the strings. Here b
Re: (Score:2)
What is this "Democrat Party" you speak of? Democrats belong to the Democratic Party.
I can only assume that either:
A) You are illustrating your vast intellect and knowledge of American political parties
B) You are quacking out an automated emotional response from the canned set of approved Republican put-downs.
You left out C) not a mindless pedant who thinks playing semantic games somehow makes them appear smarter than another person.
(Call them the DEMOCRAT party so they won't sound like they're democratic - i.e. believe in democracy)
So, let me get this straight - you think someone dropping the "i" and "c" from "Democratic" is an evil plot to somehow confuse Americans into believing that Democrats don't believe in democracy?
Your tinfoil hat - it appears to be on just a bit too tight.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes actually. http://mediamatters.org/research/2006/08/16/gop-strategists-christen-democrat-sic-party-and/136406 [mediamatters.org]
Frank Luntz said so.
All that proves is that modern journalists (or rather, what passes for a 'journalist' these days) are idiots.
*thinks about election year conversations he's had with "regular" people*
Ok, considering... maybe you've got something there...
Re: (Score:2)
What is this "Democrat Party" you speak of? Democrats belong to the Democratic Party.
It's a standard label that I gather has been kicking around since the mid 1850s or so. For a long time now, a lot of people having been unwilling to grant the party that particular rhetorical advantage.
Re:the Democrat party (Score:5, Funny)
Then how do you explain Rethuglicans?
Fetal Alcohol Syndrome.
Re:the Democrat party (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:the Democrat party (Score:5, Insightful)
Conservatives, so the old tradition went, have heads but no hearts. Liberals have hearts, but no heads.
Somehow, somewhere, something went terribly wrong.
Re:the Democrat party (Score:5, Interesting)
If you look at some rhetorical theory (ie, theory of rhetoric), you'll find that there are three main kinds of arguments, which are effective against three different categories of people.
Amongst your supporters, logical arguments have the most significant impact.
Amongst the undecided, emotional arguments are more likely to sway their decision.
Amongst your opponents, moral arguments are just about the only thing that can have any effect.
Ask yourself who they're trying to win votes from when they campaign, and I think you'll have the answer as to why it's all full of emotional arguments.
Re: (Score:3)
Considering that Republicans use emotional arguments for their supporters, moral ones for the undecided, and incoherent ones for their opponents... well, that looks like they're trying to keep their supporters convinced and are trying to bludgeon the undecided, and that they therefore don't actually believe anyone is their ally.
In other words, they're acting exactly like sociopaths would - they're convinced that given half a chance, their "supporters" will screw them over in a heartbeat, just because they'
Re:Liberal vs Conservatives (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, except that it doesn't.
If it were as you suggest, emotional, non-rational appeals to tradition, religious values, nationalism, etc., would be particularly ineffective in motivating conservatives. In the real world, both groups are diverse and include both more-analytical and and more-emotional thinkers. There are plenty of studies showing indications of various cognitive differences between conservatives and liberals, but the particular one you suggest isn't one of them.
Re: (Score:2)
Empathy is the ability to recognize the feelings experienced by others.
So
Liberals tend to have more feelings and emotions and be more empathetic to others, so they make illogical and unreasonable decisions based on feelings and emotions..
Conservatives think more with their own feelings and emotions but their level of empathy is lower, so they reason out a logical solution from unreasonable and illogical starting points.
Re:Liberal vs Conservatives (Score:4, Insightful)
Let's change this to be a bit more accurate:
That explains the thought process of different political groups.
People who disagree with me think more with feeling and emotion, less with logic.
People who agree with me think more with logic and reason, and less with empathy.
Re: (Score:2)
Neither liberals nor conservatives are rational. The only difference between the two is who they choose to empathize with.
Re: (Score:2)
You've conflated "disagreeing with me" with "irrational response". The truth is always more in the middle.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Zing! Election is only a week away folks.
Actually, it does do a fair job of explaining why most voters seem to eschew reason in their decisions, as well as why it's so easy for politicians to distract from real issues that need analytical thought applied, by appealing to voter emotions.
Emoting isn't social cognition (Score:3)
Actually, it doesn't, since its about "social cognition" not "emotions"; while there may be other research findings about emoting inhibiting analytical thought, this research is about social cognition ("reasoning about the mental states of other persons") inhibit
Re: (Score:2)
I have a simple solution. The least productive people in the world will starve to death. People who have 17 children and can't feed them will soon have much less than 17 children. Problem solved.
First off, in my experience the "least productive people" in this world sit on various Boards of Directors, and I highly doubt a damn one of them even know what starving is.
I think a more accurate term for the socioeconomic demographic you are (quite blatantly) attempting to denigrate would be the "most desperate," or possibly "least fortunate."
So, your "final solution" seems contingent on the idea that the most desperate/least fortunate do not possess an inherent will to live.
That is not the case. A
Re: (Score:2)
Physical cognition (Score:2)
Not in any sense relevant to TFA. What the informal popular media article linked in TFS characterizes as "analytical thought" is actually (from the abstract of the actual research paper linked in TFS) "physical cognition, i.e., reasoning about the causal/mechanical properties of inanimate objects." Which might be a reasonable use of the term "analytical thought", but certainly has nothing to do with "the simplistic atte
Re:The proper solution comes from Dexter (Score:4, Insightful)
Always be analytical but fake emotions as appropriate. Also never be open with what you are thinking, nobody wants to hear the truth.
Examples:
wife: (some inane story about something that happened during the day that I'm not interested in)
incorrect answer: I have no interest in what you were just talking about
correct answer: thats interesting
My wife: (some inane story about something that happened during the day that I'm not interested in)
Me: You know I have no interest in that topic; can't we talk about xyz that we both like?
My wife: Sorry hon, my bad. But I actually don't like xyz, how's abc?
Me: abc? Cool, yeh!
The secret to a good relationship is not lying all the time... one day, that'll fall down like a house of cards and you'll end up hating each other. My wife and I knew from the start we've got our differences and we accept those. We can then spend our time together REALLY enjoying each others company instead of one of us faking it and resenting the other.
Note that I generally suck at empathy. I require my wife to tell me if I'm being an arse; or boring; or otherwise inappropriate. She'll happily do so; and I learned to happily accept her doing so. It works out better for both of us that way.