Empathy Represses Analytic Thought, and Vice Versa

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."

Re:Finally explains it

[nschubach]

Because girls were raised to empathize? I'm not sure I buy that male/female is "better" at either. Just more experienced.

Paradox.

[Hatta]

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

[ZombieBraintrust]

I think your proof falls apart with your first statement "Rational analysis will lead to better outcomes than emotionally driven behavior." This might be evidence of the opposite. That empathic behavior is more likely to get you laid and produce children than rational behavior.

Re:the Democrat party

[CosaNostra Pizza Inc]

Most religious conservatives are NOT analytical thinkers. The same is true of conspiracy nuts (ex: birthers). The majority of both are Republicans.

Re:Oblig

[Antipater]

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.

Faulty Jump

[erik.erikson]

It seems a faulty jump to go from the observations that the study participants did not use the two elements of cognition together to the assertion that one cannot use both capacities at the same time. At the very least it should be theoretically possible for neural connectivity to be established between the two sub-networks and as a result to activate both capabilities concurrently. Certainly we should be able to imagine circumstances where having such an ability would be advantageous, such as the processing and understanding of the experience but also wise and healthy reaction within the emotional interactions we engage in with our loved ones.

Re:Observed this many times in women...

[girlinatrainingbra]

Yeah, but have you observed any sort of noticeable cycle or pattern to it, perhaps a biorhythm that maybe seems to entrain to the phase of the moon? ;>) (joke)
.

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:the Democrat party

[Nethemas the Great]

Actually if you note their campaigning methods you'll see that they spend most of their time attempting to play to emotions rather than facts and logic. It is no coincidence that their talking points focus on issues more likely to provoke a visceral reaction in the public such as religion, abortion, don't tread on me, and military/defense.

Re:Liberal vs Conservatives

[DragonWriter]

That explains the thought process of Liberals vs Conservatives.

Well, except that it doesn't.

Liberals think more with feeling and emotion, less with logic. Conservatives think more with logic and reason, and less with empathy.

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:the Democrat party

[RabidReindeer]

Conservatives, so the old tradition went, have heads but no hearts. Liberals have hearts, but no heads.

Somehow, somewhere, something went terribly wrong.

Re:Finally explains it

[samoanbiscuit]

Kids are gendered from birth onwards. I have a little cousin being reared in the house next to mine, and he's treated roughly (not painfully, just roughly) because "he's a boy and he needs to be tough". He's only 6 months old. If that's the kind of conditioning he's receiving, of course he'll be a rough and tumble terror when he's a toddler. He's also encouraged, at 6 months old, to exert himself and roughly handle/break things. I don't think he'd be encouraged to do such things if he were a female.

Empathy != social cognition

[h5inz]

If you read the abstract of the article [sciencedirect.com]then it states that the tasks presented to the subjects where -"tasks requiring social cognition, i.e., reasoning about the mental states of other persons, and tasks requiring physical cognition, i.e., reasoning about the causal/mechanical properties of inanimate objects". Social reasoning does not equal empathy. Empathy requires one to share and understand others feelings while social reasoning is something a sociopath could do.

Re:Liberal vs Conservatives

[dkleinsc]

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:Finally explains it

[samoanbiscuit]

It's much more subtle than I make it sound, and I've noticed it with a lot of parents, with boys you see it with their fathers, girls, their mothers. Gender policing is something innate and automatic to most people, and many people don't realize they're doing it, they just think their children magically acquire these traits out of the ether, and so jump to conclusions about gender that don't have all the data.

Re:the Democrat party

[CosaNostra Pizza Inc]

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.

The Monkeysphere

[TapeCutter]

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

[rtb61]

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:The proper solution comes from Dexter

[YttriumOxide]

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.