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."
Oh god.. (Score:5, Insightful)
.. the linked test reminds me of those "what job are you best suited for" tests we got in school. The ones which after answering at least 100 very transparent and subjective questions would recommend you become a garbage man, an astronaut, or maybe a carpenter.
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
Personally I think people are just as self centered now as always and we've just gotten better (supposedly) at measuring it.
It's like how mental illness would appear to be on the rise. It could be legitimate change, or it could be that we've come up with fancy names for kids who back in the day would've just been called "a little slow" and/or ended up in a job where no one would notice.
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.
Re:Oh god.. (Score:5, Informative)
You're getting closer to the truth. See Robert Putnam. [boston.com]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Very true.
You forgot the corporate environment, where the best asshole gets the promotions.
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.
Re:Oh god.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Wrong. Two people working together can do the work of 4 people separately. In a survival situation, working together is even more important. The current culture (especially corporate culture) encourages unnecessary competition. People are our greatest asset. We set them at each others throats at our own peril.
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You call it 'enlightened self-interest' , i call it 'altruism' . It's basically the same thing.
It's obvious altruism evolved as a process of evolution ( necessary for the survival of the group , which in turn makes it possible for individuals to survive ) , so it makes sense that some animals are also altruistic .
Re: (Score:3)
I'm the corporate asshole, thank you very much.
I also scored a 38 on that empathy quiz(bottom 10%), which explains why I do so well at work.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I also scored a 38 on that empathy quiz(bottom 10%), which explains why I do so well at work.
It also demonstrates why you can't leave it to certain individuals to be good. Obviously legislative intervention is required :P
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
i beat you. i scored 28!! but i'm just going to college in july.
And to jail for rape in December!
Re:Oh god.. (Score:5, Informative)
That's wrong. We only laugh when we know that the person/animated character is not seriously hurt. Every animated character that comes to harm, may at first appear harmed, but always reappears later in perfect health. Even in the more extremely violent animated comedy - Itchy and Scratchy. The same is true of real life. If someone falls, our first reaction is the need to know whether they are OK or not. If they are uninjured, then we may find it funny. If they are injured, then we do not find it funny.
(Of course there are sociopaths to whom this general rule may not apply. Also when we are completely removed from witnessing or emotional involvement in the incident or the victim, e.g. The Darwin Awards.)
In fact the laugh probably originates as an "all clear" signal amongst ape ancestors. When danger has disappeared, or it was a false alarm, we laugh. Thus the association between laughing and pleasure.
Re:Oh god.. (Score:4, Insightful)
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 laugh as our brains try and reconcile seemingly incompatible aspects of a situation, this mechanism and good feelings associated with laughter enable us to understand the world around us.
Re: (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 suff
Re:or to the point THE JOKER IS RARE (Score:4, Funny)
i would put bets that folks that could pull off WHY SO SERIOUS during a real disaster are say 1 in 200,000 worldwide (which means that The Joker has roughly 29 "friends")
Apparently none of them are mathematicians.
Re: (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
Re:Oh god.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think, as a contrary point of view, it might be that people's perception of human nature reflects their perception of themselves or their own place in humanity.
It's not controversial to say that humans have a competitive nature (and by extension, can exhibit greed even at the needless expense of others), but it's no more controversial to say that humans have a cooperative nature (and by extension, can exhibit empathy and altruism even at the needless expense of themselves). It's probably also not controve
Re:Oh god.. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
You've got it wrong. We find it funny because we emphasize with their predicament. Nearly every time Wile fails he looks at the camera with pleading eyes before he gets clobbered. Even as little kids we're thinking "Oh, I know what thats like LOL." Conversely you can't root for a character that wins all the time; who didn't want Wile to finally catch that fucking road runner? (Same goes for Dick Van Dyke. You'll note in later seasons he practically dances around the ottoman instead of tripping on it, and we're quietly happy for him.)
.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Tribalism != lack of empathy. Quite the opposite, in fact. Humans are indeed animals -- social animals, and like all such, identification with other members of our group is an inherent part of our nature as a species. We're a lot more like wolves than we are like tigers.
Now, it's true that tribalism tends to discourage identification with members of other tribes, but that's because we tend to define them as not-quite-human. The solution seems to be one we have, in fact, implemented fairly successfully s
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You affect the system that your are observing. The fact that your destructive conviction is shared by so many people is a large part of what is destroying us, both as a nation and as a species. You belief is also easily falsified with a simple look at history. I would suggest, for example, Howard Zinn's "A people's history of the united states",
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Personally I think people are just as self centered now as always and we've just gotten better (supposedly) at measuring it.
We've gotten better at tallying these 2 numbers?
1) are you empathetic
2) are you _NOT_ empathetic
I'm glad your post makes sense. Thanks!
Broken test (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That's taken into account in the rating, though. You can't really judge a score (if you can at all) without context of the rest of the population anyway. So floating the bottom score above zero points doesn't change much any more than having an effective minimum score on the SAT does.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Broken test (Score:4, Insightful)
But then they could not measure your annoyance over trivial crap.
Re:Oh god.. (Score:5, Insightful)
We're getting better at measuring it? With that kind of test? It's basically asking "are you a good/bad person?" in a number of different ways. Maybe people are more (or less) honest about how they answer that kind of questionaires now, maybe they have a less idealised views of themselves, maybe they just don't give a fuck about what an anonymous questionaire says about them. Then there are questions like "Before criticizing somebody, I try to imagine how I would feel if I were in their place" -- which, if you can't help but doing that anyway, makes you come across as a callous motherfucker if you correctly answer "Does not describe me well". It's a shit test, and measures nothing.
Re:Oh god.. (Score:5, Funny)
It's a shit test, and measures nothing.
You could show a little more empathy for the people who made the test you insensitive piece of shit.
Re: (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 emotion
Re: (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 th
Re: (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:5, Insightful)
The person who wrote the article obviously has a massive agenda, and it is not clear that it is grounded in empiricism. I stopped reading TFA (much like the test...) when I got to this:
Another factor is the "self esteem movement" and its pernicious notion that "you can't love anyone else until you love yourself."
I don't know if the "self esteem movement" is effective or not (I would guess "not"), but what the fuck is she really advocating here? Self-hatred is okay? If you don't like yourself, you don't believe that other people should like you either, which is a formidable obstacle to love. Whether we go about creating it the right way or not, calling self-esteem "pernicious" seems...pernicious.
The author [psychologytoday.com] also absurdly idealizes the past, seriously advocating "playing outside" as a panacea. She should take pushing her books to the next level and give Dr. Laura Schlesinger a run for her money on the radio. Malevolent conservatism vs. malevolent liberalism. They could have their own malevolent channel, where anything goes (except facts).
She spends the last half of the article railing against Social Darwinism, which (after it was invented by Ronald Reagan!) apparently created the empathy epidemic. It is interesting that reliable polling data invariably indicates that the (40% more sociopathic) millennial generation is overwhelming more liberal (the only true measure of empathy, according to the author) than the Tea-Partying baby boomers, who enjoyed such empathetic childhoods, romping under the open sky. Either there is no empathy epidemic, empathy is not closely correlated with political leaning, or both (my bet). In any event, the author obviously doesn't really care.
Re: (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 t
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Feel empathy for the students and their debt (Score:2, 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: (Score:3, Insightful)
What I found troubling about the questions was that they conflated "irrationality" with "empathy". I would say I am a very empathetic person, but only where I rationally observe that empathy is warranted. In my mind, "empathy" is quite different from sentimental, irrational refusal to link consequences to earlier actions.
Some of the questions, however, seem to require me to choose between "empathy" and rationality:
What kind
Who cares? (Score:5, Funny)
I don't give a rat's ass about what college kids feel!
Re:Who cares? (Score:5, Funny)
Ha! My test said I'm empathetic as hell. Take that, you hard-hearted, non-empathizing bastards!
Re: (Score:3)
Don't worry - my 32 out of 70 canceled your high score. And I don't care. Actually, go ahead and worry. Why should I give a crap.
The thing that confuses me the most, is that their results showed an average score of 51 out of 70... that is well better than half.
I mean, I consider myself highly empathetic and I scored only 49 of 70... what kind of saint-like individual do they expect people to be?
Re:Who cares? (Score:5, Insightful)
1. I often have tender, concerned feelings for people less fortunate than me.
and humbly thought, "How can I possibly feel that way about everyone?" The study is biased.
Re:Who cares? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I thought the next couple questions were also badly thought out:
Well, yes, sometimes I don't feel sorry. If someone who has hurt others goes to jail or gets hoisted by his/her own petard, then, no, I'm not going to feel too sorry.
This question is even worse:
Protective? I'll probably feel frustrated, instead. I'm hardly likely to be in a p
In what units do you measure empathy? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:In what units do you measure empathy? (Score:5, Funny)
In millilitres per day, of course (from your bleeding heart).
I'm here all week, try the bean salad...
Re:In what units do you measure empathy? (Score:4, Insightful)
OMG. Don't you have any empathy for the poor beans?
Suggesting people eat them.... just.... wow.
They are the day care generation (Score:3, Informative)
I'm not taking that test (Score:2, Funny)
I'm not taking that test. Fuck you. I've got better things to do with my time. How'd I do? D'oh! Points off for asking. Not that it matters.
This Narcissism Crap (Score:5, Funny)
and the score is (Score:2)
37.1% 26/70 - I need to work on this, it is about 30.1 percent too high for my liking.
Re:and the score is (Score:4, Funny)
look at the response to my post, I am like the most caring person here, you fucking pieces of shit, get out of my fucking comments, go to hell, all of you.
what did you expect (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Re:what did you expect (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree wholeheartedly with your first paragraph, but apathy and lack of empathy go hand-in-hand in the United States. As you correctly pointed out, it's mostly about getting as much money doing as little work as possible. To participate in a lynch mob would mean having to crowbar oneself out of their La-Z-Boy chair.
Besides, we prefer to keep our government-sanctioned lynch mobs in others' countries. That way we can cheer 'em on from our sofas, as if our military were our favorite sports team at an away game.
Re:what did you expect (Score:5, Insightful)
you (the west) hold up crack dealers and gangsters as heroes (50cent et al),
Not really. Or rather, it's nothing new. They are not being held up as "heroes" but rather are a way of marketing to the youth. The youth always want to differentiate themselves and thus need "shocking" idols/icons to rally around. In previous generations swinging hips were plenty shocking (Elvis, etc.), then suggestion of sexuality (Madonna, etc.), and nowadays kids latch onto things like "gangsters" in order to paint a "shocking" line in the sand and differentiate themselves from their parents.
However, in all cases those kids seem to grow up to be reasonably intelligent and responsible adults. You could argue that the fact that the icons have to get progressively more "intense" is a testament to our eroding values. Or, it could just be that society is becoming more liberal and interconnected, so that the "shocking bar" keeps being raised. Regardless, the vast majority of kids don't actually want to become gangsters (nor did the vast majority want to be sluts or whatever in previous generations...).
corporate psychopaths are held up as examples of "successful business leaders"
Again, nothing new. Ruthless leaders have existed for millennia. Successful ruthless leaders have always been admired for what they accomplish, though they've almost always been simultaneously despised for their tactics. In fact this is just a manifestation of the human animal's internally conflicting drives: we have an intense drive to win/compete alongside an intense drive to collaborate/socialize.
where kids see a class of people rip off their savings and retirements (bankers) and have 0 consequences
A bad example to our children, to be sure. But again nothing new. That the rich and powerful collude to protect themselves (and do so successfully) is not a modern trend.
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
There have been aristocracies of sorts (whether royal families, or the "old money" super-rich, or celebrities) across history. They are idolized largely because people dream of their power/riches, and also because the gossip they enable taps into our innate socializing behaviors.
and you are surprised there is less empathy ?
You've identified many idiosyncratic ills in our society. However I question whether there is anything novel about them. It seems to me that these arguably counter-productive human behaviors are as old as history itself.
I question the research from TFA, and I question your attempt to explain the purported trend. Every generation seems to decry the previous generation, believing that people used to be hard-working and moral, whereas the up-and-coming generation is lazy and corrupt and will ruin society. Yet every time, the new generation becomes rather similar to the old (which is both good and bad: they are just as hard-working, but they also lose their youthful idealism and never realize the reform they used to profess).
The problem is that every generation has only two points of reference: their childhood (which their faulty memories paint as being pleasant, etc.) and the current state (where kids get on their nerves). They can't accurately compare to past generations so they assume that the perceived local 'decay' is real rather than illusory. If every generation were right about how kids are worse (lazier, dumber, less moral, etc.), then how does society keep on ticking?
Re: (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 no
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, d
Re: (Score:2)
like it's a bad thing that there is an abundance, fuck empathy, ipods are much more satisfying.
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.
Re: (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 countri
Re:Ah Yes Evil Capitalism (Score:5, Informative)
At least the liberals are pretending to try and protect the consumer, where the anti-progressives just want the corporations to roam free and pillage and plunder like they have for years.
Re:Ah Yes Evil Capitalism (Score:4, Informative)
You are either a liar, or mislead by the other liars.
The vast majority of Europe would be considered communist in your eyes, yet they're currently doing much better than we are, both socially and economically. You conveniently ignore Europe, though, and act as if anything but worshiping CEOs and then bailing them out when they can't milk the system any more means we'll end up starving in a country run by a man who wears over-sized women's sunglasses. To suggest that one can not "get ahead" in a place like France or Germany is just showing your ignorance of the world, and blind love for your homeland. This is called xenophobia, and was the founding principal of far worse groups than the communists.
Look at what capitalism has gotten us. Banking deregulation destroyed our economy, and drill baby drill got us a giant spewing hole in the middle of the ocean right next to us. Capitalism is killing us. People like you, who go around yelling "give corporations more power!" while moaning about Stalin are simply detached from reality. You, sir, live in your own world. Kindly stay there, and leave the real world to the grown ups.
If true, is this a good or a bad thing? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd argue that one of the "poisons" of modern society is all the garbage where "nobody loses". We have contests in school these days where everyone wins a prize.... Instead of coming in "last" and "losing", you get a 4th. or 5th. place ribbon. Instead of letting people score poorly on tests, you've got people trying to change the scores around. And instead of "hurting someone's feelings" - there's this whole thing of labeling them as having some sort of "disorder", implying they can't help their actions and they need special consideration/treatment.
If this generation is lacking some of THAT empathy, that's a step in the right direction!
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.
Highly subjective test is highly subjective! (Score:4, Interesting)
Too many adverbs (Score:2, Funny)
Sometimes! Of course sometimes! If i've had a terrible day and if the person being treated unfairly is my boss who takes every opportunity he can to insult criticize and put everyone else down and who we therefore bully relentlessly.. then yes SOMETIMES i don't feel much pitty. If you treat people like crap they'll do the same to you.
even with all those silly adverbs 84.3% I got. I cry when I watch the news an
Out of context (Score:2)
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.
Re:Rather a Poor Metric (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As a professor, I agree with your observation that empathetic behaviors have not changed in the last 20 years. I wonder if real empathy has remained the same or are students today just better at faking it. (Conversely, they could be more empathetic and worse at showing it.)
The relation between the measurement results and the actual trait would need to be established, assuming we could get an objective measure of empathy.
All TFA shows is that student perception of their own empathy, as measured by self-repor
Terrible test (Score:4, Interesting)
Glaring omission (Score:5, Funny)
Isn't this one we can pretty much all agree is /b/'s fault?
Worthless test (Score:4, Insightful)
I suspect the majority of people scoring over 50 points are in fact egocentric narcissists who think they are very empathic.
Please. We might be
Yes. Really.
- Jesper
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.
Garbage survey. (Score:4, Informative)
When one of the questions is "Are you empathetic?" and the answer "yes" results in your being scored as empathetic, the test is, as others have noted, unlikely to provide any insight. The only way this little test works is as a sort of meta-test: if you can't pick a result and get it on the first try, you're not very good at imagining what the person who designed it was thinking.
Just by answering each question by giving the strongest response in what I judged to be the appropriate direction, I was able to score 70/70 on the empathy scale on the very first try. For my second trick, I successfully scored the minimum possible, an angry red 1/5 on each question. I didn't even bother to systematically check my previous friendly green 5/5 answers and reverse them.
For what it's worth, I then made a half-way honest attempt, without any real soul-searching, to pick responses that I felt described me fairly, picking the middle of the scale on the most egregiously ambiguous statements, and I scored bang in the middle: 51/70. I think it's safe to say that the results mean nothing, alas, so I still can't settle the question of whether I'm an android or not.
70/70 (Score:4, Funny)
i got a perfect score. seriously.
now go fuck off.
- js.
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
The opposition exists because we ask ourselves this: is the government's primary purpose to govern or be a charity organization?
For the more extreme libertarians, the spin goes like this: is the government here to support your freedoms, or forcibly extract property from people to support politically motivated wealth redistribution?
Re:Ghost of the time? (Score:4, Insightful)
There is a great deal of irony in your post in that you are opining about lack of empathy in young people, yet you show a lack empathy for a great portion of (US) society for which it IS completely normal to own a firearm.
Re:Ghost of the time? (Score:4, Insightful)
Wow. Just... wow. This illustrates the OP's view about empathy perfectly... it is a logical fallacy to assume that all, or even most, or even any small percentage of folks who own guns automatically want to "shoot you if you step foot on my property again". You are absolutely correct - anyone who shoots someone merely for stepping foot on property SHOULD be arrested, and they often ARE.
Re: (Score:2)
I see this around me all the time. Mind you, I am still young -31- and yet I can see the youngsters around me (and not only the youngsters, people of all ages seem to be affected) just don't care about anything or anyone anymore. I am not surprised by this either. Look at what great examples we have given this next generation. The lies about WMD, the lies about drugs, people telling you that is perfectly normal to own a gun, that it is normal to shoot at someone just for trespassing/burglary. That is cool to join the army and fuck up another sorry son of a bitch that you had absolutely no conflict with. We are teaching our children to be selfish...
And engage in illegal copyright infringement...oh wait!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Nice job sliding the anti-firearm propaganda in there, but don't forget that firearm ownership happens to be very common in "wholesome" parts of the country where crime is rare and weapons are treated with respect. The military participation thing is not only historically "normal", but considered to be self-sacrifice (the marketing of particular wars IS a separate issue!).
Kids today are understanding that it makes sense to cover your own ass. Being an empathetic emo doesn't do that, and never did. Some of u
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Empathetic emo? I thought emos were mostly concerned with themselves.
Re:Ghost of the time? (Score:5, Insightful)
I've often heard the lack of forced military or civil service (a draft or something similar) as having been a detriment on society and empathy. After going through a war trying to save other people, or having to defend the guy next to you even if you think he's a jerk. How many people do you think would go around pointing guns at people and playing thug if they had spent some time shooting and defending people, understanding just how powerful a tool the thing is.
But you can easily grow up in a suburban house, without any real violence. And you can go through school without really interacting with poorer people or having to be humanitarian. You know what your comfy life is, and your friends comfy life. And you can go straight to college, and learn about how America has dominated many people and the military can be evil. Your parents can give you a car at 16, and keep you from having to face a touch teacher by yelling at them and making sure you're treated "fairly".
It's really easy for people to be isolated from sorrier conditions and situations where they would have go out of themselves and show empathy.
Instead, you can sit in your room with your own personal 32" TV and My Super Sexy Sweet 16 on MTV, and become a better person.
Personally, I have a hard time showing many of those people empathy. When a girl I went to high school with recked her 3rd car and her parents wouldn't buy her a new one, why would I empathize with that. She didn't deserve the first. She certainly didn't deserve the 2nd. Why should she get a 4th?
And when I'm being told I should empathize with someone who lost their license for drunk driving the 4th time and can't go to their job, or can't pay their bills because they can't afford that 8th kid they had because they wanted it with no thought to what that meant for the kid, I'm not terribly inclined to empathize with them.
I wonder. How much of this is people who can't empathize, and how much of this is people scoring lower because people aren't empathizing with people who probably don't deserver it?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Empathy and a concern for others isn't a trivial emotional hobby, and a concern about it isn't nostalgia (you make it sound like it's the same as longing for the days of Mickey Mantle). It *is* morality and a necessity for
Re:Ghost of the time? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Ghost of the time? (Score:5, Insightful)
Most likely there isn't time for a reaction to be in proportion.
If an intruder is in my home, my life is in jeopardy. The opportunity to ask the intruder whether or not he's armed, and then frisk him, just may not present itself.
I suppose if you could somehow guarantee (which you can't) that all home invaders are unarmed, then you could get away with playing your game of tag with them.
I'll guarantee that with my method, you'll have a lot fewer home invaders in the first place. And that's better for everyone.
Re:Ghost of the time? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it's not. If someone gives you a little push, you assume they are being an idiot and walk away.
If someone is brazen enough to break in to your house while it is occupied, you must assume they have the intent to injure or kill you, and act accordingly to neutralize the threat. Hopefully, neutralization occurs when the burglar realizes you are armed and then flees - in this case, you would not shoot a fleeing burglar.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What does gun ownership have to do with anythin (Score:5, Insightful)
What about Civil Rights, Women's Suffrage movement or Gay rights right now? Women's place in marriage in the past was usually repressive & before Women's Suffrage they didn't even have many basic rights. Religion can create community & it can destroy it. Do something "wrong" in the eyes of the religious and the entire community will hold a grudge. Social clubs usually had a racist & sexist bent to them: no women, no blacks. Families still exist, it's just Betty Crocker was a lie. Your fear of homosexuals has nothing to do with families as many of them are trying to get the rights to marriage to maintain family lifestyle like heterosexuals.
It sounds like you long for "the good ol' days", where white straight males were dominant & "life was good". My Grandma grew-up during the Great Depression, my mom grew up through the late 50s & 60s. Both lives were hard. Life was not squeaky clean back then. It was only squeaky clean for the privileged: white males who made a decent wage - forget being poor, colored, a strong female or gay.
The current situation isn't perfect, but don't act like "the good ol' days" were either.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It seems GP is thinking recent thought movements are throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Sure, social constructs can be abused, and things can get pretty bad when the abuse goes unchecked. Society today is effectively seeing the abuses, thinking that the cause of the abuses are the social constructs themselves, and in an attempt to prevent future abuse, denounce those constructs completely and absolutely. But those constructs do provide certain good, which GP argues gets marginalized and overlooked.
GP
Re:Ghost of the time? (Score:4, Insightful)
What?
The lies about WMD
What in the world does alleged lying have to do with empathy? Poor performance of the intelligence community hardly seems relevant, but at least you're making your bias clear from the get go I suppose.
the lies about drugs
Which lies? That they often unhealthy (both legal and illegal ones), that they're unnecessary and even counter-productive to live a happy and productive life? Or some other lies?
people telling you that is perfectly normal to own a gun
What is abnormal about owning a gun? Of course, if you're hopped up on drugs you probably shouldn't own a weapon.
that it is normal to shoot at someone just for trespassing/burglary
I see, maybe we should punish them with love instead? Breaking into someone's home is akin to invading another country. All bets are off when it comes to protecting family and property. If you come into my home with violent intent, just how much violence is too much? Baseball bat? Knife? Gun? Should I just ask you to leave nicely and hand over my wallet if you won't?
That is cool to join the army and fuck up another sorry son of a bitch that you had absolutely no conflict with
That's kind of the definition of war. How many Nazis did WWII soldiers have personal conflicts with?
The people who are selfish are the people that drive the ferrari's around at wallstreet
Being wealthy and choosing how you want to spend your wealth is selfish?
They are being held up as icons by a complete generation
People on Wall Street are about as far from an "icon" for young people as is possible.
No I am not surprised. Just very worried.
No reason to be, I doubt humans are less empathetic in general now than ever before, only that people are more honest about it now. I imagine this might be from a certain amount of the GIFT [penny-arcade.com] extending from online communities into real-world interactions. We've gone from interacting only with a small local community to dealing with thousands/millions of people online plus our local community. It's harder to feel empathy with so many anonymous people communicating only with text so it isn't too surprising that some apathetic feelings creep in.
When you're actually dealing with somebody sitting in front of you, face-to-face, I think most people would exhibit a higher level of empathy.
Re:Ghost of the time? (Score:5, Insightful)
Santax: "(The lies about WMD, the lies about drugs), (people telling you that is perfectly normal to own a gun, that it is normal to shoot at someone just for trespassing/burglary)"
The two categroies of events have nothing to do with one another. I'm not sure what environment you live in. Perhaps you're in an urban area where, if something is going wrong, you are pefectly able to dial 911 with 99% certainty and a police officer is just two minutes away. But not all of us live in those areas.
Here's the thought process behind many of those law-abiding citizens who legally carry firearms.
Any time you have to use any implement in a life-threatening emergency, whether it be a fire extinguisher to put out a fire or an implement to make a human threat to your life stop being a threat, it is a life-changing event for you and should be avoided at all costs.
But here’s the reality. Out where we live, at any one time there may be between 1 and 4 Sheriff deputies covering the entire 527 square miles of the county. In the neighboring county, if you call 911 at 3AM on a Tuesday morning, you will get the CELL PHONE of the on-call Deputy. Maybe he’s awake, maybe not.
There have been a high number of burglaries in this area – two involving a homeowner being shot, one of those a deadly shooting.
If you hear a knock at your door and see a guy with a 12-gauge and ski mask on your porch, the cops may be 20 minutes away. You need a way to make this person stop being a threat immediately. If he sees that you have a certain implement of minor destruction (IMD) and runs away, great! Your goal of making the person stop being a threat has succeeded. It is a gravely unfortunate circumstance, however, that in some cases merely displaying IMD’s does not work – the person is too intent on getting your possessions and won’t hesitate to use whatever force is needed. In these cases the only way to stop the threat is to use equal force and hope for the best... knowing full well that there are heavy legal and psychological burdens to deal with after the fact. You’ll (hopefully) still be alive afterward, but as I said, these situations should be avoided at all costs.
It's a very heavy decision to make, possibly having to take the life of another to preserve my own life... but at least with a weapon I am able to make that decision.
Santax, around here there aren't many residents who *do not* own a gun; thus the "normal" mode of living is to own a gun. And if someone is intent on breaking in to your house, you do not have the luxury of a full psychological profile to determine if that person is going to kill you or not - you have to neutralize the threat or accept a very high risk of being killed. Whether "neutralize" means the guy is scared away when you pull your gun, or "neutralize" means you have to shoot until the threat stops, that's up to the burglar.
This has nothing to do with empathy, nor the lies that were told about WMD or are told about drugs. I'll put it this way... I don't eat meat because I'm empathetic towards the plight of factory-farmed animals. However, since I don't burglarize, my empathy towards those who may be intent upon breaking into my house and killing me is non-existent. I have two friends who feel the same way.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I can see the youngsters around me (and not only the youngsters, people of all ages seem to be affected) just don't care about anything or anyone anymore.
Well, not anything. There seems to be a lot of caring about things. Apple products in particular ;)
As for anyone, I suspect a lot of them still love their moms. Beyond that, the circle does seem to be shrinking.
It's not sad just from an ethical perspective, but perception of social realities depends on it to a large degree. How can one look at the news and get a balanced picture of conflicts if you can't put yourself in the shoes of both parties? The exercise may reveal that one set of shoes doesn't fit
Re:Bigger problems? (Score:4, Insightful)
When you haven't ruthlessly focused your education on acquiring a variety of JOB skills that, along with hobbies that help make you employable, expect not to be employed. Your elders made the mistake of telling you is "do your own thing" without warning you that choices have consequences. Your school, like many, may have been more focused on SELLING a degree than fitting clients for work.
What did you study?
I took my lessons from MY elders, the Depression babies who had to scrabble. Life is a shit sandwich, and the more bread you have the less shit you taste. Education is for making MONEY, because without MONEY, you have fewer choices. Hobbies and recreational education are for fun, but don't typically pay the rent. If you can't get a job that fits your education, do any damn thing you have to. Consider skilled trades (I've never met a mechanic who couldn't make a living) instead of pushing paper. (Come to think of it, that's one area where some of your elders screwed you by discouraging manual labor. Mechanics and weldors, for example, can make serious money and are highly mobile.)
Unique and special snowflakes may disregard the above advice, but they are either employed or don't need to be.
Re:Dumb question (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not a dumb question
The question asks how do you feel. It does not ask about your actions.
To use your example. Two people can see someone is in distress, both look by casually and continue walking.
But the first did it due to lack of strong feelings to the situation or apathy. The second did it because they did feel the person's pain, but came to the conclusion that the best way to help would be to let that person deal with the issue themselves ( aka tough love ).
Although their actions are the same, they should answer the original question differently.
Re:Leftist propaganda (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is so obviously a Liberian socialist bit of propaganda it makes me puke. For one the assumption is that "Feeling sorry for other people having problems" is a unambiguously good thing.
Well, yeah, it sort of is.
Very often peoples problems are self imposed.
Citation needed. And just because Jimmy stuck his hand in the door before he slammed it onto his hand doesn't mean we don't feel sorry for him, even if it was a stupid move that he brought upon himself
Wheres the questions about taking personal responsibility ? "When you see someone having problems do you think about how they may have made bad choices in the past which caused those problems ?" "Do you want to help educate them to make better decisions in their lives ?" No ... everyone with problems is a "Victim", and your supposed to "Feel Sorry" for them or your an unemphatic asshole.
I don't see how that has to do with the survey, though. And if you want to educate someone to make better decisions - eg. that you care and want to help them so that they don't suffer. In such, empathy, the very thing you decry as socialist. If you want to help them, that implies that