In one, scientists at the University of Chicago put two rats in an arena, one held by a restrainer, the other free. They found that the free rat learned to "intentionally and quickly open the restrainer and free the cagemate." They interpreted this result as "providing strong evidence for biological roots of empathically motivated helping behavior."
In the other case, Drs. Hollis and Nowbahari themselves did a very similar experiment with ants. They found that ants were prepared to rescue fellow ants held in a nylon snare and showing obvious distress. Just like the rats, the hero ants would chew at the restraints (though not if the victims were anesthetized or from different colonies or species). Happy to describe such behavior as "pro-social," they did not go so far as to attribute empathy to the ants. There was no reason to think that the hero ants were motivated by a wish to alleviate the suffering of the victims. More likely, they possessed a self-interested instinct to help get a co-worker back to work.
How does this differ from humans? Humans would probably behave in similar ways if we put them in similar situations, but is the psychological motivation different? Adam Smith seems to think so:
In his 1759 book the "Theory of the Moral Sentiments," philosopher Adam Smith argued that empathy (he called it sympathy) was motivated by the capacity to imagine being another person. "When I condole with you for the loss of your only son, in order to enter into your grief, I do not consider what I, a person of such a character and profession, should suffer, if I had a son, and if that son was unfortunately to die; but I consider what I should suffer if I was really you; and I not only change circumstances, but I change persons and characters. My grief, therefore, is entirely upon your account, and not in the least upon my own. It is not, therefore, in the least selfish."
The article concludes that either we think that rats are capable of this Smithian imagination (which the author concludes is absurd), or we assume that animals must have different motivations than humans. OR!!!! And this was what I was thinking this whole time, but the author finally admits at the end a big OR to this whole thing is that maybe humans don't have the psychological motivations that they think they do. Maybe the humans are doing things for the same reasons as the rats: "Can we be so sure it is fellow-feeling rather than instinct that drives us to our virtuous as well as our vicious actions?"
If we are really the empathy equivalent of rats, maybe we invented empathy to give ourselves a nice story. In other words, maybe humans give a positive spin on their "choices" after the fact, the same way they do with free will (or should I say, free won't). I feel like I just discovered the necessary plot device to make the Matrix IV relevant.
FIRST!!! Yeah :)
ReplyDeleteYou're beautiful :)
DeleteThank-you.
DeleteAh, the usual human need to make everything look better than it actually is. People lie to themselves all the time to convince themselves that they are doing the 'right' thing, but in the end, everyone looks out for number one.
ReplyDeleteI think you've hit the issue spot on M.E; people only look out for others because it also helps our image in the process.
Why do you assume it's always actually selfish? What about when it doesn't help us and even hurts us? This is a silly theory (that you've turned into law), especially with the added "convincing ourselves" things. You sound like WBC when they're saying that atheists and what not are just convincing themselves they don't feel god's wrath. No, it's really not there.
DeleteI think this is just the product of not getting what it is... I'm convinced it really is necessary to have it, at least once, to make theories on it. Or maybe, if someone had it and it got taken away they wouldn't even remember or be able to process what having empathy was like or their thoughts on it... hmm...
DeleteI think it's cute how you hold onto the illusion of 'the inherent goodness of humans' like a lifeline to sanity. If people were really caring and nice deep down, why is everyone so easily whipped into a frenzy when one government spews forth the pre-requisite propaganda?
DeleteWhy did the German citizens in WWII not care about the Jews, Atheists, Gypsies etc who were dumped into concentration camps? The answer is that they were being smart; trying to help them would only have lead to trouble for themselves, and so they didn't try.
As for the WBC, they're a bunch of idiots who discriminate against others so they can hide behind the illusion that they're the perfect chosen beings of their God. Illusions can make you feel better, but one day they will fall apart, and then where will you be? If you know what's good for yourself, it's better to accept the harsh reality as it really is. Those with power know the truth, and we allow the masses to keep thinking as they like; fantasy is useful for keeping the commoners under control.
In the end, it's your choice. Would you rather be powerful, or would you rather stay hidden behind your illusions and be controlled?
I don't hold onto the inherent goodness, I just think it's ridiculous to assume that whenever someone wants to help anyone, it's selfish. That isn't saying that everyone is inherently good... you're more like saying everyone is inherently selfish and they aren't possibly doing anything mostly for others benefit, because you don't do that. Lazy theory, easy explanation out. The nons can't possibly just be different from you. It's not "illusions of the mind". You're not in any position to understand, try actually being a non and feeling it out.
DeleteI wish you'd just accept what you say is just theory, and that you can't tell me something about me. I know when my motivations are selfish, or when they aren't. A lot of times I'm not even thinking of the benefits for me. Hell, sometimes there are cons. You've pretty much made it irrefutable, you can just say you're right and that we just don't notice and there's some hidden benefit our subconscious worked out that our conscious doesn't recognize... whether it causes a bunch of trouble or grief in the long run... to help that somebody in your life.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteSometimes it *is* for me, and sometimes it isn't. Accept that... you're just automatically going with a theory that makes sense for *you* and lines up with you, because you can't put the shoe on the other foot... it's like someone who's always been blind not accepting that there are really things to see, that things actually look like something, & insisting that everyone is just hallucinating things from their own mind.
DeleteIf some alien being who has had nothing to do with us, benefit or issue, suddenly came down and was tortured or something, I'd care.
DeleteI've written too much when it's not guaranteed you'll get what I'm explaining anyway or question your theory. You're welcome to think that you've got us non psychopaths all figured out if you like.
Why would I want to be a neurotypical? They're easily fooled, used and discarded by anyone who wants to do so. Emotions seem to be such a drag when you think about it; many neurotypicals hold grudges for some inconsequential deed done to them long ago and act purely on their hatred.
DeleteThey're often hypocrites as well; anything they do is seen as just, but if their enemy does the same thing, it is seen as evil. The terms 'good' and 'evil' all depend on a certain point of view; one man's good is another's evil. So by extension, neither actually exist. Nerotypicals seem to just paste these terms onto people or events so that they can take a moral high ground.
P.S If humans are not inherently selfish, then why are sociopaths, regarded by most as 'blank slates', seen as self serving individuals?
Oh,... you think being a psychopath gives you super powers. Psychopathy only helps where being fooled has to do with being vulnerable from certain emotions you don't really have or deal with, but psychopaths can be fooled too. And grudge holding varies from person to person, I've never seen anyone say they think most people are petty grudge holders. Hypocrisy? EVERYONE Is capable of that... pshhh. And seeing what they do as evil when other people do it, is again, a stupid person to person thing. It still doesn't mean evil exists. I don't really use the word evil, but it doesn't not-exist for the reason you said- people being hypocrites about things. I guess a psychopath wouldn't do that kind of hypocrisy but they can be hypocrites in other things. Hypocrisy is more often seen in morals that make no sense or are dumb.. irrational ones... makes no sense in the first place so it's easy to lose your footing.
DeleteI don't understand why sociopaths being seen as self serving individuals (are you referring to people saying that because they wouldn't give a damn about other people?) means that humans are inherently selfish and therefore don't actually do things for other people. If you are referring to what I think you are, it makes complete sense o.O
You're a bit magneto psychopath to me, (haha.. see magneto autistic)- don't generalize neurotypicals, they are most of the worlds population. It's dumber than racism. You are not the expert on any demographic, you havent experienced "most" of them to make a judgement like that.. stereotypes are always ridiculous to me. You focus on negative experiences and ignore the times you encounter someone who doesnt do what you complain about.
And then there's all the people who have opposite stereotypes for each stereotype and swear they know by experience... everyone can't be right.
That grudge thing in psychopathy is one thing I've heard from an NT.
People who have a magneto attitude with any group come expecting awesome people, people "like themselves (many times they aren't even as they describe themselves..)", et cetera.. to be disappointed... there really is no overall awesome demographic... there's tards, morons, annoyances, etc.
DeleteI never said you'd want to be a neurotypical, but it would help to be one if you're going to make statements and make up theories about them. You shouldn't think you have stuff figured out.
Whoever said I was complaining? It's perfectly natural for humans to be selfish; it's a survival trait from days before we have advanced to a more concious state. I simply say that it's foolish to believe that we've gone past that stage; instead we create positive spins on natural survival instincts and call them 'morals'. Perhaps it is you who see an issue with people being selfish.
DeleteOh and I know there are plenty of bright men and women with many different mindsets; but only those who can put their emotions aside are able to see things as they are, not as you want them to be. By freeing yourself of emotion, you make rational choices with nothing to cloud your judgement. If you are intelligent, but lack the will or judgement to use your mind to benefit your own personal cause, then your intelligence is wasted.
As for making statements on neurotypicals, I simply make observations on their actions and the outcomes, no more, and no less. Even the most intelligent ones make horrible decisions every now and again because their emotions cloud their judgement. Give me one example where emotion is beneficial to an individual; it would give your argument more weight.
You are delusional if you think having morals is a secret selfish instinct. I do just fine telling when I'm doing things for myself and when I'm not. It's a bit of a jump to call the behavior you observe selfish... you actually think that when we feel sorry for someone, cry over someones tragic death,or get upset at abuse, that we're actually doing it for ourselves, because some kind of benefit would come our way if that didn't happen to them? Even when it hurts us to do things or care for them? Trust me.. whatever tiny ass benefit we'd get ourselves from caring and doing things (esp when it hurts us!) isn't worth it. If people only ever did things for their own benefit, there'd be a lot less done for other people.
DeleteWhat do you think of yourself, then, as an individual without empathy? Do you think you're not being selfish enough? You aren't helping yourself out enough, since whenever people want to help others they're trying to help themselves out? I'd think it would get tiring... it's much better to help yourself, by uh, helping yourself.
You think guilt over something is really concern for ourselves or our future? I guess you wouldn't know, so you assume it must be something only you can understand- looking out for yourself. It's a bit of a long jump of a conclusion, don't you think? A secret survival trait? Stasis, people aren't putting positive spins on anything. There's nothing hidden to see here. It is what it is.
And here you are saying no kind of emotion (I guess you've never heard of or experienced positive ones to really know) is beneficial to an individual. Whatever evolutionary crap you are on about must be VERY faulty... if it doesn't even benefit us.
I never said there was anything wrong with looking out for yourself, you seem to call more things selfish that I call selfish anyway (like the burning vehicle thing.. that's not selfish!... it's called saving yourself...)
We're doing an awful job at being "selfish" and doing things that benefit us with this whole punishment idea btw, we feel sorry for poor imprisoned or kidnapped people but go ahead and punish criminals... you'd think if it was about being selfish & thinking about the benefits of them being free for us, we wouldn't do that.. (besides the obvious cases of when they're some kind of threat, like repeated offender, etc)
DeleteI also don't believe you if you're claiming to be an emotionless person. I'll believe it when I see some kind of scan. And the scan would come up negative for this claim- it's on the tip of my tongue but I can't explain it... all I can say is it plays a part in motives to do many things... someone acting on instinct or stimulation alone isn't going to do a lot of the things a person does...
DeleteAn emotionless person isn't even really a person to me, if this has ever happened to someone. That's less life than many animals. If it's family/friendless, I wouldn't have a problem shooting it (for some kind of payment, and no jail xD)
Stasis, I would pull you out of a vehicle that is safe for me to pull you out of. I would pull you off of a cliff. I would shield you from kicks if you're not in the condition to do so. I would snatch knives and lighters away a certain sociopath likes to fuck with me with (ugh) away from you if you were gesturing at hurting yourself. I would steal your cancer sticks (cigarettes). I would wrap my arms around you if you were upset or something. I would give you involuntary cuddles (cuddle rape! xD) Are you feelin' the love, bro? xD
DeleteNo I'm serious. Not about the love part,though. That's just creepy.
I don't love you, but don't feel down! (joke). I don't know you yet.
DeleteEvolution favours those who can act with ruthless efficiency; those who are not impeded by empathy. Just look at the percentage of those with low or no empathy in comparison to the general population. It's been on the rise for quite a while now.
DeleteFrom my point of view, empathy is much like the appendicitis. It gives humans no benefit, and can cause major distress when something makes it go haywire. And yet it evolved because we once needed it. Perhaps we once needed empathy so we could hunt in packs without everyone trying to kill each other and become the alpha (and thus weakening the pack because there are less members). Those days are long past though; now it's only an obstacle if you want to gain power.
Still, I am happy that there are people like you. If everyone had no empathy, it would make getting what I want a lot harder than it is today ;). The wolf loves the sheep after all, you're all very juicy.
That first part makes sense but it could also just be because of genes.
DeleteThat's my point, it doesn't give any benefit. Even if it did come about to help with hunting packs I wouldn't be surprised if it was a gained skill separating us from "dumber" animals without us needing it for ourselves, because empathizing makes sense all by itself.. its the way it should be imo.
I'm happy to be loved and juicy for you... I hope you mean that in an of use or aid way, less likely to hurt you way... not in a destroy my life or kill me way o.O
You're so lucky you're not here, omg. You'd have your oxygen supply cut off. C'mere! (>^ ^)>
I like this idea, and I've been thinking of it a lot lately. From our perspective we do things because we care. Because we have purpose, and be cause good means something. But really I think we just have more complex threading to achieve the same things. Procreation and perpetuation of the species. For example, eco friendlyis for the greater good. It gives people a sense of accomplishment and connection to do things for the planet like recycling because it promotes the well being of all. It saves the world, if you will. But its really long term projection for perpetuating the species. The feelings people associate to that are dramatically skewed to be emotionally gratifying, but it all boils down to the same thing. How do we really know that ants don't care to their own capacity the same way we care to ours.
ReplyDeleteEmpathy is the last evolved trait and thus the most incomplete.
ReplyDeleteThen mothers parenting their children is the last evolved trait?
DeleteDo you think a sociopathic mother would forget to feed their baby? Or does the stockholm syndrome start with their first kick, making them never forget they exist.
DeleteMy mother kicked me as soon as I came out! Said I had that coming to me. I had to rummage for food, but she did give be some good biscuits and mustard for my birthday. Then she would kick me again~
DeleteThe sociopathic/narcissistic bitches!
Deletelol
Delete"In other words, maybe humans give a positive spin on their "choices" after the fact"
ReplyDeleteRationalizing after the fact looks true. Sociopaths and empaths may rationalize differently due to different concepts of what is 'postive'. Hnot been afraid is important to sociopaths, or not having been humiliated, or beaten. So it makes sense sociopaths will rationalize they weren't scared when they were..and so on.
The parallel with empath rationalizing goes a bit further, maybe. Because...empaths like to rationalize they were 'well motivated' or 'did good'...and the truth is that most of the time they probably are well motivated and probably do do good. So on those occasions they do bad, and are badly motivated...because ten minutes later they are all good again, it's probably easy to tell yourself "yeah I must have been all good when I did that".
Likewise, sociopaths get over fear quite quickly when the threat goes away...so ten minutes later they are back to feeling fearless...
That was interesting. I'm still wondering if gingers have a soul and empathy though
ReplyDeleteThought experiment - under similar cases of distress, couldn't "mercy killings" (ie physician assisted suicide) qualify also as an "empathetic" action?
ReplyDeleteyes.
DeleteI know a vet who put down his sec'y for that reason. He used same drugs he gives the dying pets. He was arrested and lost his license or something. He is a sweet man.
They most certainly do!
DeleteI like the rat experiment.
ReplyDeleteI took my 2 dogs inside a lobby of building to escape thunder and lightening rainstorm. One dog likes it, the other goes crazy and gets frighteningly anxious.
Once inside, the happy dog went over to the anxious one and made as IF to say "it's ok, we are here now, let me lick your face and love on you to alleviate your distress" My cat will run over to the other the same way if the other gets its tail slammed in the door.
Is it empathy, or just a way for "consoler" to relieve their own anxiety? IOW do they merely want to say hey you are making my day fucked up with your terrors, just stop it?
If you get annoyed with someone else's anxiety and you slap them across their face to say stop it what is that?
I have done both depending on what works for the other. If I want to be giving, I figure out what is best according to what is the most effective for that individual person. This is why I will pause before reacting to another's terror. I find that is the most considerate thing, to figure another person out before reacting.
Is that empathy? Because really, it is not easy to tell. I think it is a bit more than putting myself in the other's plight. It is putting myself into the other's psychology. And I think this makes me more effective.
Nice. I'm not a sociopath, but I don't know that this truly selfless empathy exists. It implies that you completely lose your self while you inhabit someone else's pain and their personality. I just don't think that's really possible. We are our minds, and our minds are doing the empathizing. But I can truly feel sorry for you, or with you, and feel a real emotion, but still be myself. I think that's sufficient. It's certainly plenty pro-social.
DeleteI do not inhabit their pain. I see it.
Deletenon 9:18 are you talking about yourself or are you telling me something you believe is about me that I do not believe to be true, at least not in this moment?
When you say "nice" what do you mean? Are you sarcastic or are you in agreement? It is hard to tell where you come from, but I hear anger. Am I paranoid or are you angry about my comment?
I am not trying to shrink you , believe me. I am trying to see if I should bother to hear or understand you, because I have no idea where you do come from.
DO you like to be a confusing devil's advocate just for to hear yourself talk?
Sorry, no, that "nice" was sincere. No sarcasm intended. I liked you observations, esp about your pets. I was inspired to elaborate on the ideas, not to belittle them. I apologize for being unclear.
DeleteIs it empathy, or just a way for "consoler" to relieve their own anxiety?
DeleteI believe they both come down to the same thing.
I agree whole heartedly
Delete11:14 thank you for explaining. Yeah, the losing of the self makes it not worth it.
Deletewhen school starts i need you
ReplyDeletewait why is that?
Deleteyou know why that's self explanarory
DeleteI agree, I think if the ants had empathy they'd help people from a different colony.
ReplyDelete". Maybe the humans are doing things for the same reasons as the rats: "Can we be so sure it is fellow-feeling rather than instinct that drives us to our virtuous as well as our vicious actions?"
If we are really the empathy equivalent of rats, maybe we invented empathy to give ourselves a nice story. In other words, maybe humans give a positive spin on their "choices" after the fact, the same way they do with free will (or should I say, free won't). I feel like I just discovered the necessary plot device to make the Matrix IV relevant."
It's obvious you lack empathy from that statement. For someone who knows what it is, it seems silly to me to even wonder if humans have empathy because of instinct. The same kind of silly feeling I get when people say you can not know your own motivations..
And, what about helping out or caring when it doesn't benefit you or anyone at all in the long run, or even hurts you and other people?
DeleteFor all who want to kill to this silly bi-polar bitch.
DeleteYou're even going through the blog to reply to me? You are such a masochist.
DeleteMake it really rough for me, baby.
DeleteHell, we are soooooo tired of her we don't care to respond, anymore.
Deletetired of playing beau jank
DeleteRight, yet you are responding to me right now? I'd like to know who these non responsive people are.
Deletemy response was not intended to continue the current course of action but to alert you of my dissatisfaction with the state of our relationship.
DeleteWe have a relationship?
Deleteyou tell me
DeleteWhen's our anniversary? It can't be a romantic relationship, okay? I already have one of those. How about a really cuddly one, I have infinite slots for those <3
DeleteWicked
smile, this is gonna hurt.
ReplyDeletewhats going to hurt?
Deleteawwww your sooo sweet
DeleteThink really hard. UHave 2 interact.
Delete<a href="http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xj1ad_u2-all-i-want-is-you_music"
Deletesay what you say around sixx am?
Deletesay what you say around six am?
i keep messin that up
DeleteYou don't say.
DeleteAsshole
DeleteKisses, sweetheart.
DeleteSee you in the morning?
DeleteI hope so.
DeleteYeah sure i'll be there
Delete...or not you never know
DeleteWhat about people with less empathy (not sociopaths in this case)? Why do some people help others or feel others' pain, while some do not, if it's pro-social behavior? Why isn't there the same emotional response across the board if it's all in the interest and betterment of the group?
ReplyDeleteExactlehhh...
Delete-Wicked
Hey, what do you have going on?
ReplyDeleteim sorry going on tomorrow.
DeleteI'm busy tomorrow maybe some othertime
DeleteO ok i understand
Deletehttp://hiram7.wordpress.com/2010/03/07/unsung-hero-of-world-war-ii-hiram-bingham-iv/
ReplyDeleteAmazon Book: Courageous Dissent: How Harry Bingham Defied His Government to Save Lives (2007)
''Because he went against U.S. policy, he never received national credit, and because he was a man of action and not of words, his story went with him when he died in 1988. ''
interesting article. Who knows? I had a duck trapped in my porch screen. I kept trying to open the doors to let it fly out but it kept tying to fly out the screen and hitting itself and bouncing back. I really didn't know what to do. Many hours later, another duck flew in and led the other duck out the door.
ReplyDeleteThat must have been hilarious! Not sure why you didn't just grab it and chuck it outside though; it must have made an awful lot of noise if it was stuck in your porch screen for hours.
DeleteP.S I half-expect this to be fake; it's a bit too ridiculous when you think about it.
It is 100% true. I don't lie. I am not sure if it was a duck or a goose. It flew, so that may be a difference. At any rate, I think they stay paired because when I would walk around my neighborhood, I would see them. (I think it was the same pair ~)
DeleteI would grab it and cuddle it so hard... after I put on safety gear.
DeleteDon't you just have this urge to squeeze cute things?
I've seen animals taunt another if it was in pain; birds in particular seem to pick on the bird with a broken leg; often to the point of killing it. A genetic disposition to weed out the weak maybe?
DeleteI've also seen animals cooperate if they were part of the same group/pair. I still believe that cooperation works on mutual benefit rather than the need to do something 'nice'. It's merely another survival tactic; safety in numbers and all that.
These are simple examples, and they're about animals. I never claimed animals liked being nice to eachother or had empathy. Why not just be like animals then, if that's all there is to it? You seem to only be thinking of small examples of people helping each other out.
DeleteCooperation isn't always for mutual benefit, and you still never really provided an explanation for the upset others feel for others or helping when it hurts them. Seems like a dumb survival tactic. It would at least make sense if it provided great benefit (how often does it benefit people to do what they do??? really?), showed itself in a less totally bizarre way (guilt, right/wrong, caring about others, or loving, are bizarre things when you blame it on survival tactics. The way animals cooperate makes much more sense.. none of that... just helping out.. especially none of that whole "taking bullets" for one another, no helping out people that suck resources, no "I'd die for you" in love cases etc).
I still think it's just that you don't understand on top of the fact that this theory doesn't really make much sense, especially not enough to decide "this is it, I've figured out non psychopaths and why they care about others, or love anyone". You don't understand what it is to care about other people. I'm not even going to get frustrated with you for sticking to your theory because a large part of it isn't your fault. Don't get mad at me saying this either.
-Wicked Lovely, too lazy to sign in.