Is empathy an innate or acquired quality?

[Olga]

In recent decades there has been some pushback against the rather Nietzschean sentiment that enduring trauma "builds character", and science can really only tell us so much regarding such matters. And certainly, there are plenty of instances wherein trauma has essentially "broken" people, by which I mean that trauma has made them weaker, less capable, and--to borrow a rather annoying and vague term which nevertheless conveys something akin to what I am getting at--less "self-actualized".

That said, speaking from personal experience, I have found that people who have experienced very little violence--being on the receiving end, that is--or extreme hardship or deprivation in their lives, tend not to respond very well when they do have to face such things personally, or deal with such with regards to others. I'm referring both to physical as well as emotional or psychological violence and hardship. When such comes knocking, such persons are prone to retreating, shutting down, or reacting in such ways that only make matters much, much worse.

Again, this is just my own personal take, and while I wouldn't exactly say that I'm thankful for having experienced a fair bit of violence in my own life, it has helped me both with dealing with irrational violence directed towards me as well as affording me the ability to redirect violence aimed toward others toward myself, in order to spare the other(s). For instance, I've worked with a lot of dogs with serious... issues, stemming from either abuse or neurological complications, and I've managed to spare both people and dogs some potentially very serious injuries--likely to have been made much worse by their having reacted in the wrong fashion--on quite a number of occasions.

It's a rather difficult matter to broach, because I don't wish trauma upon others but I'm also rather concerned about so many being so unprepared, imho, for such.

А вы наблюдали за собаками, когда они живут не по одиночке, а в стае?

 

[Olga]

In recent decades there has been some pushback against the rather Nietzschean sentiment that enduring trauma "builds character", and science can really only tell us so much regarding such matters. And certainly, there are plenty of instances wherein trauma has essentially "broken" people, by which I mean that trauma has made them weaker, less capable, and--to borrow a rather annoying and vague term which nevertheless conveys something akin to what I am getting at--less "self-actualized".

That said, speaking from personal experience, I have found that people who have experienced very little violence--being on the receiving end, that is--or extreme hardship or deprivation in their lives, tend not to respond very well when they do have to face such things personally, or deal with such with regards to others. I'm referring both to physical as well as emotional or psychological violence and hardship. When such comes knocking, such persons are prone to retreating, shutting down, or reacting in such ways that only make matters much, much worse.

Again, this is just my own personal take, and while I wouldn't exactly say that I'm thankful for having experienced a fair bit of violence in my own life, it has helped me both with dealing with irrational violence directed towards me as well as affording me the ability to redirect violence aimed toward others toward myself, in order to spare the other(s). For instance, I've worked with a lot of dogs with serious... issues, stemming from either abuse or neurological complications, and I've managed to spare both people and dogs some potentially very serious injuries--likely to have been made much worse by their having reacted in the wrong fashion--on quite a number of occasions.

It's a rather difficult matter to broach, because I don't wish trauma upon others but I'm also rather concerned about so many being so unprepared, imho, for such.

Вы не знакомы с методикой Мурата Нуржанова? На Ютьюбе есть ролики с его работой. Наберите: "Murat Nurzhanov", у него очень действенные методы, он с собаками работает ещё со времён советского ДОСААФ.

 

[James R]

In the Middle Ages, people even took places in the squares in advance to watch how a witch was burned, hanged, or quartered a criminal. They were interested in looking at other people's suffering.

Worth mentioning that there were also a lot of people who refused to go and watch witch burnings, hangings and other forms of capital punishment or torture.

A small number of people went along to document the fact of the barbarity. Today, we call those people journalists.

After all, man is a monster. Animals do not do this.

Humans are animals.

It is interesting that it tends to be the more intelligent animals that are the ones that engage in cruelty just for fun. Other animals kill almost exclusively to survive.

Do you think people have changed a lot in a few hundred years? I don't think so.

In terms of some people being selfish and sociopathic? No, I don't think that has changed much in the last few millennia. There are a lot more people around these days, of course, so the total number of sociopaths has no doubt increased, even if the proportion of the population who are sociopaths has not changed.

But I still want to understand why some people are born (or become) humanists?

Humanism is a philosophy - an ethical stance. Nobody is born a humanist, just as nobody is born a Christian or a Buddhist.

People become humanists, I think, (a) because they have strong feelings about such things as human rights and justice and (b) because they reject supernatural attempts at accounting for such things.

How is their brain different from the brain of other people?

That's a complicated question. There are a few relevant studies on the matter, I believe, but my impression is that there's still a lot of science to be done on that - as is the case with many brain studies.

(I think that Hitler and Stalin, under different conditions, would have been ordinary people, one would have become an average artist, and the other a priest, of which there are many among us.)

That's hardly saying anything. Under different conditions, things could be different, yes.

 

[Olga]

Worth mentioning that there were also a lot of people who refused to go and watch witch burnings, hangings and other forms of capital punishment or torture.

A small number of people went along to document the fact of the barbarity. Today, we call those people journalists.

Humans are animals.

It is interesting that it tends to be the more intelligent animals that are the ones that engage in cruelty just for fun. Other animals kill almost exclusively to survive.

In terms of some people being selfish and sociopathic? No, I don't think that has changed much in the last few millennia. There are a lot more people around these days, of course, so the total number of sociopaths has no doubt increased, even if the proportion of the population who are sociopaths has not changed.

Humanism is a philosophy - an ethical stance. Nobody is born a humanist, just as nobody is born a Christian or a Buddhist.

People become humanists, I think, (a) because they have strong feelings about such things as human rights and justice and (b) because they reject supernatural attempts at accounting for such things.


That's a complicated question. There are a few relevant studies on the matter, I believe, but my impression is that there's still a lot of science to be done on that - as is the case with many brain studies.

That's hardly saying anything. Under different conditions, things could be different, yes.

Под "гуманистами" я подразумевала "гуманные", "не злые", "не равнодушные". Каков процент таких людей в обществе? Не тех, кто считает себя таковыми, потому что сейчас считается хорошим тоном быть такими, а тех, кто на самом деле таков, потому что другим быть не может, и не хочет?

 

[Ken Fabian]

Без эмпатии жить легче? Как вы думаете?

"Is it easier to live without empathy? What do you think?"

I think that amongst people with empathy taking without giving appears to win personal advantage. Within small groups or well governed groups that will be revealed by their behavior over time, until the backlash catches up and the accumulated distrust and dislike outweighs any advantage. Those without empathy may also make a calculated choice to simulate it in order to maintain advantageous relationships.

 

[Wizard of Whatever]

"Is it easier to live without empathy? What do you think?"

I think that amongst people with empathy taking without giving appears to win personal advantage. Within small groups or well governed groups that will be revealed by their behavior over time, until the backlash catches up and the accumulated distrust and dislike outweighs any advantage. Those without empathy may also make a calculated choice to simulate it in order to maintain advantageous relationships.

Everyone should have empathy, but firmly under the control of their will/

 

[Ken Fabian]

Everyone should have empathy, but firmly under the control of their will/

And have their will firmly under the control of ethical reasoning that doesn't withhold and deny empathy selectively, on the basis of prejudice and bigotry.

 

[Wizard of Whatever]

And have their will firmly under the control of ethical reasoning that doesn't withhold and deny empathy selectively, on the basis of prejudice and bigotry.

Your True Will is much more ethical than any reasoning.

 

[Pinball1970]

"Is it easier to live without empathy? What do you think?"

I think that amongst people with empathy taking without giving appears to win personal advantage. Within small groups or well governed groups that will be revealed by their behavior over time, until the backlash catches up and the accumulated distrust and dislike outweighs any advantage. Those without empathy may also make a calculated choice to simulate it in order to maintain advantageous relationships.

John Maynard Smith looked at these possibilities and called them ESS, Evolutionary Stable Strategies. He would establish populations and let them be invaded by different mutants simulations (I'll check details) then let the dice roll.

An example would be birds removing ticks for their friends, they can preen themselves but not their own head so they need another bird to do that.
A sucker preened everyone, a cheater preened no one and grudgers preened but remembered if he was cheating so bore a grudge.

We can assume that never being preened leads to disease, death and not passing on it's genes.
Grudgers win out.

 

[(Q)]

Can a person learn empathy?

Yes.

 

[Ken Fabian]

Your True Will is much more ethical than any reasoning.

Then you should (also) be able to demonstrate what you will is ethical using reasoning.

But this sounds like one of those 'no true Scotsman' things to me - that all those willfully hateful things people do are because the will applied to them is false rather than 'True Will' TM.

How do you tell if acts of will are "True Will" without applying reasoning that considers the consequences - the unintended but foreseeable as well as the intentional? Note I see failure to foresee because you didn't bother to think it through as an ethical failure - a failure of due diligence.

 

[(Q)]

Your True Will is much more ethical than any reasoning.

Nonsensical. you can't even define "true will" whatever that is.

 

[Wizard of Whatever]

Then you should (also) be able to demonstrate what you will is ethical using reasoning.

Reason can twist any thing. I can but I wouldn't bother.

But this sounds like one of those 'no true Scotsman' things to me - that all those willfully hateful things people do are because the will applied to them is false rather than 'True Will' TM.

False desires, not True Will

How do you tell if acts of will are "True Will" without applying reasoning that considers the consequences - the unintended but foreseeable as well as the intentional? Note I see failure to foresee because you didn't bother to think it through as an ethical failure - a failure of due diligence.

Observation, experiences and results, better way than the twisted paths of reason.

 

[Olga]

Yes.

Тогда почему ты до сих пор этого не сделал, Мартин?

 

[Changeling]

Like all human qualities, empathy exists on a spectrum, because it is beneficial to have both very empathetic and not at all empathetic people in your group. Variety is selected for at the group level.

 

[TheVat]

Possibly even at the macroevolution level, where a whole species or clade could be eliminated or favored by the breadth of an empathy (or other behavioral) spectrum.