We are not alone

I don't like naming something a disorder in the way this article does because it suggests something that's always there, and treatable through drugs, or behavior modification (as this article seems to). There actually is such a thing as an empathy deficit disorder--but it's generally referred to as autism--and is not what is being described in this piece.

I sometimes refer to a failure of empathy--I like the initials, plus its a case by case basis not a "disorder." I do think certain things about our culture in particular make us much more prone to a lack of empathy--the pace of our lives, our narcissism, our focus on external rewards....but I also disagree with the way in which the author is told to practice being empathetic: "Instead of telling people what they ought to do or becoming tyrannically optimistic, you offer sympathy, inquire about feelings, and validate those feelings." Empathy and sympathy are not the same, nor is it always a good idea to validate someone's feelings--depends on what the feelings are. Empathy makes you able to recognize what the feelings are--it doesn't mean that you have to encourage them.

"Research has shown that the capacity to feel what others feel is hard-wired in our brain" -- Katrina

I can't agree with that. I'm pretty sure empathy is something we learn, not something we are born with. My five years old daughter is the living proof for my certainty.

When a toddler wants something, s/he wants it right now, no matter the situation or the probability to get what s/he wants. And I'm not talking about babies with basic necessities; everyone would understand they need to be fed, or to be cleaned, or to sleep right at the moment. I'm talking about kiddies 2 or 3 years old. Geez, my 5 years old precious still has occasional bursts of "I don't give a damn, do as I say and do it NOW" moments.

But I've seen, too, how she's been acquiring understanding about what others feel or think-- the key word here being acquiring.

So, even if we've got from start the potential to empathize but have to develop the actual empathy, I think that's something we have to learn...

There was a great conversation about the science of spirituality (and relatedly empathy) on the show On Point.

Two interesting points/distinctions: One made by George Vaillant ("Spiritual Evolution")--He made a distinction between two components of religion--one coming from the limbic system, the other from the neo-cortex. He sees the limbic system as the source for love, compassion, trust--and that these are central to all the major religions. The neo-cortex--where language systems originate--tend to be where the distinctions between the religions and dogma come from. (This seems related actually to what DL was talking about in the Painting thread--about the emotion/analytic divide.)

The other made by Peter Manseau ("Killing the Buddha"), who was saying that things like the limbic system or mirror neurons are the hardware. But the software is culture, history. Which might be the same distinction we're making here between the ability to feel empathy (the hard-wiring) and then the training and developmental age at which it shows up.

I liked the take on "myth" toward the end too--saying that using "myth" to describe something that isn't "real" is a misuse of the term (and a misuse that I think probably comes out of the Enlightenment)--but that myth is really a type of story we use to talk about our own meaning--and Science is the current dominant myth. This is very much what the GC has said in various places on the site.

Great quotation: "If the Buddha was too good to be true, the Enlightenment was too true to be good."

I think we're talking two different --although related-- things here.

First one would be summarize in the expression "monkey see, monkey do". Of course humans have pre-installed the "learning circuits", but that doesn't make us humans, because any other animal has to learn, too. I'm guessing these "mirror neurons" that make babies do as mommy do are part --or the whole-- of those "learning circuits".

Second one is empathy itself. The ability of "walking a mile in someone else's shoes". The ability to acknowledge, and understand, other people's feelings and/or points of view. I think this is acquired, not born with. Maybe it's acquired through the use of "mirror neurons", I don't know, but I don't see that as having empathy "hard-wired"; I see it rather as having the appropriate "hardware" for the "empathy software" to be installed and run --sorry, can't help using computer lingo, that's what pays my bills...

ESi is more precise than me on pointing to the "inflection point" on the babies' "empathy curve". I agree with him on the stages he observes: first one as "I am mommy." Second one, as the baby gains self-awareness, would be --in my opinion-- "mommy is me." Later on, we get to the "mommy is mine" stage --she's someone else, but I am the center of the world. Finally, we get to the "mommy cares for me" and "mommy and I care for each other" stages. I see actual empathy in the last one, and potential for empathy in the "mommy cares for me" one.

While looking for sources to check how wrong or right I was, I stumbled upon this. I seem to have followed loosely the pattern from observation, but maybe I was more right than wrong... ;-)

I guess "intelligence" must reside somewhere, but dude... that sounded like everything is automatic, without any "deliberate thinking process". Take this quote, for example:

"You understand my action because you have in your brain a template for that action based on your own movements".

Is that assuming there is no reasoning, only "memory-templates" checking for matches, or it's just I misunderstood the whole thing?

"I don't think there's an "I" or a self within the body taking in and processing the information from the body like reports coming in from some unthinking machinery, with the "thinker" separate and overseeing everything." --jaz

The idea of an "I" as a separate thing is too close to the idea of "soul" for me to feel comfortable with it, thank you .

Anyway, in my opinion, "reasoning" and "remembering" are two very different programs, but run on the same hardware. Reasoning is a process, therefore more complex than just searching a database for a match. It does involve memory, of course, because that's our main data source, but once you've got the data and with the appropriate input from the sensorial, you've got to do something with them.

If everything was so "simple" as looking of a matching "template", how come human beings can be so creative? Where's the lever we have to pull in order to come out with something new?

I think I'm with jaz on this one, but I'm going to call in the big guns (wife) for it. I know she did a course on child development.

With an 18-month old, I'm a bit closer to the source than DaBot although I know exactly what he's talking about with his 5 year-old.

Kids don't develop a sense of self for a while. As far as they are concerned, they are just another part of Mom. I don't know when this changes, but I'm pretty sure it's late in the first year, if not into the second birthday.

After that, it's a gradual maturation of the brain that allows them to gain empathy. Before a certain point, they have no capacity for it, meaning that whether its hard-wired or learned, there is just no way for a child to be truly empathic. There are some early parts that you can witness, however. For instance, moms like to fool their kids into eating new foods by saying "mmmm yummy" while eating it themselves. The idea is that since mom likes it, baby will naturally like it. That works for a while. At a certain point however, that makes baby give the food back to mom. The clear message is "well if you like it so much then you eat it." That is when the child begins to understand "I'm different from you but I am like you", which is the beginning of the development of empathy. After that, you have to be careful on whether or not a child is truly lacking empathy or if they understand the ramifications of something that happens to another person. A child might not react empathically when they see your arm get cut off because they simply don't realize there's anything wrong with that.

... there's something WRONG with getting your arm cut off??? OMG!!!

I'm almost 40 years old!  Why didn't anyone ever tell me!!!

Well you were part of a grand social experiment in which everyone but you knew and we were all supposed to keep the secret, but I blew it. There goes my commission.

I just noticed a misstatement in my post... I said "into the second birthday" but meant into the second year, IE > 12 months but < 24 months, although I still don't know exactly when. I think my wife might chime in at some point but our 18 month-old is demanding 100% of her attention at the moment. What baby wants, baby gets, and that's that.

I was going to post this under 'news that made me smile' because it did  but the mentioning of empathy in chimps rather than monkeys provoked me to post here instead.

"A new study has shown that stress was reduced in chimps that were victims of aggression if a third chimp stepped in to offer consolation -- by way of a friendly hug or kiss."

I know, sniff.

Yeah, I've heard that about dogs before. Is that where "man's best friend" came from?

That was a great Ted talk. I wish I could go to those things. I think he is correct because I think it's fairly common for people to think "well I'm in such a hurry, someone else will help them." I think that kind of thinking tends to lessen our ability to feel empathy (enough so to act on it) because we replace empathy with an excuse for not helping the person - which is that "someone else will help them."

Homeless people - I think people in general experience empathy for the homeless that sit on the side of the streets with signs denoting they are hungry and need money. But it is also fairly common for people to look the other way while still feeling empathy I think because you can't know if you trust this person to spend your money on food as the sign suggests or if they're going to go spend it on beer at the gas station around the corner. Of course, if spent on beer, the good samaritan has just been duped.

I think what I liked about that was that it hinted at a cultural reason for the dulling of compassion--the kind of self-involvement and also the pace of life--everyone in a hurry, too preoccupied to think about what's going on with that other person.

I think I have a somewhat different take on samaritans and being duped. To me, even if the homeless person uses the money to buy beer (and usually when I give money to a person on the street I'm thinking there's a pretty good chance that's what's going to happen) I don't think of it as being duped--hmm having trouble explaining this--I guess its that charity doesn't really come with a moral test--"you can only have this money if you don't use it for alchohol or drugs." It's sort of like--if a poor person wants to do those things do I have more of a right to control whether s/he does or not than if s/he had the money to do it on her/his own? Of course, then too there are alternatives to giving money--like cooking in a shelter--that can be more rewarding anyway.

I think I get what you're saying. I've held that stance and still hold that stance as I've given money away not knowing if the money is going to be used as it was suggested. But I'm skeptical also because I don't want to just throw the money away. I gave the money away because the person was hungry and could not afford food, not because it was going to be used to feed their alcoholism or drug addiction (which probably put them on the streets in the first place). So if the money is used other than how it was suggested, I feel duped. I felt duped as I saw the man I gave my $5 to when I was 13 years old come out of the gas station with a pack of beer (yeah, he actually asked a little kid for money.)

I agree there are more rewarding ways to give to charity... I've read stories where someone helped a homeless person not by giving him money (so he can go buy beer) but by taking him down to a cafeteria that serves free food and taking him around to look for a job. Now that's extreme empathy.

Ok, I see your point. I agree taking steps to help them get off drugs would be the more appropriate thing to do if you are weary or object to them using the money to feed their addiction. Which is what that story I referred to pretty much suggests - being proactive and not reactive. I'm well aware that the person will probably end up getting the alcohol or drugs some other way or by means of another person if I don't give them money, as well as that is not a probable way that will get them off drugs, you're right, they'd need treatment for that. But I guess I'd also feel better that I didn't contribute to the person's addiction. That defeats the whole purpose of reaching out to help doesn't it? Withdrawl is painful but it won't kill you, starvation will.

When you give a person money - you can't really judge their intent to use that money on the spot.
It's a matter of whether you're going to trust that person with the resource you are offering them.

First I don't see how your giving them money contribute's to the person's addiction.  To do drugs or not do drugs/alcohol is their choice not yours.  If you give that person money - you haven't "bought into" that person's choice.  Your money doesn't give you a say in what that person chooses to do in the future.  Your intent to help is not greater than their intent to choose how to spend it - or whether they choose to be an honest person with you about it. In situations like this you generally have no knowledge of this person or their situation.  So beyond "Can you afford to trust this human being?" is the question "Do you *want* to trust this human being?"  The latter is all about your feelings and to some extent is just a personal preference.

If you want to only offer a specific type of help, then find the means to get around the question that bugs you.  The answer is not to "control their choice" but to control what you choose to do.

Maybe this lack of trust for this person is for what you feel is a "good reason" - that's your call; your choice.  If they die because of it or kill a kid in a drunk driving accident... it was a direct consequence of their action - not yours.  But - your concern is that you don't want to be an "enabler" *if* that person happens to have the problem that you don't want to contribute to.   Maybe you know some general statistical fact about the homeless that may or may not apply to this person's situation.  Maybe this person is asking for money outside the liquor store.  This is the logical point to where the law might even step into say that you contributed to a bad situation and hold you liable.  So the thing to do in that situation is to offer the kind of specific help that you feel inspired to help them with.  Yes, if they say they want food - buy them food with your money, don't give them the money.  If you are concerned that they have no place to stay that evening in the cold - offer them a place to stay.

The problem most people have with stuff like that is that it takes a whole lot more effort to do than to whip out their wallet or turn a blind eye.  It takes a deeper involvement and care - the bottom line is that you're trusting them as a human by becoming involved in their issues.  Sometimes those issues can end up hurting you as much or more than catching a person in a lie about what they intend to do.

Point well made, DL. Thank you.

There are alot of ways to help someone and some ways are more difficult and time consuming than others. But you reminded me of one very easy way to contribute in cases that you are on a time schedule but want to help the homeless beggar - in my experience, most of the time I encounter these people are on my way to and from lunch while carpooling with several coworkers.  If you're at a restaraunt, don't eat everything on your plate, request for a "to-go" box and on your way back to work, instead of tossing the person money, give them your left over food. It doesn't cost extra and it'd feel more rewarding when you can be sure the person is going to be able to eat something. And I'm sure he/she will be just as grateful.

Hmm... I've never heard that before, but it makes perfect sense. 

 This isn't really the same thing as humming to a song but, I sit in an office full of cubicles at work and there's always one person with their radio on.  Even if I don't like the song playing I find myself rockin' the foot to the beat of the song, usually unconciously. (Aerosmith on the radio now, in fact )

I'd imagine it's a sort of pychological affect.  Perhaps why it's easy to get a catchy tune stuck in your head. 

kat, there was a brief article about yawning in the science section of my paper this morning. Apparently the effect of yawning is to cool our brains down and make us more alert. The contagion effect passes on that alertness to the group (in case of predators).

A few other interesting points: nose breathing also keeps the brain cooler than mouth breathing (scientific back-up for the term "mouth-breather"). I know meditation, tai-chi, and yoga all promote nose breathing. And also, holding an ice pack to one's head has a similar effect. So maybe that's what the tin-foil hats are supposed to do--reflect the sun's rays and keep the brain cool?   Or maybe we should just strap on some freezer packs?

LOL Jaz! You're gonna get me fired... stop it with the tin foil hats, woman!

That's awesome.  I've always wondered why yawning is so contagious.  In fact, I want to yawn now just thinking of someone yawning.... *yaaaaawwwnnn*.... aah, that one was a good one! 

Well, it's a good thing I'm a "nose breather" anyway. 

I wonder if this brain cooling effect has anything to do with a cool-head.  You know, like someone easily able to keep their cool about things.

Cool question Kat.   

How completely awesome! 

I love it when seemly innocuous events are found to have some significant meaning.  Most people I know don't pay attention to this kind of stuff.   Jaz you're amazing.

Yeah, I'm sure yawning has something to do with that as it is imitative. I guess one thing I think is a neat finding is the one where babies as young as two days old have been found to mirror sticking out tongues. It's so much fun teaching kids to blow raspberries--now it turns out that might be part of the language learning process. But it's so far-reaching--culture, sports, social relations. Here's another article--this one points to mirror-neurons as perhaps the things that allowed the human brain to evolve to what it is now:

mirror neurons and evolution

And overall I just like the idea that I'm not alone inside my head