The science fiction author, David Brin, once wrote something about empathy and sympathy that was wrong in an important way. It’s important to understand why, as it cuts to our ability to both defeat our enemies and help our friends:
Here’s another, related connection. Empathy is NOT the same thing as sympathy.
Empathy is the power to understand the thoughts and feelings of others. It is a pragmatic tool that is needed by hunters, like tigers, who must try to think like their prey. Empathy is frightening when it is set in a fierce, zero sum game.
But in a surfeit? Amid positive-sum games? When appetites are satisfied and fear is low?
satiation + empathy => sympathy.
Your ancestors, upon hearing of dolphins stranded on a beach, would have run toward them. As YOU would, today, upon hearing the same news.
Only with very different intent. Think about that.”
Now here’s the odd thing – dolphins were actually greatly beloved in the ancient Mediterranean world. I’m not so sure that those ancestors would have run towards them for any different reason than we do.
But that’s an aside – I do think that Brin slices almost correctly but over-fine. Empathy does have a tendency to lead towards sympathy. But I think you can have sympathy and still kill. The hunters I knew in my youth had both empathy and sympathy for the animals they hunted, and they killed them. Mind you, my father very seriously told me he would beat me within an inch of my life if I ever wounded a deer and didn’t track it and kill it. Because letting it suffer needlessly wasn’t something he found acceptable. He had empathy for deer, he had sympathy for deer. He killed deer.
Most hunters I’ve met are similiar. And I have nothing but the most visceral contempt for any hunter who doesn’t feel that way.
Moving back to Brin’s comment about our ancestors – most hunter gatherers, from the evidence we have, treated their kin – their bands or tribes, very well. They lived lives that by most metrics were better than those lived by the majority of people alive today on earth.
Satiation is not required to move from empathy to sympathy. Because Brin mistakes what sympathy is. You can love and kill – the common joke about hunting trophies “I love my wife but I don’t put her head on the wall” is simply the pathetic cry of someone who doesn’t understand. You can love and kill and those who don’t get it have had a failure of empathy.
The best generals get inside the head of their enemies. Then they kill them in large numbers. And when you read their memoirs you’re often struck by the fact that they had the greatest empathy and sympathy for the enemy. It didn’t stop them from killing them.
So much for the idea that sympathy is somehow effete and a product of fat and happy people who don’t have what it takes.
And yet there is a lot of truth to Brin’s overall point. When times get hard many people do indeed get mean. If you’re hungry you probably will carve up those dolphins. But there’s no reason you can’t have sympathy for them as you do it – there’s no reason you can’t kill them quickly and humanely and be respectful by using every bit of meat and bone and blubber that you can.
There’s another disease related to the question of understanding and empathy. Often you will hear “oh you couldn’t understand you’re not male/female/gay/oppressed/black whatever.” This is a claim to privileged understanding of the world based on classification. Often it is an attempt by the disadvantaged to preserve some point where they are acknowledged as the primary authority.
But it’s bullshit and carried to its logical extreme it is very damaging. Empathy is the ability to imagine that you are someone or something else. To crawl inside their skin and see it for a time from their perspective. Whenever someone says “oh you couldn’t understand” what they do is say “I don’t want your empathy and sympathy. I want to shut you out.”
And when you do that, when you claim “I am so different from you that you can’t understand” people hear the following “I don’t want your sympathy or empathy. My pain is precious and mine only.”
And the human response is to say “fuck you then. Take your pain and choke on it.”
Because the offer of sympathy, of understanding; of empathy – is the first reaching of a hand out. It is the way that we bond. When you look at the conversation of friends and acquaintances what stands out is that most of it is not transactional. Most of it is people reaffirming each other, showing they understand, showing empathy and sympathy and fellow feeling. Saying “I understand and I stand with you.” When you tell someone they can’t ever understand what you are saying is “I don’t want your friendship. We are nothing alike. Get away from me.”
Having done that, you have just, in real human terms, forfeited much chance that that person will ever be your friend, will ever take your concerns and feelings as meaningful. Will ever help you.
That’s not to say that a twisted version of empathy can’t be used as a tool to demean people. It often is, the sort of “poor you, it must be awful to be such a horrible wretched scum as you are” is very common in those who help others in order to get a sense of superiority. Shutting such people out is entirely natural, but extend it to the entire world, or entire classes of people, and suddenly you have shut out the possibility of real connection with those people.
There is no real understanding without empathy. Empathy arises from imagination. And it is simply the ability to pull yourself out of yourself. You can put yourself inside other people, but you can as easily imagine yourself inside a system or an object and feel what that is like.
Finally, in a world with as many interconnections as ours it is vitally important to extend fellow feeling; extend empathy; out as far as possible. Because when you lose some species you never met in your entire life, that could affect you. Because when the Inuit lose their hunting grounds to unusual high heat – that’s a precursor to what will affect you. And in a non-zero sum game, as Brin implies, sympathy for others may well rebound back to you.



152 Comments












Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Aloha, Ian!
I actually disagree with the notion that we were the noble ‘Hunter-Gatherers’ which has been repetitively espoused for time immemorial, rather, I’d posit that we were more in the ilk of opportunistic scavengers…!
How does one teach sympathy and empathy, is the question. Goodness knows we need this for our common survival, and more so in the future as the economy slides downhill.
I’ve argued that many of what philosophers call moral sentiments can be seen in other species. In chimpanzees and other animals, you see examples of sympathy, empathy, reciprocity, a willingness to follow social rules. Dogs are a good example of a species that have and obey social rules; that’s why we like them so much, even though they’re large carnivores.
-Natalie Angier (2001-01-14), Confessions of a Lonely Atheist, The New York Times Magazine
and like everything else, it’s possible to get it all wrong – and that is why empathy alone isn’t much good with out some reality checking. so that we learn to imagine more accurately.
i think this may be why we are more likely to want to and be able to empathize more with people who we either perceive as being like us in some way or who are familiar to us.
p.s. i read the post title from the previous page and know before i get here it’s ian’s. thanks ian for another interesting topic.
Sorry to throw quotations out there without comment or explanation. I’m in the middle of cooking dinner and should probably mind my own business, however here’s another relating to empathy that struck me.
“The possibility that empathy resides in parts of the brain so ancient that we share them with rats should give pause to anyone comparing politicians with those poor, underestimated creatures.”
-Frans de Waal (2001-10-26), Do Humans Alone ‘Feel Your Pain’?
Digg this post
yes. but not for pleasure or for sport. only for need.
Interesting points, Ian.
Two things…
1) I just finished a Stranger In A Strange Land – so you know what’ running around in my mind. Grokking and eating.
2) In an acting class in college, when a student told the teacher that they could never play a particular character that was evil (I forget which one), the teacher said We each have a Mother Theresa somewhere in our psyches and also an Adolf Hitler.
Agreed! Except that dogs, like us, are omnivores. Which makes us even more compatible, IMO. But even there we run into difficulty, because unless we empathize and understand the dog’s (or other animal’s) social rules, we stand a good chance of breaking them and causing confusion in the dog which causes displacement behaviors which causes a need for animal shelters and on…and on…
Thanks. Dugg.
and dolphins, whales, and elephants?
There’s not much question in my mind that that’s the case. Aye.
oh my!
Maybe we can only “teach” empathy and sympathy by example. Maybe some cool role-playing exercises?
I have met many people who understand a situation quite well and have no sympathy or empathy for it.
I find that a little scary – a complete lack of feeling.
LOL! My kids used to absolutely hate it when after a punishment we had “the talk” during which time we would go over the impact of their behaviors on others and how they would feel if it happened to them.
Don’t know if that answers your statement but my daughter grew up to be an author who is known for her three dimensional, diverse characters. She’s also a determined civil rights advocate.
When the US sanctioned the killing of the great buffalo herds in order to deprive the Native Americans of their food source there was no empathy or sympathy but they made sure they were all dead.
i think some learn it by getting it.
===
and ian, my paperback new webster’s expanded edition doesn’t even have ‘empathy’ in it…..guess it’s been removed from the english language, i need a real dictionary. in storage.
i wrote a thing once on empathy/sympathy. you can empathize without ‘attaching’ yourself or ‘investing’ yourself. sympathy, you have to ‘go there’. interract.
and ‘mercy’ should be in there somewhere.
mary gauthier ‘mercy now’
scroll down, 1st video.
last video is good, too.
http://justsomethinginoticed.b…..-post.html
i feel the need for a snack
bbl
Apparently the social behavior of dogs doesn’t automatically resonate with humans. They are very dear to us but people in other cultures might value them more as a food source than a companion.
how great a need?
and what need? –
food?
population control (beings that we did most all competing predators)?
Yes. Every one of has a serial killer inside, as well as a Saint (not a huge fan of Mother Theresa’s). Under the right circumstances, or if we had been raised in the right/wrong way, who is to say what we could have become? Or could become. Torturers are usually nice kids, or started that way. They just didn’t know when to say no to orders. And then a lot of them found they liked torturing.
But under the right circumstances the good can come out. It’s why institutions, government, teaching and leadership and so on matter so much. People are extraordinarily plastic to the circumstances they are in, and if you are in a position of power or influence you can damn people – or bring out the best in them. What you do matters. Bush and Cheney and their enablers turned a lot of good people evil, to use the most obvious example. And those people were good, they weren’t strong, but they were good.
I have half an essay on the appeal of evil on my disk, I’ll finish it someday and put it up here.
sociopath
I find that sociopaths have limits to their understanding. But it’s true that if you get emotion completely out of the way, you are often able to look at a situation much more mechanistically and understand it that way. It’s more work, but because most people have very muddled emotions and a requirement to judge, it often works better than empathy if that empathy is predicated on judging first.
the Chinese Gov’t made sure dog was taken off the menus in preparation for the Olympics.
I empathize with my political enemies because they don’t know any better and continue to vote against their own best interests. I sympathize with myself and others who have to deal with these morons.
I’ve got nothing for satiation. LOL
A lot seems to have to do with which tribes domesticated them. In those tribes and their descendants they became pets and companions, but they were viewed with hostility by tribes hostile to those tribes. (Or so I read in some anthro article once upon a time.)
I would be interested in reading what you have to say about that.
Killing versus empathy or sympathy is an extreme example concealing the real problem-hierarchy. We sympathize with someone who is foreclosed out of his house or loses his job, but don’t do anything about it except be grateful it isn’t us. If we are honest, we admit we dream of winning the lottery or scoring something that sets us apart. Capitalism is economic competition and the penalty for losing can be harsh. We are crazy and empathy has nothing to do with it. Why we play the game we do has nothing to do with sympathy either.
there’s good reason for this. like children, in many cases disadvantaged individuals or groups are not acknowledged to be the expert on their own selves. living in a society where one is frequently told that members of a privileged group know them and their motivations and their desires, etc better than the individual does can be a profoundly demoralizing and and dis-empowering experience.
i think what you describe here ian can be a natural and helpful defense against that – especially if it is a temporary stage in a process of reclaiming one’s own agency and self knowledge.
furthermore, i think that accurate and compassionate empathy requires us to consider when this may be the case.
My ex had twins, they were 5 when we married. They were raised the same, received everything the same. One, the boy, had tremendous empathy and sympathy. His sister had none.
Thanks, Ian. I recently had a rather intense discussion with someone about how the left, according to him, should be “understanding” and more “like Gandhi”* than snarky. Apparantly, that offended his desire to deny that it’s all part of what we are. Unfortunately, as I pointed out, his desire to be understanding and in denial was leading him to be an enabler and part of the problem. Could be that “appeasers” are good people in denial. It has been a lifelong issue with me that unless we accept the totality of who we are we can never really see reality.
*Conversely, Gandhi could holler with the best of them, or so I’m told.
Hope that makes sense
Thanks for the great post.
I can really empathize with your sympathies.
-G
LOL Great example. It just goes to show ya how being raised in the same environment doesn’t always give ya the same result.
At great risk of overstating the obvious (won’t be the first time), I am leaning towards the notion that while humans might possess some innate potential for empathy, it is essentially a learned behavior.
That was the clincher for me… might as well stay home and watch it on TV.
Attachment’s an interesting question. I’ve written on it, but that gets very Buddhist very fast and it might be exceeding my mandate at FDL :) I may put it up sometime in a slow period for a brief stay.
Native americans would eat the dogs in their camp as a last resort during harsh times. Today it is done ceremoneously, and no it doesn’t taste like chicken.
my mother was an identical twins
she and her sister had similarities but were quite different people.
Do you believe it was the result of innate potential or lack thereof, or environmental factors?
lmao
My father was a tank Sargent in the Army back in the 60’s and even though he was trained to kill, when he would go deer hunting with my Uncles, he would never want to go out and hunt with them. Killing a deer to him was not something he wanted to do. He always stayed at the cabin to make breakfast/dinner. I’m serious. Weird, huh? And my father is not a wimpy guy either.
LMAO!
I think it’s quite natural, but like most defense mechanisms it can wind up doing a great deal of damage to the person who has it.
I will say this, tangentially: I don’t always buy that people know themselves best. In fact, speaking personally, I have often found that my best friends understand me better than I understand myself and that I understand them better than they understand themselves. And I don’t think this is that unusual.
I meant to say my mother had an identical twin sister.
i agree.
and now that i’m thinking about it… maybe i don’t understand empathy the same way ian does? because i think it’s possible to have compassion without understanding. and i think it’s possible to have understanding without compassion.
to me, empathy is an emotional response to imagining myself in someone else’s shoes. i don’t think that happens very well without some compassion and understanding. but it’s a integrated web because empathy encourages both compassion and understanding. and compassion and understanding and imagination are required for empathy. so maybe i’ve been thinking of empathy as something that includes all four (our emotional response, compassion, understanding and imagination).
or do i have it wrong?
Some folks feel that way. It’s a big deal to kill something, and if you don’t need to, why do it? The other view is that death is part of life, humans have hunting as something entirely natural, and as long as it is done respectfully, hunting is not evil.
I grew up in a circle where almost everyone hunted. Still there were a couple guys who didn’t like it and they weren’t looked down on. But they didn’t judge those who did either. As far as that goes, I don’t like hunting. I like (maybe even love) fishing, but not hunting.
I had this explained to me like this. Imagine two different types of cloth being dipped into the same dye. Each one will “take” the dye uniquely. Can the tendency to embrace empathy and sympathy also be part of a DNA thing?
I think that it is a combination of both of these things
I think you can have compassion without much understanding. But you have to have some. If someone’s in pain, you understand that pain is bad. If you didn’t, you wouldn’t have any compassion. Name anything you might feel compassion for and you’ll see (I think, maybe I’m missing something) that the first step is thinking “that would suck”. An that’s understanding. It may not be deep understanding, but at the least it’s “if that was happening to me, I wouldn’t like it”.
In terms of empathy, we actually have mirror neurons that mimic other people’s brain states. When someone says “I feel your pain” it’s not entirely a metaphor.
Heh. I would never criticize others for their food choices. The Bible says not to. ;) I lived with a vegetarian for a while and was on the receiving end of that. By the way: Chickens make awesome pets, too. I still think the animals we raise for food should receive as much empathy as the animals we raise for pets. Maybe that’s just me wanting to eat happy, healthy meat.
Thanks very much for the great post, Ian.
Dinner time here in ratland.
It’s all very tangled and it varies from culture to culture. I remember when the Vietnamese came to SF and there was a story in the SF Chronicle that peoples’ dogs were disappearing from Golden Gate park. The police found that the Vietnamese were catching them for food. They didn’t know it was wrong – it simply was what they did. The state passed a law that it was illegal to eat dog. Culture…..strange and different.
Don’t feed the monster and nurture the sympathec/empathetic being.
I think it’s important to recognize that some people like sociopaths and psychopaths simply lack the capacity for empathy. They can simulate it in order to manipulate others, but they really don’t have a clue what it is.
From this discussion, we can infer that Dick Cheney has no empathy as evidenced by his failure to put his friend Harry Whittington out of his misery.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..15948.html
At least Whittington displayed empathy by apologizing to Cheney for allowing his face to get in the way of Cheney’s birdshot.
- Tom
Exactly Ian. My father couldn’t bring himself to kill a deer, but my mother’s mother bought the family hunting camp over 70 years ago (still in the family), because she wanted a place to stay while she hunted. *shaking head*
We’re all different as Demi explained beautifully @ #48.
If you give people opportunities to be good, they’ll take some of them. If you give them opportunities to be bad, they’ll take some of them. Provide more of the former. All systems should be set up that way.
Dog appetit!
Oh my goodness, Ian. Thank you for this post. I can’t stay because we nasty storms threatening at the moment but, oh boyohboy do you strike an important nerve with this post.
Here sits a person who eats meat fairly regularly, yet doesn’t particularly like 4H because it forces kids to make “friends” with their animals that are destined for slaughter to feed the rest of us.
Tis a tangled web.
Totally different: how very different most of us feel toward John Edwards than we do toward McCaint and Newt.
Hoo boy. I will revisit later. Can’t risk it now – lightening etc. BTW, you didn’t order that just now, did you? ;->
Seriously, thank you much for a much-needed, serious post. I’ll be back for sure….
over & out for now, eek…
To expand, regular behaviour soon becomes habit, and habit becomes character as anyone has ever tried to change an ingrained habit can tell you. Moral courage, in particular, becomes easier the more you do it.
i definitely agree about not knowing myself best. one example is that i have yet to figure out a surefire way of identifying my unconscious biases. best thing is when friends are willing to gently point out what they think they see.
but here’s the thing – we’re not talking about friends. we’re talking about (to simplify) the oppressed and the oppressor. when there is a power differential like that and “knowledge” has on occasion been used as a weapon, expressions of understanding are frequently not real knowledge at all. for example – a woman being told that wasn’t suited to working in certain professions and would be happier to fulfill her actual desire for children or something…
i’m not discounting what you describe – i think it does happen. but i also think we can get it very wrong. so we have to try to be aware that there may be other issues at play and especially that those issues may be mostly invisible to people who are not part of the disadvantaged group.
When one’s limbic system is damaged by development or trauma the empathy feelings are limited. Going to mom instead of dad when in trouble or not having someone to go to may diminish ability to be empathetic. Gangs combat vets, peace officers and others that have to endure violence are harder cases to help. They may agree locially but be unable to respond emoptionally. People that are dry alcoholic/drug addicts like Bush are like that.
And what happens to a young person with good habits when they are trained in the ways of war and then thrust into one
Now we are moving into an area where I have some expertise. Empathy is not just the ability to comprehend the other, but also the ability to put yourself in their place. This is a uniquely human trait and seems to have emerged fairly early after our divergence from the chimpanzees and bonobos. There is evidence for it in at least rudimentary form as much a 4 million years ago. Recent research with nonhuman primates and humans show it is present in human children, but absent in all other primates. It is the basic foundation of human society and has been strongly selected for for millenia. The story of human evolution is in part the evolution of empathy. While there is some evidence for this trait earlier, it is not until the emergence of archaic Homo sapiens about 350-500,000 years ago that we see evidence for taking care of those who cannot care for themselves (the original Neanderthal discovered was a 54 year old man who had been crippled for decades prior to death). They also are the first to bury their dead. One consequence of increased empathy is longer life expectancies. While Neanderthals and other archaic Homo sapiens routinely lived into their mid-50s, no Homo erectus ever lived past about 40. Empathy and the care for others is at the heart of what it means to be human.
Oh yes, that’s why I said tangentially. I’ve just seen the oppressed pushing away help by refusing to allow empathy and sympathy far too often. If I can’t understand, if I can’t know, because I’m not X, then why should I care?
i’m pretty sure that gandhi was the opposite of an appeaser. in fact, i’m pretty sure that he thought (in cases of oppression) courage was more important than refraining from using violence. his idea, as i understand it, is to bring buried conflict out into the open – but in a way to maximize the chances for reconciliation.
blushing.
Their good habits are stripped from them during basic training and they are trained to kill and obey orders without question. The US military underwent a big change in how it trains men over the last thirty years. Older militaries were full of men who were reluctant to kill, not this one.
And they take young men, because young people are more plastic. It is much easier to break then remake young people. The idea that war is a young man’s game is very odd, for much of history the median age was in the thirties, with soldiers in their 40s very common.
fair enough. if someone say they feel miserable and i don’t know or can’t understand why – i still can imagine what it is to feel miserable. and i think mirror neurons are mind blowingly awesome.
i don’t know.
good starting reference? The topic is of great interest to me, as you might guess.
Nancy Pelosi gave positive reinfprcement to Bushcos nrgative, non sympathetic/non empathetic behaviors giving him the opportunity to indulge he and his cronies at the expense of millions of Americans and Iraqis that died, starve or disposessed n a variety of ways. Being sympathetic to greedy motives does not serve empathy, which could be an interesting discussion.
Some times those you help will hurt you.
You may not understand why yet you do understand being miserable.
good, i would like that.
Exactly! Thank you, Selise.
His argument that we on the left should be gentle and “evolved”(?) at all times or betray our own principles left me aghast. My argument that Gandhi would be first to accept his own humanity in its entirety or he would be less the man he was fell on deaf ears. He recognized the reality and was able to use all of it well. I admire him for that.
Where does telepathic communication fit in in the scheme of things
What about a pet that tries to comfort it’s care giver or is that simply personification?
I will have to dig a bit for that. This is one place to start, though it focuses more on the prehuman antecedents. There are elements of empathy (the ability to understand the other) present in other animals, especially primates. It is also closely linked to self awareness (another rare trait).
Hi Ian,
Dr. George Lakoff would argue that we human beings cannot reason without our emotions. So, when we process a situation, it fires off systems of concepts, narratives and frames in our heads that contain integrated intellectual-emotional content.
- Tom
i hope you’re right… because i think i see some other stuff in human nature too.
p.s. do have any suggestions for reading material (short review for a lay audience). boy does your comment remind me of me of stephen jay gould. DrDick, you don’t by any chance write the kind of essays gould used to? i miss his writing.
i’ve talked to people who say things like that, Audrey. They have a cartoonishly simple idea of what a “liberal” is. One person even laid out a whole list of things you couldn’t do if you were a liberal (according to him): eat meat, wear fur or leather, had to make everyone drive a Yugo, must join the Peace Corps, etc. !!!
There are elements of empathy present in other mammals and birds, though nothing like what is present in humans. This is what you are seeing in the pets. What they do not do is care for each other and share in the way humans do. That empathy based sharing is the key to human culture and society and why we dominate the world instead of chimps or bonobos.
That’s a great question. There’s a wonderful book I have spent a lot of time learning from this year and last as part of my mediation training called Non-Violent Communication
It’s got fabulous exercises. And I could share more with you if you read it and want to pursue it. It not only helps to develop empathy, it also helps to communicate it and to use the empathy to create love and understanding and peace.
I can’t say enough good about this book. Bring it on as a Book Salon selection and I’ll be happy to write the intro.
exactly. you and ian have convinced me.
empathy
empathy-webster’s
Wasn’t he the best! I loved his work and he was very funny when he appeared on TV.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sympathy
sym·pa·thy Listen to the pronunciation of sympathy
Pronunciation:
ˈsim-pə-thē
Function:
noun
Inflected Form(s):
plural sym·pa·thies
Etymology:
Latin sympathia, from Greek sympatheia, from sympathēs having common feelings, sympathetic, from syn- + pathos feelings, emotion, experience — more at pathos
Date:
1579
1 a: an affinity, association, or relationship between persons or things wherein whatever affects one similarly affects the other b: mutual or parallel susceptibility or a condition brought about by it c: unity or harmony in action or effect 2 a: inclination to think or feel alike : emotional or intellectual accord b: feeling of loyalty : tendency to favor or support 3 a: the act or capacity of entering into or sharing the feelings or interests of another b: the feeling or mental state brought about by such sensitivity 4: the correlation existing between bodies capable of communicating their vibrational energy to one another through some medium
synonyms see attraction, pity
See my post at 78. Humans are complex creatures who contain many contradictory capacities. We are the only species which cooperates and shares the way we do, but we also, along with chimps, are the only species to wage war. What we have to recognize is the full capacities of humanity and work to limit the negative and enhance the positive. Importantly, all human capacities in tendencies are heavily shaped by our cultures. Each of us, to varying degrees, contains the potential to be an angel or a demon.
I, for one, would welcome our bonobo overloads.
well, i think i can reason without emotion. but moral reasoning without the emotions is impossible for me. same for creativity.
The two are not the same but similar. Empathy: As a natural empath, I can’t tell what someone is thinking, but I pick up on their feelings too well. Sometimes I have to sort out who’s feeling what in order to know how “I” feel. If you say emotion is a communicator, than yes, empathy can be “telepathic communication”, but I’m not sure that’s the definition being used here. I think what they’re saying is that “empathy is the ability to imagine yourself in another’s shoes” as opposed to actually feeling the footwear.
They do have much to recommend them. They still will not share the way humans do. They cannot defer gratification the way we can and which is at the heart of human empathy.
That’s him!! *g*
Within many cultures there can be numerous sub-cultures and people coming from the same place may gravitate to very different sub-cultures
You can use google for a dictionary too. just type “define:word” in the search feild.
that sounds just right to me. and very similar to something solzhenitsyn wrote about the line that the line separaring good and evil passes right through every human heart.
point taken
Nice post, Ian. Thanks for the meditation…
There is some variation in all cultures and often some subcultures. The point I was making is that the way we are raised and the behaviors we as a society reward or discourage have a profound effect on shaping our behavior. Fasting, suicide, mortification of the flesh, and clibacy are all profoundly unnatural acts, but quite normal in humans owing to cultural expectations. If you want to teach empathy, you reward empathic behavior and “punish” its lack.
Well,
stop by tomorrow and talk with him, he’ll be here for FDL’s Sunday Book Salon.
“The Political Mind: Why You Can’t Understand 21st-Century American Politics with an 18th-Century Brain” >
Author: George Lakoff
Sunday August 10, 2008 5:00pm Eastern
Extremely nice thread. Thanks Ian and All.
The dog is telling me he hungry and I am feeling sympathy and empathy
later.
thanks for the post Ian
Dugg!
You can reason without emotions, but not on very complicated or ambiguous issues. See “Descartes Error” for why.
thanks-i am a ‘word freak’, have webster’s on my google menu, download.
don’t know many google shortcuts, thanks.
i also like answers.com
http://www.answers.com/
Have to say that emotion and reason are not dichotomous, but interactive and both are shaped by our culturally specific values.
i think of empathy more as caring for others with what it is they are going through or dealing with rather than being able to put myself in their shoes.
Yes, but the research I mentioned above indicates that the ability to out yourself in their shoes is an essential component to caring for them in the uniquely human way.
i have no empathy for answers.com
maybe i’m just doing that step kind of automatically and not aware of it.
The book is being dissected and analyzed and dissed by lots of folks. Wish I could read it before tomorrow.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06…..nted=print
http://www.newscientist.com/ch…..akoff.html
Just google it. :)
Absolutely. It is an innate trait in humans. It can however be suppressed like any other human capacity (celibacy is the single most unnatural sexual act).
I bet you are doing it automatically. It’s just that you’re more focused on the taking care of/healing part.
And that is another definition, I think, also being used here. Thanks.
People with neurological damage that disables emotion are still able to reason, I have read, but on rather limited subjects.
lol
i should have sympathy then?
google is my friend. looks like an interesting read – thanks.
i was thinking of simple things like how to add two numbers. but when you get to decision making that’s another kettle of fish.
bom dia pups
great post Ian.
I would not try to sympathize with such a thing.
.
I thought about this, something similar, during Book Salon when BT asked this:
like this :D
ha!
haven’t ‘bonded’ with it yet, just found it a few weeks ago.
love info, seemed like one more way to ‘dig’.
(((wonkybits)))
Thank you, Ian,
What a wise, wise diary.
Hugs,
Heather
hmmm… this looks like an interesting essay:
COOL!
Finished reading the post. Very interesting and I like where it was going but I’m afraid the hunting metaphor is lost on me except under the circumstances of need.
Peace, love and light to you
Right. And I brought up framing taxation as an investment (with the necessary commitment to providing a “return”) during a past book salon and it was immediately shot down. I wonder why that happened. It’s not such a wild idea. Perhaps Lakoff has an answer.
LOL. yes, but not as accurately.
Anything refuting the so-called Global War on Terror is indeed welcome.
lol ;)
Has TexBetsy been around today? I was wondering how she was feeling.
Which is in fact what it is. Through our taxes we invest in our communities and the common good. The real difference from the Republicans is that they fundamentally do not believe in the concept of “the public or common good.” For Republicans, all good is inherently personal and private (i.e., individual rather than communal).
kirk is upstairs.
Nevermind :) I just reached her on FB
It seems to me that the concepts of “self” and “other” come into play somewhere when discussing empathy and sympathy as they relate to human behavior. The ability to understand the thoughts and feelings of another would seem to ultimately lead to sympathy, unless there is some mechanism to stop the process. I personally have a hard time seeing something injured withut starting to identify with what it must be feeling. If it’s something I would have to kill to eat, I would have to have some mental device to stop from sympathizing too much, or I would ultimately starve. I’m afraid one tour of a slaughter house would do it. As it is, I guess I maintain some sort of a fiction that steaks are manufactured from inanimate materials.
maybe google calucate is more in touch with it’s emotions than i am?
Wow. I’m bookmarking this. Thanks, Selise.
:)
by using analytics, of course.
Don’t know who shot you down or why
but why not ask him what he thinks?
I would say that “opportunistic scavenger” is another way of saying hunter-gatherer. It is just a more negative way of saying it. I prefer the more positive term, as it is less pejorative towards scavengers.
Sure. And it’s Constitutionally mandated that government must work for the public welfare. Republicans hate that. If it mandated that government work to enrich the Capitalists, they’d embrace it.
I had the same thought when it came to sausage until the day i actually saw my grandmother make it and well that was that.
I’d like to and will if I can be here for it. :)
And BTW: I was told it couldn’t be done which is how he shot it down. I can’t remember which salon it was, though.
I think some people who claim privileged when BHLs “empathize” are emphasizing that willingness to empathize doesn’t mean that the empathizer succeeds in capturing the state of the person they are empathizing with. In other words, they may be trying, but it doesn’t mean they’re succeeding. A similar point, the empathizer is experiencing a virtual reality, whereas the person being empathized with is experiencing the real reality. How well the reality is captured is open to discussion, but unless the empathizer has experience very similar to the owner of the experience, the empathy is likely to be a shadow of the reality.
Whether dogs are empathizing with or sympathizing with their owners is immaterial. They are letting their owners know that they are loved, and their owners are immeasurably grateful that someone loves them and comforts them when they need that love and comfort. And that is the great value of love. Sympathy and empathy have their place, but even if we don’t sympathize or empathize with someone, if we love them, we can affect their life.
An example from today’s news. Elizabeth Edwards presumably loves her husband, and presumably he loves her. She conceivably didn’t sympathize with him when he admitted his adultery, she may not have empathized with him either. How did they get past the infidelity?
The trouble with hunting is that it is a sport. Hunters don’t NEED to hunt, they LIKE to kill. They spend more on their hunting gear than the cost of the food they acquire. Fishing is morally equivalent to hunting if you examine it.
The question of whether we NEED to eat flesh is a matter of understanding nutrition. And today, what we can’t “get” nutritionally from animals, we can get from the chemistry lab so the need to kill to eat cannot be sustained.
We do it because it tastes good, it is convenient to factory farm, or raise livestock. It is fun to hunt. All unsustainable reasons from a moral perspective. Animals are sentient and don’t want to die, or suffer just as humans.
If you accept the idea that suffering is wrong, than no killing is acceptable unless it is to remove suffering. But hunter who kill cause suffering.
You can’t win the argument that killing animals for sport, or food is acceptable.
I disagree. There are many subsistence hunters in North America. CHS will argue this one with you if you prod her.
and then there are the hideous monsters that don’t “fit” the category too too well, like boosh & deadeye….
Somewhere around prior experience, intuition, hutzpuh and blind luck? ;->
awww shucks. dang that storm yestidie that made me shut down the toobz.
i couldda been such a pest! heh.
suspicion that i musta been a mosquito in prior lifetime…