Slashdot Mirror
Empathy Represses Analytic Thought, and Vice Versa
hessian sends this quote from a Case Western Reserve University news release:
"New research shows a simple reason why even the most intelligent, complex brains can be taken by a swindler's story – one that upon a second look offers clues it was false. When the brain fires up the network of neurons that allows us to empathize, it suppresses the network used for analysis, a pivotal study led by a Case Western Reserve University researcher shows (abstract). ... At rest, our brains cycle between the social and analytical networks. But when presented with a task, healthy adults engage the appropriate neural pathway, the researchers found. The study shows for the first time that we have a built-in neural constraint on our ability to be both empathetic and analytic at the same time. The work suggests that established theories about two competing networks within the brain must be revised. More, it provides insights into the operation of a healthy mind versus those of the mentally ill or developmentally disabled."
Never send an important e-mail when you've just been coding for several hours.
If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
If you look at some rhetorical theory (ie, theory of rhetoric), you'll find that there are three main kinds of arguments, which are effective against three different categories of people.
Amongst your supporters, logical arguments have the most significant impact.
Amongst the undecided, emotional arguments are more likely to sway their decision.
Amongst your opponents, moral arguments are just about the only thing that can have any effect.
Ask yourself who they're trying to win votes from when they campaign, and I think you'll have the answer as to why it's all full of emotional arguments.
It may look like I'm doing nothing, but I'm actively waiting for my problems to go away.
--Scott Adams
Why do you assume that? If anything a rational person would better understand the concept of the greater good than an empathically driven person.
It's not about understanding the concept, it's about subscribing to it.
For example, you can rationally understand that cooperation from individuals can lead to increased success of the species. However, rationally, why is the survival of the species important to you? Why is anything that happens after you are dead important to you? You're not going to be there to see it, or to experience it, or to suffer from the consequences. The only thing you have to tell you that it would be bad to selfishly care only about your own well-being at the expense of others is by putting yourself in their shoes. In other words, empathy.