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."
[spock]Fascinating.[/spock]
So this is why girls aren't good at math?
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
Can I have my Phd now?
http://www.social-engineer.org/framework/Social_Engineering_Framework
it's simple pretexting - remember in Point Break (movie) where Johnny finds a SE exploit to use against the bug eyed surfer chick?
build rapport and easy access!
Makes sense why sales pitches given in the context of "hands-on" training work so well...
(they are evil I tell you)
come on fhqwhgads
"When the brain fires up the network of neurons that allows us to empathize, it suppresses the network used for analysis"
And hence you have the Democrat party platform in a nutshell.
this
Just swap empathetic with emotional (Yeah different, but related definitions.) and all I have to do is look/listen to my spouse in the morning to see what wife I will spend the day with.
If she is overly emotional, no amount of logic or analysis with help with anything. It's gonna be a rough day for me.
If she is overly analytical of what I do or say, there is nothing I can do or say, even gifts of chocolate, will not sway her from her incorrect analysis of my mistakes.
Women, you can;t live with 'em.
(Posting as AC becuace my spouse reads slashdot and this post will cause her to fly off the handle.)
So people that work in IT gain less and less empathy for their users? Hmmmm....
Zing! Election is only a week away folks.
Analytic thought is usually the simplistic attempt to measure who is tough and "able". He who is able to measure the relative "ableness" is the hero. Bad performance because of storms: failure; change company. Good result because of excessive wealth and bodyguards: good performance: promotion. Select N number of good/bad performing individuals and you see that the people with bodyguard will perform the best. Period.
Rational analysis will lead to better outcomes than emotionally driven behavior. So if you want good things to happen to the most people, which most empathetic people would, then you should eschew empathy and be as rational as possible.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
It explains perfectly why Democrats are the way they are... So busy "feeling" everyone's "pain' they can't (and won't) think rationally about the consequences of their actions.
The internet is not full of absolute fuckwads, it just encourages analytical thought. Like, a lot.
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.
"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."
So that also explains Sales. Even a half-wit like me knows that when Safeway does a "buy one, get one free" sale, they went around jacking up all their prices before the event, like we would not notice. It is simply amazing just how much quarterly profit Safeway has made since the economy went poof.
Agrisea Tsunami - Epyc Servers... https://agrisea.net/products
I think your proof falls apart with your first statement "Rational analysis will lead to better outcomes than emotionally driven behavior." This might be evidence of the opposite. That empathic behavior is more likely to get you laid and produce children than rational behavior.
It should also be noted to not underestimate how the maturing process tends to cause one network to more often prevail over the other. Hence the concluding part of the familiar adage "... and if you're not a conservative by the time you're 40, you have no brain." I'm seeing the beginnings of this shift in my intelligent, albeit socialist younger sister right now, and it's a trip.
See all of you kept crying about how all our C?O and Political leaders are psychopaths were wrong. You should be happy about that. They are better at thinking than you are and no doubt producing more optimal solutions than you could.
Thank goodness we have these unfeeling psychopaths to lead us.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
This brings some validation to the thinking-felling category of the myers briggs.
It also explains why it feels like my brain completely shuts down when I talk to an attractive women.
As irrational as they are, people believe.
That explains the thought process of Liberals vs Conservatives.
Liberals think more with feeling and emotion, less with logic.
Conservatives think more with logic and reason, and less with empathy.
I'm sure that con artists have been subconsciously using this for millennia.
Ezekiel 23:20
How about Republicans who want to stop abortions knowing full well the strain the present population is putting on the planets resources?
I could have told you this without any studies. This is not news, anybody can see that people who are considered 'to the left' or 'progressives', those who describe themselves as 'for the people' lose ability to think critically when it comes to the inevitable consequences of their ideology. They cannot follow a simple thread of economic analysis based on first principles, they have an immediate emotional response ready for anybody, who suggests that their pattern of thinking is invalid and gives them reasons that explain why that is.
Examples:
MY OTHER COMMENTS
there's a scientific explanation for liberal politics
... think of the children!
Maybe it's not rational to want good things happen to "most" people? Then a rational solution wouldn't do things which result in good things happening to most people.
Maybe a rational solution is only have good things happen to very few people, while the rest simply slave away to keep those few people happy.
It's basically how every tyranny has run, and many other species have strict hierarchies (i.e. ants and bees). If one is to think rationally, then one cannot rule out tyranny and slavery as taboo.
God says...
consolation.
6:25 Woe unto you that are full! for ye shall hunger. Woe unto you
that laugh now! for ye shall mourn and weep.
6:26 Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for so did
their fathers to the false prophets.
6:27 But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them
which hate you, 6:28 Bless them that curse you, and pray for them
which despitefully use you.
6:29 And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the
other; and him that taketh away thy cloak forbid not to take thy coat
also.
6:30 Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh
away thy goods ask them not again.
Humans are retards, no matter which way they spin.
That's why the nerds on Slashdot are all assholes.
It seems a faulty jump to go from the observations that the study participants did not use the two elements of cognition together to the assertion that one cannot use both capacities at the same time. At the very least it should be theoretically possible for neural connectivity to be established between the two sub-networks and as a result to activate both capabilities concurrently. Certainly we should be able to imagine circumstances where having such an ability would be advantageous, such as the processing and understanding of the experience but also wise and healthy reaction within the emotional interactions we engage in with our loved ones.
If you are a con man you already know that the empathic response is how to work a mark. What would be much more fascinating is to see how the anger response can mess with analytical thinking. Perhaps criminal psychopaths turn on analytical thinking only when angry, or are quick to anger when they do not get what they want.
Empathy also heightens big picture thinking.....
The more analytical, the more detail oriented. The less analytical, the more 'big picture' thinking..
that's the fact, jack...
Now there's a proof women can't do both at the same time, like they claim they do. Another candidate for Ig Nobel's prize.
I guess that explains the constant focus on fear by conservatives. If you focus on that most powerful emotional response, people lose the rational ability to question the long term consequences of those actions. Like say, for example, starting a useless protracted war in a middle east nation, or cutting back at personal liberties to 'protect from the terrorists'.
Brought to you by the Ayn Rand foundation.
Empathy is the ability to read emotional situations, to recognise and appreciate the emotions in others as emotions that you yourself feel, and to act on the basis of that appreciation.
Dealing with social situations, an analytical thought process should recognise a need for data - namely, a sense of what others are feeling or will feel as a consequence of a particular situation and how to interpret this sense - as an initial step towards any disassembly of the propositions it wishes to consider.
It makes sense that these two processes should be neurally distinct. But why should we think that because these are separate processes, people being entirely reasonable and mentally healthy might be vulnerable to confidence tricks?
Surely the most we can draw from this is that the Empathetic network is usefully distinct from the Analysis network when correctly functioning, rather than that it short-circuits it?
Always be analytical but fake emotions as appropriate. Also never be open with what you are thinking, nobody wants to hear the truth.
Examples:
wife: (some inane story about something that happened during the day that I'm not interested in)
incorrect answer: I have no interest in what you were just talking about
correct answer: thats interesting
If you read the abstract of the article then it states that the tasks presented to the subjects where -"tasks requiring social cognition, i.e., reasoning about the mental states of other persons, and tasks requiring physical cognition, i.e., reasoning about the causal/mechanical properties of inanimate objects". Social reasoning does not equal empathy. Empathy requires one to share and understand others feelings while social reasoning is something a sociopath could do.
I think I should care about this a lot, but them empathy kicks in and I don't...
Someone less intelligent won't do that as much, or as well. Thus, they need all the loose ends in whatever the lie is neatly tied up for them. When there's a lot of them, they realize that something is fishy. Whereas the smarter person just kind of automatically fills in those cracks.
The Internet King? I wonder if he could provide faster nudity.
How can you all debate this study from Case Western! We have to do something!!!
Gently reply
The existance of conservative Republicans proves there must be an additional factor, something that suppresses BOTH empathy and analytics...
This certianly does explain why extremes of both political spectrums are both so incompetent.
Why do conservatives oppose abortion, homosexual marriage, and mild recreational drug use? Because they cannot empathize.
Why do liberals oppose handgun ownership, free market solutions to private sector problems, and any cessation of a wild tax-and-overspend economic plan? Because they cannot think analytically.
Now we know why conservatives are assholes that don't give a shit about anyone but themselves, while liberals are morons that always propose the most economically disasterous plans possible.
"The heart has its reasons which reason knows nothing of." - Blaise Pascal (1623-1662).
...the "Gregory House Paradox"
Tubby or not tubby. Fat is the question
Definitely have first-hand experience with this. At a party this last weekend, in fact?
Met someone who seemed like a really nice person in emotional distress, and my heart immediately went out to them. Their story sounded awful, and they really did seem like they were in a lot of emotional pain. Me being a sympathetic person, I started giving them a little more attention, watching, listening, seeing if maybe they might be interested.
Later in the evening, after they'd consumed several beers, the nitty-gritty details start coming out. It turns out they're actually a total monster. Someone who is as close as I've seen in a long while to a genuine psychopath. I'm listening to the conversation between them and my friends, and my brain is doing loop-de-loops.
My empathetic side is going, "You poor soul!", and wants to wrap them in a hug and take them home.
My logical side is going, "Are you nuts? AVOID! AVOID!! AVOOOIIIID!!! " And logic almost lost.
I may be looking for a relationship, but I don't wanna be used like a condom, thank you very much. Thank God I hadn't been drinking much.
The moment she starts crying, any bullshit she's been putting you through instantly goes out the window.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
Belief is stronger than reason because :
(1) There is more cerebral cortex dedicated to the social network than the analytical network.
(2) When the brain fires up the network of neurons that allows us to empathize, it suppresses the network used for analysis
Why do folks seem to be concluding that this is an either/or situation?
Social factors are just another input into a complete person's analysis. Granted, it can take more time and effort to take social factors into consideration, but if you want a complete understanding, that's what you gotta do.
Actually, it doesn't, since its about "social cognition" not "emotions"; while there may be other research findings about emoting inhibiting analytical thought, this research is about social cognition ("reasoning about the mental states of other persons") inhibiting analytical thought (or, rather, inhibiting "physical cognition, i.e., reasoning about the causal/mechanical properties of inanimate objects.").
When I'm dealing with people face to face, I find myself enmeshed in a soup of emotions, mine and theirs. Theirs often overpowers mine, and I feel their anger, fear, disdain, etc. acutely. I am often unable to handle these situations well, and come away wishing I had done things differently.
Conversely, when I am alone I can think about my encounter and determine the damage that has occurred as a result of my poor response, decide how I might have handled it better.
The realization that analysis and empathy cannot operate at the same time really explains why these situations occur.
I prefer to be alone. And now I know why. I am much more comfortable with analysis than with empathy.
I know. I know. This is /. Nonetheless... the article is talking about social and mechanical reasoning. Not empathy vs. logic. Not Repub vs Dem. Not women vs men.
It's about two types of problem solving: reasoning about causal relationships of inanimate objects and reasoning about the mental states of other persons. Those are the two that are, according to this research, neurologically mutually exclusive.
By racing off into stereotypes, the most obvious implication has been missed. At least one of them has. Using a phone or social media (social cognition) is mutually exclusive to driving (physical cognition).
It'll be fun to time how long it takes that inconvenient point to sink in against motivated cognition.
Not in any sense relevant to TFA. What the informal popular media article linked in TFS characterizes as "analytical thought" is actually (from the abstract of the actual research paper linked in TFS) "physical cognition, i.e., reasoning about the causal/mechanical properties of inanimate objects." Which might be a reasonable use of the term "analytical thought", but certainly has nothing to do with "the simplistic attempt to measure who is tough and 'able'."
The actual finding is about "social cognition, i.e., reasoning about the mental states of other persons" inhibiting "physical cognition, i.e., reasoning about the causal/mechanical properties of inanimate objects." "Emotionally driven behavior" is not at issue in the research.
Social cognition will lead to better outcomes if the problem you are addressing is largely related to the mental states of other persons. Physical cognition will lead to better outcomes if the problem you are addressing is largely related to the causal/mechanical properties of inanimate objects.
Do that many people give a shit or have feelings for strangers they happen across / first meetings?
Yes they do, it's instinctive behavior for most primates, and the more the stranger looks and acts like a member of your "tribe" the more empathy they get. But who's talking about strangers? - This finding goes a long way to explaining why I tolerated my ex-wife for 20yrs. ;)
Empathy travels in both directions, although I suspect your question was rhetorical, the fact that you asked it reduces the initial empathy I had for you. This is probably because at 53 I'm the "silverback" of my own little tribe and subconsciously judge you as a prospective associate from a similar tribe. Competition for resources (particularly territorial resources) dictates nobody can have the same level of empathy towards everyone but the tribe is always looking for social/political alliances to boost their standing in the neighborhood. You can see the same thing at work in the royal families of Europe both past and present, they were so busy using their children to seal territorial alliances that many of their descendants now suffer complications from inbreeding. In many ways our brains simply were not built to handle the civilizations we create, for example most of my tribe live more than an hour's drive away. Excluding my parents my own tribal elders live on the other side of the planet and are more or less strangers to me. I can't even name all my Uncles and Aunt's, I just know I had ~20 of them somewhere in the UK, I've met a few and a few are already dead. As a child these people were replaced by adult neighbors and family friends, in fact back then children were expected to address adult family friends as "Uncle" or "Aunt" as a sign of respect, similar as to how US kids today address adults as "Sir", etc.
Citation: The Monkeysphere
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Social vs mechanical reasoning may be programmed at birth.
http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/21571/1/Psychosis%20and%20autism%20as%20diametrical%20disorders%20of%20the%20social%20brain%20(LSERO).pdf
The research is about social cognition vs. mechanical cognition--reasoning about other people's beliefs vs reasoning about physical situations. Both of these are highly analytical tasks! This has nothing at all to do with empathy vs. analyticity, in fact this might be the worst quality science reporting I have ever read.
The journalists who reported on the story this way have harmed the general public's understanding of psychology in a particularly pernicious way by reinforcing stereotypes. Unfortunately their behavior is typical and they probably would have been fired if they had given an accurate summary of the research.
The summary is that empathy - which you have basically none of - represses analytic thought. You claim this to be "obvious", which would indicate you agree with it and are analytical.
The only problem with that is that you fail at analytics, too. You just regurgitated a bunch of right-wing talking points that any person with the most basic analytical skills could see are distorted to the point where a monkey could pilot a 747 straight through them. The claims you make from your (unsourced, of course) statements are not supported by the statements themselves, as the statements are not even vaguely thorough analyses of anything.
Hence in one post you showed that you have neither empathy* nor analytical skills. How on earth you could then conclude the statement that one suppresses the other to be "obvious" is puzzling.
* the conclusion that you have no empathy is also supported by the fact that your first account had its karma knocked to abysmal, and rather than show some empathy for fellow human beings (which would help bring your karma back up) you set up a new account to pursue the exact same aims.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
And yet the Slashdotter in your example has yet to master the mighty apostrophe, whether abbreviating swear words or using the correct form of "it's."
wwwwhhheeeaaaatoooon!
he said it better anyway:
"Anyone who isnâ(TM)t a liberal by age 20 has no heart. Anyone who isnâ(TM)t a conservative by age 40 has no brain."
-Styopa
People with Asperger syndrome often have good analytical skills but less empathy in social situations. Maybe they (or probably we) have the analytic part of the mind kind of constantly on, and that's what suppresses empathy.
Not me, I'm a psychopath.
Shakespeare love quote 16: The Merchant of Venice – Act 2, Scene 6
"Love is blind, and lovers cannot see.."
http://www.nosweatshakespeare.com/quotes/shakespeare-love-quotes/
I read nothing of problems presented which require both types of thinking. Common problems involving both like seating arrangements for a wedding or which family member to ask to borrow money could be used for this. In the test discussed in the article the participant is going to catch on to the pattern after a few questions and instinctively switch their thinking to an optimal mode. In my opinion the resulting brain activity they're reading isn't empathy/analytics, it's bound and unbound thought. Empathy isn't imagination. It's the experiences, memories, and emotions of oneself and everyone they've known recalled abstractly. Asking someone to answer "social question" without personal context not only unbounds the process, but simultaneously removes analysis. This is caused by a) the need for one to imagine the contextual characters necessary to fill in the gaps and b) the inherent throw-away nature of those virtual characters. It all sits in short-term memory.
Real empathy requires actual people to empathize with because it involves more than words. It includes body language and so many other factors. All that's been invoked here is structured imagination, and these questions would inherently exclude analytic thought in that test characters must be taken as-is. On the other side, analytic thought requires mental sandboxes. Analyzing a hypothetical question presents it's own sandbox which excludes imagination, and relies solely on ones training & short term memory. The fact that the subjects know they are being tested at all seems to be the originating flaw.
Where genius and insanity become confused true wisdom is found
It's is not, it isn't ain't, and it's it's, not its, if you mean it is.
If you don't, it's its. Then too, it's hers. It isn't her's.
it isn't our's either. It's ours, and likewise yours and theirs.
-- Oxford University Press, Edpress News
I would say that this summary is a little (not exacly but just a little) the same as saying "when a person walks into the kitchen, they are no longer in the living room.. and vice versa".
He cares a lot about the freedoms of other people. Of ALL people even (even when scientific research indicates the average person can only keep in touch with about ~200 people - friends, family, etc)
He cares a lot about the economy. Again, EVERYONE's economy instead of just his immediate surroundings
He displays much emotional attachment to the concept of freedom for all
In short, he looks at the "big picture" or the "greater good", something far beyond just himself
Caring so much for more than just yourself is the definition of having empathy.
Furthermore, roman_mir has repeatedly say he is against tyranny, oppression, loss of freedom, etc. Those things are things which a person without empathy would support. Since roman_mir is strongly against those, this indicates roman_mir is highly empathetic
Another indication is that roman_mir is highly persistent. No matter how downmodded he is, no matter how many people disagree, he keeps posting. This behavior is not rational. A rational person (like say, Steve Jobs and other industry leaders roman_mir look up to) would just leave, the same way businesses left the US (and roman_mir himself left the US). There's no rational reason to want to help all these misguided, blind, brainwashed sheep who refuse to listen. This points to the conclusion that roman_mir is posting based on emotional, empathetic reasons.
Really, I would say roman_mir/udachny is the most empathetic person on slashdot.
Clearly your emotional attachment to cultural construction of gender behaviour is well in force.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clever_Hans#The_Clever_Hans_effect
People learn by context, by copying what other people do, to a far greater extent than Clever Hans was able to ape (hah) the counting cues given by the trainer. We've evolved a long time to be adept situational learners implicitly, as well as our regular semantic storage and recall.
Go learn, then you can stop spouting gender stereotypes as if they were facts. Immunize your mind to ignorance.
I'm not sure about any of this - has it ever been reported before in neuroscience ?
while (true != false) process_more_stupid_code();
He cares a lot about the freedoms of other people. Of ALL people even (even when scientific research indicates the average person can only keep in touch with about ~200 people - friends, family, etc)
No, actually he very much does not. Read his frequent comments about how he doesn't want people to go to school, or be paid for their work. Read his frequent comments where he discards opinions that do not fit his worldview by telling people that they are stupid, rather than having an actual discussion with them. He supports corporate repression of regular people and the sale of the rule of law to for-profit institutions as well. That does not support freedom.
He cares a lot about the economy. Again, EVERYONE's economy instead of just his immediate surroundings
No. If he cared about the economy, then he would show concern for the ability of EVERYONE to progress in the economy. The model that he preaches, however, provides a lot of opportunity to a very small number of people and no opportunity to the vast majority of people. The model he preaches also very directly endorses human slavery. That is not caring about "everyone's economy" in any meaningful sense of the world.
He displays much emotional attachment to the concept of freedom for all
Not if you actually read his comments, he does not. He claims to, but the text he actually writes contradicts that directly.
In short, he looks at the "big picture" or the "greater good", something far beyond just himself
Now I'm more convinced than ever that you are making some kind of odd joke.
Caring so much for more than just yourself is the definition of having empathy.
Except he doesn't care for more than himself. Hence, he has no empathy. Thank you for supporting my point.
Furthermore, roman_mir has repeatedly say he is against tyranny, oppression, loss of freedom, etc.
Really, I would say roman_mir/udachny is the most empathetic person on slashdot.
I am not familiar with this strange new sense of "empathy" that you are applying here. I am used to seeing highly conservative people try to redefine every word they can, but here you seem to be applying exactly the opposite of empathy as your new definition of it.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
And that explains my failed second marriage. Huh. Won't be doing that again.
PS Pro-tip: Protect yourself. Get your financial affairs arranged by a lawyer. For me, a pre-nup would have been an awesome idea. Not having her move in would have been even better. Then again, I now have two awesome step-sons.
PPS Oh yeah, they're both living with me -- one tried living with his Dad and Evil Step-Mom for a few months, and then with his Grandma and Mom for a few months, and finally came back. One is working and paying me market rent, the other's looking for work.
Oh wow, a whole discussion based on an assumption that "rational" means "selfish".
Rationality, by itself only works within some set of goals, otherwise nothing can be "rational". Goals, on the other hand (whenever they are not based on more general goals) are determined by instincts, emotions, and communications within society. A psychopath, who is also a member of the local Libertarian club, works as a lawyer for MPAA, and runs a spam company, probably has selfish goals, so for him rational behavior will be selfish. For someone else, goals may be completely different, and could be based on his feelings toward other people -- then it would be irrational for him to emulate the aforementioned lawyer-spammer.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
1. If you kill somebody, you did it in self-defense, if you're my family member.
2. If you kill somebody, you should be hanged, if you're not my family member.
Casteism
Wow, so rather than manage himself in a civil manner, he created a second account, and you suggest he should be applauded for that?
I'm not suggesting we applaud him for that. I'm saying this shows how much he cares.
He constantly tries to champion "free market solutions" for everything he sees as wrong with the world. Here, he had a free market solution right in front of him that he chose not to exercise . He could have paid as little as five dollars to slashdot to become a subscriber, and he would have had an additional point that he could have added to every message he writes. Instead, because he's a damned hypocrite looking to spend as little of his own money as possible on everything, he opened a new account instead.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
(gosgog): .U.S., and the one aspect of the U.S. that comes to mind is the constant habit of trying to make others live the way the average guy wants another to live.
i lived most of my life in the
I have long since retired and now live in a small asian country, and maybe its the province in which I live, where the average guy shows tons of surface energy, but wants in some way to get your wallet, and who's empathy wears off fast, and who's main ambition is to have a winning fighting chicken and a series of mistresses, all aided by more holidays than workdays.