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]
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....
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!
I think this explains why conversations on facebook back when I used to have an account were ridiculous stupid and conversations on /. are usually well above room temp IQ but perhaps lacking in some civility.
FB: "Boo hoo I think I'm catchcing a cold, ironically; I can't figure the first derivative of 1/x"
FB: Oh you poor baby lets play farmville together till you feel better, have you tried aromatherapy yet for the cold?
/. : "Boo hoo I think I'm catchcing a cold, ironically; I can't figure the first derivative of 1/x"
/. : "You Fing idiot you can't even spell catching, don't know what irony is, and if you could spell google correctly instead of spelling it as /., you'd see its -1/x^2"
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
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.
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.
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
Then how do you explain Rethuglicans?
Fetal Alcohol Syndrome.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Most religious conservatives are NOT analytical thinkers. The same is true of conspiracy nuts (ex: birthers). The majority of both are Republicans.
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.
Actually if you note their campaigning methods you'll see that they spend most of their time attempting to play to emotions rather than facts and logic. It is no coincidence that their talking points focus on issues more likely to provoke a visceral reaction in the public such as religion, abortion, don't tread on me, and military/defense.
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once
Well, except that it doesn't.
If it were as you suggest, emotional, non-rational appeals to tradition, religious values, nationalism, etc., would be particularly ineffective in motivating conservatives. In the real world, both groups are diverse and include both more-analytical and and more-emotional thinkers. There are plenty of studies showing indications of various cognitive differences between conservatives and liberals, but the particular one you suggest isn't one of them.
Conservatives, so the old tradition went, have heads but no hearts. Liberals have hearts, but no heads.
Somehow, somewhere, something went terribly wrong.
Kids are gendered from birth onwards. I have a little cousin being reared in the house next to mine, and he's treated roughly (not painfully, just roughly) because "he's a boy and he needs to be tough". He's only 6 months old. If that's the kind of conditioning he's receiving, of course he'll be a rough and tumble terror when he's a toddler. He's also encouraged, at 6 months old, to exert himself and roughly handle/break things. I don't think he'd be encouraged to do such things if he were a female.
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
With such mad parents, they would probably have the baby wear thongs and make-up if born a girl.
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
The existance of conservative Republicans proves there must be an additional factor, something that suppresses BOTH empathy and analytics...
It's much more subtle than I make it sound, and I've noticed it with a lot of parents, with boys you see it with their fathers, girls, their mothers. Gender policing is something innate and automatic to most people, and many people don't realize they're doing it, they just think their children magically acquire these traits out of the ether, and so jump to conclusions about gender that don't have all the data.
You are right, the causality is mostly the other way. The tendency can be registered from three months of age by tracking how long time babies of different sexes opens looking at various objects. While there is certainly large variations within each sex, the average of each sex is clearly distinct and biologically determined.
Really? I've never seen any evidence of that.
Okay, what about the notion that rape is what god intends? That the female body just shuts down in case of rape? What about all the people who believe the earth is 6000 yrs old? that dinosaurs and man coexisted? and ignore science fact. That evolution is "just a theory" with no evidence to support it? That they insist on less government EXCEPT when it comes to enforcing their moral beliefs and dogma on everyone else?
(ie, caring for the poor/disadvantaged/discriminated against). As it's a quality that I've personally always recognized as the fatal flaw of Liberal Ideology
The best way to experience empathy is by personally going through the hardships that others have been through, in which case, you will understand their pain. Don't think it can't happen to you. I was poor a few years ago, largely because of outsourcing and the state of the economy. There was really nothing I did (or neglected to do) that put me in that situation. I had to bust my ass to climb out of it and return to financial stability and independence. So, what's wrong with having empathy? I strive to be balanced. I empathetic. I'm also analytical...and you'd be hard pressed to argue against that, knowing that I'm a successful electrical engineer and software developer. I really don't understand how you can call empathy a weakness but, if you enjoy being a robot who doesn't get laid, knock yourself out.
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.