Empathy & the Brain

[impressive]

This goes to say to say that when we sense the feeling of someone else in empathy, it is not the case that we feel a real feeling that has somehow been evoked in us.


DrF

Right. THAT would be sympathy.

 

[mismused]

I was reading an article about a theory that quantum entanglement is a possible cause of ESP. The idea is that particles becaome tangled on a quantum level and movement over here is replicated over there, without any physical contact.

The Earl

=========================================================

Which goes back to Bell's theory that particles that have been together, stay together, regardless of how many light years aprart they may become, as in the tests on photons, somewhat extensively conducted by CERN labs.

Quantum super position is also considered a part of that, and said to be within us whenever we think to move a muscle. Ask me if I understand all of this, and the answer is No! Is it fascinating, the answer is Yes!

Perhaps it's all basic within us, and we just haven't discovered, or believed it all yet. Threads like this may aid that lack.

mismused

 

[CharleyH]

Froom a Yahoo news story titled, "Scientists Say Everyone Can Read Minds":

===========
Empathy allows us to feel the emotions of others, to identify and understand their feelings and motives and see things from their perspective. How we generate empathy remains a subject of intense debate in cognitive science.

Well, I do get what the article starts saying and see it every day in the ability of negotiators, politicians, television execs and spin docs. To persuade, you need to be attentive to people, empathetic to the concerns, what tugs peoples strings. ESP? Sure you could call it extra sensory perception, in a way to be successful, it's a requirement to be more perceptive than most.

 

[shereads]

An article about autism in Newsweek last year suggested that a form of autism might be present in people - typically men and boys - who are both exceptionally intelligent and highly analytical/logical. The author theorized that a lack of empathy eliminates one of the distractions that keeps "normal" men and women from focusing our full attention on problem-solving and abstract thinking. The article suggested that different levels of empathy might explain the sexual "split" in learning skills that's seen in school kids at a certain age - when boys, on average, begin to out-perform girls in math and sciences, but fall behind in verbal skills and social maturity.

That explains Wade A., the 5th grade math genius who still thought girls had cooties.

Question: if men have slightly less empathy, on average, and women have slightly more on average, and if an unusually low level of empathy turns men into geniuses who don't like dogs and have no friends, how do you explain Bush?

 

[impressive]

An article about autism in Newsweek last year suggested that a form of autism might be present in people - typically men and boys - who are both exceptionally intelligent and highly analytical/logical. The author theorized that a lack of empathy eliminates one of the distractions that keeps "normal" men and women from focusing our full attention on problem-solving and abstract thinking. The article suggested that different levels of empathy might explain the sexual "split" in learning skills that's seen in school kids at a certain age - when boys, on average, begin to out-perform girls in math and sciences, but fall behind in verbal skills and social maturity.

That explains Wade A., the 5th grade math genius who still thought girls had cooties.

Question: if men have slightly less empathy, on average, and women have slightly more on average, and if an unusually low level of empathy turns men into geniuses who don't like dogs and have no friends, how do you explain Bush?

This article mentions autism as well. Interesting.

 

[mismused]

An article about autism in Newsweek last year suggested that a form of autism might be present in people - typically men and boys - who are both exceptionally intelligent and highly analytical/logical. The author theorized that a lack of empathy eliminates one of the distractions that keeps "normal" men and women from focusing our full attention on problem-solving and abstract thinking. The article suggested that different levels of empathy might explain the sexual "split" in learning skills that's seen in school kids at a certain age - when boys, on average, begin to out-perform girls in math and sciences, but fall behind in verbal skills and social maturity.

That explains Wade A., the 5th grade math genius who still thought girls had cooties.

Question: if men have slightly less empathy, on average, and women have slightly more on average, and if an unusually low level of empathy turns men into geniuses who don't like dogs and have no friends, how do you explain Bush?

==================================================

That focusing ability has also been noted in schizothymia, a little known and writtien about form of schizophrenia. That ability is also cited as being in autistic children.

If any find a site about shizothemia, let me know. I gave up searching for them a bit back.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

=========================================================

Which goes back to Bell's theory that particles that have been together, stay together, regardless of how many light years aprart they may become, as in the tests on photons, somewhat extensively conducted by CERN labs.

Quantum super position is also considered a part of that, and said to be within us whenever we think to move a muscle. Ask me if I understand all of this, and the answer is No! Is it fascinating, the answer is Yes!

Perhaps it's all basic within us, and we just haven't discovered, or believed it all yet. Threads like this may aid that lack.

mismused

Be careful here. People drag in quantum theory and Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle whenever they need a little hand-waving and hocus-pocus. I've seen Heisenberg used in an attempt to explain free will as a result of quantum indeterminacy, and it's just nonsense. Quantum effects are negligible when you get to the scale of biomolecules.

 

[mismused]

Be careful here. People drag in quantum theory and Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle whenever they need a little hand-waving and hocus-pocus. I've seen Heisenberg used in an attempt to explain free will as a result of quantum indeterminacy, and it's just nonsense. Quantum effects are negligible when you get to the scale of biomolecules.

=====================================================

You may be right, or perhaps not, but in deference to your thread, I'll not say further, and keep my extrapolations for another time. Thanks, Dr. M.

 

[NoJo]

An Important clarification: Empathy and analytical ability are in no way opposed. They're both signs of intelligence.

Empathy

Empathy (call it the ability to place yourself in someone elses shoes), requires imagination. Women can empathise with each other, and men can empathise with each other. Women and men can empathise with each other.

Personally, I have an great ability to concentrate, and I'm very "analytical" -- in situations where it's called for. Having an ability to analyse, say, heart, or skin resistance signals using signal processing algorithms (which is what I'm currently paid to do), has no impact one way or the other on my ability to empathise with people.

This is normal. Sometimes we concentrate on fast fourier transforms, other times we empathise. Sometimes we watch TV.

People tend to compensate a lack of ability in one area with a strength in another, like the way blind people often have good hearing, or become musical. This is the argument in the Newsweek article.

But it's important not to oppose "empathy" and "analytical ability". That would be like saying good hearing is opposed to good eyesight.

_________________________________
The classic autism test (which one of my sons was given as child) shows that many autistics actually lack an important "analytical" ability:

1. Picture 1. Jane and Dick sit at a table with two jars, a red one and a blue one. Jane puts her piece of candy in the red jar.

2. Picture 2. Jane leaves the room. Dick takes the candy out of the red jar and puts it in the blue one instead.

3. Picture 3. Jane returns. She wants her candy. Which jar does she open?

Obviously getting the answer wrong here (which some autistic children do, because they don't understand viewpoint -- they think that Jane's POV is "omniscient" and she will therefore be aware that the candy has changed jars) shows a major inability to analyse (human) situations.
_________________________________


The ability to empathise, like the ability to analyse, are both important signs of intelligence. They are not opposed in any way.

Sympathy

Showing "sympathy" is less of a feeling than a social act. It would be pretty meaningless to sympathise with someone without acting on it, just as it would be meaningly to "feel apologetic", without in (some way) apologising, or at least attempting to.

Showing sympathy may be something women are generally better at than men, but I would say this is a social difference, rather than a biological or psychological one.

 

[Liar]

An Important clarification: Empathy and analytical ability are in no way opposed. They're both signs of intelligence.

Empathy is an analytical ability. It's an analysis of various signals from another human being in order to determine it's emotions, thoughts and needs. To emphatize requiers emotional detachment from the subject. Observation, not jugdement. If there is a special empathy cluster in the brain, I'd say it's more linked to symathy.

I find sympathy much easier than empathy. The latter requires grey matter exercise.

 

[impressive]

I find sympathy much easier than empathy. The latter requires grey matter exercise.

Empathy is "merely" understanding. Sympathy is feeling.

In a lot of instances, I think it'd me more appropriate to send empathy cards.

 

[rgraham666]

Every time I see this thread, this song starts going through my mind.

They're Pinky and The Brain
Yes, Pinky and The Brain
One is a genius
The other's insane.
They're laboratory mice
Their genes have been spliced
They're dinky
They're Pinky and The Brain, Brain, Brain, Brain
Brain, Brain, Brain, Brain
Brain.

Before each night is done
Their plan will be unfurled
By the dawning of the sun
They'll take over the world.

They're Pinky and The Brain
Yes, Pinky and The Brain
Their twilight campaign
Is easy to explain.
To prove their mousey worth

They'll overthrow the Earth
They're dinky
They're Pinky and The Brain, Brain, Brain, Brain
Brain, Brain, Brain, Brain
Narf!

Why should I be the only one to suffer?

 

[shereads]

Empathy is "merely" understanding. Sympathy is feeling.

I don't understand. This is the reverse of what what I thought these words meant I feel empathy as something almost crippling, when I see or even hear an account of animal torture or a child who was beaten to death. Sympathy can be felt as no more than an acknowledgement that someone has suffered a loss; we express sympathy as a way of being polite to strangers. But when we hurt for them, we are feeling empathy, whether we want to or not.

Wrong?


Edited to reply to Sub Joe: The article didn't imply that empathy and analytical ability can't co-exist. It referred to a study of men who were exceptional in that their analytical skills were highly advanced but they weren't able to form strong bonds with other people, including family members. If I remember correctly, the men had come to the attention of the researcher because they were the parents of autistic boys. These fathers functioned well in society, but were considered unemotional by others and expressed some bewilderment about others' emotions. The researcher theorized that they had a mild version of what was seen in their autistic sons as an inability to connect with others on an emotional level.

 

[impressive]

I don't understand. I feel empathy as something almost crippling, when I see or even hear an account of animal torture or a child who was beaten to death. Sympathy can be felt as no more than an acknowledgement that someone has suffered a loss; we express sympathy as a way of being polite to strangers. But when we hurt for them, we are feeling empathy, whether we want to or not.

Wrong?

Backwards. Seems to be the prevalent interpretation of the words -- although their definitions say otherwise.

 

[tolyk]

Every time I see this thread, this song starts going through my mind.

They're Pinky and The Brain
Yes, Pinky and The Brain
One is a genius
The other's insane.
They're laboratory mice
Their genes have been spliced
They're dinky
They're Pinky and The Brain, Brain, Brain, Brain
Brain, Brain, Brain, Brain
Brain.

Before each night is done
Their plan will be unfurled
By the dawning of the sun
They'll take over the world.

They're Pinky and The Brain
Yes, Pinky and The Brain
Their twilight campaign
Is easy to explain.
To prove their mousey worth

They'll overthrow the Earth
They're dinky
They're Pinky and The Brain, Brain, Brain, Brain
Brain, Brain, Brain, Brain
Narf!

Why should I be the only one to suffer?

You're evil Rob, just plain evil!

 

[shereads]

Backwards. Seems to be the prevalent interpretation of the words -- although their definitions say otherwise.

Maybe the people writing the definitions are confused:

Feeling what others feel

Empathy is the ability to not only detect what others feel but also to experience that emotion yourself.

This can be both a bane and a boon. If you can read another person's emotions then you can both avoid making a faux pas and also utilize their state to move them in another direction. When people are in emotional states their ability to decide is often significantly impaired. Thus you cannot expect aroused people to make rational choices at this time.

Empathy is a bane if you end up experiencing all the bad feelings of everyone around you.This is one of the problems that therapists and other carers have to handle.

It's not sympathy

Empathy and sympathy are very close and are sometimes used as synonyms. The easiest way to separate them is to remember that empathy is about feelings whilst sympathy is about actions. Thus you may empathise with another person and then act on this by telling them how sorry or happy you feel for them.

Empathetic people are often very sympathetic - they can hardly stop themselves as they really do feel for the other person.

A person who is sympathetic but empathetic may appear a little shallow, as they are less likely to show an emotional connection. 'Terribly sorry and all that, old chap' they might say, in a friendly but relatively cold voice.

http://changingminds.org/explanations/emotions/empathy.htm

 

[NoJo]

I don't understand. This is the reverse of what what I thought these words meant I feel empathy as something almost crippling, when I see or even hear an account of animal torture or a child who was beaten to death. Sympathy can be felt as no more than an acknowledgement that someone has suffered a loss; we express sympathy as a way of being polite to strangers. But when we hurt for them, we are feeling empathy, whether we want to or not.

Wrong?

"I feel your pain" is what you're talking about. You're talking about strong identification. It's not sympathy. Sympathy, etymologcally, means "co-feeling", a shared feeling. It's like when girls have a good cry together, or guys punch each other on the shoulders and call each other big lugs.

 

[impressive]

em·pa·thy
n.
Identification with and understanding of another's situation, feelings, and motives.

sym·pa·thy
n.
A relationship or an affinity between people or things in which whatever affects one correspondingly affects the other.

Depends on where ya look, I guess.

 

[shereads]

"I feel your pain" is what you're talking about. You're talking about strong identification. It's not sympathy. Sympathy, etymologcally, means "co-feeling", a shared feeling. It's like when girls have a good cry together, or guys punch each other on the shoulders and call each other big lugs.

That's my point: empathy is strong identification. I can be sorry my boss' wife is ill and express my sympathy, but we're not close so I don't feel their pain. I might feel empathy when someone I despise is suffering, whether I want to feel it or not; frying Charles Manson in Florida's defective electric chair would make me feel sick, the way I'd feel sick seeing an innocent creature on fire. I wouldn't feel sympathy for Manson; I wouldn't offer a hug or feel the need for some sharing.

 

[NoJo]

That's my point: empathy is strong identification. I can be sorry my boss' wife is ill and express my sympathy, but we're not close so I don't feel their pain. I might feel empathy when someone I despise is suffering, whether I want to feel it or not; frying Charles Manson in Florida's defective electric chair would make me feel sick, the way I'd feel sick seeing an innocent creature on fire. I wouldn't feel sympathy for Manson; I wouldn't offer a hug or feel the need for some sharing.

This touches on a deep subject in the philosphy of mind, which I feel strange discussing through posts on a forum in a free porn story site. I can only refer you to these two hypothetical dialogs and commend the subject to you.

"He's angry."
"How do you know?"

"I'm angry."
"How do you know?"

 

[impressive]

From http://xnet.kp.org/permanentejournal/fall03/cpc.html (just one of the first Google hits)

Empathy Versus Sympathy (and Versus Pity)

Despite some divergent opinion on the matter, we may propose a subtle but important distinction between empathy and sympathy.

Whereas empathy is used by skilled clinicians to enhance communication and delivery of care, sympathy can be burdensome and emotionally exhausting and can lead to burnout. Sympathy implies feeling shared with the sufferer as if the pain belonged to both persons: We sympathize with other human beings when we share and suffer with them. It would stand to reason, therefore, that completely shared suffering can never exist between physician and patient; otherwise, the physician would share the patient's plight and would therefore be unable to help.

Empathy is concerned with a much higher order of human relationship and understanding: engaged detachment. In empathy, we "borrow" another's feelings to observe, feel, and understand them--but not to take them onto ourselves. By being a participant-observer, we come to understand how the other person feels. An empathetic observer enters into the equation and then is removed.

 

[shereads]

"I feel your pain" is what you're talking about. You're talking about strong identification. It's not sympathy. Sympathy, etymologcally, means "co-feeling", a shared feeling. It's like when girls have a good cry together, or guys punch each other on the shoulders and call each other big lugs.

Identification with another's feelings causes feelings, even intense ones. My nephew has empathy. It's what made him cry when other boys were throwing frogs against a brick wall. Those boys lacked empathy.

Serial killer Ted Bundy was a charming, socially adept young man who had a lot of friends - no intimate friends - and was known as someone who always said the right thing when someone at work needed a shoulder to cry on. Sociopaths are said to lack empathy and can be charming and socially successful because they are so good at observing, analyzing and emulating the emotions of other people. They don't identify with their victims, or they couldn't torture them. They are objective observers of other people, able to use them as friends or select them as victims, without the hindrance of empathy.

 

[shereads]

From http://xnet.kp.org/permanentejournal/fall03/cpc.html (just one of the first Google hits)

So was mine. They contradict each other. So mine must be right.

 

[impressive]

They contradict each other. So mine must be right.

My thoughts exactly.

 

[NoJo]

Identification with another's feelings causes feelings, even intense ones. My nephew has empathy. It's what made him cry when other boys were throwing frogs against a brick wall. Those boys lacked empathy.

Serial killer Ted Bundy was a charming, socially adept young man who had a lot of friends - no intimate friends - and was known as someone who always said the right thing when someone at work needed a shoulder to cry on. Sociopaths are said to lack empathy and can be charming and socially successful because they are so good at observing, analyzing and emulating the emotions of other people. They don't identify with their victims, or they couldn't torture them. They are objective observers of other people, able to use them as friends or select them as victims, without the hindrance of empathy.

Objectification can be sexy, when done right.