The little-known psychological nature of empathy

Empathy is the foundation of much of the good in civilization, so it is odd that so few people know it's psychological nature.

I'll use a simple and obvious example to illustrate empathy: Suppose that a sociopath tortures an innocent animal. Suppose also that there is an onlooker, who reacts in some way, depending upon their character traits. The reaction of a fellow sociopathic onlooker would be to laugh, or to feel some other crude positive emotion, or at best, complete indifference. An onlooker who possesses empathy, in contrast, would attempt to stop the injustice.

So then what is the mechanism that causes such empathic intervention behavior? It is more complex than you may think. Empathy consists of three different components that work together: conscientiousness, humility, and objectivity.

Conscientiousness is the general capacity to be bothered by things, and consequently take action. The opposite of conscientiousness is sleaziness. Sleaziness causes both personal irresponsibility and social irresponsibility; it causes such behaviors as habitual criminality, habitual use of recreational drugs (either legal or illegal), generally unhealthy habits, and irresponsible use of one's money.

Humility causes one to have consideration for all other conscious beings, regardless of their extrinsic traits. The opposite of humility is dominant egotism, which causes one to seek to crush and suppress anything other than oneself and the things associated with oneself.

Objectivity causes one to clearly see the distinction between victim and victimizer, and thus have empathy for the victim. The opposite of objectivity is antagonistic aggression, aka 'sliminess'. Said slimy antagonistic aggression serves to mix and blur together the contrasting things in one's perception, including victim and victimizer, as well as the severity of the actions between them (thus trivializing it). Thus, in the aforementioned scenario, an antagonistic-aggressive individual does not see a sociopath torturing an innocent animal, but instead only sees the sociopath and the innocent animal 'not getting along'.

Nice treatise on empathy.

I agree that empathy is very important to a society.

You will know then that modern societies, given the impersonal nature of interactions and alienation, results in empathy deficits among the inhabitants?

That is, these traits you mentioned, are socially generated, not psychologically generated.

The socially formed mind...

It's voodoo science... evveryone knows the predominating scientific view is that animals are organic robots driven by pavlovs ingenious and so deserving famous theories, that creatures build associations based on how things happen.

You experience something, then you feel it, know how you respond, and see it in others... everything else is voodoo science...

As if the last 60,000 years the human species was unable to cook a whopper by themselves over a campfire... Oh sh!t... That's the last 80 or so years...

I posted this already? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=giNNkvk4jzQ#t=0m22s

We as a species employ a police force which earns on average 100,000 a year to mediate this sort of thing...


Don't get me started on the Chinese and their fireworks,



...and the leaps and bounds of space exploration made possible by ingenuity, rather than mass production capabilities and scale...


Have you seen what the primordial soup of the universe at it's very edges looks like? Wow...

The universe is made of bendy light...

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/foru ... ic=55570.0


Now what strikes right through me is the hollow earth and the way my best friend from the past who religiously loved the same music as me, went crazy over it and recommend I read it absolutely...

No crazies...

This type of music...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zz9mU2_v5Fs

what makes the animal innocent and what made that act injustice? must be your objectivity?

because i do not agree.

researcher2 wrote:I'll use a simple and obvious example to illustrate empathy: Suppose that a sociopath tortures an innocent animal. Suppose also that there is an onlooker, who reacts in some way, depending upon their character traits. The reaction of a fellow sociopathic onlooker would be to laugh, or to feel some other crude positive emotion, or at best, complete indifference. An onlooker who possesses empathy, in contrast, would attempt to stop the injustice.

Oh no... I believe you are wrong... when one sociopath tortures another the reaction whether or not you are a sociopath is to question yourself as an onlooker and a possible participant.

Take for example a genocide...

Did all the other sociopaths laugh? I'd question whether or not Hitler himself gave the slightest chuckle.

I believe OP, you may be have torture and teasing mixed up...

If one sociopath trips up, or humiliates another, which is way way way different than torture, in severity and meaning, then sure, that's laughs...

I guess one extreme is the transfer of ego, somehow... maybe a thug bashing in the head of another, empowers the onlookers or participants in the event, however, I'd love to see a crime scene where during the actual torture and killing, laughing persists.

Even that 3 guys, one homeless man and a screwdriver... the chuckles came much later, when washing the blood from the tools... the actual torture, was to my memory, fascination...

So... sure... maybe experienced sociopaths, after more than a few killings or tortures, might give out a chuckle or two...


My own personal experiences with "torture" and my recollection of the onlookers emotions, were either that of disgust, or sympathy... even the sociopaths had little time to laugh, in some instances, in fact, it was either all business, or yeah sure, in one case, at least a sense of justice or empowerment which lead to a little bit of sick laughter...

So then what is the mechanism that causes such empathic intervention behavior? It is more complex than you may think. Empathy consists of three different components that work together: conscientiousness, humility, and objectivity.

Experience... Sensitivity... Feeling...

How does conning science help anyone with their senses? Art and Science are nearly the same damn thing, if you ask me...

How often people mix together the concept of science and technology, boggles my mind... the sciences of Einstein, has theories, and then when applied to the real working world, a whole new set of field equations, and trial and error is needed to get that precision down...

Science is an Art, Art is a Science...

Anyways... Humility... sure that's one of how many hundreds, possibly thousands of feelings animals sense.

Objectivity is looking at something from a distance, and has nearly nothing to do with being subjectively being in the moment, experiencing, feeling and sensing, first hand...

Objectivity causes one to clearly see the distinction between victim and victimizer, and thus have empathy for the victim. The opposite of objectivity is antagonistic aggression, aka 'sliminess'.

I love these sublime definitions OP... so where does crooked come into it?




Anyways...

The opposite of humility is dominant egotism

The opposing virtue of humility is pride...

The opposite of egotism or egocentrism, I ass of you and me, may in fact be empathy... unsure...

Sleaziness causes both personal irresponsibility and social irresponsibility; it causes such behaviors as habitual criminality, habitual use of recreational drugs (either legal or illegal), generally unhealthy habits, and irresponsible use of one's money.

Sleeze is like the teeze, only you actually get it...

"condition of squalor," by 1967, back-formation from sleazy. Meaning "person of low moral standards," and the adjective use, are attested from 1976.

So take someone with a high set of morals or standards, and imagine them teezing you...

Now imagine someone with a low set of morals or standards, giving it to you...





OP... your whole post is off... 1000%...

Hey researcher2, where did you get all those ideas from? Are you a "psychologist"? For the looks of it you also seem to believe in God, lol.

I never wanted to side with the Intelligent Design people... and hey, it might be supreme beings, demi-gods, or advanced civilizations in alternate realities. Might be God too...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjPcT1uUZiE#t=1m45s


If the universe was 24 Billion years old... it still doesn't make any sense... infinite Universe, maybe... a 4.5 Billion year old Earth?

No chance in hell... only my opinion...

I guess I should explain to the Atheists why something that complex by chance would most likely never form in a mere 4.5 billion years... or what 2.5 Billion years?

Who cares... they can't even figure out what the Asteroid belt is doing floating out around in space...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phaeton_(h ... cal_planet)

Today, the Phaeton hypothesis has been superseded by the accretion model.[1] Most astronomers today believe that the asteroids in the main belt are remnants of the protoplanetary disk, and in this region the incorporation of protoplanetary remnants into the planets was prevented by large gravitational perturbations induced by Jupiter during the formative period of the solar system.

As if all the Earths Water simply accreted into existence... ask yourself, is there a God?

Then ask a scientist where all the Earths water came from.

You are better off with the story of Genesis.

Anyways... here's my theory or a few theories on where the Earths Water came from... You heard it here first, from a 100% total scientifically self-educated layman... It's manufactured in the clouds...

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/foru ... ic=55567.0


If you haven't seen it yet... it's worth taking a look...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rn0My2ivh2U



This is another good thread... only this one was dropped right inside a physics forum... MrGamma... that's me...

(First page is nonsense... everything from nebular water spouts to you name it...)

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread ... 201&page=2