Thread: RSA Animate - The Empathic Civilization

I don't know whether what the video proposes would be possible or not. If I try to care about everyone in the world, it at first seems possible, and I'm sure is possible to an extent.

(I realize the video probably isn't proposing what I bring up in this paragraph. This is just a thought about how it would be impractical to take it too far.)
If I try to care deeply about the suffering of people I don't know, starving people in third world countries for example, I find I feel only a bit of empathy. I can pretend to feel worse for them, and realize that I should be caring more about them, but I can't bring myself to actually care that much. If someone I cared about was suffering, I would be in a sense suffering too, due to empathy. So if empathy like that were extended to everyone in the world, I'd be constantly suffering too. There would be too much empathy. I've felt hints of what that might be like at times, while in particularly depressed moods. I think of all the women who are right now locked in someone's basement being used for sex, their lives wasted, with no chance of escape; people who have lost loved ones they were so attached to they'll live the rest of their lives in misery; people whose bodies are paralyzed; children being traded as slaves, etc. If I were to feel empathy for all of those people as I would for someone I loved, or even as I occasionally do for someone in my close community, it would be impractical. I would be constantly suffering and depressed to the point of being demobilized. Luckily, I don't think it's possible to care that much.

But I realize this video is proposing that we think of everyone in the world as part of our extended community, with maybe as much empathy for people on other continents as for people in our city. And I agree that might be possible.

In my opinion, there are enough billionares and millionares in the world to provide for all the needs of those who are poor. Just a guess, just Bill Gates should be enough to provide for the 2/3 of the poor.

Originally Posted by Dianeva

But I realize this video is proposing that we think of everyone in the world as part of our extended community, with maybe as much empathy for people on other continents as for people in our city. And I agree that might be possible.

Yeah, this is basically what the video is proposing. Even within a family/community context, there are levels of empathy you will feel for someone. I believe the amount of attention that you pay that person on a daily basis plays a huge role in how much empathy you feel for them. Even in the case of the monkey in the experiment - who was all alone before the person wandered in to crack the nut - the monkey, at the time, had its full attention upon that particular person. It wasn't scattered about an entire globe of people. The level of empathy (identification) the monkey felt for that person was very high.

But to take those people into consideration, it's hard not to feel some level of empathy for them (unless you just don't give a shit). The level of empathy you feel for someone else is subjective, of course, but that subjectivity can fluctuate, with how much attention you put on that person. Whatever the level, the fact remains that just being aware of that person's plight - in a sense - facilitates a level of identification with them, just as it does with a person of your immediate family.

I have another video that goes very good with that one

Keith Barry does brain magic | Video on TED.com

It shows mirror neurons in action.

I'm actually writing about a super hero who's got mirror neurons to the extreme.

I missed this thread when it first came around--great vid, O.

Originally Posted by Dianeva

So if empathy like that were extended to everyone in the world, I'd be constantly suffering too. There would be too much empathy.

This view seems reasonable when considering universal empathy as a what-if scenario, while still restraining and obstructing one's love out of fear that it will somehow compromise us and leave us vulnerable. In those who actually face that fear and cultivate compassion for all beings, however, the practice leads to blissful states, spontaneity, and equanimity. It's fear--of losing one's identity, of the inevitability that all one loves will pass--that leads to suffering, not love.

Two problems.
We don't have empathy for people we haven't met. We also only have room in our brain for around 150 people to care about.

Yes we can feel a sort of very weak empathy for people like the Haitians. But does anyone really care? No.

You don't even care if someone in your suburb who you haven't met gets killed, let alone someone in another country.

We feel some sort of duty to help others outside of certain bounds, but I think it's more of a guilt thing. Rather than true empathy.

Which is why people donate $50 to these countries and then forget about it.

FYI - Haiti is still fucked, the Gulf is still fucked, New Zealand is still fucked and China is still fucked.

The second problem with this video is that he says we have very different wiring to our ancestors.
It's pretty much accepted fact that our brains really haven't changed much, if at all, since Homo Sapiens first emerged as a distinct species.

Originally Posted by tommo

Two problems.
We don't have empathy for people we haven't met. We also only have room in our brain for around 150 people to care about.

Wrong. Early civilizations only have room for about 150 people to run a close-nit community. In a world where you commute to work and commute home and have business relations and acquaintances and networking, that idea has no relevance. Empathy occurs whenever we recognize something as ourselves, this is what drama is based on. This is possible for complete strangers.

Yes we can feel a sort of very weak empathy for people like the Haitians. But does anyone really care? No.

You don't even care if someone in your suburb who you haven't met gets killed, let alone someone in another country.

We feel some sort of duty to help others outside of certain bounds, but I think it's more of a guilt thing. Rather than true empathy.

Which is why people donate $50 to these countries and then forget about it.

FYI - Haiti is still fucked, the Gulf is still fucked, New Zealand is still fucked and China is still fucked.

For mirror neurons to work we need to see or in some way actually be exposed to the suffering. If it's a neighbor you never met you won't care because your mind has no where to place this. If it's someone you know, you know the impact their death had on their loved ones and bam, empathy. While we cannot know everyone alive personally and grow to love them, everyone alive still knows and loves somebody. The idea is to strip away the term "foreigner" when it comes to the world and treat everyone like part of the same family. This is basically already happening and just because we can't mystically undo natural disasters doesn't mean we don't care. It's not guilt just for the sake of it, it's guilt because people are suffering and need help.

Originally Posted by tommo

We don't have empathy for people we haven't met.

I deem this incorrect for me personally....
I can be empathetic with any person, i can look on the street and feel what someone else feels if i just focus, it's not like "this person is sad" or "this person is happy" feeling though, it's so much more complex than that, it's many emotions clumped together.
Empathy is more than just a dictionary term.

Why is everyone so hung up on suffering? I can empathize with a bone-shaking orgasm. Hell, the example in the video was eating a nut.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

Wrong. Early civilizations only have room for about 150 people to run a close-nit community. In a world where you commute to work and commute home and have business relations and acquaintances and networking, that idea has no relevance. Empathy occurs whenever we recognize something as ourselves, this is what drama is based on. This is possible for complete strangers.

I require proof.
Our brains don't change because of that sort of factor lol
"OH, there's thousands of people around me every day now, better make more room for caring".
No lol

Proof please.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

For mirror neurons to work we need to see or in some way actually be exposed to the suffering. If it's a neighbor you never met you won't care because your mind has no where to place this. If it's someone you know, you know the impact their death had on their loved ones and bam, empathy. While we cannot know everyone alive personally and grow to love them, everyone alive still knows and loves somebody. The idea is to strip away the term "foreigner" when it comes to the world and treat everyone like part of the same family. This is basically already happening and just because we can't mystically undo natural disasters doesn't mean we don't care. It's not guilt just for the sake of it, it's guilt because people are suffering and need help.

"It's not guilt for the sake of it"?
That doesn't even make any sense.

It's induced guilt. People tell us we should feel bad for them. That we should help.
But we don't feel bad, but many people tell us we should.

We feel guilty.
We feel guilty that we have more than them.
That something horrible happened to them etc.

Why we're guilty doesn't matter anyway. The point is, guilt is not empathy.

Originally Posted by tommo

It's induced guilt. People tell us we should feel bad for them. That we should help.
But we don't feel bad, but many people tell us we should.

We feel guilty.
We feel guilty that we have more than them.
That something horrible happened to them etc.

Why we're guilty doesn't matter anyway. The point is, guilt is not empathy.

You seem to be hung up on the third-world aspect. As has been stated, empathy deals with more than that type of situation.

That you would say:

Originally Posted by tommo

Yes we can feel a sort of very weak empathy for people like the Haitians. But does anyone really care? No.

You don't even care if someone in your suburb who you haven't met gets killed, let alone someone in another country.

...is something that I, personally, would like to see some proof of. It looks, to me, like you are just projecting your own apathy onto the rest of the world. By what scale are you using the term 'care'? There is a difference between not caring about something, and not being able to do anything - within reason - about it. I don't know about you, but when I hear about how a woman in a nearby city was walking along the marina, met a man, blacked-out, and woke up tied up in the woods, until someone heard her screams for help (which just happened, around here, a couple of days ago), my mind automatically runs me through the scenario. I could imagine (to some limited degree) what something like that would be like. It would be Hell. Not knowing what happened? Not knowing what (if any) damage might have been done to you? Simply not knowing where you are, or what's about to happen? Anyone capable of rational thought would be able to get a sense for how horrible that would be. feel for that woman, and I hate that anyone has to experience something like that. Such a connection, however subjective/relative, is the basis of empathy. I'd say it's a pretty fundamental trait, but maybe I'm biased. You mean to tell me that you, as a person, are so incapable of this that you believe it to be a fictional concept?

When it comes to the "caring for the third-world" 'version' of empathy, it all comes down to your expectation of what the average person should do, to show that they are empathic to the situation. Everything is weighed against their effects toward/against ourselves; a selfish (yet, again, fundamental) human trait, I know, but it's often not without reason. Are you judging on the general idea that anyone who doesn't devote their lives to missionary work, or funnel their life savings into recovery work for the region, doesn't 'care' about the situation? I really couldn't come to any other conclusion, given what you've said. If that is what you're saying, then I can only tell you that you're wrong. Honestly, do I feel that I have more immediate issues, that affect me, personally? Sure. But to imply that being that 'selfish' makes me completely ignorant or indifferent to the plight of others is just cynical and pessimistic, really.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

...is something that I, personally, would like to see some proof of.

Um.... No. You, by posting the video, have stated that we can feel empathy for people we have never met.
The burden of proof lies on YOU.
I've stated that it is a well established fact that we cannot feel empathy for more than ~150 people. You are trying to challenge that accepted fact.

Now you must provide proof for your belief sir.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

It looks, to me, like you are just projecting your own apathy onto the rest of the world. By what scale are you using the term 'care'? There is a difference between not caring about something, and not being able to do anything - within reason - about it.

Level of care has nothing to do with what you do about it.

I'm using the term care, as in being empathic toward a person.
In all likelihood, you did not feel the pain of that old woman.
It is evidenced even in your choice of words.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

I could imagine (to some limited degree) what something like that would be like. It would be Hell. Not knowing what happened? Not knowing what (if any) damage might have been done to you? Simply not knowing where you are, or what's about to happen? Anyone capable of rational thought would be able to get a sense for how horrible that would be. feel for that woman, and I hate that anyone has to experience something like that. Such a connection, however subjective/relative, is the basis of empathy. I'd say it's a pretty fundamental trait, but maybe I'm biased. You mean to tell me that you, as a person, are so incapable of this that you believe it to be a fictional concept?

I totally believe you felt bad for her. You didn't have empathy.
You could not literally feel what she was feeling. And it certainly wasn't an automatic reaction. You had to think about it and imagine it.

Empathy is automatic. Mirror neurons perform their actions whether or not you want them to or not. Like when someone makes a weird facial expression and you unknowingly copy it.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

When it comes to the "caring for the third-world" 'version' of empathy, it all comes down to your expectation of what the average person should do, to show that they are empathic to the situation.

Again, what I expect people to do is irrelevant. I don't expect people to do anything, anyway.

The point is, nobody breaks down and cries when this stuff happens. Not like you would if your best friend (or even someone you just talk to regularly) was killed or brutally beaten, especially if you saw it happen.

If one of your friends was raped, you would feel horrible and sick and want to kill the bastard who did it.
If you read about some woman getting raped in Africa, or the tens of thousands who get raped in Africa every year, you cannot seriously believe that you feel just as bad for them.
You do not feel that pain in the same way.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Everything is weighed against their effects toward/against ourselves; a selfish (yet, again, fundamental) human trait, I know, but it's often not without reason. Are you judging on the general idea that anyone who doesn't devote their lives to missionary work, or funnel their life savings into recovery work for the region, doesn't 'care' about the situation? I really couldn't come to any other conclusion, given what you've said. If that is what you're saying, then I can only tell you that you're wrong. Honestly, do I feel that I have more immediate issues, that affect me, personally? Sure. But to imply that being that 'selfish' makes me completely ignorant or indifferent to the plight of others is just cynical and pessimistic, really.

That is not exactly what I'm saying. Even if something affects you greatly, doesn't mean you're going to ruin your own life which you enjoy, for the sake of fixing that thing.
But the point is that it doesn't effect people that much.
And a lot more people wouldn't be able to put those things out of their mind and a lot more people would go and do missionary work, donate more money etc. if it did affect them more. If it made them feel empathy.

The only way to have a global consciousness, where we care about what happens to people in other countries, and fight against these problems, is to think intellectually.

We also need a common goal to strive for. Whether that be eliminating all diseases or reaching other planets and exploring our universe more etc.
Whatever it is, of whatever the many reasons are, we would need to do it together.
Currently 90% of the world is doing nothing. Only looking after themselves.

We need a common goal if people are to feel a sense of belonging.
We need a set of values which permeate every person's mind.

It is improbable that we would feel pain for anyone who we haven't met and isn't in close proximity to us. But we would feel like an injustice has been done. Someone infringing on the rights of another. Which would be against our common goal.

Just a final statement:
If you were able to feel empathy, on any level, for all the great injustices committed every day, you would not be able to function.
Imagine what the pain would be like for a minute. Take the pain of watching a loved one, or at the least a person you've only met once or twice, being brutally beaten or raped or whatever pertains to the situation, multiplied by a thousand, and you're still no where near it.

I get what is being said about apathy. Whenever a news story comes on about some tragic loss of life or other, I don't think I tend to feel anything. Why? Because I have no conception of who that person was, and because 150,000 other personally tragic deaths have happened that day. Nobody can honestly care very much about a death of a single stranger; if they did they'd go insane. I think those kind of news stories are pretty pointless, they're not in the public interest.

Originally Posted by tommo

Um.... No. You, by posting the video, have stated that we can feel empathy for people we have never met.
The burden of proof lies on YOU.

If I so decide to bite at it. If you disagree with the video, that's fine with me, and I'm more than willing to let you do so. But without adding substance to your argument, your disagreement really has no more weight than someone standing up in a room and saying "you're wrong," with nothing to back it up. Just sayin'.

With that being said, though, I'll bite:

As the video said, empathy is grounded in acknowledgement of such things as suffering, mortality, frailty (and, conversely, celebration) of life, etc. It stated that emergence of certain institutions (religion, industry, etc.) helped to spread empathy in a way that early civilizations never got to experience. The idea of 'brotherhood' became much more broad, and shifted to not only blood-ties and tribal socialization, but to trade types and moral ideologies. To me, the concept simply makes so much sense, that I have simply not been shown anything that gives me any reason to thick otherwise - including this:

Originally Posted by tommo

I've stated that it is a well established fact that we cannot feel empathy for more than ~150 people. You are trying to challenge that accepted fact.

Saying something is a well-established fact doesn't make it a well-established fact. And, if you are talking about Dunbar's Number, then your 'well-established fact' is actually more of an arbitrary interpretation of statistics used in a test on non-human primates. But even if that weren't the case - and this was from studies done on humans - what, exactly, is that 150 number saying? Is that number of 150 reserved for 150 specific people? Or does that number signify a 'phasing in and out' of people into your 'empathic zone'? If the latter is the case, then it's not so much about being able to 'have empathy for people (read as: everyone) we haven't met.' It's more about having empathy for people we meet, even briefly, but have no other ties to. This would make more sense to me. And by just considering the extreme difference between the levels by which primates interact with each other and by which modern humans interact with each other, I'm not too afraid to assume that that (extrapolated) number is not as definitive as some might think it is.

Originally Posted by tommo

Level of care has nothing to do with what you do about it.

I'm using the term care, as in being empathic toward a person.
In all likelihood, you did not feel the pain of that old woman.
It is evidenced even in your choice of words.

As far as choice of words, go...

Originally Posted by merriam-webster.com

1
: the imaginative projection of a subjective state into an object so that the object appears to be infused with it
2
: the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another of either the past or present without having the feelings, thoughts, and experience fully communicated in an objectively explicit manner; also : the capacity for this

Interesting that 'imagination' is good enough for Merriam-Webster's definition of empathy, but not for yours.

Originally Posted by tommo

I totally believe you felt bad for her. You didn't have empathy.
You could not literally feel what she was feeling. And it certainly wasn't an automatic reaction. You had to think about it and imagine it.

Empathy is automatic. Mirror neurons perform their actions whether or not you want them to or not. Like when someone makes a weird facial expression and you unknowingly copy it.

You seem to believe that being empathic toward someone must involve some purely reflexive and immediate nature - that no thought would or could be involved in the experience. May I ask what makes you assume this? I mean, who is to say that a psychological response to any given thing has no thought process behind it? Remember, even psychopaths are rational, in their own minds. Besides, I never said that I had to voluntarily imagine the scenario. I believe I said it was something that my mind just does. Simply 'thinking about' something does not mean that that thought process was not instinctual.

Originally Posted by tommo

Again, what I expect people to do is irrelevant. I don't expect people to do anything, anyway.

The point is, nobody breaks down and cries when this stuff happens. Not like you would if your best friend (or even someone you just talk to regularly) was killed or brutally beaten, especially if you saw it happen.

If one of your friends was raped, you would feel horrible and sick and want to kill the bastard who did it.
If you read about some woman getting raped in Africa, or the tens of thousands who get raped in Africa every year, you cannot seriously believe that you feel just as bad for them.
You do not feel that pain in the same way.

That is because they are not the same kind of pain. I agree that empathy is on a deeper level than sympathy, though the two terms can sometimes be used interchangeably. But, given even the Britannica Concise Encyclopedia's definition of empathy:

Ability to imagine oneself in another's place and understand the other's feelings, desires, ideas, and actions. The empathic actor or singer is one who genuinely feels the part he or she is performing. The spectator of a work of art or the reader of a piece of literature may similarly become involved in what he or she observes or contemplates. The use of empathy was an important part of the psychological counseling technique developed by Carl R. Rodgers.

..it seems that you are implying that, in order to 'empathize' with someone, one must react, physically, in a way as if they were experiencing the situation, themselves. There are two things wrong with this. 1) It assumes that those who aren't driven to physically react (cry, scream, rage) are not experiencing empathy. 2) It assumes that there is some 'universal constant' to how any particular person would react in any particular situation.

Originally Posted by tommo

And a lot more people wouldn't be able to put those things out of their mind and a lot more people would go and do missionary work, donate more money etc. if it did affect them more. If it made them feel empathy.

The only way to have a global consciousness, where we care about what happens to people in other countries, and fight against these problems, is to think intellectually.

Again, you are presenting this idea of 'if you truly felt empathy, you would do [X].' I was not under the impression that being empathic about something automatically generates a predetermined response. There is always a level of difference in how you relate to a situation; even when it's in dealing with your closest friends. Can I empathize with my best friend, when his dog died? Sure. I have lost a dog before, and to an extent, I know what his dog meant to him. But do I know, exactly? No. Not being able to experience the world through his eyes, I don't know exactly what that dog meant to him. But does that separation denote an inability to empathize? No. I have an intellectual understanding of his loss; enough to where, if I were to put myself into his shoes, I have the ability to feel and internalize a similar level of anguish. Is it going to be exact? Of course not. That would necessitate telepathy. But it may be pretty damn close.

Originally Posted by tommo

The only way to have a global consciousness, where we care about what happens to people in other countries, and fight against these problems, is to think intellectually.

We also need a common goal to strive for. Whether that be eliminating all diseases or reaching other planets and exploring our universe more etc.
Whatever it is, of whatever the many reasons are, we would need to do it together.
Currently 90% of the world is doing nothing. Only looking after themselves.

We need a common goal if people are to feel a sense of belonging.
We need a set of values which permeate every person's mind.

It is improbable that we would feel pain for anyone who we haven't met and isn't in close proximity to us. But we would feel like an injustice has been done. Someone infringing on the rights of another. Which would be against our common goal.

Just a final statement:
If you were able to feel empathy, on any level, for all the great injustices committed every day, you would not be able to function.
Imagine what the pain would be like for a minute. Take the pain of watching a loved one, or at the least a person you've only met once or twice, being brutally beaten or raped or whatever pertains to the situation, multiplied by a thousand, and you're still no where near it.

No offense (and I mean that), but this reads more like an ideological outcry than an understanding of what is or isn't empathy. (And, again, don't take that as an insult, because I agree on the gravity of the point it seems you are making, there.) Empathy is not like a voodoo doll - where a pin prick in any specific region will, unequivocally, bring about the same response on another person. A flash of emotion over the face of person A, upon receiving knowledge of the death of person B's father (having experienced the same thing) is no less a testament to empathy, simply because person B is running about with his arms flailing, in grievance. An internalized emotion is no less real than an externalized one.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

If I so decide to bite at it. If you disagree with the video, that's fine with me, and I'm more than willing to let you do so. But without adding substance to your argument, your disagreement really has no more weight than someone standing up in a room and saying "you're wrong," with nothing to back it up. Just sayin'.

Well I'm pretty sure I added more substance to my argument than you did.
Especially since mine is based on the current scientific consensus.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

As the video said, empathy is grounded in acknowledgement of such things as suffering, mortality, frailty (and, conversely, celebration) of life, etc. It stated that emergence of certain institutions (religion, industry, etc.) helped to spread empathy in a way that early civilizations never got to experience. The idea of 'brotherhood' became much more broad, and shifted to not only blood-ties and tribal socialization, but to trade types and moral ideologies. To me, the concept simply makes so much sense, that I have simply not been shown anything that gives me any reason to thick otherwise - including this:

That's my point. You have some random guy on a video saying something confidently with a hip graphic design and you automatically accept it as truth. I was thinking before that I really wish Jeff's thread about arguing something ridiculous, confidently, wasn't closed coz I would post this video in there.
He states it as fact when it just isn't.
It may seem to make sense. But god seemed to make sense at one point in our history.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Saying something is a well-established fact doesn't make it a well-established fact. And, if you are talking about Dunbar's Number, then your 'well-established fact' is actually more of an arbitrary interpretation of statistics used in a test on non-human primates.

Well, not really. They take the neocortex size of various primates and look at their social groups. It is consistent. So it follows that human's neocortex size is correlated with social group size also.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

But even if that weren't the case - and this was from studies done on humans - what, exactly, is that 150 number saying? Is that number of 150 reserved for 150 specific people? Or does that number signify a 'phasing in and out' of people into your 'empathic zone'? If the latter is the case, then it's not so much about being able to 'have empathy for people (read as: everyone) we haven't met.' It's more about having empathy for people we meet, even briefly, but have no other ties to. This would make more sense to me. And by just considering the extreme difference between the levels by which primates interact with each other and by which modern humans interact with each other, I'm not too afraid to assume that that (extrapolated) number is not as definitive as some might think it is.

Yes, well, if you haven't "filled it up" then you could care for more people. Or if someone dies you have "room" for a new person, or animal.
But still, this is related to social groups, personal relationships. So someone who you haven't bonded with is unlikely to elicit any empathy from you.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Interesting that 'imagination' is good enough for Merriam-Webster's definition of empathy, but not for yours.

Mirror neurons kind of trump a dictionary definition, don't you think?

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

You seem to believe that being empathic toward someone must involve some purely reflexive and immediate nature - that no thought would or could be involved in the experience.

Because that is what mirror neurons do. Of course some thought is going to be involved. But it's not like what erible said before. "I can be empathetic with any person, i can look on the street and feel what someone else feels if i just focus".
She has to make a conscious effort, otherwise it isn't something she has her attention on.

Whereas actual empathy will elicit an emotional response first, and obviously you would likely start thinking about it because of that feeling.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Besides, I never said that I had to voluntarily imagine the scenario. I believe I said it was something that my mind just does. Simply 'thinking about' something does not mean that that thought process was not instinctual.

Of course, everything you do could be said to "just happen". But why would you think about it if there was not some automatic emotional response first?
It would be just like seeing a rock on the ground, which you most likely would not think about at all.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

..it seems that you are implying that, in order to 'empathize' with someone, one must react, physically, in a way as if they were experiencing the situation, themselves. There are two things wrong with this. 1) It assumes that those who aren't driven to physically react (cry, scream, rage) are not experiencing empathy. 2) It assumes that there is some 'universal constant' to how any particular person would react in any particular situation.

No, I'm not saying this at all.
Take the monkey example with the nut.
His brain literally "does" the action of eating the nut.
This has been proven in humans too.
All the correct neurons fire, like they were doing the actual action.
They don't have to actually perform the action though.

Sort of like FILD. Where you move your finger in your head. I bet the same thing is happening.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Again, you are presenting this idea of 'if you truly felt empathy, you would do [X].' I was not under the impression that being empathic about something automatically generates a predetermined response. There is always a level of difference in how you relate to a situation; even when it's in dealing with your closest friends. Can I empathize with my best friend, when his dog died? Sure. I have lost a dog before, and to an extent, I know what his dog meant to him. But do I know, exactly? No. Not being able to experience the world through his eyes, I don't know exactly what that dog meant to him. But does that separation denote an inability to empathize? No. I have an intellectual understanding of his loss; enough to where, if I were to put myself into his shoes, I have the ability to feel and internalize a similar level of anguish. Is it going to be exact? Of course not. That would necessitate telepathy. But it may be pretty damn close.

No it is never exact. Because of subjectivity. But if you are feeling true empathy, your mirror neurons will be emulating the other persons response.
Which allows you to "put yourself in their shoes". It's not exact, but it's on a whole different level than sympathy. Or purposely trying to go through in your head what it would be like to be in their situation.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

No offense (and I mean that), but this reads more like an ideological outcry than an understanding of what is or isn't empathy. (And, again, don't take that as an insult, because I agree on the gravity of the point it seems you are making, there.)

Well, I agree. I realised that aswell. But I still think it's true. I was more trying to get back to the point of the video, not just solely argue about empathy.
I'm trying to outline how we can actually get to the point the video is talking about. Global consciousness; being aware and caring about injustices to people we don't even know etc.

It ain't gonna happen through empathy.

Well Oneironaut took the fight on but still I feel obligated to point out you never provided evidence of the two erroneous facts you posted. One you mentioned human beings can only care about 150 people, this is false, empathy has nothing to do with a brain's communal capacity. Secondly you mentioned the human brain has not changed since homosapiens. This is false, while nothng about the brain has changed in size neural networking is diverse from person to person.

Originally Posted by tommo

Well I'm pretty sure I added more substance to my argument than you did.
Especially since mine is based on the current scientific consensus.

I'm not too sure about that, especially since you provided no substance outside of saying that it's the current scientific consensus. As I said, saying that it is and citing sources to that end are completely different. In fact, I think I added more substance to your argument than you did, because I actually referenced why you might say that it's the consensus, even though that reference shows that it's likely that you are simply misinterpreting that conclusion.

Originally Posted by tommo

That's my point. You have some random guy on a video saying something confidently with a hip graphic design and you automatically accept it as truth. I was thinking before that I really wish Jeff's thread about arguing something ridiculous, confidently, wasn't closed coz I would post this video in there.
He states it as fact when it just isn't.
It may seem to make sense. But god seemed to make sense at one point in our history.

If you feel so strongly that the guy is wrong, then maybe you can provide some evidence to that end. If you are just content in saying "well he's wrong, and the entire scientific community knows it's ridiculous," then that's fine with me. However, a significant point is that I lifted this video from the TED.com website, and if you know anything about TED, you know that the lectures and resources in that community are from a little more credible base than just 'random people with a hip graphic design' (more credible than some random person @ DreamViews, telling me that the scientific consensus says otherwise, yet provides no reference. Feel me?). So far, the only mention of that concept you speak of - that I have seen - which implies that the '150' statistics actually directly applies to empathy are from random people on the internet, giving their intepretation of Dunbar's number as it was presented on the wiki (much like you did). I have seen nothing 'scientific' that states the '150' statistic directly correlates to empathy. Please point me in the right direction.

Originally Posted by tommo

Well, not really. They take the neocortex size of various primates and look at their social groups. It is consistent. So it follows that human's neocortex size is correlated with social group size also.

Given the stark difference between how primates assocate with each other and how modern humans associate with each other, I don't think that that answer is sufficient. Would a primate understand (and display a capacity for) a long distance relationship? Would it understand enough about the human condition to project empathy onto someone it had never met? I believe that humans might be able to more-readily do this, because of an inherent ability to understand the severity of the human condition/struggle (which is different from that of primates, no matter how you want to slice it). When the video talked about the monkey's mirror neurons lighting up, was it because he knew the person that was eating the nut? No. It's because of the recognition of the situation. Not the person. I think it's pretty important that you acknowledge that.

Originally Posted by tommo

Mirror neurons kind of trump a dictionary definition, don't you think?

Not when we're arguing the meaning of a word. You are arguing that humans are incapable of empathy for more than [X] people, but you are applying your own, arbitrary definition of empathy. That is the reason why I posted the established definitions.

Originally Posted by tommo

Because that is what mirror neurons do. Of course some thought is going to be involved. But it's not like what erible said before. "I can be empathetic with any person, i can look on the street and feel what someone else feels if i just focus".
She has to make a conscious effort, otherwise it isn't something she has her attention on.

Whereas actual empathy will elicit an emotional response first, and obviously you would likely start thinking about it because of that feeling.

Not sure how what erible said has anything to do with me. I don't recall saying that I had to make a conscious effort toward empathy. And you are kind of grasping at straws, to try to imply that just because someone 'thinks' about something, it is not an automatic response. Like I said, even the most instinctual of responses can have a thought process behind them. The thought process behind someone's being ablity to identify and invoke some level of someone else's feeling on something does not defy empathy, just as the thought process behind someone's descent into depression does not defy an emotional response to a negative event. If you are saying it does, then I believe the burden of proof lies on you.

Originally Posted by tommo

Of course, everything you do could be said to "just happen". But why would you think about it if there was not some automatic emotional response first?
It would be just like seeing a rock on the ground, which you most likely would not think about at all.

This makes no sense. So many of our most emotional outbursts come from a frantic (but potent) thought process. You know, as well as I do, that when you have any emotional response to something, there is some cerebral context to it (unless the person is just neurotic, in which case it may not be so structured). But when someone pisses you off, your mind races with the reasons why you are pissed of. Even if those reasons aren't rational, to the rest of the world, they make sense to you. Honestly, how often do you have any sort of emotional response to anything, and not know, in that moment, why you are reacting to it, the way you are?

Originally Posted by tommo

No, I'm not saying this at all.
Take the monkey example with the nut.
His brain literally "does" the action of eating the nut.
This has been proven in humans too.
All the correct neurons fire, like they were doing the actual action.
They don't have to actually perform the action though.

Sort of like FILD. Where you move your finger in your head. I bet the same thing is happening.

Interesting that he was able to elicit such a reaction, from someone he doesn't know. See where I'm going with this? The response was circumstantial. It wasn't personal. The monkey's brain reacted to an ability to relate to what that person was experiencing (opening the nut), not to who that person was. The Dunbar Number concept, that you are talking about, concerns the latter.

Originally Posted by tommo

No it is never exact. Because of subjectivity. But if you are feeling true empathy, your mirror neurons will be emulating the other persons response.
Which allows you to "put yourself in their shoes". It's not exact, but it's on a whole different level than sympathy. Or purposely trying to go through in your head what it would be like to be in their situation.

Once again, you're kind of throwing a straw man out there. I never said that I had to purposely go through anything in my head. I said my mind just does it. It is automatic. It is like seeing a random kid on the street smile and laugh at his parents, and being involuntarily forced to smile as well. (Don't tell me that's a concept that's lost on you, too?) It is no different.

Again, if the monkey's mirror neurons were firing, just because he saw someone come in and eat the nut, what do you have to refute the idea that a human's mirror neurons might also fire in the same way, if they saw someone else (they don't know) going through something that also resonated with them, as well? I haven't seen anything, thus far, yet you keep implying it to be a fact.

Originally Posted by tommo

Well, I agree. I realised that aswell. But I still think it's true. I was more trying to get back to the point of the video, not just solely argue about empathy.
I'm trying to outline how we can actually get to the point the video is talking about. Global consciousness; being aware and caring about injustices to people we don't even know etc.

It ain't gonna happen through empathy.

On this, we agree. Well...maybe not through empathy, alone, but it would be a major player.

Well, if you don't agree that mirror neurons are what make us feel empathy, I can't really offer any more proof. I can't prove that, and no one can afaik, at least not definitively, because it's all observation. But it makes perfect sense that in order to feel somebody else's feelings, you need to be able to relate to them in some way. Mirror neurons are what allow you to think like them.

I just thought of something while I was writing that paragraph, psychopaths. I was wondering whether their mirror neurons don't function as well, or not at all. So I can offer more proof.
Coz it turns out someone has done at least a preliminary study.
Psychopathy and the mirror neuron system: prelimin... [Psychiatry Res. 2008] - PubMed result

Interesting that he was able to elicit such a reaction, from someone he doesn't know. See where I'm going with this? The response was circumstantial. It wasn't personal. The monkey's brain reacted to an ability to relate to what that person was experiencing (opening the nut), not to who that person was. The Dunbar Number concept, that you are talking about, concerns the latter.

....
Again, if the monkey's mirror neurons were firing, just because he saw someone come in and eat the nut, what do you have to refute the idea that a human's mirror neurons might also fire in the same way, if they saw someone else (they don't know) going through something that also resonated with them, as well? I haven't seen anything, thus far, yet you keep implying it to be a fact.

The Dunbar number concerns social group size. Mirror neurons concern copying people.
You will yawn when a stranger yawns. You won't cry when a stranger cries.
You might cry when a friend cries.

Don't get the two confused.

Not when we're arguing the meaning of a word. You are arguing that humans are incapable of empathy for more than [X] people, but you are applying your own, arbitrary definition of empathy. That is the reason why I posted the established definitions.

Non-scientific definitions. And btw it is quite obvious that you purposely selected a definition that had "imagine" in it. Here's one without it
em·pa·thy (mp-th)n.1. Identification with and understanding of another's situation, feelings, and motives.

Empathy magically doesn't require imagination anymore....

Originally Posted by tommo

Well, if you don't agree that mirror neurons are what make us feel empathy, I can't really offer any more proof. I can't prove that, and no one can afaik, at least not definitively, because it's all observation. But it makes perfect sense that in order to feel somebody else's feelings, you need to be able to relate to them in some way. Mirror neurons are what allow you to think like them.

I just don't know that it's a matter of mirror neurons 'making' us feel empathy. I believe that (as the excerpt you posted states) there is a link between empathy and mirror neuron activity. Never once have I argued against that. I just don't know that I'd go so far as to say that every level of empathy immediately demands the firing of mirror neurons. See the difference?

Originally Posted by tommo

I just thought of something while I was writing that paragraph, psychopaths. I was wondering whether their mirror neurons don't function as well, or not at all. So I can offer more proof.
Coz it turns out someone has done at least a preliminary study.
Psychopathy and the mirror neuron system: prelimin... [Psychiatry Res. 2008] - PubMed result

Motor empathy, is what they are talking about. It is a subsection. It is not total empathy. I've argued that it doesn't take a completely physical reaction to define empathy (as the definitions have shown), but you are mistaking a study on motor-function reaction to empathic situations as a study on the ability to simply, generally, empathize - which, as we've discussed, can be done without actually acting out such emotions in any 'universally accepted' manner.

Originally Posted by tommo

You will yawn when a stranger yawns.

Think about this cliche for a moment. Do you always yawn when a stranger yawns?

Originally Posted by tommo

You won't cry when a stranger cries.

Maybe you won't. I have cried for strangers. I have cried for people I haven't met. I have shed tears for fictional fucking characters in movies. The above quote, truthfully, makes me feel like you are a bit out of touch with a trait or two that it might take to feel empathy for someone you have never met. That you have never been so moved by a stranger's cries that you have been succumbed to tears, yourself, actually surprises me. I mean really, genuinely, surprises me.

Originally Posted by tommo

You might cry when a friend cries.

I might cry when I'm so moved by a person or situation that my body decides that that's what it wants to do. Of course I can fight it, and usually do, but there are plenty of things, that happen to people I have never even met, that make me have to fight back the tears, or stifle my anger, or withhold my jubilation. It is as breathing. It's just natural. Does the potency wane a bit, when the people affected aren't in your immediate circle? Absolutely. But to call anything other than what you might feel for your best friend as 'less than empathy,' is a pretty unsubstantiated claim.

Originally Posted by tommo

Non-scientific definitions. And btw it is quite obvious that you purposely selected a definition that had "imagine" in it. Here's one without it
em·pa·thy (mp-th)n.1. Identification with and understanding of another's situation, feelings, and motives.

It should have been obvious. I would have told you, if you had to ask.

Originally Posted by tommo

Empathy magically doesn't require imagination anymore....

When did I ever say it required imagination (magically, or otherwise)?
No, really. Show me where.

Let us also note how the definition you posted has nothing to do with mirror neurons firing as a pre-requisite for being deemed 'empathic.'

Just sayin.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

I just don't know that it's a matter of mirror neurons 'making' us feel empathy. I believe that (as the excerpt you posted states) there is a link between empathy and mirror neuron activity. Never once have I argued against that. I just don't know that I'd go so far as to say that every level of empathy immediately demands the firing of mirror neurons. See the difference?

Yes.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Motor empathy, is what they are talking about. It is a subsection. It is not total empathy. I've argued that it doesn't take a completely physical reaction to define empathy (as the definitions have shown), but you are mistaking a study on motor-function reaction to empathic situations as a study on the ability to simply, generally, empathize - which, as we've discussed, can be done without actually acting out such emotions in any 'universally accepted' manner.

The "acting out" just signifies that you have empathised with the other person.
It doesn't always happen, but it is a good indicator.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Think about this cliche for a moment. Do you always yawn when a stranger yawns?

Most of the time.
Just to add to this I also remembered a study which indicated people with autism don't do this. Not sure if it was because of mirror neurons though. But wouldn't be surprised if it was the same thing as psychopaths.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Maybe you won't. I have cried for strangers. I have cried for people I haven't met. I have shed tears for fictional fucking characters in movies. The above quote, truthfully, makes me feel like you are a bit out of touch with a trait or two that it might take to feel empathy for someone you have never met. That you have never been so moved by a stranger's cries that you have been succumbed to tears, yourself, actually surprises me. I mean really, genuinely, surprises me.

Maybe some people are a little weak.
LOL jkjk
I have felt bad for people before. Like gotten really down. But it was for dumb reasons.
A sentence from a book (I think maybe "Triage"?) which I totally understood was when the doctor is talking about a man who had been to war and seen all the horrors one could see, friends shot in front of him, women raped and children killed etc. and it didn't affect him. One day he was walking along the street when an old lady dropped a bag of oranges and he completely broke down and cried.

I totally butchered that. But that's basically what it said and that's basically the type of things that affect me.
I can't remember specific examples but sometimes I would see a person sitting alone and feel completely devastated. Even though they might have been ok. Or just some normal event like that.

I've never cried, but yeah I've felt terrible.

Usually if I see something absolutely terrible, or someone I should be close to tells me something, I don't really feel that bad. I usually struggle to pretend that I "feel their pain". I should also just say that it's the same with happy things too. Although I feel that more easily I think.

There are some exceptions, like the other week some girl was tripping hard on DXM outside my house and she literally wasn't conscious of where she was or what she was doing etc. I felt pretty fucking bad then.

So maybe I just think differently to you. I don't know.
Maybe I just don't care about every little thing that goes wrong.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

When did I ever say it required imagination (magically, or otherwise)?
No, really. Show me where.

Maybe bad choice of words. But saying that the definition is imagining someone else's pain, would seem to indicate that it requires imagination lol
Unimportant semantics though.

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Let us also note how the definition you posted has nothing to do with mirror neurons firing as a pre-requisite for being deemed 'empathic.'

A scientific dictionary probably would. If there is one. Maybe a medical dictionary or something. Besides the point though, I was just pointing out that you can't use one dictionary definition to substantiate your argument. I wasn't trying to imply that the one I posted was the true definition.