Jul 16, 2017 02:03 AM
(Jul 16, 2017 12:00 AM)confused2 Wrote: [ -> ]I'm heading in the direction of suggesting that empathy is part cultural and part learned and not so much innate.
Discounting mirror neurons.
Jul 16, 2017 02:03 AM
Jul 16, 2017 03:01 AM
[quote pid='12605' dateline='1500166989']
Discounting mirror neurons.
[/quote]
Indeed so.
My mother had a sister over 10 years older, so born before 1911. That sister E* was " fairly high up " in the Red Cross. I'm not attributing personal responsibility to E* only indicating that real people were involved on all sides. The Red Cross continued to deliver food parcels to the extermination camps with full knowledge that the recipients stood little chance of benefiting from them. The reason given (later) being that reporting the true circumstances of the extermination camps would have jeopardised the ability of the Red Cross to operate to as an unbiased and apolitical organisation in future conflicts. Then (age 14 in 1968) and now I am of the opinion that by going through the motions of delivering food parcels and medicines the Red Cross gave succour and support to a regime clearly operating with utter contempt for the terms agreed in the 1929 Geneva Convention. Terms? Hells teeth - I have always identified with the people inside the camps and not outside. My first meeting with my Aunt E* was my last.
Hundreds if not thousands of people in the UK acting for and on behalf of the greatest and most reputable humanitarian organisation ever known must have had their neurons fired by the logic of saying nothing.
Discounting mirror neurons.
[/quote]
Indeed so.
My mother had a sister over 10 years older, so born before 1911. That sister E* was " fairly high up " in the Red Cross. I'm not attributing personal responsibility to E* only indicating that real people were involved on all sides. The Red Cross continued to deliver food parcels to the extermination camps with full knowledge that the recipients stood little chance of benefiting from them. The reason given (later) being that reporting the true circumstances of the extermination camps would have jeopardised the ability of the Red Cross to operate to as an unbiased and apolitical organisation in future conflicts. Then (age 14 in 1968) and now I am of the opinion that by going through the motions of delivering food parcels and medicines the Red Cross gave succour and support to a regime clearly operating with utter contempt for the terms agreed in the 1929 Geneva Convention. Terms? Hells teeth - I have always identified with the people inside the camps and not outside. My first meeting with my Aunt E* was my last.
Hundreds if not thousands of people in the UK acting for and on behalf of the greatest and most reputable humanitarian organisation ever known must have had their neurons fired by the logic of saying nothing.
Jul 16, 2017 04:06 AM
Sadly, that too is an extension of innate empathy. People tend to identify more closely with their immediate peer group, be that a family, organization, culture, country, etc.. Just like the Germans may have prioritized their national survival over moral concerns for the Jews, the Red Cross workers may have prioritized their organization's survival over them as well.
These are examples of why a universal morality is superior to simple empathy. Empathy can easily be biased toward one's own in-group...however one may define it. Universal morality is rules that apply regardless of group association.
These are examples of why a universal morality is superior to simple empathy. Empathy can easily be biased toward one's own in-group...however one may define it. Universal morality is rules that apply regardless of group association.
Jul 16, 2017 05:44 AM
Empathy actually makes no distinction regarding persons. Being innate, it responds to any human in need or in misery. What is learned is racism and ethnic class structures enforcing stereotypes along with prejudice and hate. From childhood we treat all with the same empathy and compassion. It is the divisive moralism of nationalistic and ethnic differences that is picked up from the environment we are raised in that causes apathy to the sufferings of others. We are born to love. We have to be taught to hate.
Jul 16, 2017 12:45 PM
Syne Wrote:Empathy can easily be biased toward one's own in-group...however one may define it. Universal morality is rules that apply regardless of group association.Excellent point. I think we must have an inbuilt switch that can go from 'empathy' to 'kill' - it makes sense in the context of defending your tribe from another tribe. Obviously the military rely on sending out soldiers in 'kill' mode. It is possible a charismatic leader can flip the majority of a normal population to 'kill' mode - any population. I don't know.
Jul 16, 2017 06:00 PM
(Jul 16, 2017 05:44 AM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]Empathy actually makes no distinction regarding persons. Being innate, it responds to any human in need or in misery. What is learned is racism and ethnic class structures enforcing stereotypes along with prejudice and hate. From childhood we treat all with the same empathy and compassion. It is the divisive moralism of nationalistic and ethnic differences that is picked up from the environment we are raised in that causes apathy to the sufferings of others. We are born to love. We have to be taught to hate.
Realistic conflict theory (or realistic group conflict) posits that competition between groups for resources is the cause of in-group bias and the corresponding negative treatment of members of the out-group. Muzafer Sherif's Robbers Cave Experiment is the most widely known demonstration of realistic conflict theory. In the experiment, 22 eleven-year-old boys with similar backgrounds were studied in a mock summer camp situation, with researchers posing as camp personnel.
The boys were divided into two equal groups and encouraged to bond, with the aim of fostering an in-group mentality. The researchers then introduced a series of competitive activities which pitted groups against each other for a valuable prize. Hostility and out-group negativity ensued.[6] Lastly, researchers attempted to reverse the hostility by engaging the boys in situations of mutual interdependence, an effort which eventually resulted in relative harmony between the two groups.
Sherif concluded from this experiment that negative attitudes toward out-groups arises when groups compete for limited resources.[6] However, he also theorised that inter-group frictions could be reduced and positive relations created,[6] but only in the presence of an all-encompassing goal which could only be achieved with the two groups cooperation.
...
In a meta-analysis and review of the effect of oxytocin on social behavior done by Carsten De Dreu, the research reviewed shows that oxytocin enables the development of trust, specifically towards individuals with similar characteristics - categorised as ‘in-group’ members - promoting cooperation with and favoritism towards such individuals.[13] This bias of oxytocin-induced goodwill towards those with features and characteristics perceived to be similar may have evolved as a biological basis for sustaining in-group cooperation and protection, fitting with the Darwinian insight that acts of self-sacrifice and cooperation contribute to the functioning of the group and hence improve the odd of survival for members of said group.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-group_f...planations
From childhood, studies have shown that both white a black children favor white dolls. That is not an equal preference to all.
It is only morality that usurps these tendencies.
(Jul 16, 2017 12:45 PM)confused2 Wrote: [ -> ]Syne Wrote:Empathy can easily be biased toward one's own in-group...however one may define it. Universal morality is rules that apply regardless of group association.Excellent point. I think we must have an inbuilt switch that can go from 'empathy' to 'kill' - it makes sense in the context of defending your tribe from another tribe. Obviously the military rely on sending out soldiers in 'kill' mode. It is possible a charismatic leader can flip the majority of a normal population to 'kill' mode - any population. I don't know.
The population would already have to be primed...with things like decades of antisemitism, poverty, scarce resources, etc....so that they already sense an immediate threat to their survival...and only await being supplied a target. This doesn't excuse such behavior, but seems to be a necessary factor. Due to the class mobility in a free society, I would only expect more authoritarian or tribal societies to be susceptible to this.
Jul 16, 2017 06:07 PM
Quote:Realistic conflict theory (or realistic group conflict) posits that competition between groups for resources is the cause of in-group bias and the corresponding negative treatment of members of the out-group.
Right..it is learned. It's not innate.
Quote:From childhood, studies have shown that both white a black children favor white dolls. That is not an equal preference to all.
That is a learned preference. Children are exposed very early to the ideal of whiteness thru TV and other media. The preference for one's local tribe is also learned over time. Children are conditioned to favor their own in group thru their parents and schooling. It is certainly not innate.
Jul 16, 2017 06:23 PM
(Jul 16, 2017 06:07 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]Quote:Realistic conflict theory (or realistic group conflict) posits that competition between groups for resources is the cause of in-group bias and the corresponding negative treatment of members of the out-group.
Right..it is learned. It's not innate.
Quote:From childhood, studies have shown that both white a black children favor white dolls. That is not an equal preference to all.
That is a learned preference. Children are exposed very early to the ideal of whiteness thru TV and other media. The preference for one's local tribe is also learned over time. Children are conditioned to favor their own in group thru their parents and schooling. It is certainly not innate.
You have anything but bare assertions? Resource competition is instinctual and happens between animals of the same species.
How Children Develop Empathy
The precursors of empathy can be seen in children within the first day or two of life. A crying newborn child in a hospital nursery will often trigger crying among other infants in the room. Such crying is not a true display of empathy. The newborn infant appears to be simply responding to a sound that makes her uncomfortable, much as she would to any loud noise.
Children wouldn't have to "develop empathy" if out-group empathy were innate.Jul 16, 2017 06:41 PM
(Jul 16, 2017 06:23 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ](Jul 16, 2017 06:07 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]Quote:Realistic conflict theory (or realistic group conflict) posits that competition between groups for resources is the cause of in-group bias and the corresponding negative treatment of members of the out-group.
Right..it is learned. It's not innate.
Quote:From childhood, studies have shown that both white a black children favor white dolls. That is not an equal preference to all.
That is a learned preference. Children are exposed very early to the ideal of whiteness thru TV and other media. The preference for one's local tribe is also learned over time. Children are conditioned to favor their own in group thru their parents and schooling. It is certainly not innate.
You have anything but bare assertions? Resource competition is instinctual and happens between animals of the same species.
How Children Develop Empathy
The precursors of empathy can be seen in children within the first day or two of life. A crying newborn child in a hospital nursery will often trigger crying among other infants in the room. Such crying is not a true display of empathy. The newborn infant appears to be simply responding to a sound that makes her uncomfortable, much as she would to any loud noise.
Children wouldn't have to "develop empathy" if out-group empathy were innate.
You just contradicted yourself big time.
Quoth you:
"Sadly, that too is an extension of innate empathy."
Jul 16, 2017 07:12 PM
(Jul 16, 2017 06:41 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ](Jul 16, 2017 06:23 PM)Syne Wrote: [ -> ](Jul 16, 2017 06:07 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]Quote:Realistic conflict theory (or realistic group conflict) posits that competition between groups for resources is the cause of in-group bias and the corresponding negative treatment of members of the out-group.
Right..it is learned. It's not innate.
Quote:From childhood, studies have shown that both white a black children favor white dolls. That is not an equal preference to all.
That is a learned preference. Children are exposed very early to the ideal of whiteness thru TV and other media. The preference for one's local tribe is also learned over time. Children are conditioned to favor their own in group thru their parents and schooling. It is certainly not innate.
You have anything but bare assertions? Resource competition is instinctual and happens between animals of the same species.
How Children Develop Empathy
The precursors of empathy can be seen in children within the first day or two of life. A crying newborn child in a hospital nursery will often trigger crying among other infants in the room. Such crying is not a true display of empathy. The newborn infant appears to be simply responding to a sound that makes her uncomfortable, much as she would to any loud noise.
Children wouldn't have to "develop empathy" if out-group empathy were innate.
You just contradicted yourself big time.
Quoth you:
"Sadly, that too is an extension of innate empathy."
He says, refusing to support his nonsense or even engage with the provided references. Innate empathy is what accounts for imprinting and basic in-group favoritism. You're talking about general out-group empathy....which is learned. The only contradiction is your nonsense versus, you know, actual facts.