As usual, the resident crank completely ignores scientific research that supports an argument...all while making bare assertions he both does not justify nor even defends when they are obviously contradictory. Then when you treat him exactly as he's treated you, he feigns innocence and outrage.
Notice that his best counterargument is calling well-established terms (ingroup/outgroup) "shit".
You really think me not dignifying your baseless accusations against me with a response is proof of those accusations? What if I accused you of being serial killer? Would you ignoring that absurd claim mean you are in fact a serial killer?
Unfortunately, you’re both wrong, and as usual, I’m right.
Let me explain.
MR, you linked an article quoting Paul Bloom. It’s clearly showing that we have the capacity for empathy, but it can subsequently be either enhanced or degraded according to experience.
Direct quote from Paul Bloom:
I think there’s some evidence that we’re empathic by nature. There is some evidence from studies of babies and young children that they resonate with the pain of others, and there’s some work by Frans de Waal that other primates also resonate with the pain of others. It gets complicated because it’s hard to pull apart empathy from compassion.
What is really clear is that we innately care for other people at least to some extent.
Individuals differ in how empathic they are. Some people would really flinch if they watched me hitting my hand with a hammer, and other people would just not care. People differ as well in where they direct their empathy and their compassion. Many people are intensely concerned about the suffering of non-human animals, and some do not care at all. There are cultural differences.[source]
It’s a communication tool, a social skill just like language. It facilitates interaction and communication. Would you agree that we’re all born with the capacity for language? The "nature" vs. "nurture" debate is outdated. Almost everyone agrees that they influence one another continuously.
"One of the psych 101 findings that will always replicate is that we care more about our group than we do for other groups. One cool illustration that was done in Europe, and I’m giving you all the neuroscience of empathy studies because they’re kind of a pretty direct measure, is that they got these European soccer fans, and they witnessed the pain of somebody else. When the other person was described as a fan of the same team, they had empathy. The same pain areas that would activate if they themselves were in pain, lit up when they watched the other ones in pain. If they were told that these guys were fans of the other team, not only did empathy drop, but parts of the brain associated with pleasure lit up. If you step back with an objective view you can see how soccer affiliation shouldn’t matter. When you step back you can see how irrational our empathetic responses are and how immoral."
Do humans engage in such barbarism because of conditioning or is it part of our nature?
(Jul 24, 2017 10:25 PM)confused2 Wrote: Can European soccer fans be considered as fair representatives of humanity?
It’s been replicated across a variety of scenarios. Football hooliganism is just a good example of in-group bias. I’m a Raiders fan myself. It was getting so bad that they started limiting our alcohol intake. Talk about mirror neurons, a friend of mine acts like his support helps them win the game. He acts like he’s one of the players. You can’t even talk to him when they lose and they lose a lot. Me? I just go for the beer.
(Jul 24, 2017 10:25 PM)confused2 Wrote: Can European soccer fans be considered as fair representatives of humanity?
Yes because we are all corruptible or corrupt. FIFA is no different and we can relate. From the bribery stoked administrators to game officials, all the way down to the players on the field who feign injury, it's all the same and I think we as fans can appreciate perfection even if it's the wholesale corruption of a major sport. Casually speaking of course.
(Feb 27, 2017 09:08 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: Today I found out that there’s a new Taco Bell in Las Vegas. I’m going there in a couple weeks with a huge Taco Bell fan. I don’t really like it, but this one has alcohol.
(Jul 24, 2017 04:15 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: Unfortunately, you’re both wrong, and as usual, I’m right.
Let me explain.
MR, you linked an article quoting Paul Bloom. It’s clearly showing that we have the capacity for empathy, but it can subsequently be either enhanced or degraded according to experience.
Direct quote from Paul Bloom:
I think there’s some evidence that we’re empathic by nature. There is some evidence from studies of babies and young children that they resonate with the pain of others, and there’s some work by Frans de Waal that other primates also resonate with the pain of others. It gets complicated because it’s hard to pull apart empathy from compassion.
What is really clear is that we innately care for other people at least to some extent.
Individuals differ in how empathic they are. Some people would really flinch if they watched me hitting my hand with a hammer, and other people would just not care. People differ as well in where they direct their empathy and their compassion. Many people are intensely concerned about the suffering of non-human animals, and some do not care at all. There are cultural differences.[source]
It’s a communication tool, a social skill just like language. It facilitates interaction and communication. Would you agree that we’re all born with the capacity for language? The "nature" vs. "nurture" debate is outdated. Almost everyone agrees that they influence one another continuously.
"One of the psych 101 findings that will always replicate is that we care more about our group than we do for other groups. One cool illustration that was done in Europe, and I’m giving you all the neuroscience of empathy studies because they’re kind of a pretty direct measure, is that they got these European soccer fans, and they witnessed the pain of somebody else. When the other person was described as a fan of the same team, they had empathy. The same pain areas that would activate if they themselves were in pain, lit up when they watched the other ones in pain. If they were told that these guys were fans of the other team, not only did empathy drop, but parts of the brain associated with pleasure lit up. If you step back with an objective view you can see how soccer affiliation shouldn’t matter. When you step back you can see how irrational our empathetic responses are and how immoral."
Do humans engage in such barbarism because of conditioning or is it part of our nature?
Like I said earlier, the answer, sadly, is both.
Doesn't look like you've disagreed with me at all.
(Feb 27, 2017 09:08 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: Today I found out that there’s a new Taco Bell in Las Vegas. I’m going there in a couple weeks with a huge Taco Bell fan. I don’t really like it, but this one has alcohol.
I posted this on another forum awhile back. A friend of mine used it recreationally one Friday night. Went to work on Monday and was injured on the job. I guess when this happens the hospital automatically does a drug test. Even though he wasn’t stoned at the time, he lost his job.
Jul 23, 2017 08:22 PM
