Zero degrees of empathy: a new theory of human cruelty

Your last sentence is suspect. Humanists do not maintain that people are inherently good. That's a dangerous thought more representative of religious thinking. The reality is that people have incredible capacity for both good and evil. It's generally only once people have come up with a philosophical structure that holds them to be part of the good guys regardless of action (think Islamic terrorist or conservative evangelical) that really fucked up shit can happen.

Maybe you are opportunistic by nature , but that cannot be said for everyone ! All the devoted mothers , and grandmothers for , example sacrifice much for their families . They get nothing for it . Often they are mistreated by the entire culture they live in . Children raised by such mothers love being kind to animals . Do you not feel good when bringing a smile to the face of a sad friend ? You must not hang out with many really fun people to have come to that line of thought . Have you seen how some people treat their pets ?! I saw a dog in a DOG stroller yesterday .... People have a lot of love in them , just begging to take it out on something .

What you are saying is explained in my response by my belief that we learn and are taught morality, besides maternal instinct is part of human nature and not really related to my response.

My point of view for being opportunistic does not need to necessarily be self serving. One may become a opportunist in order to provide for ones own family, A thief, a gangster are all opportunistic but the motivations behind their activities may vary, that same mother or grandmother in financial trouble may see someone walking down the street drop their wallet and fail to return it too them because they need the money she may not have done so had she been in a good place financially but survival tests our moral fibre even more than greed.

Children are constantly testing the boundaries with their parents to see what they can and cant get away with, its the process of providing guidance throughout their formative years that make them grow up into people to be proud of.

In the wild, being able to recognize and take advantage of opportunity means life or death survival because natural predators need to feed and do not understand morality for it is a learned behavior.

That means being opportunistic is a part of our basic survival instincts empathy and sympathy in become obstacles to our survival or our ascendancy for power or supremacy.

Being civilized, being moral, are things that we spent thousands of years developing.

Maternal instinct is as much a survival trait as taking advantage of opportunity is.

"Humanists believe that people are inherently good and possess unlimited potential for growth and development.

Learners will naturally progress towards increased competence, autonomy, freedom, and fulfillment.
Behavior is a matter of human choice. People have the freedom and responsibility to become what he/she is capable of becoming.
The purpose of learning is to fulfill one’s potential; a holistic process of personal growth and an active search for meaning; directed by the learner who alone knows his/her needs and goals.

Facilitator must develop trust, warmth, non-judgmental acceptance, genuineness, empathic understanding and caring.
Involves the whole person, not just behavior and intellect; great emphasis on feelings and affective goals."

http://www.umsl.edu/services/ctl/DEID/destination2adultlearning/2dlearningtheori...

"If you believe that man is inherently good (humanist world view), you will say that man will choose right over wrong, good over evil. But if you believe that man has a sin nature (Christian world view), then you will say that man will, unless he has been instilled with a moral compass of right and wrong in obedience to the teachings of a higher authority, choose wrong or evil."

http://www.newswithviews.com/Stuter/stuter20.htm

Virtually every Humanistic psychologist shares the view that culture provides the only means available to explain the odd fact that we are inherently good, yet still tend to commit evil acts.

http://www.allaboutworldview.org/humanist-psychology-why-good-people-bad-things-...

"Maslow's best known contribution to Humanistic psychology is his Needs Triangle/Pyramid. Maslow's Needs Hierarchy is frequently used to sum up the humanistic psychology belief system. The fundamental premise of his hierarchy is that everyone is born with specific needs. If we do not meet those base needs, we are unable to survive and focus upward within the hierarchy. The first stratum consists of physiological needs, or survival needs. Unable to obtain oxygen, sleep, water, and food, all else is irrelevant."

"The final level in the hierarchy is called the need for self-actualization. According to Maslow, many people may be in this level but very few, if anybody, ever masters it. Self-actualization refers to a complete understanding of the self. To be self-actualized means to truly know who you are, where you belong in the greater society, and to feel like you are accomplishing all that you are meant to be. It means to no longer feel shame or guilt, or even hate, but to accept the world and see human nature as inherently good."

http://www.abraham-maslow.com/m_motivation/Humanistic-Psychology.asp

So in your opinion, anyone who is not properly "educated" couldn't possibly be sensitive to the needs of others?

Does anyone know how many people were in the test group? Were they all from the same country? Or the same school?

Empathy , is an ability with many different definitions . They cover a broad spectrum , ranging from caring for other people and having a desire to help them to experiencing emotions that match another persons emotions , to knowing what the other person is thinking or feeling , to blurring the line between self and other . Empathy is the ability to recognize and to some extent share feelings ( happiness grief) with another sapient being . Someone may need to have a certain amount of empathy before the can feel compassion . http://www.diffren.com difference?Empathy_vs_Sympathy almibry , keep the term evil , if you wish . It is needed for those to dehumanize an enemy and those aspects of themselves that are unconscious and wish to judge themselves pure. We are all evil at times . momentary shutdown of the empathy circuit happens to us all . When we are injured , ill , mistreated . Genes are involved with extreme cases , but need to be triggered . Until we STOP seeing these people as evil nonhuman (lacking empathy ourselves) we will not correct the culture that made them .

Actually at the very beginning of the book , there is a warning , for those with a sensitive disposition , to read NO further , for it is not possible to write a book about human cruelty in a cheerful , fun way . It was a bit disturbing in a few places . The scope was global . I do not know how many . He tested prison inmates , ones put away for the most extreme cruelty , also studies were people who were compassionate , also studied were monkeys and food sharing , also studied were women who killed their own children , psychopaths , borderlines , he admitted narcissist needed more research .... also studied were Zero Positives - Good people who had learned to function well without much empathy . They used logic to determine wisest actions .

No, empathy has two definitions: 1. the intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another.
2. the imaginative ascribing to an object, as a natural object or work of art, feelings or attitudes present in oneself: By means of empathy, a great painting becomes a mirror of the self.
That's why the author of this book made up his own definition.
"Someone may need to have a certain amount of empathy before the can feel compassion "
Now that I can agree with. Was that so hard?
I told you before that I don't believe in evil, so I know you're just saying that to piss me off. I'll let it slide tis time.
What this guy really did was to come up with a new way to diagnose certain mental disorders, not predict cruelty (as you said yourself considering the fact that there are decent people who can function without empathy).
As for your description of how the book was written: Thanks.
But I'd still like to know how many people were involved.

"by means of empathy a great painting becomes a mirror of the self " ? Empathy can only be had between two living things . A painting is not alive . One might , however be projecting ..... If you do feel so very strongly about this , why do you not contact Simon Baron Cohen , Basic books ( the publisher ) , and i did not look up the editor , who is the person you should really take this up with . Although i do not agree with you on this , it is possible you are not alone . Perhaps others prefer sympathy over empathy in this context .

If you don't like the definition, take it up with dictionary.com or Random House (they do Websters). Unlike you, I do not pretend that certain words have imaginary definitions to protect those I admire. I take care to use words properly since when I use the wrong words, or use the wrong definitions, no one knows what I am saying and I expect others to do the same because if they don't, then I don't know what they mean to say.
You're right, on this I am not alone: I have every author, publisher, and editor who was ever involved in the production of every modern dictionary I have ever read on my side.
So go ahead and spread lies. I obviously can't stop you. I already tried and you refuse to be convinced. I don't why I keep expecting better. We had this conversation before, and apparently you never bothered to check the FACTS of what I say, or if you did, you rejected them because they don't support what you already decided was "true".
So have fun defending your bullshit ideas. I'm tired of filling the role of your English teacher and it's obvious that you skipped that class in high school for a reason. It just ruined all your fantasies, didn't it?

You seem very angry . Did you know language is like a living thing ? It changes over time , new words and different meaning emerge . For example , party , was in my lifetime exclusively a noun . NOW it can also be heard used as a verb . Don't stay too rigid , you might break . Did you take college courses in English ?

Not angry, I just have no patience for ignorance especially when that can be remedied with 30 seconds and a search engine or common-dare I say "household"-book..

I also think it's hysterical that out of all the points I made, the only one you're railing against is the one I literally ripped out of the dictionary. You ignore the fact that he made up his own definition (listen to your own post again for proof) and argue that it's perfectly OK to use slang and expect everyone to agree with you. So maybe I should start using "liberal" as an insult, "compromise" as a dirty word, and if ever anyone disagrees with me, I'll just say, "What's your problem? Aren't you a Patriot?"
So what if "party" used to be used only as a verb back when you were young and the best gift anyone could give was fire? Until the "new definition" is made official, why should I give it any credit? A lot of people say stupid things all the time, should I refrain from pointing out the fallacies they're promoting just because they're trying to be "original"? If your answer is yes, then explain to me why parents don't adopt the styles and fads of their teenage children? Could it be that some (if not most) of it is incredibly stupid?
Why do you ignore my argument that using "degrees of empathy" to determine how likely someone is to be cruel to humans is stupid because empathy is crucial to manipulating someone? Do you think criminals only threaten your loved ones to make you obey because they saw it in movies? Oh wait, they've been doing that for forever so there goes that argument. You yourself pointed out that the system is flawed because people without empathy can still be decent and since this research is so new, why should I buy into it at all until it has been thoroughly reviewed and critiqued?
Why don't you argue against my thought that maybe the training scientists recieve is likely to make them unsympathetic or even cruel?
Why should I be patient with you? So many good points that could be debated and you choose to take out your frustration with any random dictionary on me. I didn't write the definition, I just pointed out the fact that the theory was inherently flawed because having "empathy" doesn't mean you give a damn about anybody. Seriously, you are aguing against the ONLY 100% factual statement I made. The rest was mostly philosophy.

The whole psychology profession uses words in a rather way. It's not an argument with the dictionary, it is the current language usage of a group of psychological explorers.

The concepts and ideas that the good Simon Baron Cohen uses are specific to "his" version of psychological spelunking. Remember, he is working in unexplored territory.

I don't always agree with his logic or conclusions (I have asperger traits that his ideas do not fully explain), but I do allow him the use of his jargon.

I realize that he is not arguing with the dictionary, I was just trying to explain how measuring empathy to determine human cruelty isn't going to work. Haven't you ever trusted someone who seemed to know and understand exactly how you feel, someone who came up with the perfect response thus gaining your trust just to find out that they only wanted you to get to something else? Didn't you see that movie "The Green Mile" when the real bad guy (not John whats-his-face) breaks into the back porch and holds a knife to a little girl's throat and says to her sister "If you make a noise I'll hurt her" and to the girl he's holding "If you make a noise, I'll hurt your sister." He needed to intellectually understand (he needed empathy) what those girls were feeling in order to ensure their "cooperation" while he commited his crimes. I'm not a huge fan of using scenes from movies to prove my point, and while I could use experiences from my own life instead, I feel it would dishonor the survivors.
So maybe I am a definition Nazi. Yes, I do have a problem with people using words that they don't understand: it defeats the purpose of debate. For example, I recently got into a debate with a self-proclaimed Athiest who thought Atheism was a person who simply reserved judment on the matter, deciding not to decide and it pissed me off so much. That asshole couldn't even take the time to look up the definition of the faith he claimed to belong to. HE WAS A FUCKING AGNOSTIC AND HE COULDN'T RELIZE IT BECAUSE OF A LACK OF A DICTIONARY!!
But that is besides the point. Mostly, I just don't want people to become victims as a result of this study. How many people will read/listen to this and think "Well, that guy seems empathetic, maybe I should invite him to dinner/show him around my highly security concsious office/let him give me a ride home/let him babbysit/etc." Just because you have empathy, it doesn't make you kind, and if you don't have empathy, it doesn't mean you're a serial killer. He's oversimplifying human cruelty in a recklessly dangerous way.
Call me anal retentavie.
BTY it isn't "the current language usage of a group of psychological explorers". If it was, why did he feel the need to define the word (as he saw fit to use it) at the beginning of the audio? If it was the current language usage, there would have been no need to define it, otherwise everyone would have known what he meant.

Love the findings of that experiment... Was done before I was born but I always noticed the same scenarios coming up, I found it, and the guards could no longer deny it... Now if they could just bring me my dinner...........

Interesting. +^d

Now how can we use your wisdom in spotting pols with this anti-social desires?

And then you read "In Cold Blood" and realize by being able to put yourself in someone else's shoes judgements and stereotypes become harder to come by. If empathy made the world go round this would be a much happier place to be. "Make it so Mr. Scott"

"If empathy made the world go round this would be a much happier place to be." That's for sure, STC.

This guy ACTUALLY convinced real psychopaths into getting their brains scanned . To find out what went wrong .... nervy fella .

When I was writing documentation there was a rule of thumb: If this document will be read by the executives it should have no more than a paragraph and 5 bullet points. The challenge was making a 3 page technical procedure into the above. This says a lot about corporate leadership.

That they are pathetic and have extreme lack of imagination?

I always thought along the lines of arrogant with an extreme lack of imagination. Yes, pathetic would work as well.

I see how arrogant might work too .

It says people at the top have so many decisions to make they want bullets not detail. They don't have time to analyze every decision in detail. They often rely on their closest advisors for condensing of the detail.

When I ran a software company I didn't want to see technical detail on how the job would be done. I only wanted to know how productive and effective the process would be. I trusted the person in charge of development to make any technical decisions. I only saw things like: we need these resources, we need this time, this is what we expect the result to be. My responsibility was to decide if the process was financially viable for the company.

Wow.... I was exactly thinking about autistic kids. I wont be surprised if these neurotic neurologists come up with similarities between autistic brain and a psychopath brain.

The study itself lacks any sympathy or empathy, especially disregarding Autism and the spectrum of other diseases. Psychopaths !!!!

If you are typing this , you are not likely autistic enough to have zero empathy . Read the book . Not all Zero empathy people are cruel , in fact , some of the most gifted people in history were possibly near zero . There are those who are wired for empathy and those who are wired to look for patterns beyond .... such persons are very moral and very brilliant at certain aspects that involve deep patterns . Also such persons can LEARN empathy , if a parent is determined enough . No , there is more to cruelty than lack of empathy . Lack of empathy is required , but is not always a sign of deliberate cruelty . Read the book .

This is NOT what the study says . You need to do more research .

Makes sense. The people in power are often the ones that had a desire for power. The desire for power is a very indicative clue to a person's psyche. When the desire for power meets up with the desire for money (throw in some fear of failure), and you have the makings of a bad recipe.

Yes indeed, and their new brown shirt party (Tea Party)

I wish we could start experimenting on some of these people NOW . Results . Let us see Dick Cheney become more human , REALLY . New reality show ? Yes , i am a bit twisted .

I think thats a great idea, I can now say both you and I are twisted! :)

Yes Kenny, and are also political leaders, and religious kooks like Pat Robertson and his Commandment about Alzheimer Disease - talk about "lack of empathy."
And we already know that many Republican leaders show the same behavioral patterns of abusers and "victimizers."

Yep!! The big liars, the big criminals and the big CEOs!

In a good way ....

Or, like George Washington and Gen. Eisenhower, they can be drafted by their country. How can we find more of those?

The research into the behavioral consequences of our biological wiring is, to me, with DNA decoding, one of the most profoundly important and exciting avenues of current science.
The paradox that paranoid (and unempathetic) personalities often rise quickly to positions of political power has been well observed.
Lack of ethics, and lack of concern about the human consequences of one's actions has sped the career of many sociopaths in our history.

One wonders about the reasons why even when its obvious that a particular political figure lacks the essential qualities of empathy, there is a fatal attraction there by so many.
My guess is that in times of stress, the tribe flocks to the silver-backed gorilla with the loudest voice and most ferocious demonstrated ability to trash tree limbs and appear to confront the threat.

It seems very important to me too . There must be a way to ... reboot the empathy circuit . If they could just do some research and isolate the chemical in E , perhaps these violent persons could be rendered safer . Or saner .

Devoutly to be wished, as the saying goes, but I don't expect we'd be seeing that in this generation.
I like thinking about a future when mankind is saner and healthier in all respects. As thought is the precursor to action, there is hope.

Excellent, well said and very funny at the same time!

The man that did this research , is also not a half bad writer . I recommend his book " the science of evil " -- He really is meticulous , his reason is very razor sharp .

I saw a study once about serial killers, and while they differed in many traits, the one common thread they all shared was a complete lack of empathy.
Really disturbing to to know that our Captains of government, and industry share the same traits as serial killers, tho' if you you think about it, it makes sense. Who is in a better position to cause deaths on a massive scale, with impunity.

Thanks, I will look for that. I'm just heading to a few of the more odd rugged corners of our nation. This could give me another nourishing meal to consume in the dark mountains.

Thank you, Kenny.

And they sleep well at night too .

I think you are exactly right, the battle is between our chimp ancestral instincts and those ideas that we have learned to do problem solving with using this brain we have evolved. Do we fight other "tribes" for food, water, resources or do we trade fairly, even if we are stronger? I think we've had too much of the former and not enough of the latter. We are six and apparently soon to be seven billion conscious people, how do we get along and do so little harm that we and the planet can survive into the foreseeable future?

I would be honored if you gave me a video comment for one of my up coming shows!

Kenny, I'm honored that you asked.
However, I feel it is wiser for me to keep my comment to text form, and maintain a certain sense of anonymity.

I totally understand, but you could always do a Tim Allen next door neighbor comment with only a hat showing! :)

For me to be comfortable with the margin of privacy and safety I like to enjoy in my particular circumstances I think I'd have to record it in a cave and have it passed by hand on mule and horseback through several links of loyal tribesmen;---by then, though, it wouldn't be that topical...

I do love your witty sense of humor and intelligence, I can only laugh at that description. Very funny.:)