• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

The science of heartlessness

Vasilisa

Symbolic Herald
Joined
Feb 2, 2010
Messages
3,946
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
The science of heartlessness
Why are some people more -- or less -- sympathetic to others' pain?
Recent studies may have some answers

Salon.com
By Hannah Holmes
Feb 17, 2011

Excerpt:

We've all encountered people with such divergent attitudes toward suffering -- and it often brings up a rather prickly question: Why are some of us bleeding hearts while others have hearts of stone? Science actually provides us with a number of clues.

A Dutch team, for example, has looked at how oxytocin, a hormone frequently associated with female reproduction, influences parenting styles. Dutch scientists watched as a bunch of mothers interacted with their two-year-old children, who were trying to solve a difficult puzzle. Some mothers were patient and helpful; others were not. And the not-so-helpful mothers were more likely to carry a particular version of the oxytocin receptor gene: Their "mommy chemical" system may have been set just a tad to the selfish side, slightly blinding them to the emotions of their children.

Now further studies are finding that oxytocin can increase the amount of money people will donate to a charity. One study in particular lent credence to the time honored method charities use to pull money from magazine readers: Feature a woebegone child in your advertisement. In the study, researchers had subjects watch a tearjerker film of a father talking about his son's brain tumor. They sampled subjects' blood before and after the film. Following the film the blood was awash in oxytocin, and their donations to charity rose 47 percent, compared to those of subjects who saw a film of the same father talking about a trip to the zoo. The tearjerker technique was more effective on women than men. Experiments wherein people sniff oxytocin to bolster the chemical in their brain show that the chemical may work in two ways. It may operate first by dampening our natural fear of one another. Oxytocin is very active in the amygdala, which monitors the world for danger. Extra oxytocin fights fear. Then, with that terror out of the way, perhaps it's easier to read another person's emotions and relate to them. People dosed with oxytocin make more direct eye contact, and they are better at describing the emotions portrayed on another's face. So extra oxytocin also helps us to empathize.

But humans have access to another brain system that raises sympathy, too. When you stick out your tongue at a baby, the baby will often stick its tongue out automatically. The motor region of the baby's brain is mirroring your own motor region. Our emotional regions also have a system that helps us to mirror another's feelings.


<full story>
 

miss fortune

not to be trusted
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
20,589
Enneagram
827
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
hmmm... wonder if this has anything to do with the thought that the relative anonymity of the internet unleashing some people's inner troll :thinking: If you can't see them to mirror them or identify with them sympathy is MORE difficult?
 

mochajava

New member
Joined
Jul 28, 2010
Messages
475
MBTI Type
INFJ
Wonderful find, Vasalisa. I want to read the "Quirk" book now and start measuring the oxytocin levels of everyone around me :) The gender divide is totally believable. Women donate more to charity and are more likely to enroll as subjects for vaccine trials. Whether that's socialization or genetics, I don't know.

Interesting that we fear each other less too. I wonder if that finding could be applied somehow.
 

rav3n

.
Joined
Aug 6, 2010
Messages
11,655
While the scientific findings are interesting, the behavioural conclusions appear to be emotionally driven and skewed. For example, have you never over-ridden emotional output by applying objective thinking?
 
T

ThatGirl

Guest
I've heard serial killers have problems with oxytocin receptors, causing them to be un-soothable. Something about the brain being flooded with oxytocin in the womb, which meant they become immune to it later (can't remember where I heard that so don't quote me).

Idk about the article though. I am pretty much a cold hearted bitch when it comes to a lot of things people would assume you should be empathetic toward. I have had people marvel at how incredibly patient I can be while teaching someone something, or overseeing a child trying to figure something out. Keeping them calm enough to stay focused until they get it. I probably wont cry in movies or at someone recounting their horrible tale. I wouldn't donate to a charity for the hell of it, and don't even really believe in charity at all.

I think a lot of emo stuff depends on the way you look at it. Where you chose to focus your time or resources. As a matter of fact, I'd wager that most people have a soft spot for one incredibly sympathetic portion of humanity. Since people usually empathize with what is familiar or associated with their own feelings.

The oxytocin factor would be concentrated toward the inability to feel or understand your own emotional responses in common situations, which is a lot more rare than choosing to ignore them.
 

Coriolis

Si vis pacem, para bellum
Staff member
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
27,230
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
While the scientific findings are interesting, the behavioural conclusions appear to be emotionally driven and skewed. For example, have you never over-ridden emotional output by applying objective thinking?
I do this all the time. When I learn about a dire or distressing situation, I ask myself whether I can do anything about it, and if so, what will the cost be. If I donate money to Charity A, I will not have it to give to B or C. Obviously, this precipitates a comparison with my personal values and priorities. I see no point, however, expending emotional or other energy on a situation, however deserving, that is outside my ability to influence.
 

Arclight

Permabanned
Joined
Nov 5, 2009
Messages
3,177
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
6w5
While the scientific findings are interesting, the behavioural conclusions appear to be emotionally driven and skewed. For example, have you never over-ridden emotional output by applying objective thinking?

Have you? :laugh:

This article explains a little, why I become a parody of the negativity around me sometimes.

Thanks for sharing Vas. :)
 

rav3n

.
Joined
Aug 6, 2010
Messages
11,655
I do this all the time. When I learn about a dire or distressing situation, I ask myself whether I can do anything about it, and if so, what will the cost be. If I donate money to Charity A, I will not have it to give to B or C. Obviously, this precipitates a comparison with my personal values and priorities. I see no point, however, expending emotional or other energy on a situation, however deserving, that is outside my ability to influence.
Same here. Let's say that Charity A is attempting to emotionally appeal but has a track record of having substantial overhead. This means to me that $x aren't going where it's needed. With this in mind, my preference is to contribute to smaller charities who have a proven track record for ensuring that more is going where it needs to go, to the needy in crisis, instead of overhead.
 

Vasilisa

Symbolic Herald
Joined
Feb 2, 2010
Messages
3,946
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
hmmm... wonder if this has anything to do with the thought that the relative anonymity of the internet unleashing some people's inner troll :thinking: If you can't see them to mirror them or identify with them sympathy is MORE difficult?

Thats a good question. I always hear it blamed solely on anonymity, but you bring up an interesting idea. It reminds me a little bit of the study claiming that botox impairs empathy in those who have had it done. As if not being able to mirror has processing effects in both situations.

Wonderful find, Vasalisa. I want to read the "Quirk" book now and start measuring the oxytocin levels of everyone around me :) The gender divide is totally believable. Women donate more to charity and are more likely to enroll as subjects for vaccine trials. Whether that's socialization or genetics, I don't know.

Interesting that we fear each other less too. I wonder if that finding could be applied somehow.
:) I zeroed in on that, too, mochajava.
Experiments wherein people sniff oxytocin to bolster the chemical in their brain show that the chemical may work in two ways. It may operate first by dampening our natural fear of one another. Oxytocin is very active in the amygdala, which monitors the world for danger. Extra oxytocin fights fear. Then, with that terror out of the way, perhaps it's easier to read another person's emotions and relate to them. People dosed with oxytocin make more direct eye contact, and they are better at describing the emotions portrayed on another's face. So extra oxytocin also helps us to empathize.
It kind of jibes with some other potential psychiatric treatment I heard about recently that helps people overcome trauma by reducing the fear response to emotional threats. And also, in a personal way, it kind of inspires me to let go of more fear in order to connect with people even more deeply, risky as it may sound.

While the scientific findings are interesting, the behavioural conclusions appear to be emotionally driven and skewed. For example, have you never over-ridden emotional output by applying objective thinking?
You are right, and I think the author at least tries to address that in the article.
humans come in many shades of cooperativeness. Why would that be? Why does evolution perpetuate both the pushovers and the pushers? Well, a personality that's low in sympathy or empathy is not a heartless block of stone. She just isn't so quick to assume the feelings of others. She does a better job of maintaining her boundaries and keeping a steady eye on her own future. Undistracted by life's melodramas, she's more likely to focus on facts and figures.
I like that there is appreciation for all the different modes. I haven't read the book. If anyone here does, it would be interesting to read his or her impressions on the rest of Holmes's conclusions.

Thanks for sharing Vas. :)
Thank all of you for reading and replying. :)
 

entropie

Permabanned
Joined
Apr 24, 2008
Messages
16,767
MBTI Type
entp
Enneagram
783
I personally found the article brain- and heartless. To account heartlessness of being the result of "missing the heartful gene" is one of the most easiest ways to get out of troubles and the logic behind it has high potential for the tabloid press.

The human mind is a vast and complex organism which is defined by the sum of its experiences and faculties to experience. It's far out to assume only one gene is responsible for disabling the majority of the faculties to experience. Besides that it is totally ignoring what influence personal experience can have on a human being.

You really have to get away from these mind or heart only models. They wont just ever work
 

Vasilisa

Symbolic Herald
Joined
Feb 2, 2010
Messages
3,946
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
To account heartlessness of being the result of "missing the heartful gene" is one of the most easiest ways to get out of troubles and the logic behind it has high potential for the tabloid press.

The human mind is a vast and complex organism which is defined by the sum of its experiences and faculties to experience. It's far out to assume only one gene is responsible for disabling the majority of the faculties to experience. Besides that it is totally ignoring what influence personal experience can have on a human being.

True, its definitely a system that is not understood. I'm not sure she is claiming its one gene, more like discussing just a few facets of emerging research. Your post reminds me of another interesting related subject, the treatment of people with attachment disorder. I have heard about successful and very unsuccessful treatments for children with attachment disorder. It goes to the question of whether empathy can be learned.
 
Top