Difference between revisions of "APR 13"

From Alfino
Jump to navigationJump to search
(Created page with "==25: APR 13== ===Assigned=== :*Sapolsky, Chapter 16: Biology, the Criminal Justice System, and (Oh, Why Not?) Free Will (580-613) (Part One 580-600) ===Sapolsky, Chapter...")
 
m
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
==25: APR 13==
+
==23: APR 13: Unit Five: Empathy==
  
 
===Assigned===
 
===Assigned===
:*Sapolsky, Chapter 16: Biology, the Criminal Justice System, and (Oh, Why Not?) Free Will (580-613)  (Part One 580-600)
 
  
 +
:*Robert Sapolsky, from ''Behave'', Chapter 14, "Feeling Someone's Pain, Understanding Someone's Pain, Alleviating Someone's Pain." 521-535.
 +
:*Hidden Brain, "[https://www.npr.org/2020/08/31/907943965/you-2-0-empathy-gym You 2.0: Empathy gym]"  If you don't have time for the whole thing, get through the first two segments.  Up to 21 minuates.
  
===Sapolsky, Chapter 16: Biology, the Criminal Justice System, and (Oh, Why Not?) Free Will===
+
===In-Class===
  
:*Discusses professional interaction between biologists and legal scholars that may have started “neurolaw”.   
+
:*Mention "Imagining the Just Society" wiki notes for previous class (and the handout). 
 +
:*Briefly on our continuum of justice theories for PP1.   
  
:*Radical claim: Current criminal justice system needs to be replaced.  (Not talking about policing, right?)
+
===More on Continuum of Justice theories===
  
:*Things outside his focus: science in courtroom, min IQ for death sentence, cognitive bias in jurors, cognitive privacy.
+
:*Our "continuum of justice theories" includes formal justice, Rawls, Capabilities, and Strong Well-being theories.  Last class, we worked through these theories and some pluses and minuses of them that might figure into your assessment in PP1.  Today, consider the theories in terms of the different questions they ask about "what we owe each other":
  
:*583: historic example of scientific evidence disrupting criteria for guilt in witches trials, mid-16th centuryOlder women might not be able to cry.
+
:*1. '''Formal Theories''': "How do we guarantee equal treatment and fair rules for everyone?" (Justice is satisfied once we do this.)  (Note: Formal Justice is included in each of the other theories, but can be argued as sufficientIndeed, that is the traditional view.)
  
:*'''Three Perspectives'''
+
:*2. '''Rawls'''' Difference Principle: "How am I better off (either by income or public goods) for tolerating the effects of a competitive society (inequality)? (If I can't satisfy the difference principle, then I made an irrational choice from being the veil of ignoranceOn the other hand, I only need to be a little better off for it to be rational.)
::*no one now disputes that we sometimes are not free (epilepsy example).  Yet medieval europe tried animals for guilt. (Sounds weirder than it isJust imagine it's about the act, not criminal intent.)
 
  
:*Drawing Lines in the Sand 586
+
:*3. '''Capabilities''':  "How does my society help me achieve basic capabilities that promote my freedom to achieve my well-being?  (Just societies focus on the "instrumental freedoms" that enable capabilities.)
  
::*endorses a broad compatibilism and the idea of “moral failure”He develops the competing concept, from Greene, “mitigated free will,” but ultimately, Sapolsky will try to show that this view doesn’t hold up, in part because it depends up arbitrary use of a “homonculus” to explain things. We sneak in a kind of "libertarian dualism" He's following the second strategy above.  
+
:*4. '''Strong Well-Being approaches''' like utilitarian and happiness economists: "How much does the society promote the well-being of its citizens?"  (The just society is centrally focused on SWBHappiness is a better measure than GDP alone.)
  
::*1842: M’Naghten.  Rule at 587.  Mentally ill murderer.  Many objected to his not being found guilty.  John Hinckley.
+
===Hidden Brain, Empathy===
  
::*"mitigated free will" homonculus view: we all more or less think this way and then the problem of responsibility comes down to figuring out what to expect from the humunculusNote his humorous/sarcastic description of itWhat is it capable of or should have been capable of.  This is our "folk psychology"of free will.
+
:*Segment 1: Artist's performance art installation. Wafa.  Internet connected paint ball gun. Iraqi artist, lost his brother in air strike. Thinking about drone warfare, thinking about consequences of actions... ends at 5:22.
 +
:*Jamil Zaki, [https://www.amazon.com/s?k=the+war+for+kindness&i=stripbooks&crid=7SSD8EFJP5XF&sprefix=The+war+for+%2Cstripbooks%2C115&ref=nb_sb_ss_c_2_12_ts-doa-p The War for Kindness].  Early 70s program for faculty, mom from Peru to WSU, married/divorced while Jamil was young, felt difference in parents' rules/values.  Credits that to empathy.  Parent's divorce was an "empathy gym".   
 +
:*Benefits of empathy -- benefits both parties.  empathic doctor-patient relationships, empathic partnersGiving empathy less depression, less stress, adolescents with emotional skill better adjusted in middle school. 
 +
:*clip from Sesame street -- phone call from friend.  Three components:
 +
::*1. emotional empathy - feeling emotions of others, or a version of those emotions.
 +
::*2. cognitive empathy - trying to understand what others are feelings and why or what they are going through.
 +
::*3. empathy concern and compassionconcern for what they are going through and desire for their well-being
  
:*Age, Maturity of Groups, Maturity of Indidividuals
+
::*autism spectrum disorders.  often still have 1 but not 2
 +
::*psychopathy often have 2 but not 1
  
::*2005 case Roper v. SimmonsAge limit of 18 on executions and life termsFollows debates on this. 590.   
+
:*Segment 2: Cultural instantiation of empathy.  Sarah Conrath - survey research using validated instrument. Trend toward less empathyExamples of survey items at 14:45A lot since 2000.   
::*2010 and 2012 cases on rehab for juvies. '''age related bounds on free will''' (in the justice system).
+
::*Other variables: Living alone.  10x compared to 1950.  Hard to know about link there.  pretty speculative. We are more urban, solitary, and transactional (less communal experience, more consumption experience).  These interactions don't favor empathy. Internet? Might be a source of empathy, early idealism of internet.  But we might be using the Internet in "empathy negative" ways -- no faces (!), avatars, text -- not great triggers for empathy. Research on dehumanizing opinions from text vs. voice.  (Tapping into a long line of theory about urban life and dehumanization.) segment ends at 21:30
  
::*”grossly impaired rationality”. [Note: The law is mostly interested in "rationality" not free will.]
+
'''
 +
:*Segment 3: Costs and benefits of Empathy
 +
::*Trauma and empathy.  Could go in different directions.  '''Hurt people hurt people.'''  But also "altruism born of suffering".  Addicts become addiction counselors...etc.  Research showing that showing American harsh video from 9/11 attacks increases willingness to torture.  Other research: more wary of outsiders. 
 +
::*But 9/11 was also unifying, eliciting empathy. (Change in stereotype of “New Yorker”)   
 +
::*Paul Bloom, Against Empathy - empathy tends to be tribal, Zaki doesn’t disagree, adds that -- oxcitociin studies do turn up parochialism along with empathy. Zaki draws different conclusion. Bloom thinks we should give up on empathy.  Believes that empathy is trainable. Could go in different directions.
 +
::*Sometimes we need to be less empathetic.  Research on police officers showing strong empathy, even to officers in trouble.  (Interesting insight on “police empathy” (good guys who made a mistake). In-group empathy (parochial empathy) might interfere with perception. High in-group empaths, even if empathic to outsiders, are not likely to allow threat to tribe.  29:23: Advice:  If we want to open up to others (out groups - the people we discriminate against), we need to notice this.  What if we are over empathic to our group?
 +
::*Professionals who need to use empathy (caring professions) might suffer from its expression. Defensive dehumanization (self-protection) -- blocking empathy for self-preservation. Example of therapist who doesn’t schedule depressed patient at the end of the day.
 +
::*Mark Panser study: Researchers set up table in busy student union soliciting donations, happy child/ suffering child. unmanned/wheelchair.  You’d think the sad child and wheelchair attendant would be a winner. But it backfired!  Other examples: Crossing the street to avoid a homeless person.  Maybe we (especially high empaths) avoid triggering our own empathetic response. 
 +
::*Empathy and Dehumanization: Study on whites reading about native Americans.  Led to negative judgement of Native Americans to dismiss guilt (cog. dissonance).  In “obedience to authority” studies, subject who shock confederates report liking victim less, death row officers tend to dehumanize inmates, more likely to lead avoidance or dehumanizing judgements.  ends at 36:00
  
::*Some views Sapolsky finds hard to accept:
+
:*Segment 4: Back to art installation; how to “pump” empathy.
:::*Gazzaniga’s view: FW is an illusion, but we should still punish. Responsibility is a social level concern. 
 
:::*Deliberate actions are "free" - doesn't make sense of brain processes.
 
  
:*Time course of decision making.   
+
::*many thousands of shots. Lamp destroyed by aggressive person. Matt, a former marine, arrives with new lamp! Takes action (similar issue in Sapolsky).  Zaki interprets both events. Others show up!  Muffins, socks, online helpers.  Virtual human shields.  36 people keep the button down to prevent panning the gun.   
  
::*disputes about the maturity of adolescents: APA has spoken both ways in court: not mature enough for criminal resp., but mature enough to make an abortion decision.   
+
::*Zaki project: Used virtual reality “scenes” to have inside experience of homelessness.  Scenes of typical events in homeless experience.  Simulation increased empathy even 30 days later and more supportive of housing policies. (Sheds light on research showing the wealthy are less empathic.) 
 +
::*Acting and empathy.  Might pump empathy. Study involving adolescents in theatre v visual arts.  Thespians pumped more empathy.  Reading fiction also does this. (Moth stories, story core, human interest stories on news.)  
  
:*Causation and Compulsion  -- not everything that causes us to act is a compulsion, but for some, it is.
+
::*Manchester U fans study: Levine: study involving rabid fans, asked them to write about why they love Man U. Taken to another building, they encounter a jogger confederate sometimes Man U, Liverpool, blank jersey.  More likely to pass over Liverpool jogger.  Second version: Why you love soccer. Equal help.  Blank jersey left behind!  Point: we have some flexibility in how we frame our group membership. A station at the empathy gym!
  
::*Works through example of schizophrenic hearing voices. Not all cases would be compulsion. "If your friend suggests that you mug someone, the law expects you to resist, even if it's an imaginary friend in your head." “thus in this view even a sensible homunculus can lose it and agree to virtually anything, just to get the hellhounds and trombones to stop.” 593
+
::*Back to Zaki's childhood experience. Lesson to learn that very different people could have deep and authentic experience. Also, we can have different values because of our experiences, equally determinative in opposite directions. "Naive realism" false. Empathy helps you understand that someone’s world is as real as yours.
  
:*Starting a behavior vs. halting it. ("free won't")
+
===Sapolsky, Behave, C 14, 521-535===
::*Libet experiment, 1980s, EEG disclosure of “readiness potential” — activity measured before conscious awareness of will.  .5 second delay might just be artifact of experiment design.  Time it takes to interpret the clock.  Libet says maybe the lag time is the time you have to veto the action your body is preparing you for (“free won’t”)
 
  
::*Sapolsky’s view is that these debates reflect a consensus about the interaction of biology and free will, whatever that is
+
:*starts with "exposure to an aversive state" -- we call it empathy, but what is that?
 +
::q1: When does empathy lead us to actually do something helpful?
 +
::q2: When we do act, whose benefit is it for?
  
:*”You must be smart” vs. “You must have worked so hard”
+
:*'''sympathy''' -- feeling sorry for someone's pain.  But could also convey distance or power diff.  pity.
 +
:*'''empathy''' -- includes a cognitive step of understanding the cause of someone's pain and "taking perspective"
 +
:*'''compassion''' -- S. suggests this involves empathy ''plus taking action''.
  
::*research of Carol Dweck, 90s, saying that a kid worked hard to get a result increases motivation.   
+
:*Emotionally contagious, compassionate animals.
 +
::*we are 'overimitative' - chimp / kids study524
 +
::*mouse studies -524- alterations of sensitivity to pain on seeing pain; fear association seeing another mouse exp fear conditioning.  ''Mouse depression ensues!''  research suggesting mice respond proportionally and to social group (cagemates). 
 +
::*Consolation: lots of species engage in consolation, chimps show ''third party consolation'' behavior, no consolation behavior in monkeys (another reason not to trust monkeys) -- prairie voles!
 +
::*526: rats, amazing rats -- US/them behaviors, some flexibility.  review the details.   
  
::*596: we tend to assign aptitude to biology and effort and resisting impulse to free willSapolsky seems very skeptical that we can justify assigning character (impulse control anyway) to non-biological factors (fairy dust)Read at 598.
+
:*Emotionally contagious, compassionate children
 +
::*527: describes mechanism of empathy: early emo contagion in kids may not be linked to cognitive judgement as later, when Theory of Mind emergesNeural activity follows this progression. “As the capacity for moral indignation matures, couple among the vmPFC, the insula, and amygdala emerges. Perspective taking adds other connections.
  
:*some evidence that pedophilia is not freely chosen or easily resisted. 
+
:*Affect and /or Cognition?
  
:*chart showing how we divide things between biology and “homoncular grit”. — Long list of ways out biology influence the items on the right.   
+
:*'''Affective side of things'''.
 +
::*Some neurobiology: the ACC - anterior cingulate cortex - '''processes interoceptive info''', conflict monitoring, (presumably cog. dissonance). susceptible to placebo effect.  ACC activates when our internal and external “schemas” of the world are amiss.
 +
::*Importantly, ACC activates on social exclusion (Cyberball game), anxiety, disgust, embarrassment, but also pleasure, mutual pleasure.  (ACC activation is maybe a good proxy for the state that empathy and compassion address: We help each other settle our ACCs down.). Empathic responses involve our ACC, which is activated by your pain
 +
.
 +
::*ACC also involved in action circuits.  Oxytocin, hormone related to bonding.  Block it in voles and they don't consoleAwwww!
  
:*Conclusions: “worked hard/must be smart” are equally grounded in our physical nature.   
+
::*How does self-interested "alarm" system of the ACC get involved in empathy?  '''Sapolsky's hypothesis''' 530: ''Feeling someone's pain can be more effective for learning than just knowing that they're in pain'''''Empathy may also be a self-interested learning system, separate from helping action.''' Maybe not a “moral emotion” until we use it that way.
  
:*'''We'll break here for today'''
+
:*'''Cognitive side of things''': How do we bring judgements about desert and character to bear on empathic responses? Chimps do. They only console victimsReason allows us to shut down empathic responses.   
 
+
::*One of Sapolsky’s weirder analogies at 532 re: the militia leader.   
:*But does anything useful actually come of this?
+
::*Cognition comes in with emotional pain, judgement abstractly represented pain (a sign), unfamiliar pain.  (Takes more cog resources to process others' emo pain.)  Also with Thems. 533.   
 
+
::*socioeconomics of empathy 534: '''wealth predicts lower empathy'''. Less likely to stop for pedestrians.  the wealthy take more candy! (This can be primed by asking test subjects to make upward or downward comparisons prior to the choice event.)
:*Grounds for skepticism about using neuroscience in the courtroom:  Stephen Morse.  Neurolaw sceptic, ok with M’naugton, but thinks cases are rare.  Reviews valid criticisms he makes: 1. Juries might overvalue neuroscience images, 2. Descriptive vs. Normative. 
+
::*especially hard, cognitively, to empathize with people we don't like, because their pain actually stimulates a dopamine response! '''Empathy is part of our preference network behaviors!'''
 
 
:*Morse supports a strong distinction between causation and compulsion. Causation is not itself an excuse. But Sapolsky argues that this still involves walling off a “homonculus” and that’s not plausible.   
 
 
 
:*Acknowledges an apparent problem.  Neuroscience typically can’t predict individual behavior very muchFictional exchange with prosecutor.  600
 
 
 
:*Explaining lots and Predicting Little
 
 
 
:*But is the lack of predictive power a problem in the argument?  S. works through some cases in which probability of prediction decreases, but no less likely that it could be a case of compulsion601
 
 
 
:*602: Important methodological point:  There's no less biology in the leg fracture vs. the other disorders, but level of biological explanation is different.  Leg fractures are less connected to culture. Behavior is multifactorial and heavily cultural.  (Oh god, another Henrich digression.  Free will has a history.) Example: how much does biology predict depression?  Factors are diverse biological mechanisms, including cultural factors. (But, point is, someone can be disable by depression, just like the leg fracture.)
 
 
 
:*Marvin Minsky, “Free will: internal forces I do not understand”. Sapolsky adds “yet”.
 
 
 
:*Neat charts showing historic trend to connect social behavior and biology in research journals. 604-605.
 
 
 
:*If you still believe in mitigated free will:
 
::*case of Dramer and Springer and the spiritual explanation for epilepsy. Biblical version with Jesus.   
 
::*Sapolsky imagines an Inquisitor (witch burner).  Must be puzzled occasionally by fact pattern. Mom has epilepsy. 
 
::*growth of knowledge argument 607-608.  read list.  Most likely option is that our kids will look at us as idiots about moral responsibility and culpability.
 
 
 
:*608: practical outcomes.  Not about letting violent criminals free.  On the biological view, punishment can’t be an end in itself (restoring balance). Retributive punishment is an end in itself. 
 
 
 
:*Brain imaging suggests culpability judgements activate the cool and cognitive dlPFC, but punishment judements activate more emotional vmPFC.  “A frothy limbic state”. Makes sense that punishment is costly.  But we need to overcome our attachment to punishment.  It is involved in a lot of unjustified suffering. 
 
 
 
:*Recaps the transition we've made with epilepsy 610. 
 
 
 
:*Car free will.  A kind of reductio argument.
 
 
 
===Small Group Discussion on Will Power and "Homuncular grit"===
 
 
 
:*Evaluate Sapolsky's chart on p. 597 showing how we divide "biological stuff" from "homuncular grit".  How far do you go in accepting his criticism of the distinction. (read below chart). Does this lead you to reevaluate your agreement with the prosecutor in Kevin's case?
 
:*What is the "source" (what are the sources) of "will power"?  When you "find" willpower or marshal your personal resources to meet a challenge, is there a "who" who is deciding that or is there just a competition in your head based on all kinds of things, including perceive rewards and perceived risks?  Do you need a homunculus to have will power?
 
 
 
===Two Strategies for grounding Moral Responsibility (MR)===
 
 
 
:*Two ways to ground MR:
 
::*1. Traditional Metaphysical Philosophical Discussion about Determinism and Free Will
 
:::*Examples of argument threads: If we do not have "metaphysically real" FW, then we cannot be held responsibleIf the world is deterministic, then we do not have FW and cannot be MR.  Because we are MR, we must have FW.
 
::*2. Contemporary Naturalist (Cultural Evolutionist) Approaches to MR and FW regard these are cultural ideas which express both our "agency" (ability to act in the world) and expectations of each other as "normally competent agents."
 
 
 
:*To understand the Traditional Metaphysical approach, you need some terminology:
 
 
 
::*'''Hard Determinism''' - The view that determinism is true and that renders traditional concepts of free will meaningless. Hard to justify retributive punishment. Basic intuition: If everything is determined, we can't make choices. Biggest liability: Sets the bar for free will very high.   
 
 
 
::*'''Compatibilism''' - Compatibilists also believe that determinism is true, but they believe that free will is compatible with determinism.  Basic intuition: Free will is a way of describing our sense of agencyPeople do this in different ways in different cultures. Agency is real, free will is one way of understanding it. Basic Intuition: Free will is part of our "folk psychology" and does really practical work for us in culture. Biggest liability: Is this a "free will worth having"? It seems thin to some to call free will a cultural artefact. But then Love, Faith, Cooperation, Trust, Friendship are real?
 
 
 
::*Many people find it hard to be compatibilists since it involves accepting that ever state of the universe is determined. (Point to resources for thinking through this. Dennett, Freedom Evolves.) "I'm determined to improve the future!"  Free will means having more real possibilities in your life.  Maybe people who fail their responsibilities are like "broken things".  (Could be a problem of mixing mental modules.)
 
 
 
::*'''Libertarianism''' - The view that under some circumstances we are the original cause of our actions. Basic intuition: If you think our intuitions about free will are also part of the structure of the world, then the libertarian has a plausible approach.  Biggest liability: Hard to find evidence for this view. 
 
 
 
:*Relating this to Sapolsky's terminology:  Sapolsky is critical of the folk psychological view he calls "mitigated free will".  This is the view that we have complete FW, but sometimes it is compromised (compulsion, Kuwer Bucy Syndrome, addiction).  Such views often sneak in a mysterious "homonculus" to which we refer some part of our will that we somehow don't think is biological.  Hence, the derisive term "homoncular grit".  (We'll follow his argument below.)
 
 
 
:*Is Free Will a culturally defined concept for understanding our agency?
 
 
 
:*Free will as a cultural concept. Evidence from Henrich and others. Part of a cultural package that weakened kin bonds that might not have been seen as "choosable".  Promotes idea of ''choosing'' a creed or code of conduct. Question then is: Does this conception of free will still serve us well, especially in light of new knowledge about human (mis)behavior?
 
 
 
:*Ordinary language analysis -- We know what we mean by free will, whether it exists in libertarian form or not! Maybe it's a cultural artefact.  Maybe we use mental modules related to Theory of Mind and governing "animate" objects. 
 
::*To warm up your intuitions that FW is a cultural concept, consider how adept we are in understanding these sentences: "ordinary language analysis"
 
::*I may choose to take up painting as a hobby.
 
::*I cannot choose to become a concert violinists at this point in my life.
 
::*I can choose whether or not I get ready for class.
 
::*I have no choice, I have to turn you in to the police.
 
::*I can't choose not to love you, but I can't see you any more.
 
::*I've decided I don't love you any more. (aww...)
 

Latest revision as of 20:16, 13 April 2023

23: APR 13: Unit Five: Empathy

Assigned

  • Robert Sapolsky, from Behave, Chapter 14, "Feeling Someone's Pain, Understanding Someone's Pain, Alleviating Someone's Pain." 521-535.
  • Hidden Brain, "You 2.0: Empathy gym" If you don't have time for the whole thing, get through the first two segments. Up to 21 minuates.

In-Class

  • Mention "Imagining the Just Society" wiki notes for previous class (and the handout).
  • Briefly on our continuum of justice theories for PP1.

More on Continuum of Justice theories

  • Our "continuum of justice theories" includes formal justice, Rawls, Capabilities, and Strong Well-being theories. Last class, we worked through these theories and some pluses and minuses of them that might figure into your assessment in PP1. Today, consider the theories in terms of the different questions they ask about "what we owe each other":
  • 1. Formal Theories: "How do we guarantee equal treatment and fair rules for everyone?" (Justice is satisfied once we do this.) (Note: Formal Justice is included in each of the other theories, but can be argued as sufficient. Indeed, that is the traditional view.)
  • 2. Rawls' Difference Principle: "How am I better off (either by income or public goods) for tolerating the effects of a competitive society (inequality)? (If I can't satisfy the difference principle, then I made an irrational choice from being the veil of ignorance. On the other hand, I only need to be a little better off for it to be rational.)
  • 3. Capabilities: "How does my society help me achieve basic capabilities that promote my freedom to achieve my well-being? (Just societies focus on the "instrumental freedoms" that enable capabilities.)
  • 4. Strong Well-Being approaches like utilitarian and happiness economists: "How much does the society promote the well-being of its citizens?" (The just society is centrally focused on SWB. Happiness is a better measure than GDP alone.)

Hidden Brain, Empathy

  • Segment 1: Artist's performance art installation. Wafa. Internet connected paint ball gun. Iraqi artist, lost his brother in air strike. Thinking about drone warfare, thinking about consequences of actions... ends at 5:22.
  • Jamil Zaki, The War for Kindness. Early 70s program for faculty, mom from Peru to WSU, married/divorced while Jamil was young, felt difference in parents' rules/values. Credits that to empathy. Parent's divorce was an "empathy gym".
  • Benefits of empathy -- benefits both parties. empathic doctor-patient relationships, empathic partners. Giving empathy less depression, less stress, adolescents with emotional skill better adjusted in middle school.
  • clip from Sesame street -- phone call from friend. Three components:
  • 1. emotional empathy - feeling emotions of others, or a version of those emotions.
  • 2. cognitive empathy - trying to understand what others are feelings and why or what they are going through.
  • 3. empathy concern and compassion. concern for what they are going through and desire for their well-being
  • autism spectrum disorders. often still have 1 but not 2
  • psychopathy often have 2 but not 1
  • Segment 2: Cultural instantiation of empathy. Sarah Conrath - survey research using validated instrument. Trend toward less empathy. Examples of survey items at 14:45. A lot since 2000.
  • Other variables: Living alone. 10x compared to 1950. Hard to know about link there. pretty speculative. We are more urban, solitary, and transactional (less communal experience, more consumption experience). These interactions don't favor empathy. Internet? Might be a source of empathy, early idealism of internet. But we might be using the Internet in "empathy negative" ways -- no faces (!), avatars, text -- not great triggers for empathy. Research on dehumanizing opinions from text vs. voice. (Tapping into a long line of theory about urban life and dehumanization.) segment ends at 21:30

  • Segment 3: Costs and benefits of Empathy
  • Trauma and empathy. Could go in different directions. Hurt people hurt people. But also "altruism born of suffering". Addicts become addiction counselors...etc. Research showing that showing American harsh video from 9/11 attacks increases willingness to torture. Other research: more wary of outsiders.
  • But 9/11 was also unifying, eliciting empathy. (Change in stereotype of “New Yorker”)
  • Paul Bloom, Against Empathy - empathy tends to be tribal, Zaki doesn’t disagree, adds that -- oxcitociin studies do turn up parochialism along with empathy. Zaki draws different conclusion. Bloom thinks we should give up on empathy. Believes that empathy is trainable. Could go in different directions.
  • Sometimes we need to be less empathetic. Research on police officers showing strong empathy, even to officers in trouble. (Interesting insight on “police empathy” (good guys who made a mistake). In-group empathy (parochial empathy) might interfere with perception. High in-group empaths, even if empathic to outsiders, are not likely to allow threat to tribe. 29:23: Advice: If we want to open up to others (out groups - the people we discriminate against), we need to notice this. What if we are over empathic to our group?
  • Professionals who need to use empathy (caring professions) might suffer from its expression. Defensive dehumanization (self-protection) -- blocking empathy for self-preservation. Example of therapist who doesn’t schedule depressed patient at the end of the day.
  • Mark Panser study: Researchers set up table in busy student union soliciting donations, happy child/ suffering child. unmanned/wheelchair. You’d think the sad child and wheelchair attendant would be a winner. But it backfired! Other examples: Crossing the street to avoid a homeless person. Maybe we (especially high empaths) avoid triggering our own empathetic response.
  • Empathy and Dehumanization: Study on whites reading about native Americans. Led to negative judgement of Native Americans to dismiss guilt (cog. dissonance). In “obedience to authority” studies, subject who shock confederates report liking victim less, death row officers tend to dehumanize inmates, more likely to lead avoidance or dehumanizing judgements. ends at 36:00
  • Segment 4: Back to art installation; how to “pump” empathy.
  • many thousands of shots. Lamp destroyed by aggressive person. Matt, a former marine, arrives with new lamp! Takes action (similar issue in Sapolsky). Zaki interprets both events. Others show up! Muffins, socks, online helpers. Virtual human shields. 36 people keep the button down to prevent panning the gun.
  • Zaki project: Used virtual reality “scenes” to have inside experience of homelessness. Scenes of typical events in homeless experience. Simulation increased empathy even 30 days later and more supportive of housing policies. (Sheds light on research showing the wealthy are less empathic.)
  • Acting and empathy. Might pump empathy. Study involving adolescents in theatre v visual arts. Thespians pumped more empathy. Reading fiction also does this. (Moth stories, story core, human interest stories on news.)
  • Manchester U fans study: Levine: study involving rabid fans, asked them to write about why they love Man U. Taken to another building, they encounter a jogger confederate sometimes Man U, Liverpool, blank jersey. More likely to pass over Liverpool jogger. Second version: Why you love soccer. Equal help. Blank jersey left behind! Point: we have some flexibility in how we frame our group membership. A station at the empathy gym!
  • Back to Zaki's childhood experience. Lesson to learn that very different people could have deep and authentic experience. Also, we can have different values because of our experiences, equally determinative in opposite directions. "Naive realism" false. Empathy helps you understand that someone’s world is as real as yours.

Sapolsky, Behave, C 14, 521-535

  • starts with "exposure to an aversive state" -- we call it empathy, but what is that?
q1: When does empathy lead us to actually do something helpful?
q2: When we do act, whose benefit is it for?
  • sympathy -- feeling sorry for someone's pain. But could also convey distance or power diff. pity.
  • empathy -- includes a cognitive step of understanding the cause of someone's pain and "taking perspective"
  • compassion -- S. suggests this involves empathy plus taking action.
  • Emotionally contagious, compassionate animals.
  • we are 'overimitative' - chimp / kids study524
  • mouse studies -524- alterations of sensitivity to pain on seeing pain; fear association seeing another mouse exp fear conditioning. Mouse depression ensues! research suggesting mice respond proportionally and to social group (cagemates).
  • Consolation: lots of species engage in consolation, chimps show third party consolation behavior, no consolation behavior in monkeys (another reason not to trust monkeys) -- prairie voles!
  • 526: rats, amazing rats -- US/them behaviors, some flexibility. review the details.
  • Emotionally contagious, compassionate children
  • 527: describes mechanism of empathy: early emo contagion in kids may not be linked to cognitive judgement as later, when Theory of Mind emerges. Neural activity follows this progression. “As the capacity for moral indignation matures, couple among the vmPFC, the insula, and amygdala emerges.” Perspective taking adds other connections.
  • Affect and /or Cognition?
  • Affective side of things.
  • Some neurobiology: the ACC - anterior cingulate cortex - processes interoceptive info, conflict monitoring, (presumably cog. dissonance). susceptible to placebo effect. ACC activates when our internal and external “schemas” of the world are amiss.
  • Importantly, ACC activates on social exclusion (Cyberball game), anxiety, disgust, embarrassment, but also pleasure, mutual pleasure. (ACC activation is maybe a good proxy for the state that empathy and compassion address: We help each other settle our ACCs down.). Empathic responses involve our ACC, which is activated by your pain

.

  • ACC also involved in action circuits. Oxytocin, hormone related to bonding. Block it in voles and they don't console. Awwww!
  • How does self-interested "alarm" system of the ACC get involved in empathy? Sapolsky's hypothesis 530: Feeling someone's pain can be more effective for learning than just knowing that they're in pain. Empathy may also be a self-interested learning system, separate from helping action. Maybe not a “moral emotion” until we use it that way.
  • Cognitive side of things: How do we bring judgements about desert and character to bear on empathic responses? Chimps do. They only console victims. Reason allows us to shut down empathic responses.
  • One of Sapolsky’s weirder analogies at 532 re: the militia leader.
  • Cognition comes in with emotional pain, judgement abstractly represented pain (a sign), unfamiliar pain. (Takes more cog resources to process others' emo pain.) Also with Thems. 533.
  • socioeconomics of empathy 534: wealth predicts lower empathy. Less likely to stop for pedestrians. the wealthy take more candy! (This can be primed by asking test subjects to make upward or downward comparisons prior to the choice event.)
  • especially hard, cognitively, to empathize with people we don't like, because their pain actually stimulates a dopamine response! Empathy is part of our preference network behaviors!