vikorr wrote:The environment isn't the trigger, because people in the same environment can view it differently, and have different responses to the same environment - so the trigger is within the person.
This statement is a complete misapplication of the concept of genetic vs. environmental influnces.
The fact that different people have different reactions to an external stimulus doesn't negate the environment as the influence. The environment, in this sense is the sum total of all of the person's life experiences. Every time a person experiences something it affects the neuropathways in their brain. Synapses are either built or broken as we go through life based on those things.
Genetics affects whether you have (or don't have!
) synapses, how many you might have, how quickly they form or fade, etc...
The environment affects when and where those synapses form (interconnect) within the brain. ("Learning" is the building of those synapse structures through a process called synaptic plasticity)
People with different experiences throughout their lives (including education as well as "incidents" that happen to or around them) will have different synapse structures within their brain. If multiple people come in contact with a new environmental influence at the same time they react differently because their synapse structures have all formed differently.
For example: People who have lived through earthquakes react to them differently than someone that has no knowledge of them at all because they have learned what an earthquake is and how to react when one happens. That is 100% environmental.
Hello Fishin,
Quote:The fact that different people have different reactions to an external stimulus doesn't negate the environment as the influence.
Environment occurs :
Perception 1 = no chemical reaction
Peception 2 = chemical reaction
A person is capable of experiencing both P1 or P2 within the same environmental factor/event.
-I didn't say the environment has no influence, I said it wasn't the trigger...although I guess you could call it a trigger of the trigger. The point is, depending on how the environment is percieved, will affect whether or not a chemical reaction is triggered. It is the perception, not necessarily the environment/event that is important (although as you said, the environment bears an influence on the outcome)
Scientists have found that there is a 'shy' gene in some people's DNA.
http://www.genomenewsnetwork.org/articles/04_00/shyness.shtml
Why wouldn't there possibly be a 'compassion' gene as well? Those who aren't compassionate don't have the gene.
Like OJ Simpson....now there's a guy with no compassion, or sense, or normal human emotions, or
dant, YOu bring up a point that reminded me of a study done on people who has little or no emotion. The color in their brain shows inactivity in the parts of their brain and shows it as abnormal. Good point.
I remember many years ago when there was a study done on orphans, I think it was Bulgaria, where they were never touched by humans, and when they grew up, they showed no emotion.
I can't get this link to work, but here's a hint at my earlier post.
FuturePundit: Brain Ethics Law ArchivesWhen normal people view these images, fMRI scans light up to indicate heavy brain activity in sections of the emotion-generating limbic system, ...
www.futurepundit.com/archives/cat_brain_ethics_law.html - 18k -
Egocentricity is the mother of compassion
I believe innate compassion is un-learned as the egocentric empathy of childhood sours, exception by exception, into new rules that dehumanize others. Most of the new rules come from our cultures and cultural experiences (not the best in most cultures).
So, as we mature, does an abstracted "compassion" then replace the earnest egocentric childish perception that all are one-with-ones-self?
Do we then learn compassion for _other_ as one of many pragmatic habits or states of mind?
Alternatively, and for me a path to genuine compassion, we can learn to reinstate an inner perceptual "feed" that maturity normally blocks with an either/or view of ourselves versus everyone/everything else.
Wow. Sounds like Hegel's _Phenomenology of Mind_. (Translating geist as mind addresses this more profoundly and openly to scientific discovery than geist as "spirit.") The consciousness does not have to turn in on itself and make kooky infantile, insensitive and belligerent adults practicing conditional and variable compassion.
But we may have to learn to avoid that cultural and developmental fate deliberately. True compassion could be one fruit of a broader learning process.
Bottom line, I say compassion is not learned didactically; rather, it endures from childhood or develops as a gut-realization of the simultaneous universal and particular in ourselves and everyone/everything else.
Learners have to become aware of themselves as agents in the universe to gain mature non-pragmatic "compassion," but some folks for whatever reason never turn off that childish egocentric sense of connection that others lose to their intellect and social bruises. And probably most people keep open lines of compassion around some topics or experiences that "speak" to them, and lose them in others, for lack of spiritual pursuit in self-awareness.
-S
cicerone imposter wrote:It follows from the simple fact that chemical changes in the brain has an effect on how we our able to respond to others. It's all part and parcel of how our brain works, and how depression and happiness may influence empathy/compassion in some way. People with bipolar are fighting a personal battle that goes beyond their ability to have compassion for others - IMHO. I believe bipolar is debilitating to most individuals who are not treated with drugs. That's only my personal opinion.
The term "bi-polar" refers to the oscillation between the states of depression and mania in a single individual. I don't think it has a direct relationship with "compassion". Depressed people can still have compassion.
vikorr wrote:Hmmm...you are simplifying a complex subject.
Firstly, you are comparing the chemical imbalance of a person suffering a mental illness with a normal persons feeling of compassion.
Secondly, Bi-Polar is not properly understood (or they'd be well on the way to developing a cure for it). There may be a mental trigger to it, it may be entirely genetic - who is to tell?
Third, as per my previous email, a 'compassion chemical' (if one exists) can't be triggered by the environment - we first have to perceive the environment, interpret it, and only then can a chemical be released.
I've little doubt there are other inconsistencies in such a comparison.
As I said previously though...I'm of the opinion that compassion is simply an acceptance of who a person is and what they are feeling/experiencing at the time. No chemical is needed for that.
Have you ever had a course in Neurochemistry?
cicerone imposter wrote:dant, YOu bring up a point that reminded me of a study done on people who has little or no emotion. The color in their brain shows inactivity in the parts of their brain and shows it as abnormal. Good point.
I remember many years ago when there was a study done on orphans, I think it was Bulgaria, where they were never touched by humans, and when they grew up, they showed no emotion.
The first work in this area was performed by Bruno Bettelheim. His theories today don't seem to hold much water, however.
Bettelheim eventually killed himself, (plastic bag over his head) possibly because of his depression.
cicerone imposter wrote:dant, YOu bring up a point that reminded me of a study done on people who has little or no emotion. The color in their brain shows inactivity in the parts of their brain and shows it as abnormal. Good point.
Are you referring to the glucose metabolism/blood flow studies?
cicerone imposter wrote:It follows from the simple fact that chemical changes in the brain has an effect on how we our able to respond to others. It's all part and parcel of how our brain works, and how depression and happiness may influence empathy/compassion in some way. People with bipolar are fighting a personal battle that goes beyond their ability to have compassion for others - IMHO. I believe bipolar is debilitating to most individuals who are not treated with drugs. That's only my personal opinion.
I think you are confusing bipolar with other less treatable psychological disorders, such as whatever a serial killer has, a Hitler, etc.
Empathy and compassion are not the same thing. A narcissist can have compassion (pity that no one is as good looking, wealthy, etc.), but can he/she have empathy?
vikorr wrote:Hello Fishin,
Quote:The fact that different people have different reactions to an external stimulus doesn't negate the environment as the influence.
Environment occurs :
Perception 1 = no chemical reaction
Peception 2 = chemical reaction
A person is capable of experiencing both P1 or P2 within the same environmental factor/event.
You are still missing the entire point.
Things that are genetic are determined at the moment of conception. Once the gentic material from the egg and sperm combine, the genetic code is set.
The 9 months of gestation and your entire life outside of the womb are "the environment". There is no "Environment occurs". The environment has been occuring all along.
Quote:-I didn't say the environment has no influence, I said it wasn't the trigger...although I guess you could call it a trigger of the trigger. The point is, depending on how the environment is percieved, will affect whether or not a chemical reaction is triggered. It is the perception, not necessarily the environment/event that is important (although as you said, the environment bears an influence on the outcome)
The "trigger of the trigger" concept you advance is just dancing around. Where do you think these perceptions come from? A person's perceptions (and reactions to them) are formed based upon the environment they've lived in since conception so to say that the perception is more of a factor more than the environment is just silly. Perceptions are a subset of environmental conditions to begin with.
Gala wrote:cicerone imposter wrote:It follows from the simple fact that chemical changes in the brain has an effect on how we our able to respond to others. It's all part and parcel of how our brain works, and how depression and happiness may influence empathy/compassion in some way. People with bipolar are fighting a personal battle that goes beyond their ability to have compassion for others - IMHO. I believe bipolar is debilitating to most individuals who are not treated with drugs. That's only my personal opinion.
I think you are confusing bipolar with other less treatable psychological disorders, such as whatever a serial killer has, a Hitler, etc.
Empathy and compassion are not the same thing. A narcissist can have compassion (pity that no one is as good looking, wealthy, etc.), but can he/she have empathy?
Gala, I agree; your points are valid.
Gala wrote:
Empathy and compassion are not the same thing. A narcissist can have compassion (pity that no one is as good looking, wealthy, etc.), but can he/she have empathy?
You are right that empathy and compassion aren't the same thing but they are closely related (as are pity and sympathy). IMO, a person who is able to express empathy is more likely to be able to express compassion as well.
But whether or not a narcissist can feel empathy would depend on which theory you accept. Under the bucket theory people are lumped into either/or binary buckets. Under that theory the answer would be no.
Under the homogenous theory people are ranked on a scale of 1 to 100 and everyone falls on that scale somewhere. A person could rank high on narcissism and low on empathy but they'd still have some level of empathy.
Miller, I'm not familiar enough with the study to know whether it involved glucose metabolism.
Here's an interesting study on emotion and the brain, and decision making.
Study: Emotion rules the brain's decisions
Updated 8/6/2006 7:02 PM ET
Enlarge Courtesy of University College London
Thoughts: The "prefrontal cortex" (circled) orchestrates thoughts and actions. A study shows it also fires up to resist the "framing effect" of a question during decision making.
Enlarge Courtesy of University College London
Conflict: Activation of the anterior cingulate cortex (circled) reflects the conflict between analytical and emotional responses when confronted with a choice to gamble or not gamble.
SPACE IN PHOTOS
Gallery: This week in space (Wednesdays)
By Dan Vergano, USA TODAY
The evidence has been piling up throughout history, and now neuroscientists have proved it's true: The brain's wiring emphatically relies on emotion over intellect in decision-making.
A brain-imaging study reported in the current Science examines "framing," a hot topic among psychologists, economists and political hucksters.
Framing studies have shown that how a question is posed ?- think negative ads, for instance ?- skews decision-making. But no one showed exactly how this effect worked in the human brain until the brain-imaging study led by Benedetto De Martino of University College London.
De Martino and colleagues asked 20 men and women to undergo three 17-minute brain scans while being asked to gamble ?- or not ?- with an initial pot of English pounds worth about $95. When told they would "keep" 40% of their money if they didn't gamble, the volunteers chose to gamble only 43% of the time. Told they could "lose" 60% of the money if they didn't gamble, they rolled the dice 62% of the time.
Their chances of winning the money were carefully explained beforehand, and participants knew the odds were identical. But the framing effect still skewed their decisions significantly.
The brain images revealed the amygdala, a neural region that processes strong negative emotions such as fear, fired up vigorously in response to each two-second (on average) gambling decision. Where people resisted the framing effect, a brain region connected to positive emotions such as empathy, and another that activates whenever people face choices, lit up as well, seeming to duke it out over the decision.
"We found everyone showed emotional biases, more or less; no one was totally free of them," De Martino says. Even among the four participants who were aware they were inconsistent in decision-making, "they said, 'I know, I just couldn't help myself,' " he says.
The study comes amid a burst of research into neuroeconomics, which studies the brain's role in buying and selling decisions. Economists have embraced the idea in recent years that irrational psychology, rather than cool calculation, plays a role in such decisions. The brain study goes further and suggests that emotions rule decisions almost completely.
"The study is a very nice application of recent knowledge we've acquired about healthy cognition and emotion," says neuroscientist Antonio Damasio of the University of Southern California in Los Angeles, who was not part of the study.
"As a neuroethicist, I'd urge caution about over-interpreting this elegant study," says Judy Illes of the Center for Biomedical Ethics at Stanford University. In real life, decision-making is "an extremely complex behavior with both rational and irrational components," she says, and it is hard to capture completely in a lab setting.
Still, Illes calls the study intriguing and predicts it will lead to more work in the neuroeconomics arena.
De Martino acknowledges the study's limitations; the decisions described as rational in the study were simply consistent ones, not a measure of intelligence or correctness, he says. "I'm not sure you would really want someone like Mr. Spock making all your decisions."
In fact, people who lack emotions because of brain injuries often have difficulty making decisions at all, notes Damasio. The brain stores emotional memories of past decisions, and those are what drive people's choices in life, he suggests. "What makes you and me 'rational' is not suppressing our emotions, but tempering them in a positive way," he says.
Though neuroeconomics is a hot field, with hundreds of researchers attending a recent meeting in Paris on the topic, Damasio says brain imaging's biggest potential lies in teaching: "Our education system ignores the role of emotion in learning and decision-making."
:
Quote:You are still missing the entire point.
Things that are genetic are determined at the moment of conception. Once the gentic material from the egg and sperm combine, the genetic code is set.
I'm not missing the entire point, and this doesn't disagree with what I said
Quote:The 9 months of gestation and your entire life outside of the womb are "the environment". There is no "Environment occurs". The environment has been occuring all along.
You seem a little confused - you just said the environment doesn't occur, and then in the following sentence, you say the environment occurs.
Quote:The "trigger of the trigger" concept you advance is just dancing around.
Not at all, there is a sequence of events leading up to the chemical release, even if they happen over just a split second.
Quote:Where do you think these perceptions come from?
Many ?'places'. Often it is affected by the question a person asks themselves, or are asked. See CI's last post.
vikorr wrote:Quote:You are still missing the entire point.
Things that are genetic are determined at the moment of conception. Once the gentic material from the egg and sperm combine, the genetic code is set.
I'm not missing the entire point, and this doesn't disagree with what I said
Yes, you are missing the entire point. There is Nature vs. Nuture (or genetics vs. environment if you prefer). You claimed earlier that the environment nor genetics is responsible for compassion and went off on a tangent about chemical triggers and perceptions. There is no independent 3rd option of "perception". Perception is a result of either genetics or the environment (or some combination of both).
Thusfar this has been like a discussion about taking a car to the mechanic because it won't start and you're standing in the background yelling that the car is blue. It might be but that doesn't change the fact that the car won't start.
Quote:Quote:The 9 months of gestation and your entire life outside of the womb are "the environment". There is no "Environment occurs". The environment has been occuring all along.
You seem a little confused - you just said the environment doesn't occur, and then in the following sentence, you say the environment occurs.
The confusion is in your neglecting those pesky little quotation marks that I used. The environment in the context of the nature vs. nurture discussion isn't an incident/event as you implied with the use of "Environment occurs" in your post. (and which you further reinforced with the use of "environmental factor/event" in the same post)
Quote:Quote:The "trigger of the trigger" concept you advance is just dancing around.
Not at all, there is a sequence of events leading up to the chemical release, even if they happen over just a split second.
So what? The question was nature vs. nurture. The chemicals and the brain structure for any chemical release has to come from one or the other. That was the original question here - Is that chemical response (in regard to compassion) the result of genetics or a learned (environmental) behavior? You've previously dismissed both as possibilities.
Quote:Quote:Where do you think these perceptions come from?
Many ?'places'. Often it is affected by the question a person asks themselves, or are asked. See CI's last post.
Perhaps you should try rereading CI's last post because it doesn't support your assertion of perception as an independent entity in the nature vs. nurture debate. The entire article is based on the opening statement
"The brain's wiring emphatically relies on emotion over intellect in decision-making.".
That supports the idea that a person's perceptions are based upon how the brain is already wired at a given point time. Nature vs. Nurture however, is the discussion of how the brain's wiring gets into place up until that point in time.
Quote:You claimed earlier that the environment nor genetics is responsible for compassionÂ…
Considering the angle you are coming from, this is a misleading representation of what I have said.
Quote:and went off on a tangent about chemical triggers and perceptions.
True enough. That was because of a question CI asked regarding chemicals.
Quote:The confusion is in your neglecting those pesky little quotation marks that I used. The environment in the context of the nature vs. nurture discussion isn't an incident/event as you implied with the use of "Environment occurs" in your post. (and which you further reinforced with the use of "environmental factor/event" in the same post)
You still appear to be saying the environment doesn't occurÂ…events are always occurring within our environment.
Quote:So what? The question was nature vs. nurture.
How so? From what I can see, the chemical aspect of this discussion is purely one of nature, and whether the chemical release is responsible for compassion.
No one is arguing that genetics doesn't produce the chemical release, there is only an argument in relation to what triggers the genetic production of chemicals.
Quote:Perhaps you should try rereading CI's last post because it doesn't support your assertion of perception as an independent entity in the nature vs. nurture debate. The entire article is based on the opening statement "The brain's wiring emphatically relies on emotion over intellect in decision-making.".
And the simple fact is the emotions were triggered by perception. If you can accept that part, then we can talk about how perceptions are formed.
As a matter of interest, one might well ask if a new born baby is compassionate.
