So, that would be nurture and environment......
I took this psych class as an undergrad in Education; in it we saw a film of a fascinating study showing compassion displayed by two year olds. They set up several different situations to see if a 2 year old would do something that was completely altruistic without being prompted. Like helping an adult find something he had "accidently" dropped, or helping an adult find the way to turn a doorknop when he was "confused" about how to get out of the room.
The point was, of course, trying to pinpoint where that altruistic urge came from, since the child had not been expressly taught by its parents to do those things.
" The quality of mercy is not strained.
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath. It is twice blest:
It blesseth him that gives, and him that takes. "
Bill Shakespeare
Hm. Years ago I went in and out of Kansas City General Hospital, where the entire quote beginning with, "The quality of mercy is not strained...," was carved on the face of the building. I read it several times a week, if not daily, for more than a year. It influenced my thoughts and choices, then to now. I still recite it to myself sometimes. This is an example of "learned" compassion.
To our "cold war" friend: Yes, I did feel empathy for a "Nazi," and if this man were tormenting himself in guilt I would have also felt compassion.
As a journalist I interviewed the man around 1990. He had been a soldier or low-end officer in the German army and fought in the battle of Stalingrad. Decades later, when I met him, he was going to the Soviet Union with some US government exchange program to help an enormous and productive dairy collective solve its problem of producing tons of milk in a day, lacking refrigeration, and having the milk spoil en route to the nearest cities on bumpy roads, hours away.
Would we call him a Nazi? I don't recall that he belonged to the Nazi party but he did attend their youth programs, and he definitely fought in the "Nazi" army. He was not a communist. He came to the US after the war, became a successful small capitalist, and was about to retire.
He told me he wanted to give back something to the people he and his army had fought and killed, and to the society they had severely damaged. The man could not forget fighting hand-to-hand with Soviet human beings, room to room, floor to floor, as his own army invaded their country. He clearly admired their bravery, but that would not mean he owed them a debt. This man felt he wanted to do something meaningful for them, using his expertise, as a sort of retribution from the heart.
Ironically, an editor (a WWII child) changed my story to make the man seem like a self-promoter--and that's how the story ran.
For this discussion, I believe a need to return or restore a kindness is also innate and related to empathy and compassion. People make amends and return kindness in "every" culture, unless they tell themselves a story to curb the urge. There is evidence that people tend to dehumanize "enemies," or "races," to change their perceived "reality" about some "others," and to go into attack/defend mode, to defend their story. It becomes important that others validate the story they're telling themselves about someone else's inhumanity. Is this anti-empathic behavior learned? Genetic?--or both? It seems to me that we need a belief to curb a more basic (empathic/compassionate) human urge.
-Sal
SallyMander, very well stated. I like the anecdote of the German soldier who tried to make amends. It reminds me of Aldous Huxley's conclusion that humans are decent beings if given a chance. It suggests to me that environment, particularly our institutional forces, push people in the direction of egoism or altruism, and for that reason we should focus at least equal attention to our educational and political environments as well as our usual "spiritual" (individual developing) environments.
SallyMander wrote:Hm. Years ago I went in and out of Kansas City General Hospital, where the entire quote beginning with, "The quality of mercy is not strained...," was carved on the face of the building. I read it several times a week, if not daily, for more than a year. It influenced my thoughts and choices, then to now. I still recite it to myself sometimes. This is an example of "learned" compassion.
To our "cold war" friend: Yes, I did feel empathy for a "Nazi," and if this man were tormenting himself in guilt I would have also felt compassion.
As a journalist I interviewed the man around 1990. He had been a soldier or low-end officer in the German army and fought in the battle of Stalingrad. Decades later, when I met him, he was going to the Soviet Union with some US government exchange program to help an enormous and productive dairy collective solve its problem of producing tons of milk in a day, lacking refrigeration, and having the milk spoil en route to the nearest cities on bumpy roads, hours away.
Would we call him a Nazi? I don't recall that he belonged to the Nazi party but he did attend their youth programs, and he definitely fought in the "Nazi" army. He was not a communist. He came to the US after the war, became a successful small capitalist, and was about to retire.
He told me he wanted to give back something to the people he and his army had fought and killed, and to the society they had severely damaged. The man could not forget fighting hand-to-hand with Soviet human beings, room to room, floor to floor, as his own army invaded their country. He clearly admired their bravery, but that would not mean he owed them a debt. This man felt he wanted to do something meaningful for them, using his expertise, as a sort of retribution from the heart.
Ironically, an editor (a WWII child) changed my story to make the man seem like a self-promoter--and that's how the story ran.
For this discussion, I believe a need to return or restore a kindness is also innate and related to empathy and compassion. People make amends and return kindness in "every" culture, unless they tell themselves a story to curb the urge. There is evidence that people tend to dehumanize "enemies," or "races," to change their perceived "reality" about some "others," and to go into attack/defend mode, to defend their story. It becomes important that others validate the story they're telling themselves about someone else's inhumanity. Is this anti-empathic behavior learned? Genetic?--or both? It seems to me that we need a belief to curb a more basic (empathic/compassionate) human urge.
-Sal
Thank u for your interesting,
and well reasoned response.
U make some good points,
with which I agree and which I admire.
However, it remains in doubtful taste
to
pay someone
to play the communist anthem,
symbolic of universal slavery and mass murders.
THAT is not very nice.
David
JLNobody wrote:SallyMander, very well stated. I like the anecdote of the German soldier who tried to make amends.
It reminds me of Aldous Huxley's conclusion
that humans are decent beings if given a chance.
Forgive my skepticism,
if u mean to include
ALL humans.
Was Charles Manson a decent being
when he approved the murderous raid on Sharon Tate 's (
unarmed ) house party ?
OmSigDAVID wrote:JLNobody wrote:SallyMander, very well stated. I like the anecdote of the German soldier who tried to make amends.
It reminds me of Aldous Huxley's conclusion
that humans are decent beings if given a chance.
Forgive my skepticism,
if u mean to include
ALL humans.
Was Charles Manson a decent being
when he approved the murderous raid on Sharon Tate 's (
unarmed ) house party ?
I believe there are articles on the brains of criminals/killers that shows less "heat" or activity, so not "all" humans have the potential to be decent.
I also enjoyed reading Sal's account of that German soldier. Thanks.
I think Huxley's generalization was not meant to be a universalization. There must be SOME genetic factors that can render SOME individuals "inherently" dangerous. "Bad" is a value judgement that I do not embrace as easily as can OSDavid (I suspect). Even that monster, Manson can be seen to be a victim of his life circumstance. That is no reason, of course, not to protect ourselves from him and those like him. But we need not take pleasure in dehumanizing him. To so is, as far as I'm concerned, a sub-virtuous act in itself. I prefer to protect myself while refraining from the casting of stones.
Here's an interesting study on violence and brain scans.
http://www.myhealthsense.com/F020326_violence.html
I tend--in ignorance, no doubt--to wonder if the cause-effect links suggested by these scan studies are accurate. What if the scanned phenomena (lights, etc.) were neither cause nor effect of actions? what if they are mere corrolaries of actions and feelings, the physical footprints, as it were of the former? Brain damage, on the other hand, seems more likely to have causal force.
I don't think any of the studies makes that differentiation. Since most of those brain scans are done after the fact to be used in court, I know of no study that shows preexisting condition.
I don't think any of the studies makes that differentiation. Since most of those brain scans are done after the fact to be used in court, I know of no study that shows preexisting condition.
JLNobody wrote:I think Huxley's generalization was not meant to be a universalization.
There must be SOME genetic factors that can render SOME individuals "inherently" dangerous.
"Bad" is a value judgement that I do not embrace as easily as can OSDavid (I suspect).
Whether someone is bad ( in the sense of being intolerably dangerous ),
is something that we need to judge from his historical conduct,
as an indicator of how he is likely to act in the near future.
This information is useful for defensive purposes,
in calculating probabilities.
Bad ( in the sense of guilt ) is also a quality that we must judge
in deciding how to resolve both civil and criminal litigation.
Quote:Even that monster, Manson can be seen to be a victim of his life circumstance.
That is no reason, of course, not to protect ourselves from him
and those like him.
Agreed.
Quote:But we need not take pleasure in dehumanizing him.
To so is, as far as I'm concerned, a sub-virtuous act in itself.
I prefer to protect myself while refraining from the casting of stones.
Do u admit that ( based on his conduct ) he can virtuously be considered
to be a
BAD HUMAN ? Like Saddam, or Manson, or Pol Pot ?
Well, I'm glad you found my story of the former German soldier valuable.
As for Charles Manson, Jeffrey Dahmer, and others, as someone wrote earlier, not all potential is realized. And you can't unboil an egg (meaning: some changes are not reversible).
-S
Don't forget Tim; he was a biggie.
I just read the brain article from cicerone imposter's link. Thanks, cic! The reference to a cocktail of factors contributing to violent behavior patterns seemed important to me.
Plus, it's easy to forget the interactive and interrelated biology of life. We cook up hormones through our life experiences and thoughts too, and those hormones can overstimulate or understimulate key regions and functions in the brain. Looking just at MRI readings can unduly isolate the brain part of a complex and fluctuating system.
So we get a cocktail of physical, experiential, nutritional, biochemical (plus-plus) stimuli, and even they vary with stress, thoughts, perceptions, and expectations. Relative to those factors, brain activity (including cool brains or whatever) can be the _product_ of other factors, as well as instigators of lack of empathy or violent acts--with some physical constraints or constants, such as brain damage.
By the way, my testosterone "always" tests high, but I have no history of violent outbursts or other symptoms listed in the article.
-S
SallyMander wrote:I just read the brain article from cicerone imposter's link. Thanks, cic! The reference to a cocktail of factors contributing to violent behavior patterns seemed important to me.
Plus, it's easy to forget the interactive and interrelated biology of life. We cook up hormones through our life experiences and thoughts too, and those hormones can overstimulate or understimulate key regions and functions in the brain. Looking just at MRI readings can unduly isolate the brain part of a complex and fluctuating system.
So we get a cocktail of physical, experiential, nutritional, biochemical (plus-plus) stimuli, and even they vary with stress, thoughts, perceptions, and expectations. Relative to those factors, brain activity (including cool brains or whatever) can be the _product_ of other factors, as well as instigators of lack of empathy or violent acts--with some physical constraints or constants, such as brain damage.
By the way, my testosterone "always" tests high, but I have no history of violent outbursts or other symptoms listed in the article.
-S
Yes.
This was dramaticly demonstrated to me about 35 years ago,
when I was upset and quietly angry
concerning what I deemed to be a social offense
by a member of my family.
However, she left me a very fine Italian meal.
After consuming it,
I felt very, very good and much more tranquil.
Because this change in my emotions was over a very short period of time,
it became clear to me that I 'd been influenced by low blood sugar,
without my being aware of it -- thinking in error -- that my bad mood
resulted from external events.
David
