1
   

Empathy is hard-wired into the mind, study finds

 
 
Reply Thu 22 Mar, 2007 08:55 am
Empathy is hard-wired into the mind, study finds
People with a certain type of brain damage showed less aversion to hurting others.
By Denise Gellene, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
March 22, 2007

Damage to the part of the brain that controls social emotions changes the way people respond to thorny moral problems, demonstrating the role of empathy and other feelings in life-or-death decisions.

Asked to resolve hypothetical dilemmas ?- such as tossing a person from a bridge into the path of a trolley to save five others ?- people with damage to their ventromedial prefrontal cortex tended to sacrifice one life to save many, according to a study published Wednesday by the journal Nature.

People with intact brains were far less likely to kill or harm someone when confronted with the same scenarios.

The study, funded by the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation and private sources, suggests that an aversion to hurting others is hard-wired into the brain.

"Part of our moral behavior is grounded … in a specific part of our brains," said Dr. Antonio Damasio, one of the study's lead authors and director of the Brain and Creativity Institute at USC.

The findings could not be used to predict actual behavior, Damasio said, because the scenarios presented in the study were unrealistic. More research is needed to determine if people with and without brain damage would react differently when faced with real-world dilemmas.

A finding linking a specific type of brain damage to day-to-day moral behavior could have legal implications in criminal cases. But researchers said the study was meant to explore the psychological underpinnings of moral actions, not to characterize decisions as right or wrong.

The ventromedial prefrontal cortex processes feelings of empathy, shame, compassion and guilt. Damage to this part of the brain, which occupies a small region in the forehead, causes a diminished capacity for social emotions but leaves logical reasoning intact.

Researchers from USC, the University of Iowa, Harvard University and Caltech posed 50 hypothetical scenarios to six people whose ventromedial prefrontal cortices were damaged by strokes or tumors. Their responses were compared to those given by 12 people without brain damage and 12 others with damage in brain areas that regulate other emotions, such as fear.

Researchers found no difference among groups in their responses to scenarios with no moral content, such as turning a tractor left to harvest turnips.

Scenarios that did not require participants to directly kill or harm someone elicited very similar responses among the groups. For example, people said they would classify personal expenses as business expenses to lower their taxes.

Additionally, members of all groups rejected decisions that would harm someone for the personal benefit of another, such as killing a newborn because a parent couldn't care for the infant.

But people with damage to their ventromedial prefrontal cortex were about three times as likely to sacrifice one person for the greater good compared to people without brain damage or those with damage in a different part of their brains.

Joshua D. Greene, a Harvard psychologist not involved in the research, said the study showed that moral judgment was shaped by two brain systems ?- one focused on intuitive emotional responses and another that controlled cognition.

"When one of those systems is compromised, decisions are skewed," he said.

Mirella Dapretto, associate professor of psychiatry at the UCLA Ahmanson-Lovelace Brain Mapping Center, said the brain might not work so simply.

"One reason these people may have the guts to push someone off a bridge is that they don't comprehend how their actions would be evaluated by others," she said.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 856 • Replies: 9
No top replies

 
stuh505
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Mar, 2007 09:02 am
Quote:
"One reason these people may have the guts to push someone off a bridge is that they don't comprehend how their actions would be evaluated by others," she said.


Interesting topic, and interesting point there.
0 Replies
 
Quincy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Mar, 2007 02:36 pm
I keep coming across this idea of pushing a person in front of a train to save a number of other people- psychiatrists/psychologists must have a thing for trains.
0 Replies
 
stuh505
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Mar, 2007 03:41 pm
If you push someone in front of a train you're a murderer. If you watch a trolley kill 5 people you're a witness/bystander. People die all the time and you'd have to be screwed up in the head to feel responsible for everyone that died just because it might have been somehow possible for you to save them. We think in terms of our own perspective not in terms of maximizing some global goodness function so it makes perfect sense that only people with dysfunctional brains would go around murdering people to save others.
0 Replies
 
Quincy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Mar, 2007 09:59 am
I must disagree stuh: you have a choice- to kill one person and save five, or save one and kill five- in that light it seems obvious that the loss of one life is not as bad as the loss of five. Pushing the one person may be murder of one person, but how could we say that allowing the murder of five rather than one, when you have the power to change that, is better? The rub comes with the fact that you have to physically push the person yourself. Consider (beware!, wildy hypothetical situation ahead); a maniacal mass murderer has said that he will definitely kill either one hostage, or kill five (forget motive and all that)- which would you rather have, if it was your choice? This is no different as the example where you push the one person, as; due to your choice, either one person or five will be killed.

But then with over-population and everything....
0 Replies
 
Quincy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Mar, 2007 10:06 am
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/31/health/psychology/31book.html?_r=1&8dpc&oref=slogin

Quote:
Who doesn't know the difference between right and wrong? Yet that essential knowledge, generally assumed to come from parental teaching or religious or legal instruction, could turn out to have a quite different origin.

Primatologists like Frans de Waal have long argued that the roots of human morality are evident in social animals like apes and monkeys. The animals' feelings of empathy and expectations of reciprocity are essential behaviors for mammalian group living and can be regarded as a counterpart of human morality.

Marc D. Hauser, a Harvard biologist, has built on this idea to propose that people are born with a moral grammar wired into their neural circuits by evolution. In a new book, "Moral Minds" (HarperCollins 2006), he argues that the grammar generates instant moral judgments which, in part because of the quick decisions that must be made in life-or-death situations, are inaccessible to the conscious mind.

People are generally unaware of this process because the mind is adept at coming up with plausible rationalizations for why it arrived at a decision generated subconsciously.

Dr. Hauser presents his argument as a hypothesis to be proved, not as an established fact. But it is an idea that he roots in solid ground, including his own and others' work with primates and in empirical results derived by moral philosophers.

snip

Suppose you are standing by a railroad track. Ahead, in a deep cutting from which no escape is possible, five people are walking on the track. You hear a train approaching. Beside you is a lever with which you can switch the train to a sidetrack. One person is walking on the sidetrack. Is it O.K. to pull the lever and save the five people, though one will die?

Most people say it is.

Assume now you are on a bridge overlooking the track. Ahead, five people on the track are at risk. You can save them by throwing down a heavy object into the path of the approaching train. One is available beside you, in the form of a fat man. Is it O.K. to push him to save the five?

Most people say no, although lives saved and lost are the same as in the first problem.

Why does the moral grammar generate such different judgments in apparently similar situations? It makes a distinction, Dr. Hauser writes, between a foreseen harm (the train killing the person on the track) and an intended harm (throwing the person in front of the train), despite the fact that the consequences are the same in either case. It also rates killing an animal as more acceptable than killing a person.

Many people cannot articulate the foreseen/intended distinction, Dr. Hauser says, a sign that it is being made at inaccessible levels of the mind. This inability challenges the general belief that moral behavior is learned. For if people cannot articulate the foreseen/intended distinction, how can they teach it?
0 Replies
 
stuh505
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Mar, 2007 10:12 am
I said it before and I'll say it again...people (you and I) don't actually care how many people die. Our happiness does not come about by minimizing population deaths.

Someone just died as I wrote this. Good riddance, I don't care...and you're not crying either. See, you don't care how many people are dying around you.

The only relevance that other peoples deaths have on you is

a) do you feel guilty
b) do you miss them

Sure you will feel guilty if you let 5 people die, but guilt is tied to your actions more so than to the results of your actions. If you push the person you will feel more guilty later on than if you just watched as a bystander. You'll feel guilty if you just watch and don't do anything but not nearly as guilty as if you killed someone...and rightly so, because it is not your responsibility to save every person and stop every murderer.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Mar, 2007 10:26 am
Some additional analysis of the situation would be required before I'd sacrifice a random person: is the one person responsible, somehow, for the five deaths? Are the five people responsible for standing on the train tracks, and thus accepted the risk themselves? Could you sacrifice yourself to save the five people, or just a random stranger?

A random person, not causally connected to the five people in danger, should not be required to become the sacrifice for the other's survival.
0 Replies
 
Quincy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Mar, 2007 03:35 pm
stuh505 wrote:
I said it before and I'll say it again...people (you and I) don't actually care how many people die. Our happiness does not come about by minimizing population deaths.


Why should everything be done for our own happiness? Is our happiness more important than the next person's? No, happiness is relative, and yours is not more important than anothers, individual happiness is no criterion for social relations and actions; the maximisation of hapiness for the maximum number of people should therefore be the aim- i.e. utilitarianism.
0 Replies
 
stuh505
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Mar, 2007 05:40 pm
I don't think it doesn't have anything to do with what makes sense, it has to do with how your emotions are hard-coded...
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Evolution 101 - Discussion by gungasnake
Typing Equations on a PC - Discussion by Brandon9000
The Future of Artificial Intelligence - Discussion by Brandon9000
The well known Mind vs Brain. - Discussion by crayon851
Scientists Offer Proof of 'Dark Matter' - Discussion by oralloy
Blue Saturn - Discussion by oralloy
Bald Eagle-DDT Myth Still Flying High - Discussion by gungasnake
DDT: A Weapon of Mass Survival - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Empathy is hard-wired into the mind, study finds
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/07/2026 at 02:11:51