Two aspects to empathy

Post Reply New Topic

I suspect that domesticated animals have been bred over thousands of years for "high levels of empathy", as they were going to be around infants, and would likely be killed off if they were overly aggressive. The domesticated features of the animal seem to directly correlate with this. Humans have been domesticating each other for thousands of years as well, through natural and cultural driven selection.

While it is still necessary to have the warrior dogs for protection, that one wouldn't ordinarily have as an inside pet around infants, there is also a requirement for warrior humans as well. But, it's interesting that it seems like in countries that have avoided substantial sources of conflicts from outside of their country or conflicts inside the country on their soils for close to a century, that there is a greater domesticated quality among the people in the culture. I don't think it is just natural selection that causes it to happen, I think it is also a result of the expectations of culture within one lifetime.

In my own personal observation people's animals and their children often reflect the empathy/nurturing levels one sees in their parents/masters. Considering the animals have been bred for thousands of years for their domesticated qualities, the nurture factor shown to the animals resulting in their eventual disposition seems likely to affect humans in similar ways, potentially changing over the course of a lifetime, depending on what one is exposed to in the environment.

In some ways animals may have been bred as "super-empaths" in comparison to human beings, as non-empathic children are not usually discarded or dropped off at the pound when they show aggression toward other family members.

Effective means of reproductive control, allows people that do not have a strong nurturing instinct to make a decision not to reproduce that was never afforded to the degree it was until starting in the 1960's to 1973, with the pill and Roe Vs. Wade. The result seems like it would naturally be a generation that was more sensitive to the needs of others, with an overall lower propensity toward aggression. But, on the other hand it allowed a huge shift in cultural change potentially counteracting that effect.

Cats and Dogs retain the same basic parameters of survival; reliance on human beings and doing what it takes to keep a place close to human beings and that source of subsistence. Modern culture in some ways has replaced the perceived requirement for that human reliance on each other. In some ways dogs and cats may retain more of their "humanity"and empathy over the course of a lifetime, developed through natural selection over thousands of years. But, one of the main modern reasons for cats and dogs "extreme empathy for humans", seems to be removing the reproductive element of competition out of the equation at a very young age.

Domesticated animals are likely more important to the mental and physical health of their owners in western developed countries than any time in the past. I suppose some turn to them for something that can no longer be as strongly found through other human avenues of interaction. I think the animals can get empathy burnout from human beings that are continuously distressed. . Or, potentially never fully develop their empathic potential if it is not adequately shared.

aghogday - While I agree with most of your thoughts regarding domesticated animals, this does not explain why some people, including myself, have a strong inclination to be more empathic towards wild creatures than towards humans. Yes, domesticated cats have a special place in my heart, but in the 4 years that I've had a house of my own, I've rescued several birds and one hedgehog. I did not do this because I see these animals as 'cute' - which I don't - but because they were fellow living beings, and their suffering was very clear to me. I would just as readily help the kind of animal that humans mostly find disgusting, such as rats or martens - I've seen both around here, but they seemed healthy enough.

I just had a new thought. Maybe the issue is actually one of empathizing with physical suffering vs. emotional distress. In situations where humans are suffering physically, I feel strong empathy too and do whatever I can to help. But in situations when humans are in emotional distress, I often experience it as unnecessarily dramatic - and sometimes outright fake. Humans are very capable of faking emotional distress in order to manipulate others. Some have done it for so long that they've started to believe that their faked feelings are real - the boundary between reality and delusion is blurred. In such circumstances I do not empathize - why should I empathize with a delusion? - and so do not react in a way that is considered appropriate seen from a superficial point of view. I do not play games, and I try not to allow others to draw me into the games they play. (I grew up in a dysfunctional family, and so am perhaps overly suspicious of the intentions of others).

I walk a similar line as unsortable. I have wild life invasions on my property often, but I apply non-harm methods to encourage them to find other wilder areas to live. I do not get upset about it because they are just trying to survive – I can empathize with that.

However, when I have human invasions I tend to have more harmful thoughts towards them and wish I could put out a sign that tells them to stay away and mind their own business. I do not want to be rude or offend those who do leave me alone. They all do not invade, just some, and signs telling them all off would be inappropriate. I do have no trespassing signs, but they are not effective.

Also, because I am female (with youthful features) in a semi-rural, very conservative community, they do not give me the same respectful privacy as males receive. I live in a community where if they know something bothers you, that is exactly what many will do to get your attention. Why they want to bother me when I do nothing to bother them is difficult for me to understand. The empathy with them just is not there because of how I am treated. I have no idea how to fix the human invasions – both auditory off site and physically on site. Seemingly nice people, who are well liked by others (not just jerks that no one likes) take part in it.

Empathy for humans (of all types) ebbs and flows intermittently. For me it must be a chemical deficiency that causes it to decrease. I do not know what chemical is responsible for empathy, but I suspect oxytocin plays a role. I have never loved anyone; I do mean never. I can care very much (in the moment) about someone, but once the issue, task, cooperative event is resolved I go my separate way and do not look back. I do not seek out social interactions – I avoid them. I do not miss anyone when they are not around. It would be nice to have someone to call if I need an extra pair of hands or mind, but there is no one who will have that kind of relationship with me – the kind where we help each other when we need it but leave each other alone when there is not a task that needs to be accomplished. Humans hold me emotionally hostage. If I do not give them affection of some kind, they do not cooperate with me.

I think part of that may be that you may not put yourself on a pedestal above other animals. Animals of different species do show empathy for each other, and apparently are rewarded by the same type of warm and fuzzy feelings. I saw a picture of a gorilla holding a cat one time, and it seemed obvious from the gorilla's non verbal language that he was feeling an intrinsic reward.

My spouse and mother experience extreme empathy with characters on TV, which I have done in the past as well to a much lesser degree, but I don't watch much TV anymore so I no longer get lost in the TV trance. I had much higher levels of emotional contagion with people when I worked with hundreds of people everyday. Moving into an office environment, I became more oriented away from that emotional connection with people.

I think empathy is in a constant state of flux, throughout the course of a person's lifetime. Even if a person on the spectrum or someone designated as a psychopath or sociopath appears not to be able to demonstrate or feel empathy for others, I don't that is necessarily evidence that person never experienced strong empathy for someone whether it is a human animal or creature in the wild, or even a vehicle or other non-animate object. Most of the objects and tools that humans design can be easily anthropomorphized into a human relationship, whether it is an extension of arm power in a rake or fire"arm" or a house with windows that is living with bright eyes when the lights are on, and almost without a soul when it becomes vacated of life inside.

Most people personify objects to some degree, and there can definitely be warm and fuzzy attachments that go along with that personification. I can remember as a child being extremely attached to a stuffed animal and struggling why this stuffed animal that wasn't alive meant as much to me as my pets and family did as far as that feeling of connection/attachment. The idea that someone might rip the arm off the stuffed animal, that was a polar bear by the way, was as terrifying to me as if someone were to do it to a real animal.

Bullying is a big issue for people on the spectrum and fear of others can destroy any potential of warm feelings for other people. It shouldn't be too surprising that people that find themselves rejected this way, or through childhood abuse, turn to other things in life for comfort whether it is animals, solitary hobbies and pursuits, attachments to inanimate objects, or unfortunately for some substance and behavioral addictions, for those that have become numb to life and are desperately seeking to feel something or those that are escaping pain, physical and/or emotional discomfort

As much as people let me know I didn't meet the standard for existence in middle school, I had a dog and family that I was a focus of attention of every time I went home. And at least at school I was quiet enough and made good enough grades where the teachers seemed to smile and appreciate me. I was viscerally aware of the children I knew of that had seemed to experience none of the joys I had in life.

They had to adapt someway to survive, whether they gained a connection to the moon, trees, squirrels, light posts, or a million other things a resilient child can do to connect, survive and thrive, but I could only think about how lucky I was in comparison to them. Human adversity leads to human diversity. I suppose that is why the species has been as successful as it has in dominating the world.

Your connection and concern for wild animals is part of what humans have evolved for, only subordinate to other humans, tools for survival, and domesticated animals and the rest of the individual world view. Humans are no longer as necessary for direct cooperation for survival, but it appears that your instinct that we are in this world with a much bigger family is still intact.

A person who lives long enough can find themselves connected to almost everything they are aware of in their world, and become lost somewhere in it, or lose those connections to almost everything and become brutally self aware of how alone they are and realize that all they really had in life were the connections.

If I saw my polar bear again from childhood, it likely wouldn't mean anything to me now. But it still wouldn't mean I never felt empathy for it, or had an empathetic concern for it's welfare. All a part of that very powerful human and environment connection that has become much more of a man-made one. Flesh and blood humans have become a much smaller component with a much larger complex exoskeleton of culture with much different connections of reality and emotion.

There is no doubt in my mind I would had an electronic gadget as a 6 year old, rather than a polar bear, if I was born today. The connection I got from that bear was of the "oxytocin" and social theory of mind imagination variety. The connection from the electronic device, if a stimulating video game, is one of dopamine and the structured goal oriented variety. I'm sure electronic gadgets make slightly different human outcomes than stuffed animals. real animals, or human connections of greater "oxytocin" value. But all one can do is adapt, and hope for the best. .

My spouse always wanted to stop and save the big gopher turtles from crossing the street, and I felt guilty, but my tactile sensitivity issues and the idea of touching the turtle shell was aversive for me. Fur was more my thing. When I finally could move into the woods, I was lost in the pleasure of wild life, and the environment in general. Every blade of grass was special to me. I could imagine feeling the pain of the grass when I didn't water it..

I can't feel that pain anymore, and would have never imagined I would have missed it. Empathy both cognitive and emotional is usually described as a human specific and connective quality between two humans, but I don't think one can discount the power of humans to generate it, repress it, or apply it as they see fit in life in adaptations for survival. Some people even describe it as type of psychic phenomenon, but I suspect it is the lack of the natural connection that we can lose in modern life of feeling so much empathy both cognitive and emotional with the entire environment that more primitive peoples and animals likely share as those pathways in the brain may be much stronger.

I call it the "Emerald Forest" phenomenon, my older version of the newer "Avatar" film phenomenon where people became painfully aware of their disconnections as human beings with the natural environment, and some even contemplated suicide as a result. I withdrew from those that did not accept me into nature and found my connections there in my youth on isolated beaches and rivers that was my version of the Emerald forest and Avatar. Later in life it was the woods, in a rural neighborhood.

But, my greatest experience of the emerald forest was working in a smoky Bowling Center with hundreds of friendly human beings, most of whom seemed like they accepted me. They chose to come together for decades and do this bowling thing together in leagues, that I was never interested in, but I could literally feel their admiration and care for each other everyday as an emotional contagion, like a real life version of living in the "Cheers" TV show, where "everyone knows your name".

Social Networking is the electronic version of that along with other home activities, that has killed off the Bowling leagues, and many other "third place" activities in life away from home and work that people used to meet together in a tribal sort of way for decades together. Even churches are fading away as social networking takes their place. What can be lost is when family members die or move away the people in the third places that might have driven one to the hospital or to lend a hand in so many real world activities may no longer be anywhere to be found. I was mostly an observer rather than a participant, outside of work or school. I could react to social interaction but my ability to initiate it was always compromised.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emerald_Forest

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-01-11/ente ... PM:SHOWBIZ

i get frustrated and scared and very insecure at some people who are suffering because i desperately want to comfort them but have no earthly clue HOW. [/quote]

Totally agree!

Sorry for not responding before now. I have been more social in so-called 'real life' (I don't really like the distinction, as if the people I communicate with here aren't real, but I lack a better term) the last few days, and so have lacked the mental energy to respond properly.

I completely agree. I will go even further and claim that everything we think of as pertaining to our 'personality', i.e. our thoughts, emotions, memories, attitudes and behavior, is in a constant state of flux. Even the physical matter that make up our bodies is not the same from one day to the next. The idea that there is any kind of permanence and or solidity to our existence is a convenient illusion, a mental construct that on a superficial level makes it easier to navigate our daily lives, but it is not an ultimate truth.


The instinctual and spiritual connection I felt and still feel to the natural world as a whole has always been part of my life. Actually I was bullied because of it, I didn't seek it out because of the bullying. My mother feels the same connection, and so I assumed it was normal until I started kindergarten at age 5, and discovered that most other kids were nothing like me. Later in elementary school I was ridiculed for it, and some kids even enjoyed upsetting me by hurting and killing insects in front of me. It was not all bad, though. Aside from my mother I have had a few friends in my life with whom I could share my interests (all gone now though), and my partner also shares my interest in nature, although I'm not sure that he feels the same sense of deep connection that I do.

By the way, thank you for mentioning the moon - at the times in my life when I felt most alone, the moon was one of my 'friends'. It helped me to stay connected to reality and to keep a sober perspective on life.

Although I said that the connection to nature has always been a part of my life, it has definitely changed over the years, becoming more or less dominant depending on my connections to other humans or lack thereof. It has served to keep me grounded when I felt isolated, and is one of the major reasons that I am reasonably sane in spite of some really bad things happening to me by the hands of 'my fellow man'. I am in no doubt that without this connection I would have surely perished, and this belief has of course served to make me strengthen the bond even more.

I think I'm going to stop quoting now, and just go on to say that I have truly appreciated reading your posts in this thread. I have enjoyed sharing your insights. You have put a lot of things in to words that I have a hard time expressing myself and for that I thank you.

You have as well for me. Thanks.