Why isn't it said that neurotypicals lack empathy?

Post Reply New Topic

The criminal deserves face negative consequences for his actions. The vigilante is simply administrating justice. The law does not determine morality in my eyes.

Then go ahead and stick to this definition. Because what is obvious from your posts (including the first one) you equal the lack of empathy and the cruel behaviour (lack of compassion).

Empathy and compassion are often intertwined; thoughts do have some influence on behavior. Of course there are many variables to take into consideration.

This is not an assumption. this is a mere observation, or rather just stating a fact.

The assumption is below:


And I think that it is wrong.

No it does not but your judgement is altered and therefore you make wrong decisions. A vigilante who persecutes an innocent person would be the same as someone who harrasses someone unjustifiable and if they commit a crime while adminstering justice that is proven to be something that is not truly is just as wrong as any other criminal. In general you would leave yourself in a position where you would be attacking perceived threats some of them legitimate others not. This will cause others to see you as confrontational and the same league as those you hate. In otherwards you'd become what you hate so basically its up to you but by striking out your not adminstering justice since justice is objective and you in this mindset wouldn't be.

I beg your pardon, but this comment of yours does not make any sense to me at all. There are many concepts that are related somehow, however that does not mean that they could be used interchangeably. An egg does not negessarily mean an "omlette", though there is certainly some semantic relationship between the two.

Last edited by Naturella on 17 Dec 2008, 12:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Well, you can go and march all along the State Street in protest.

Last edited by Naturella on 17 Dec 2008, 12:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

There is no possible way to read the minds of every human being on the planet. The best indication of what is on the mind can sometimes (although not always, as people do put up fronts to protect their image) be found in outward behavior.

I think you lost track of your own arguments, my friend.

Last edited by Naturella on 17 Dec 2008, 12:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.

You are assuming there have never been any biased judges that decide upon the sentence of criminals according to their own subjective values and personal experiences (within the means of the law of course).

My point is that behavior can sometimes be used to interpret a person's inner thoughts.

Could people on both sides please clarify something for me? My general consensus from all the dictionary definitions I’ve read is that the word empathy is generally used to denote two different phenomena.

Summarizing these in my own words:

empathize

1.) To form an intuitive impression of what someone else might be thinking or feeling by imagining how things would appear/feel from their perspective.

2.) To vicariously experience the thoughts or emotions of someone else.

The first of my definitions seems, at least in my mind, to be primarily a voluntary act while the second may be either voluntary or involuntary. Also, the first definition requires little or no emotional investment. It’s easy to try and imagine what someone else is experiencing without being affected emotionally. In the second case, by definition, the person has to be affected emotionally to a certain degree.

As an aspie, I don’t employ the first form of empathy as often or as instinctually in social settings as an NT would. This is mostly because I’m usually more engrossed in the topic of conversation than the NT is. It’s nearly impossible for me to be continuously and simultaneously “feeling out” what might be going on in other people’s heads while I’m deeply engaged in the topic of discussion.

However, I don’t think I’m any less inclined to meaning 2 than most NT’s are. Sociopaths are very skilled in employing the first meaning of the word but probably have a deficit regarding the second meaning. I doubt they are very sensitive to the emotions their victims experience. If they were it wouldn’t be as easy for them to act the way they do. Unless they are some weird kind of sadomasochist.

Opinions?

(I hope this doesn’t get lost amongst all bickering going on)

And in what way is it related to your first argument that NTs lack empathy?

My oppinion is that I do not see much difference in meaning between the two, my friend.

Right. If you look at the nuts and bolts, it says the empathy area of the brain of bullies was even more active than those of non-bullies. But instead of being real empathy generated the paper said the function of those "curcuits" were "warped" into delivering pleasure. So instead of empathy-pains the empathy response is cross-wired, to deliver pleasure to the bully from watching pain.

"The new research showed these areas in the bullies' brains were even more active than in the nonbullies.

"But the bullies' empathetic response seemed to be warped by activity in the amygdala and ventral striatum, regions of the brain sometimes associated with reward and pleasure.

"We think it means that they like seeing people in pain," Lahey said.

"If that is true," he added, "they are getting positively reinforced every time they bully and are aggressive to other people."

This is why there must be stricter consequences for bullying. Operant conditioning is the only way to mold their behavior.