Ali Davis sends a video about the miracle of mirror neurons. Find yours -- do what we're doing and watch this clip.
The git: There's home for the human race, because we're soft-wired for love and companionship and the desire to belong.
For Geek Week: 'The Empathic Civilization'
-
Fri May 28, 2010 11:45 AM EDT
Leave a Comment:
Love this!
Just one thing, I assume that "git" has the same meaning in American English as in British English -- is there a letter missing?
Probably someone answered this already, but the word should be 'gist'.
I suspect the missing letter is an S - as in 'gist'. And probably it's supposed to be 'hope' instead of 'home'.
I dunno, I kind of like git..
I like git as a word, and use it often, especially when I'm trying not to swear, but "The irritating or unpleasant person: There's ..." doesn't really work for me
Of course it could be being used as it is in Linux software development, to mean a fast software (information) repository which doesn't require network access but has all the information that you need to get the job at hand done. OK, Git is a specific program, but it wouldn't be the first time that a name of a thing has been taken to describe the thing that it does, such as "to google", Could work I guess, it is geek week after all!
Could cultural conflict be caused in part by being at different levels of empathy?
That there are groups today that still only empathize with members of their own religion is obvious. So if they seem to be wired differently from you, does that define them as "other" and shut down your mirror neurons for them? Does this enable atrocities?
And political parties? Sometimes they really do seem to be wired differently!
Re: Paragraph 2
Very important questions you raise. I think they articulate what many of us are thinking but do not bring to level of speech or writing. To try to answer seriously, one first must jetisen all notions of political correctness. Difficult to do even among friends because it will necessarily bring on often angry charges of culturism, racism, fascism and all the other "isms."
I do hope this line will get some interested responders.
Excellent presentation!
I thought it was interesting that Empathy was called an Invisible Hand, perhaps as a counter (or modification) to the metaphor coined by economist Adam Smith to describe the forces at play to allocate resources in an economy. One could argue that without Empathy, resources cannot be properly allocated because the the potential for unfairness, selfishness and greed.
The video "The Empathic Civilization" was brilliant. Too bad our political, religious and corporate leaders don't get this. And to think they are the ones who have been entrusted with the governing of our societies. Where was our "empathic" common sense when we put these leaders into power ?
This is an interesting question. I think that governments perceive themselves as motivated by empathy and a host of other virtues when it comes to allocating resources, but (and I'm thinking in particular of the U.S. government here) because of the way our system works, those who govern are often indebted to higher (corporate) powers, whose god is usually Mammon and whose generous monetary support helped to elect them in the first place. The elected who are genuinely empathetic and seek to serve the people fairly will have a difficult time in office (and that time will likely be short) trying to accomplish that and keeping the favor and financial support of the lobbies. If one is motivated by greed, obviously, one cannot be empathetic.
I've read that Smith's "Invisible hand" actually referred to the nationalism of Capitalists. They would choose to invest in their own nation instead of other states for empathic reasons. Investment meant factories, industry etc. It wasn't easily moved. Labor was mobile. Now capital is highly mobile and workers around the world compete for jobs.
The video " The Empathic Civilization" on mirror neurons was brilliant. Too bad our political, religious and corporate leaders don't get this principle and yet they are controlling and determining our future.
I loved this! Thanks. Empathy is a complex and mysterious process, and it is based on feedback. It's extremely difficult to maintain any kind of empathy without sensory feedback. The shortcuts we take (all our various tribes and clubs) fill our need to belong and simplify empathy by limiting it to a subset of people. Extending our empathy out to a very large group is probably not possible in the simplest sense; we need to create pathways of feedback that continually stimulate and also reward our empathy with responses in kind. That is a challenge for all in the media and technology worlds.
This is interesting, and his basic point--that humans are not driven by rational self interest--is basically right. But he gets so many details wrong it is grating.
Humans really are hyper-cooperative. This is well demonstrated in economic experiments, where people are willing (and indeed, happy) to choose "fair" solutions rather than rationally self interested solutions. Mirror neurons may be part of this, but there's got to be a good deal more, since this hyper-cooperativity is not seen in any other primate, except among kin groups (for well understood evolutionary reasons).
Humans likely had this hypercooperation with the development of behavioral modernity. Human hunter-gatherer groups certainly are cooperative beyond their kin groups. Hyper-cooperation is a human trait. This whole story of language and the expanding "in group" is nice, but lacks any real evidence other than the explanandum itself.
A superb review of the literature on this is
Hill, K, M. Barton, and AM Hurtado. 2009. The Emergence of Human Uniqueness. Evolutionary Anthropology 18: 187--200.
Did you contribute in any way toward Haiti, even with good thoughts? Was that motivated by self-interest?
I think this is a cynical generalization. Maybe with regard to the majority of people, it is true, but not for everyone.
That's true, and most of the time these feelings arise because I feel that it is * I* who have received the benefit for being able to do something. It's a grace, like receiving a gift which was totally unexpected and undeserved, and yes, I feel thankful about that, really.
I don't think there's anything on Earth more cooperative than an ant colony. Just sayin'.
The video "The Empathic Civilization" was brilliant. Too bad our political, religious and corporate leaders don't get this. And to think they are the ones who have been entrusted with the governing of our societies. Where was our "empathic" common sense when we put these leaders into power ?
Brilliant! Empathy is the basis of life and our reason for being. It's what defines us as human. Empathy is the secret to community, peace, love, harmony, cooperation, charity, the environmental movement, reducing crime, reducing violence, reducing abuse, ending wars, economic reform, and on & on & on.
You need to change your online name. Have you never done something for someone without thought of "What does this get for me?" If not, then my pity goes out to you.
It's fascinating. I know when a tone-deaf actor or singer sincerely tries to sing, I get a shiver of empathetic embarrassment... even if the singer is on television. I think it's really subconscious... I couldn't rationalize it if I tried.
My hang is that to elicit an empathetic reaction, the knowledge of the "victim's" plight has to be observed... not communicated. That was the "gist" I got from the presentation. By communication, I mean intentional encoding, transmission, decoding...To get an empathetic reaction of a spider walking up someone's arm, would merely telling me about it be enough to trigger a physiological reaction? I dunno... but if someone mentions sour pickles and sharp cheddar cheese, I may get the jaw tightening by remembering eating the things... if I actually see someone do it, I nearly always get it.
It appears that self-interest (and everything that is associated with it... prestige, dominance. etc.) is 'higher order' and, absent the primal restraint of empathy, these higher order interests will flourish. Well, that's what I got from the video. That and the feeling that I can't draw worth a damn.
The video "The Empathic Civilization" was brilliant. Too bad our political, religious and corporate leaders don't get this. And to think they are the ones who have been entrusted with the governing of our societies. Where was our "empathic" common sense when we put these leaders into power ?
I embrace John Lennon's "Imagine" in heart, mind and spirit from the first time I heard it as do so many others. I believe with the new technology connecting young people today, we have hope. Our battle will be with right wing nut jobs, bigots in power, religious extremists, corporate greed, political hypocrisy and the political dysfunctional. The Armageddon they are hell bent on heading towards need not be. We need things like this to be spoken and spread by responsible leaders on a daily basis. Idealistic? Only to those ready to give up, and I for one am not ready.
did that inspire you to fight the right wingers to the bitter end, Woody Woods? I didn't get much "politics" out of the clip, though I didn't really seek it. I suppose I missed the "battle cry" in the fast drawing.
So, so, so, so true and profound.
Love the animation, the explanation of how we relate to each other, and how we evolved. It's the tiny bit on the end that make me hesitant to click the "like" button on Facebook, Favorite the video on Youtube, and pass it on. What does "Prepare the ground work for an empathic civilization" mean? How does that brake down when it comes to practical application to public policy and the law?
Two weeks ago I might not have thought to ask that question. Rachel's last interview with Rand Paul has gotten me to take a harder look at how far a person or group will hold on to their Political idealism before they are willing to compromise. Then there is my unusual paranoia of "what does this guy want me to buy?". A little bit more context on what this organization wants to do moving forward would be helpful.
MLAO!!! I forgot all about that and I wasn't going there Mr. Black. :-)
Sorry. I forgot that there was a "war on empathy" going on when I made my first comment. I went from Liberal hero with my "Time to Let Joe Biden Off the Chain!" posts to being Glen Beck in less then 24 hours. ;-)
The video is a good start, but I need the details before I'm willing to support or condemn some thing. Though it does have the looks to good to be true vibe to it.
This gives me hope
Lets hope the species survive to see the day empathy becomes the driving factor on earth.
Wait a minute? Didn't Glenn Beck prove that empathy leads to Nazism? I'm onto your liberal tricks, The Rachel Maddow Show and Ali Davis!
Curses! Foiled again!
Nationalism and Socialism leads to Nazism according to Beck... oh, and the brutish tactics of "labor unions" to strong arm the timid or disinterested. I suppose watching someone getting beaten may cause an "empathetic reaction" with the one getting the beating, not the beater. (Unless it was that kid from the Never Ending Story.) Nationalism, Socialism, Workers... NationalSocialWorkers... Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei...
Nazis, for short. Glenn Beck may not be too far off if he's saying liberals are begging for the Perfect Storm(troopers) to settle all their problems.
"For every idealistic peacemaker willing to renounce his self-defence in favour of a weapons-free world, there is at least one warmaker anxious to exploit the other's good intentions." -- Margaret Thatcher
eek! Glenn Beck & ilk fail to evolve, remaining fixated in theological consciousness. Apparently, it's just a phase—wake me when it's over.
I choose not to submit, recruit.
Lewis Black: "Glenn Beck Has Nazi Tourette's" (VIDEO)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/13/lewis-black-glenn-beck-ha_n_574659.html
Enjoy.
That was pretty fun to watch. Like the UPS guy, I found the super cool whiteboard drawing to be not a distraction, but something that kept me watching and listening... Too bad civil procedure wasn't presented like that... "UPS Guy Civ Pro Primer: the video"
A society grows great when old men plant trees
whose shade they know they shall never sit under. - Greek Proverb
What exactly does that have to do with planting a tree for a future generation's enjoyment?
Of course. I'd forgotten about the brutal Tree Surgeon Purges of 1387.
So asking the government to regulate logging in order that future generations might be able to enjoy old-growth forests leads directly to tyranny?
How does that relate to the censorship of information and ideas you referred to in your original response?
I live in the Redwoods and I like it the way it is, thanks.
Selective harvesting works better anyway and encourages the growth of more trees so wood is continually available as a resource. Not only does clear-cutting actually produce less wood over the long run but it causes home-destroying landslides.
What they do is the select trees to cut down that will allow more sunlight to shine on other trees causing them to grow bigger. Bigger trees means more wood from fewer trees.
Hatenomor: I don’t want to shatter your world by breaking this to you, but there are no such things as free markets. All markets are regulated, either by governments or large corporations that exist solely due to government protections/authority. By the way, among all competing markets in the world, only the most effectively regulated ones survive and purvey long term prosperity.
Although you claim to be against hate, it is clear that you agree with the conservative hate rhetoric Republicans and the tea party lemmings spew on a regular basis, however, your incessantly unhinged comments do not change the reality that, Republicans are beholden to corrupt bankers and criminal corporations. The reason that your comments are unhinged, is because they are not supported by actual facts or legitimate arguments; none! You may find the notion of unfettered capitalism very appealing, which is your prerogative, or even see it as a right-wing- libertarian dream (however quixotic), but history of mankind has proven time and again that, it leads to lawlessness, human suffering and it ultimately fails; unfortunately not before it wreaks brutality and democide by lawless mobs and ruthless persecutions.
See if you could relate to this Buddhist Zen story: One day, a scorpion stood on the side of a stream and asked a frog to carry itself to the other side. “How do I know that you won't sting me?” the frog asked. “Because, if I sting you, I'll drown”, the scorpion answered. The frog thought about it and realized that the scorpion had a valid point. So the frog put the scorpion on its back and started ferrying it. But midway across the stream, the scorpion plunged its stinger into the frog's back. As they both began to drown, the frog gasped, “Why?” The scorpion replied, “Because it’s my nature.”
Peace.
The logging industry corrected their short sightedness because of pressure from environmentalists. Their interest was in making as much profit as quickly as possible, meaning the cheapest way to do something, until environmentalists pointed out to the public that it will run out in time. It is forces conflicting and questioning that creates correction.
By the time the Redwood National Park was created, 90% of redwoods had been logged already. 90%. And you know where that lumber went? Into the development of cities somewhere else.
Environmentalists certainly do live where they work and work where they live. For example, the headquarters for the Redwood National Park is in Del Norte County where, surprise surprise, the Redwood National Park is located. And there are residents in these areas that don't want loggers clear cutting their environment. It's ugly and makes a mess.
The forest actually creates a lot of jobs that don't pertain to logging. We have park rangers, fire fighters, wood carving artists, tour guides and...Trees of Mystery. Yep, those dang environmentalists living off the land and taking care of it for people who come to visit.
“Those countries that over regulate using wither and die. Just look at all those so called communist countries? Been there, done that.” - What does this gibberish actually mean? What does communism have to do with regulations in a market economy?
“I am one who believes that the current governmental and corporate models we have been using and continue to use are outdated.” ?! – More keyboard diarrhea, I presume. I guess you just like to spew words into meaningless arrangements. What’s an outdated governmental and corporate model? Get serious, dude. Try forming meaningful sentences and support your arguments with examples or something even remotely associated with an actual fact, not anecdotes or your own conjured up twisted fantasies.
Peace.
No...we don't quite agree. Local concerns do get addressed locally--because government is local. It's not only in Washington. The National Park Service is part of the federal government and employs local residents near National Parks, not people in Washington.
You have perhaps one of most strongest black and white outlooks of any person I've encountered on the Internet, hate. Everything is "Us vs Them" to you. Everything.
Are you referring to those environmentalists...those aliens from planet Enviorn? They don't exist. There is only "us." There is no "them."
Well, people fight over resources. And if we didn't have a system of government to sort it out, people would be shooting each other over water.
I don't live anywhere near that though. I live like 8 hours north of the bay in Fort Dick, CA. My water comes from a well in my yard that was dug by my partner's great-great-grandparents. Shall I assume you're from California since you seem to be okay sticking your nose in the water issues?
Is this a conversation you had in your head? I never discussed corporate farming or the Bay-Delta. Or are you talking to peacemonger?
I'll bite anyway since you brought it up.
When Foster Farms (corporate) bought out Humboldt Creamery (local) people in Humboldt and Del Norte counties lost jobs. Large corporate farms provide less jobs than independent farms. They do produce more product and make a bigger profit, but not more jobs.
Democrat and Republican really doesn't mean much in a historic sense since both parties have changed considerably. The Segregationists left the Democratic Party in 1948 creating the "States' Rights Democratic Party" and later joined the Republican Party. The Democratic Party used to be the party of state's rights (which is why they so loathed Lincoln). Folks who favored the right of local government to create and enforce Jim Crow laws were Dixiecrats.
All and all, I think you must have some severe cognitive dissonance going on.
Hatenomor: the issue is not your English or grammar (not that we all couldn’t use a refresher) but it's the nature of your meaningless spewing of absurd and unhinged views. They are unhinged because they are not grounded on any facts or in no way associated with the real world we live in. For example,
When did we employ communism or fascism in America? What is “corporatism”? If you’d remove your blinders you may be able to see why your comments are totally meaningless and absurd.
Why do you seem to not associate “government” with “we the people”?
Again, more keyboard diarrhea! Our founders grappled between the notions of a strong central government (Federalists) and limited government (Anti-federalists who opposed the constitution which replaced the “Articles of Confederation”) at the very onset. After the signing of the constitution the federalist and Anti-federalist views were debated very contentiously throughout the ratification process by each of the 13 states. Federalists came out as the victor however this contentious debate paved the way for our most cherished “Bill of Rights” (with special thanks to James Madison). Similarly, during the first administration of President George Washington (a Federalist) two factions emerged; Federalists with the likes of Alexander Hamilton(Secretary of Treasury) in favor of commercial growth and strong central government and Democratic-Republicans with the likes of Thomas Jefferson (Secretary of State) who argued for the dominance of an agrarian national economy and a limited government role. Now, one would have to put things in perspective here that it was late 18th century, we had not yet begun the western expansion or the industrial revolution, French revolution was in full action and the founders still managed to forge a progressive strategy for America going forward. Yet, slavery was still legal, only white property owners had the right to vote and women did not have any legal rights whatsoever in our newly forged democracy. In 1794, President Washington quelled the “whiskey rebellion” in PA with a 15,000-strong militia, against a few hundred grain farmers protesting federal tax on whiskey. Today’s tea party lemmings would be screaming “big gubmint, big gubmint” in opposition to President Washington, a war hero who was unanimously elected as our first president. In 1803, with the Marbury v. Madison ruling, the precedent was established affirming that it was Federal courts not the states who could decide the constitutionality of Congressional Acts. Granted, there is still a major bone of contention between the states’ rights proponents and the defenders of federal laws in today’s America. Typically, today’s Democratic Party comprise, civil libertarians, progressives, social-liberals, centrists and even conservatives (a.k.a. blue dogs) with overall forward thinking and progressive platforms. By the way, today’s African American community votes 85-95 % for the Democratic Party, who for the most part had voted Republican until FDR’s “New Deal” legislation in the 30’s which provided specific government protections regarding civil rights. It was President Truman who integrated the armed forces in 1948. Also, it was JFK and LBJ who pressed for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 with the help of bi-partisan efforts in Congress.
Dude, just a few posts below you’re defending Glen Beck; one of the most heinous purveyors of hate speech in today’s media. Get a grip!
We could keep going on and on like this but perhaps there’s a slight chance you’ll realize that, the meaningless utterances you post on this blog are just plain absurd and unhinged.
Peace.
Amen. And I don't even read'em. (I just squint and scroll.)
No thanks, hatenomor, but thanks.
hate, you're really just anti-1948-Democratic-Party and pro-1863-Republican-Party. The problem is, it's 2010.
President Truman, a Democrat, desegregated the military and created The President's Committee on Civil Rights.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was introduced by a Democrat and filibustered by a Republican.
You just keep on trying to demonize the Democratic Party like it's pre-1964. I think it's odd that you think the Democratic Party is so horrible for having the courage to change, even though they knew they'd lose party members and the southern vote. And yet you embrace the Republican Party that embraced the segregationists just to pick up a few more votes.
Progressives have always been about being open to change while conservatives fight to keep things as they are.
By the way, a defining feature of Communism is the abolishment of classes. That's the main goal of communism. The segregationists claimed that "Race Mixing is Communism."
Someone send that to Glenn "Empathy leads to making really really bad decisions" Beck?
I guess he just hasn't reached that 3 y/o-level of child or perhaps evolutionary development or that he's neurologically deficient.
Then again, more proof that conservatives are healthy mentally as we're not wired for aggression, violence, self-interest, etc.
Only TRMS could find this! I love it. It sorta says to me that John, Paul, George, and Ringo had it right..."Love is all you need." And some empathy.
This is so beautiful. I think we need more theories like this "Homo Empathicus" in the world.
That was neat - very entertaining and thought provoking. Thanks for finding and posting it.
Mirror neurons: the origin of the Golden Rule and its derivatives, I believe.
thank you!:)
This was very interesting, though (at the risk of being a nit-picker) the brief discussion of genetic origins is slightly misleading.
Yes, all humans can trace descent to a specific (but unknown) man and woman, but they are NOT the only individuals of their times to have passed genes to the extant human race, just the only ones to have passed the Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA on to everyone in the extant human race. These two individuals probably didn't even live at the same time. Saying that "the Bible actually got this one right" is...wrong.
If this doesn't make immediate sense, keep in mind that (assuming "Eve" came before "Adam") other men unrelated to either had daughters with the female descendants of "mitochondrial Eve" who would have then reproduced with "Y-chromosome Adam" AND his male descendants. Many, if not all, of us are also descended from these other men, but as they are not in our direct paternal lineage they did not make a Y-chromosome contribution and thus can not be tracked. Meanwhile everyone in the lineage of "Adam" would have made their contributions but only the patrilinear descent is traceable and although his matrilineal line is certainly as important as Eve's (assuming "Adam" was not in fact a descendant of "Eve") he did not contribute mitochondrial DNA for the fact that males do not bear young, and thus that line is untraceable with current technology.
Why is this clarification important to the discussion? When we talk about these individuals, we are not talking about the origin of the entire genome but rather the LAST male and female contributors to all of surviving human Y-chromosomes and mitochondrial DNA, respectively, but not necessarily the rest. It is unlikely that mirror neurons or any other integral components of empathetic drives in humans are directly linked to the Y-chromosome (though not impossible considering current research into genetic origins of autism-spectrum disorders) and there is close to zero chance that it is linked to mitochondrial DNA (its not part of the genome).
This was raised in the video to illustrate that humans should think of ourselves and an extended family, and that point is still valid in my opinion. But the geek in me won't allow this misrepresentation stand without clarification.
Wonderful video. I love what it does to open up the conversation in terms of creating the future intentionally in the context of what's possible. The one thing that ties it all together is breaking down the "Us vs Them" by extending the "Us" out farther and farther. What I think the video fails to recognize is that in the past, every time that we've done that, it is because a larger world has been opened up to us and therefore a larger "Them" is now available, and as a response we grow our concept of "Us" to compete. So the natural progression seems to be that we like to have a pretty stable balance between "Us" and "Them" in terms of our concept of the world that surrounds us.
To be more specific, "Us" as a familiar has no relevance if there is not a "Them" as a foreign to contrast it against. In that respect, I think until we establish steady contact with truly alien worlds, we're going to find it difficult to extend our concept of "Us" to encompass the entire planet Earth, at least for more than short bursts of time in response to tragedy.
As always, just my thoughts.