This is my belief. At least for now...
Yeah yeah, so I said I'd talk more about environments first, but unfortunately empathy keeps coming up so now my mind is fixating on that topic, and I've learned enough to know not to fight natural focuses in these scenarios. Plus, this is a fucking LIVEJOURNAL so 1. big fat hairy deal, and 2. it wouldn't exactly be LIVE if I didn't write these entries compulsively and gave into a silly idea like PLANNING. Summary at the end for you lazy people. I'll try to be consistent and do that for all future entries of this nature, as it is also useful for me as well as the readers.
So empathy. Empathy gets a lot of special attention because it relates to consciousness tests ("Theory of Mind"), and every philosopher and half of scientists really dig the consciousness debates. I used to be REALLY interested in the problem, but many factors contributed to a shift in my attention. These discussions are a sort of evolution of my old thoughts on the problem, but many factors contributed to a shift in my attention. Since our own high level of consciousness is one thing that distinguishes us from other species, its just a part of this here struggle to find out how these things became genetically advantageous. The actual mechanisms of consciousness are still important to me, but after taking all of these neuroscience classes I've come to think that consciousness may not be as complicated as people want to believe, and at very least not particularly interesting, anatomically or functionally.
Right, so empathy gets a lot of attention. I should note that it and other higher order emotions basically require human testing. The stuff I do for a "living" is about as close as you can get in other animals, where we look things like expectations of stimuli, distributed neural effects, and borderline categorizations via single and multi unit electrode recordings. However, the simple facts are 1. that you can't be sure enough of what the animals are actually doing to work with higher order cognitive processes, 2. the animals might not even be smart enough to possess these faculties, 3. electrodes are too specific to analyze higher order processes like these unless you use a FUCKTON of them, which simply isn't practical. The useful studies in this area all come from lesion, TMS, and fMRI experiments and maybe some MEG shit or something no one actually does.
Here's the sociobiological low-down: empathy is useful for individuals because it allows them to better understand the motivations and actions of their fellow animals. In solitary species, the process is basically useless. The only time they have significant interactions with other members of their species are when they mate and when they are raising offspring.
Let's use the cheetah as an example. Honestly, they don't need any empathy when mating. A male smells the scents of a female in heat, tracks her down, and then copulates with her. That's how they roll. Females are entirely responsible for raising the resulting offspring. Empathy becomes quite important here, as a mother cheetah must be able to at least somewhat understand what a kitten is likely to think, in case they run off, get lost, or end up in some other danger. They can't fend for themselves very well, so they need someone else to do that for them, and that happens to require some empathy.
So, this is a trend one tends to see across many species, genuses, families, and upwards. Yes, females tend to be more empathetic and "nurturing" as some people say. Yes, there are a small number of examples of sexual dimorphism in humans (fun fact: homosexuals also appears to have some significant anatomical differences from straight people). I could go on for a while about the significance of this information to human societies and where we should be going, but that's for another time, if at all. Likely just end up like one of my old rants, and I don't do those anymore.
On a lighter note, one can compare chimps and gorillas, two closely related species with oftentimes appalling sexuabehavioral differences (despite the fact that I completely made up that word). Chimps are a reasonably classic example of gynocentric families: aloof males, females handling all of the upbringing. Gorillas, on the other hand, live in closer knit troops where the males are a constant presence and even take part in raising and caring for the young.
At our earliest stage of development as a species, we were living more empathetic lives than gorillas. Homo erectus had simple tools and probably lived in hunter-gatherer groups. Neanderthal man certainly did. Archaeological evidence distinctly suggests that the earliest members of our species were hunter-gatherers. That kind of living keeps all the members of the group together in close quarters. The roles at this point were pretty simple: hunting was largely a male task, but gathering could generally be performed by anyone. Childbearing and bearing was predominantly a female task, but males were certainly involved, possibly more so than gorillas. The fossil record doesn't really tell us a lot about the group dynamics of this period, so I have to be somewhat vague in how I depict the situation, but at very least these proposed roles seem to make sense to scientists.
Okay, so how does empathy fit in? As mentioned in a previous entry, in order for these groups to function with a genetic fitness benefit for all those involved, they have to be kin based. Empathy is generally associated with a "caring" nature. Early humans are likely to empathize with their fellows because in understanding their problems, they can help them, and in helping them they improve their own genetic fitness, plus, maintain the framework where others also tend to empathize with and help the original individual.
That's why empathy became a big thing in humans. But here is the slightly weird part: unlike some other behaviors, we can still empathize with other individuals even if we don't have a kin relationship with them. In this case, by empathize I solely mean attempting to place oneself in the mindset of another. So one could empathize with another individual's struggles, but if there are no genetic pressures or advantages, it would be most sensible to go about one's business, ignoring the information. If no genetic benefit presents itself in providing help/assistance, why bother?
This highlights one of the problems with many modern societies. We (let us say we means Americans for now) often live with our families, providing clear genetic benefits. The notable exceptions are our places of work - there are seldom familial relationships here anymore. We've built these institutions which appear to provide no genetic benefits to the participants.
Now, I'm not at ALL saying that this is a bad development. However, it is harder to maintain. Yet, it seems to have worked, or something... since we've managed to develop these massive civilizations. This is the nexus of everything, where it all goes awry. On the one hand you've got your genetic pressures which drive one to reproduce with others based on physical attributes - old world stuff from when ingenuity and brawn alone were what made for good genes.
However, its not quite so simple anymore. Seldom does brawn provide the makings of a prosperous living anymore. It has been superseded by other attributes based on social communication, foresight, and empathy. The more you can place yourself in another's place, the more you can understand what they are thinking, and hence, what actions they will take. People who are better at this can supersede such actions, or boost said actions if they are in that individual's interest. Still just more competition, except now it has been transplanted into a non-standard environment we've created. The dichotomy between environment and genetics rears has reared its ugly head again. I really should written the detailed post on that first, but I gots to keep it real. Next time I'll actually do it, and if this new density is any indication, that will probably be soon.
Bottom Line: Right now, it appears the empathy developed in evolution as an accessory to kin based selection, as seen in the early hunter gatherers, and some wild animal species. From a genetic perspective, this indicates that empathy is not unique to humans. However, like regret, environmental and possibly other influences have changed the importance of empathy so that for many, it carries far more significance than it did fifty thousand years ago (very similar to regret in this way). However, in quite a few cultures, empathy is not encouraged, for it is not a particularly natural expression, at least not in the levels many of us expect. It has been my experience through observation over the past few years that there is considerably less advanced empathy in the majority of the population than I expected.
This is the part where I become less objective and try to explain what I think is the best way to go about these things. I try to remain as objective as I can by following what I've learned through much observation (and I little experimentation). Somewhere in these posts I touched on a root of this, although I may not have been particularly lucent. The empathy issue ties into a problem that many people do not often consciously try to think about others mindsets. Empathy was once almost entirely a reflexive behavior, and remains so at many times. Sometimes you just have to do it to get a feel for the situation, otherwise you'll be totally clueless to what is transpiring. However, consciously thinking over the motivations and decisions of those you interact with, advanced empathy if you will, is... well, it is useful and quite elucidating at times. There just isn't enough good intentioned empathy out there.
Also, here are some references I used, since its good practice and it makes it less look like I'm just making shit up.
1. The Functional Architecture of Human Empathy
2. Evilpedia article about consciousness
3. Neural mechanisms and shit for empathy
So empathy. Empathy gets a lot of special attention because it relates to consciousness tests ("Theory of Mind"), and every philosopher and half of scientists really dig the consciousness debates. I used to be REALLY interested in the problem, but many factors contributed to a shift in my attention. These discussions are a sort of evolution of my old thoughts on the problem, but many factors contributed to a shift in my attention. Since our own high level of consciousness is one thing that distinguishes us from other species, its just a part of this here struggle to find out how these things became genetically advantageous. The actual mechanisms of consciousness are still important to me, but after taking all of these neuroscience classes I've come to think that consciousness may not be as complicated as people want to believe, and at very least not particularly interesting, anatomically or functionally.
Right, so empathy gets a lot of attention. I should note that it and other higher order emotions basically require human testing. The stuff I do for a "living" is about as close as you can get in other animals, where we look things like expectations of stimuli, distributed neural effects, and borderline categorizations via single and multi unit electrode recordings. However, the simple facts are 1. that you can't be sure enough of what the animals are actually doing to work with higher order cognitive processes, 2. the animals might not even be smart enough to possess these faculties, 3. electrodes are too specific to analyze higher order processes like these unless you use a FUCKTON of them, which simply isn't practical. The useful studies in this area all come from lesion, TMS, and fMRI experiments and maybe some MEG shit or something no one actually does.
Here's the sociobiological low-down: empathy is useful for individuals because it allows them to better understand the motivations and actions of their fellow animals. In solitary species, the process is basically useless. The only time they have significant interactions with other members of their species are when they mate and when they are raising offspring.
Let's use the cheetah as an example. Honestly, they don't need any empathy when mating. A male smells the scents of a female in heat, tracks her down, and then copulates with her. That's how they roll. Females are entirely responsible for raising the resulting offspring. Empathy becomes quite important here, as a mother cheetah must be able to at least somewhat understand what a kitten is likely to think, in case they run off, get lost, or end up in some other danger. They can't fend for themselves very well, so they need someone else to do that for them, and that happens to require some empathy.
So, this is a trend one tends to see across many species, genuses, families, and upwards. Yes, females tend to be more empathetic and "nurturing" as some people say. Yes, there are a small number of examples of sexual dimorphism in humans (fun fact: homosexuals also appears to have some significant anatomical differences from straight people). I could go on for a while about the significance of this information to human societies and where we should be going, but that's for another time, if at all. Likely just end up like one of my old rants, and I don't do those anymore.
On a lighter note, one can compare chimps and gorillas, two closely related species with oftentimes appalling sexuabehavioral differences (despite the fact that I completely made up that word). Chimps are a reasonably classic example of gynocentric families: aloof males, females handling all of the upbringing. Gorillas, on the other hand, live in closer knit troops where the males are a constant presence and even take part in raising and caring for the young.
At our earliest stage of development as a species, we were living more empathetic lives than gorillas. Homo erectus had simple tools and probably lived in hunter-gatherer groups. Neanderthal man certainly did. Archaeological evidence distinctly suggests that the earliest members of our species were hunter-gatherers. That kind of living keeps all the members of the group together in close quarters. The roles at this point were pretty simple: hunting was largely a male task, but gathering could generally be performed by anyone. Childbearing and bearing was predominantly a female task, but males were certainly involved, possibly more so than gorillas. The fossil record doesn't really tell us a lot about the group dynamics of this period, so I have to be somewhat vague in how I depict the situation, but at very least these proposed roles seem to make sense to scientists.
Okay, so how does empathy fit in? As mentioned in a previous entry, in order for these groups to function with a genetic fitness benefit for all those involved, they have to be kin based. Empathy is generally associated with a "caring" nature. Early humans are likely to empathize with their fellows because in understanding their problems, they can help them, and in helping them they improve their own genetic fitness, plus, maintain the framework where others also tend to empathize with and help the original individual.
That's why empathy became a big thing in humans. But here is the slightly weird part: unlike some other behaviors, we can still empathize with other individuals even if we don't have a kin relationship with them. In this case, by empathize I solely mean attempting to place oneself in the mindset of another. So one could empathize with another individual's struggles, but if there are no genetic pressures or advantages, it would be most sensible to go about one's business, ignoring the information. If no genetic benefit presents itself in providing help/assistance, why bother?
This highlights one of the problems with many modern societies. We (let us say we means Americans for now) often live with our families, providing clear genetic benefits. The notable exceptions are our places of work - there are seldom familial relationships here anymore. We've built these institutions which appear to provide no genetic benefits to the participants.
Now, I'm not at ALL saying that this is a bad development. However, it is harder to maintain. Yet, it seems to have worked, or something... since we've managed to develop these massive civilizations. This is the nexus of everything, where it all goes awry. On the one hand you've got your genetic pressures which drive one to reproduce with others based on physical attributes - old world stuff from when ingenuity and brawn alone were what made for good genes.
However, its not quite so simple anymore. Seldom does brawn provide the makings of a prosperous living anymore. It has been superseded by other attributes based on social communication, foresight, and empathy. The more you can place yourself in another's place, the more you can understand what they are thinking, and hence, what actions they will take. People who are better at this can supersede such actions, or boost said actions if they are in that individual's interest. Still just more competition, except now it has been transplanted into a non-standard environment we've created. The dichotomy between environment and genetics rears has reared its ugly head again. I really should written the detailed post on that first, but I gots to keep it real. Next time I'll actually do it, and if this new density is any indication, that will probably be soon.
Bottom Line: Right now, it appears the empathy developed in evolution as an accessory to kin based selection, as seen in the early hunter gatherers, and some wild animal species. From a genetic perspective, this indicates that empathy is not unique to humans. However, like regret, environmental and possibly other influences have changed the importance of empathy so that for many, it carries far more significance than it did fifty thousand years ago (very similar to regret in this way). However, in quite a few cultures, empathy is not encouraged, for it is not a particularly natural expression, at least not in the levels many of us expect. It has been my experience through observation over the past few years that there is considerably less advanced empathy in the majority of the population than I expected.
This is the part where I become less objective and try to explain what I think is the best way to go about these things. I try to remain as objective as I can by following what I've learned through much observation (and I little experimentation). Somewhere in these posts I touched on a root of this, although I may not have been particularly lucent. The empathy issue ties into a problem that many people do not often consciously try to think about others mindsets. Empathy was once almost entirely a reflexive behavior, and remains so at many times. Sometimes you just have to do it to get a feel for the situation, otherwise you'll be totally clueless to what is transpiring. However, consciously thinking over the motivations and decisions of those you interact with, advanced empathy if you will, is... well, it is useful and quite elucidating at times. There just isn't enough good intentioned empathy out there.
Also, here are some references I used, since its good practice and it makes it less look like I'm just making shit up.
1. The Functional Architecture of Human Empathy
2. Evilpedia article about consciousness
3. Neural mechanisms and shit for empathy