New neuroscience research shows liberals are bleeding hearts

essentialsaltes · Jul 15, 2023

New neuroscience research shows liberals experience more empathy than conservatives when they imagine others suffering

A recent study in Israel used brain scans to explore the differences in empathy between political liberals and conservatives. The researchers found that when imagining other people suffering, liberals tended to show stronger brain reactions associated with empathy compared to conservatives. This pattern of brain activity was linked to participants’ self-reported political beliefs. The study was published in Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience.

Previous studies have suggested a link between political ideology and empathy. These studies indicated that individuals with left-leaning ideologies tend to experience higher levels of empathy. However, since those studies relied on self-reports and questionnaires, it was unclear whether the reported differences in empathy were due to actual differences or simply how individuals perceived and reported their own levels of empathy.

Akita Suggagaki · Jul 15, 2023

I think there are studies showing that the practice of empathy changes the brain.

Ana the Ist · Jul 15, 2023

essentialsaltes said:
New neuroscience research shows liberals experience more empathy than conservatives when they imagine others suffering

A recent study in Israel used brain scans to explore the differences in empathy between political liberals and conservatives. The researchers found that when imagining other people suffering, liberals tended to show stronger brain reactions associated with empathy compared to conservatives. This pattern of brain activity was linked to participants’ self-reported political beliefs. The study was published in Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience.

Previous studies have suggested a link between political ideology and empathy. These studies indicated that individuals with left-leaning ideologies tend to experience higher levels of empathy. However, since those studies relied on self-reports and questionnaires, it was unclear whether the reported differences in empathy were due to actual differences or simply how individuals perceived and reported their own levels of empathy.

This is kind of old news...

I think a study I read awhile back (years ago) had the dichotomy pinned to one question and it was something like...

Which statement are you more likely to agree with?

1. All people suffer and it's our responsibility as good people to alleviate the suffering of others as much as possible by whatever means are available.

2. All people suffer and we are better off when they learn to alleviate their own suffering. Help may be necessary at times but if considered a given, people fail to learn how to avoid the suffering of their lives.

You can probably guess which group picks which statement.

public hermit · Jul 15, 2023

Ana the Ist said:
This is kind of old news...

I think a study I read awhile back (years ago) had the dichotomy pinned to one question and it was something like...

Which statement are you more likely to agree with?

1. All people suffer and it's our responsibility as good people to alleviate the suffering of others as much as possible by whatever means are available.

2. All people suffer and we are better off when they learn to alleviate their own suffering. Help may be necessary at times but if considered a given, people fail to learn how to avoid the suffering of their lives.

You can probably guess which group picks which statement.

There's got to be a reasonable, middle ground, where individual responsibility and compassion for others work together. If someone is hitting themselves in the head with a hammer, it is certainly their own doing and fault; nonetheless, someone should take the hammer away. Why are they doing that? Are they in pain? Do they need help? Are we just gonna watch? Are we disinterested voyeurs?

And why should we care? I think it's our default function to care, and if we don't, then something is off. But self-interest can be sufficient for the common good. We should care because we're interconnected and interdependent. We work better in cooperation than in some Hobbesian state of nature. What happens to others affects me.

But that's self-inflicted suffering. Not all suffering is self-inflicted. There are larger "systems" that inflict suffering. Some suffering is an accident of birth but the system/group dynamic/larger picture is not an accident. Those reduce to the collective choices of individuals. So individual responsibility mattters. But the system takes on a life of its own, transcending the individuals, even those with power. Those are also our problem because we're interconnected and interdependent.

I don't know if that makes sense, but I think there has to be a middle ground where compassion and enabling others to realize self-responsibility meet.

Ana the Ist · Jul 15, 2023

public hermit said:
There's got to be a reasonable, middle ground, where individual responsibility and compassion for others work together. If someone is hitting themselves in the head with a hammer, it is certainly their own doing and fault; nonetheless, someone should take the hammer away. Why are they doing that? Are they in pain? Do they need help? Are we just gonna watch? Are we disinterested voyeurs?

And why should we care? I think it's our default function to care, and if we don't, then something is off. But self-interest can be sufficient for the common good. We should care because we're interconnected and interdependent. We work better in cooperation than in some Hobbesian state of nature. What happens to others affects me.

But that's self-inflicted suffering. Not all suffering is self-inflicted. There are larger "systems" that inflict suffering. Some suffering is an accident of birth but the system/group dynamic/larger picture is not an accident. Those reduce to the collective choices of individuals. So individual responsibility mattters. But the system takes on a life of its own, transcending the individuals, even those with power. Those are also our problem because we're interconnected and interdependent.

I don't know if that makes sense, but I think there has to be a middle ground where compassion and enabling others to realize self-responsibility meet.

If you want an organizing principle I'll give you the one I consider fair....

In any system we create, some will succeed and some will fail while the great masses of us end up somewhere in between the two. There is no utopia because of this, and we are not equals, and even in the most egalitarian of systems someone will need to scrub the toilets, and they will likely be the least of us.

Think on them, what they deserve, and nothing more. If you've afforded them enough to maintain their humanity and dignity, you've done rather well.

That's about as cheerful an answer as I can muster at the moment lol.

public hermit · Jul 15, 2023

Ana the Ist said:
If you want an organizing principle I'll give you the one I consider fair....

In any system we create, some will succeed and some will fail while the great masses of us end up somewhere in between the two. There is no utopia because of this, and we are not equals, and even in the most egalitarian of systems someone will need to scrub the toilets, and they will likely be the least of us.

Think on them, what they deserve, and nothing more. If you've afforded them enough to maintain their humanity and dignity, you've done rather well.

That's about as cheerful an answer as I can muster at the moment lol.

That's not bad, I don't think. It's realistic. I'm sure we can always do better at affording the least "enough to maintain their humanity and dignity," and sometimes we utterly fail, but that's not a bad mark to try and hit. I think because there is no utopia we can always do better, and sometimes we can do better just because what we're doing isn't working.

Ana the Ist · Jul 15, 2023

public hermit said:
That's not bad, I don't think. It's realistic. I'm sure we can always do better at affording the least "enough to maintain their humanity and dignity," and sometimes we utterly fail, but that's not a bad mark to try and hit. I think because there is no utopia we can always do better, and sometimes we can do better just because what we're doing isn't working.

Well affording humanity and dignity includes the opportunity to succeed and fail. To choose for oneself. The least I can agree is that they should be able to put a roof over their head, food on their table, some degree of healthcare that's not impoverishment, a basic education, and something to save or spend as they choose.

That's not very much, and it's disappointing we fall short of it so often.

BPPLEE · Jul 16, 2023

Akita Suggagaki said:
I think there are studies showing that the practice of empathy changes the brain.

I think there are studies showing whatever you believe. People always seem to find them

FireDragon76 · Jul 18, 2023

That fits with data we've known about for some time.

Conservatives tend to have more fear-based responses to all kinds of stimuli, and to have a more adversarial worldview. Compassion is not one of their top virtues.

RocksInMyHead · Jul 18, 2023

I suspect that it's not that liberals are more empathetic, but rather that being empathetic tends to push you towards a more liberal worldview.

Niels · Jul 18, 2023

Ana the Ist said:
This is kind of old news...

I think a study I read awhile back (years ago) had the dichotomy pinned to one question and it was something like...

Which statement are you more likely to agree with?

1. All people suffer and it's our responsibility as good people to alleviate the suffering of others as much as possible by whatever means are available.

2. All people suffer and we are better off when they learn to alleviate their own suffering. Help may be necessary at times but if considered a given, people fail to learn how to avoid the suffering of their lives.

You can probably guess which group picks which statement.

Interesting.

I would be curious to see how the results might differ when comparing attitudes toward volunteerism vs. governmental action. There are many "conservatives" who volunteer at soup kitchens, volunteer with their local fire departments, and show how much they care about their communities in other tangible ways. Likewise, there are many "liberals" who simply trust the government to solve all problems rather than volunteering or otherwise investing their own personal time and energy into helping the community. From this perspective, which group would be considered more empathetic?

Of course there are many "liberals" who regularly volunteer and "conservatives" who don't lift a finger to help their neighbors. I'm not arguing that there aren't. I would just be cautious about framing leftist ideology as somehow inherently more empathetic. Another factor is probably at play here.

For what it's worth, I don't consider myself to be a leftist or right-wing. From a historical context, both extremes look dangerous to me. I think we have a personal responsibility to our communities (local and global), but I don't trust authoritarian institutions to have our best interests at heart. Left *and* right leaning governments have a long track record of corruption, warfare, and disregard for the citizens.

RocksInMyHead · Jul 18, 2023

Miles said:
Interesting.

I would be curious to see how the results might differ when comparing attitudes toward volunteerism vs. governmental action. There are many "conservatives" who volunteer at soup kitchens, volunteer with their local fire departments, and show how much they care about their communities in other tangible ways. Likewise, there are many "liberals" who simply trust the government to solve all problems rather than volunteering or otherwise investing their own personal time and energy into helping the community. From this perspective, which group would be considered more empathetic?

That depends on how you quantify "empathy." Personally, I would say that the person who endeavors to help as many people as possible is the "most" empathetic. Broadly speaking, one person volunteering at a soup kitchen helps far fewer people than a government program to build and staff soup kitchens nationwide.

Ultimately, we need a healthy mix of both - volunteers help to keep costs down and are (generally) better workers than people paid at minimum wage, but private charities and individual volunteers cannot work on the scales needed to address the problems present in our society - as evidenced by the fact that problems like homelessness continue to worsen.

Niels · Jul 18, 2023

RocksInMyHead said:
That depends on how you quantify "empathy." Personally, I would say that the person who endeavors to help as many people as possible is the "most" empathetic. Broadly speaking, one person volunteering at a soup kitchen helps far fewer people than a government program to build and staff soup kitchens nationwide.

Ultimately, we need a healthy mix of both - volunteers help to keep costs down and are (generally) better workers than people paid at minimum wage, but private charities and individual volunteers cannot work on the scales needed to address the problems present in our society - as evidenced by the fact that problems like homelessness continue to worsen.

While it's comforting to think that government can help the most people, I'm skeptical of their inefficiency and corruption. Has the homeless situation improved or generally grown worse where government plays a bigger role?

A culture of volunteerism could potentially help more people with fewer repercussions. Gandhi said it well when he said "Be the change you wish to see in the world." It's along the lines of what Jesus meant when he said we should love our neighbors as ourselves. Enough people with such a mindset can accomplish great things.

If this carries over to government programs, great, but it takes more than creating a program with lofty goals. Like you said, we need a healthy mix of both.

RocksInMyHead · Jul 18, 2023

Miles said:
While it's comforting to think that government can help the most people, I'm skeptical of their inefficiency and corruption.

Private charities are frequently inefficient and/or corrupt as well, and far less accountable to the general public than the government. They also have a tendency to focus on issues that are flashy, but relatively low-impact. Breast cancer, puppies, Kony 2012 (if you remember that charity campaign). Fundraisers for charities centered around homelessness generally don't go nearly as far unless they involve veterans.

Miles said:
Has the homeless situation improved or generally grown worse where government plays a bigger role?

I don't know that there's enough data on this. However, it's pretty well-established that a major contributor to the current homelessness situation was the closing of state mental hospitals in the 1980s and '90s, thanks to cuts in federal funding.

Miles said:
A culture of volunteerism could potentially help more people with fewer repercussions. Gandhi said it well when he said "Be the change you wish to see in the world." It's along the lines of what Jesus meant when he said we should love our neighbors as ourselves. Enough people with such a mindset can accomplish great things.

Not sure what you mean by "fewer repercussions". A culture of volunteerism is good, but someone still needs to direct those volunteers and put them to a productive use. Millions of people flocking to the animal shelter so they can play with the puppies sounds great, but ultimately accomplishes little.

Ana the Ist · Jul 18, 2023

RocksInMyHead said:
Private charities are frequently inefficient and/or corrupt as well, and far less accountable to the general public than the government. They also have a tendency to focus on issues that are flashy, but relatively low-impact.

I don't remember which charity used to have these late night commercials with Sarah Mclaughlin singing over various pictures of sad dogs that appeared to have suffered horrific abuse....

....but I remember hearing that the majority of the money donated to the charity was ultimately used on saving cattle and anti-meat vegan causes. Never found out if that was true though.

Niels · Jul 18, 2023

RocksInMyHead said:
Private charities are frequently inefficient and/or corrupt as well, and far less accountable to the general public than the government. They also have a tendency to focus on issues that are flashy, but relatively low-impact. Breast cancer, puppies, Kony 2012 (if you remember that charity campaign). Fundraisers for charities centered around homelessness generally don't go nearly as far unless they involve veterans.

Agreed. Thankfully, sites like Charity Navigator can be helpful when deciding where to donate. I remember Kony 2012, and being confused by it at the time.

RocksInMyHead said:
I don't know that there's enough data on this. However, it's pretty well-established that a major contributor to the current homelessness situation was the closing of state mental hospitals in the 1980s and '90s, thanks to cuts in federal funding.

Those are hard to untangle. The point of mental hospitals was to provide asylum for those who needed it. To provide them with shelter and care. However, due to evidence of widespread patient abuse, something had to be done. If they could have been reformed, that might have been a better solution than shutting them down. I wouldn't be surprised if we see their return someday. Hopefully, with better oversight in place.

In the meantime, it doesn't look like governmental programs are doing much to slow the rising homeless problem in California.

RocksInMyHead said:
Not sure what you mean by "fewer repercussions". A culture of volunteerism is good, but someone still needs to direct those volunteers and put them to a productive use. Millions of people flocking to the animal shelter so they can play with the puppies sounds great, but ultimately accomplishes little.

The abuse of patients in mental hospitals is one example of a repercussion. Another example is war. These might be seen as unintended consequences, but when political action is taken to solve a problem by force the citizens tend to suffer.

I'm not arguing against the need for structure within an organization. Rather, that it's risky to align that leadership too closely with politics. Especially when we're dealing with humanitarian problems. One of the great tragedies of our era, in my opinion, is the drawing of political lines over humanitarian issues. People end up feeling thwarted or frustrated. Feeling like their individual actions don't make a difference. They do.

friend of · Jul 18, 2023

I think they are a lot more empathetic to certain groups over others, certainly. And the groups they aren't empathetic to, watch out.

New neuroscience research shows liberals are bleeding hearts

Fact-Based Lifeform

New neuroscience research shows liberals experience more empathy than conservatives when they imagine others suffering​

Well-Known Member

Aggressively serene!

New neuroscience research shows liberals experience more empathy than conservatives when they imagine others suffering​

social troglodyte

Aggressively serene!

social troglodyte

Aggressively serene!

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

God is innocent; Noah built on a floodplain!

Woodshedding

God is innocent; Noah built on a floodplain!

Woodshedding

God is innocent; Noah built on a floodplain!

Aggressively serene!

Woodshedding

A private in Gods army

Similar threads

New neuroscience research shows liberals experience more empathy than conservatives when they imagine others suffering

New neuroscience research shows liberals experience more empathy than conservatives when they imagine others suffering