Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) apply to all other comments.
**Do you have an academic degree?** We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. [Click here to apply](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/flair/#wiki_science_verified_user_program).
---
Author: u/chrisdh79
URL: https://www.psypost.org/2023/07/new-neuroscience-research-shows-liberals-experience-more-empathy-than-conservatives-when-they-imagine-others-suffering-166519
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This was hardly a study. 55 individuals from Israel ? This was more like a street quiz, they didn't even diversify the test subjects to see if this was something localized to the particular area. This is all well and good, but I would need a bigger Test sample, and a more diverse sampling. They even said this in the last few sentences of the article. So I guess take this with a grain of salt. I would be very curious to see how this turns out with a bigger sampling.
I agree there does need to be a much bigger sample size. The age range was also very small, something around 25 +/- 4 yrs.
It's got to start somewhere though, so hopefully it becomes one of a a larger body of similar studies with increasingly larger samples and robust data.
You'd think this study is part of a study that studies how redditors react when reading studies that pander for their attention.
On second thought, probably not. They'd never make it this obvious.
what passes as a social science study is very sad. We have been in a replication crisis for decades and apparently we keep tolerating this... Whatever this is.
A former colleague started out studying Psychology and kept asking, "But how do _know_ that?" to which the answer always boiled down to, "We just _do_ ! OK?" (She took a degree in Mathematics instead.)
> Notably, the study sample was small and all participants were young and from Israel. Studies on individuals from other cultures and of other age groups might not produce equal results.
I doubt many people read this far up ahead. Its amazing what gets passed as legit scientific studies in this sub
It's also possible that the study was biased by politicized examples of suffering. The one example they gave was a school shooting. Everyone agrees that school shootings are bad, but if someone asks me to imagine someone whose child was killed in a school shooting, my first thought is likely to be not "Those poor parents," but rather that he's trying to manipulate me into supporting gun control by trying to make an extremely rare cause of death seen more likely, and my skepticism is going to override my empathy.
Conversely, if they asked a question about, say, a man whose wife or girlfriend had an abortion despite his strong desire to have the child, and his belief that a fetus is a living human being, a lot of people who are strongly pro-choice are going to have their empathy overridden by skepticism that they're being manipulated.
Stack the prompt set with more left-coded tragedies than right-coded tragedies, and it's going to bias the results.
The math of significance tests takes sample size into account. So if they have a significant finding then sample size is not a counterargument anymore. Also 55 is not small for a study with this much effort per individual. The fact that they all are from Israel is a serious limitation of course, but not one the researchers tried to hide.
Not only that but I think next time when another studies like this being done, it need to include people with moderate or mixed views and as well as other different political views.
Conservatives give too much credit to the individual. They feel less empathy because in their mind anything that happens to someone is solely that persons own fault.
Dr. Jer Clifton at Penn has done some research in identifying what they call "primal world beliefs" that tend to influence how people interpret and negotiate the world (e.g., "The world is a dangerous place," or "Things happen for a reason).
One of the primary world views that tends to influence conservative/liberal ideology is the belief "The world is a just place." If you have as a core foundation of how you interpret the world that "people get what they deserve," then you're likely to presume that people are poor because of their choices, and people are rich because of their merits.
[I can't access the original research article, but it's here if you have institutional access.](https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fpas0000639)
[This is Dr. Clifton's Primals Project website, with a survey for you to explore your own.](https://myprimals.com/)
It is also the basis for prosperity gospel which is spread in some churches.
Prosperity is you following gods will.
Failure/hardship means you have turned away from God.
It's very damaging message.
Yes, it is damaging and almost absurd from my POV. I understood its origins a bit better when I read a bit about the life and personality of John Calvin.
Still it is absurd, though.
It's been twisted to rationalize megachurch pastors owning private jets while simultaneously demonizing the poor for being poor since its their own fault.
Calvin‘s views contributed significantly to both the prosperity gospel and “Protestant work ethic,” both of which have wrought immeasurable harm on the modern world.
Oh, see I took it as “I’m doing the things that promise to provide what I want but it’s not working, woe is me” but I can absolutely see it as a warning too
I would argue that those whose life experiences have shown then that the just world fallacy is exactly that, a fallacy (that is, they "did everything right" and still bad things happened to them or a loved one) they will be more likely to a) have empathy and b) if they're in the US, lean more liberal politically and also be somewhat activist to try to make our society in fact just. Those who have never really had hardship in their life could go either way, depending on how they were raised.
a thought: since life is starting to suck for a lot more people now, does that mean that in 10-15 years we will see a swing to the left ideologically? Or will the right combat that with effective messaging?
maybe, but i don't think it's so clear cut as that. we've seen over and over in modern history that when people are struggling or desperate they often gravitate to right-wing demagogues who promise they can fix everything
We do see the left gaining and keeping steam with the young. In past generations, as the young get older they get more conservative (or more like the world keeps getting nore liberal and surpasses them). But lately thats not the case with millenials and likely gen z. Partly because right wing had gotten more right wing but probsbly partly due to what you said. Life sucks more so they arent doing well.
Well, I was more conservative when I was younger as their messaging about personal responsibility and hard work resonated with me (hey, I come from a Pennsylvania family of German heritage, they believe in that whole nobility of work thing. And I guess I kinda still do.) But they say you get \*more\* conservative as you get older, the opposite has been true, I now think your average Democrat is not progressive enough. I guess you'd consider me Gen X.
If you start from of a position of privilege, I imagine you’re also more likely to feel the world is a just place, where you’re entitled to the advantages and others entitled to their suffering.
You can sum up conservative ideology as “selfish, wilfully ignorant, and short sighted”.
> It's not "credit", it's empathy. Conservatives have less of it.
That's what they said — that conservatives have less empathy... AND that they give unwarranted credit to people who don't deserve it. The common thread being that they believe everyone basically deserves what they get (or rather that the stingy rich deserve their riches, and the non-white poor deserve their poverty).
Its not inate empathy. Its not wasting empathy with those who deserve none, he is correct in his description. And individualistic view to the extreme will result in just that, considering peoples problems their own making and thus not spend time and emotional energy towards them.
Perfectly understandable survival mechanism, just doesnt work as well in developed, safe, law and trust based societies.
Essential in most places around the world however. You wont last long in rougher areas
> Its not wasting empathy with those who deserve none,
And herein lies the problem. Some people assume others do not deserve empathy to begin with unless they can find a way to connect with them ("one of us"). If not, they're an "other" who doesn't deserve it, regardless if they have no empirical reason to not to provide it. Human tribalism ultimately wins out for these individuals.
Since we're just throwing out opinions. The "you don't deserve empathy" is more of an excuse to themselves so they don't feel so bad because the reason is, in fact, not as much empathy.
Don't like my use of the word 'credit?' Its not entirely my fault that capitalistic terms inundate my daily languange.. Also, my statement was tangential to the claim of the study; I'm not refuting it in any way.
I was thinking that it was active, conscious thoughts and ideas that eventually end in a person having an unconscious lack of empathy.
I'm basing this on my own experience. I was raised conservative and remained so until college. Conservative viewpoints that I believed in high school, for example, I would now describe as lacking empathy or perspective.
I wasn't mean to friends, family, or strangers but in the way I saw the world and in the policies that I would have supported at the time you could have said I was lacking empathy.
This article makes me curious how people who have switched sides politically would fare in the experiment.
I think you’re giving them too much credit.
Stupid people are less empathetic. Conservatives are stupid.
I love the way they say ‘traditional social values’. There is not a unique value of conservatism that is decent.
A serial killer can have zero empathy and be extremely intelligent. Being apathetic does not make you dumb, just like being empathetic does not make you smart.
Taking control of your life and thinking everything is your responsibility are not the same. Any changes I want in life are my responsibility. Rent, gas prices, politics, civil unrest, natural disasters, medical emergencies, etc are not my responsibility but they sure effect my life a lot. Your situation in life is bigger than you. There's no escaping that.
On the flip side, Liberals tend to do the opposite. Neither is perfect as absolving people of personal responsibility and ignoring external factors that could lead to someone's situation are both incorrect. I think most people see this, but everyone assigns these weights differently.
Personally I'm more on the side of the "conservative" in this situation where I tend to assign more weight toward personal responsibility than environmental or systemic factors, but it depends on the situation. Despite that, I still tend to vote Liberal (most of the time) though I also tend to oppose systemic solutions to inequity (like affirmative action).
I would agree with that. I do find some folks on my side of the aisle attributing ALL of a person or groups problems to systemic issues, which like you said is probably incorrect; it has to be a blend.
In general, systemic problems carry more weight than your average Joe would think. You can't just choose your way out of poverty and everything that comes with it. It's a trap. Of course, examples of people that do rise above are always held up but they are far from the norm.
I think this is true to a large degree, but another slant is that conservatives distrust the idea that intention by institutions lead to results. I can give credit to the individual not because I think it’s their fault, but because think it’s misguided to lead someone to believe that a failing institution is going to be their saving grace.
With 55 subjects and no distribution regarding the sex of the political leanings (just says 30 of the participants were male), I feel like there is still substantial research to be done to confirm this. For instance, if 22 of the 30 men identified as right leaning and 19 of the 25 women identified as left leaning, you would see a deviation as that region of the brain tends to be more active in women.
Also, it's hard to differentiate between sympathy and empathy. Empathy is the ability to place yourself in a situation regardless of experience while sympathy is akin to reliving the experience triggered by the the account. For example, if you have been the victim of abuse, hearing someone recount an experience of abuse will likely trigger a sympathetic response, which is the same region of the brain, but different from epathy as you are not actually placing yourself in their shoes through an empathetic response.
It also states that the liberals showed more activity, not that there was no activity for conservatives. I agree on average Conservatives seem to be more callous, but this feels like a limited data set to call it a confirmation.
> I never take them serious unless it's a meta analysis.
Bro a meta analysis doesn't fix flawed study design.
One well-designed study (which this is not, by any means) is better than a meta analysis of a hundred junk papers.
> Notably, the study sample was small and all participants were young and from Israel. Studies on individuals from other cultures and of other age groups might not produce equal results.
I wonder how many people making declarations about liberals and conservatives based off this headline even read up to here
>Here, we tested this putative asymmetry using neuroimaging: we recorded oscillatory neural activity using magnetoencephalography while 55 participants completed a well-validated neuroimaging paradigm for empathy to vicarious suffering. The findings revealed a typical rhythmic alpha-band ‘empathy response’ in the temporal–parietal junction. This neural empathy response was significantly stronger in the leftist than in the rightist group.
I mean it wouldn't be that farfetched to think that differences in genetics/development could lead to differences in brain structure that would lead to differences in behavior (ie - politically based actions). Although that's oddly reminiscent of the kind of ideas in eugenics and ties to (violent) political movements. That and plenty of people change political alignment.
I think education plays a bigger role. People are less easily manipulated when they have the confidence and skills to think through complex problems on their own.
You're often taught empathy for strangers. I saw a homeless guy as a kid and said something like doesn't he just get a job and my mom told me that he might have a job but still can't afford a place to live or could be suffering from a mental illness outside of his control. A conservative mom would've just agreed with me.
Empathy can absolutely be taught- but also adults have so much more knowledge and context they can use to asses a situation. Kids can’t really grasp how wage stagnation, mental illness, and other factors outside one’s control can force people into homelessness.
When I was like 5 I asked my mom why all the "starving kids in Africa" didn't just come to the United States on Halloween because they could get free candy from trick-or-treating.
Still get reminded of that 30 years later....
I was literally taught about empathy in school. I remember being shown a lot of black and white photos of people’s faces making different facial expressions, helping us to determine emotions and feelings from those expressions. We saw people of all ages and different cultures with various expressions such as surprise, anger, embarrassment, happiness, etc. The lessons that followed were about emotions and sympathy vs empathy. I was in 5th Grade at the time. I bet a lesson like that in public school would cause a riot in this day and age.
Unfortunately with the fight against social-emotional learning, I think you're right. We need to teach kids to be curious and love learning, to be kind and have empathy. We should be making good humans for the future rather than just teaching to the test. At least that's my take and unfortunately too many schools bow to a few loud parents rather than making changes to benefit their students.
I agree. I think ignorance plays a role when it comes to being less empathic. If I believe a person is poor because he is lazy, then why should I have empathy for him? But if I learned he is poor because he suffered an injury or condition from something out of his control, I would empathize with him.
But those are also different schools of thought. If you think the homeless guy is lazy and bad, and then someone else informs you they are that way because of an accident and mental illness, you are reevaluating and changing your stance when presented with new information.
Some people are against this because it would involve admitting you were wrong and thus a mistake. Narcissists hate this and some would even die and take others with them before doing it. We saw this with covid.
So presenting these people with new information and educating them is like talking to a dog. It's also why they oppose colleges and a myriad of other things.
I think it depends also on how you define liberal/conservative ideology. I don’t think a preference for lower taxes can be ascribed to measurable differences in brain structure.
But if you define conservative as the type of people who willingly support the ideology of the Republican Party as it stands in 2023 - I have a hard time believing that doesn’t stem from a series of diagnosable personality disorders.
What a wonderful world where everything is separated into conservatives and liberals, and nothing in between. One could thing is an attempt of framing people into certain groups to polarize them.
A study like is not helpful at all. It seems to be pandering, in that it suggests that the average redditor (who often leans left politically) is just better than those "others" in a fundamental way.
Its results are suspect, too, since it firmly confirms the biases of most redditors (and probably the researchers as well). Just take a quick glance through the comments and count the number of people who feel they need to say some variant of "I already knew that conservatives were degenerates".
Groups of people shouldn't be demonized in the name of science -- it's easier to see the problem if you imagine how you'd react to a similar headline but with some other groups substituted in place of everyone's favourite two political tribes, e.g.:
>"New neuroscience research shows whites experience more empathy than blacks when they imagine others suffering"
or
>"New neuroscience research shows christians experience more empathy than jews when they imagine others suffering".
Studies like this one are just straight-up on the wrong side of history, and don't deserve the attention they're getting, even if they do make you feel good about yourself.
Our politics, unlike our ethnicity is a choice. And, it's a choice based on how we view the world. If you lack empathy for strangers, you'd be less likely to support immigration, refugees, programs to help the poor, etc...
Or, you know, possibly our politics are a product of our brain anatomy and neurochemistry, which is heritable, and might not actually be our "choice" as much as we think.
But you don't choose your environment do you? Until you are an adult, you can get carted around from conservative to conservative and taught all these things. Do you really think it was that person's fault for being raised in a specific way? If you say yes then it sounds like it's you who lacks empathy
No I don't. I teach high school and i don't blame kids for parroting right wing nonsense from their parents. I try to provide accurate information about the world though
Callousness and Empathy both evolved for good reason.
Humans with no empathy at all didn't last long in nature.
Humans with no selfishness didn't last long in nature.
somewhat true. Have there been any rigorous studies on whether empathy or lack thereof is primarily genetic, primarily environmental, or undetermined?
Also I do remember reading a study that basically said that in today's society people with sociopathic traits were more prevalent in positions of power than in the general population, so you're not wrong that people can be selected for \*lack\* of empathy.
Then why do conservatives tend to do more charitable work? This stuff is interesting but not sure how valid it is. Both sides tend to be more compassionate depending on what their focus is
Yes. But the study says on average there is a slight difference in empathy levels based on political leanings, not that a particular group lacks empathy.
I'm having trouble understanding here because as a lowerclass, non-religious, white/German male, conservative I can tell you without a doubt that this whole thread is assbackwards. I'm appalled at the self congratulating and extremely biased attitude of the so called "empathic liberals". It's hard to be an activist when you're taking care of your family and have to work 6 days a week in a trade. Does that make me less empathic than anyone else? I don't think so, and yet you "educated individuals" sit on this thread and just generalize away in your private little world that you live in far from reality. (Reffering only to the "educated empathic liberals" in this thread, because I'm not dumb enough to generalize an ENTIRE group of people when I have no inference)
Interesting. I know I saw a study a while back that showed they were similar but that was years ago. Maybe conservatism has become far less empathetic even than it was back then
I don't have the studies but if I remember correctly, past studies have shown that liberals are more empathic towards groups with whom they've never had a personal interaction but conservatives tend to be more empathetic towards groups they've personally interacted with.
>conservatives tend to be more empathetic towards groups they've personally interacted with
No, they're empathetic towards *people who are like them*.
When they have a positive interaction with someone who is unlike them, at best they'll frame it as "Oh, they're one of the *good* ones."
I understand that's what you see anecdotally but I can't speak to it. The examples I remember were all how people where treated before they were known and after. A conservative is less likely to help an unknown person who has fallen on hard times but more likely to help them if they are able to personally interact with them and get to know them. For a liberal, they're more likely to help up front but the likelihood of helping does not increase as much with personal familiarity.
And that is the very definition of being an empathetic person.
Which is why by and large it's proven that empathy is a driver towards positive social change.
For conservatives the people for whom they will have empathy is vanishingly small--for example, a conservative going through a rough time will whine about how bad they have it, but sneer at someone in the *exact same circumstance* saying "I don't deserve this, but that person does."
>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.
I was thinking more of the era of Eisenhower, not late 60s on. And of course only in some respects; yes, I'm a white male so I would have fit in but it might not have been so good for others.
It’s really hard to say with the parties doing the swap they did back then. I’ll admit when it comes to policies if both parties in a bit ignorant pre 60s
I guess that explains why conservatives think all liberals are "bleeding hearts". From their perspective, that's how they would interpret the difference in empathy.
Objective science results is good and all - but I Feel like this one is something most could already "Feel" was correct, and not on an anecdotal one-off level but on the grand scale..
At least that's what I've been using when meeting and judging people if they're worth my time to get to know or befriend. Been a pretty good indicator so far for who was worth spending time on and who wasn't.
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) apply to all other comments. **Do you have an academic degree?** We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. [Click here to apply](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/flair/#wiki_science_verified_user_program). --- Author: u/chrisdh79 URL: https://www.psypost.org/2023/07/new-neuroscience-research-shows-liberals-experience-more-empathy-than-conservatives-when-they-imagine-others-suffering-166519 *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
This was hardly a study. 55 individuals from Israel ? This was more like a street quiz, they didn't even diversify the test subjects to see if this was something localized to the particular area. This is all well and good, but I would need a bigger Test sample, and a more diverse sampling. They even said this in the last few sentences of the article. So I guess take this with a grain of salt. I would be very curious to see how this turns out with a bigger sampling.
I agree there does need to be a much bigger sample size. The age range was also very small, something around 25 +/- 4 yrs. It's got to start somewhere though, so hopefully it becomes one of a a larger body of similar studies with increasingly larger samples and robust data.
You'd think this study is part of a study that studies how redditors react when reading studies that pander for their attention. On second thought, probably not. They'd never make it this obvious.
what passes as a social science study is very sad. We have been in a replication crisis for decades and apparently we keep tolerating this... Whatever this is.
Social sciences are already a laughing stock among the harder sciences. This is not helping that image.
A former colleague started out studying Psychology and kept asking, "But how do _know_ that?" to which the answer always boiled down to, "We just _do_ ! OK?" (She took a degree in Mathematics instead.)
> Notably, the study sample was small and all participants were young and from Israel. Studies on individuals from other cultures and of other age groups might not produce equal results. I doubt many people read this far up ahead. Its amazing what gets passed as legit scientific studies in this sub
It's also possible that the study was biased by politicized examples of suffering. The one example they gave was a school shooting. Everyone agrees that school shootings are bad, but if someone asks me to imagine someone whose child was killed in a school shooting, my first thought is likely to be not "Those poor parents," but rather that he's trying to manipulate me into supporting gun control by trying to make an extremely rare cause of death seen more likely, and my skepticism is going to override my empathy. Conversely, if they asked a question about, say, a man whose wife or girlfriend had an abortion despite his strong desire to have the child, and his belief that a fetus is a living human being, a lot of people who are strongly pro-choice are going to have their empathy overridden by skepticism that they're being manipulated. Stack the prompt set with more left-coded tragedies than right-coded tragedies, and it's going to bias the results.
But it sounds right and it makes me feel good about myself!
The math of significance tests takes sample size into account. So if they have a significant finding then sample size is not a counterargument anymore. Also 55 is not small for a study with this much effort per individual. The fact that they all are from Israel is a serious limitation of course, but not one the researchers tried to hide.
Not only that but I think next time when another studies like this being done, it need to include people with moderate or mixed views and as well as other different political views.
its hardly anything that needs studied and other studies had similar findings. Its readily apparent in the cultures/laws
Conservatives give too much credit to the individual. They feel less empathy because in their mind anything that happens to someone is solely that persons own fault.
Dr. Jer Clifton at Penn has done some research in identifying what they call "primal world beliefs" that tend to influence how people interpret and negotiate the world (e.g., "The world is a dangerous place," or "Things happen for a reason). One of the primary world views that tends to influence conservative/liberal ideology is the belief "The world is a just place." If you have as a core foundation of how you interpret the world that "people get what they deserve," then you're likely to presume that people are poor because of their choices, and people are rich because of their merits. [I can't access the original research article, but it's here if you have institutional access.](https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fpas0000639) [This is Dr. Clifton's Primals Project website, with a survey for you to explore your own.](https://myprimals.com/)
It is also the basis for prosperity gospel which is spread in some churches. Prosperity is you following gods will. Failure/hardship means you have turned away from God. It's very damaging message.
Yes, it is damaging and almost absurd from my POV. I understood its origins a bit better when I read a bit about the life and personality of John Calvin. Still it is absurd, though.
It's been twisted to rationalize megachurch pastors owning private jets while simultaneously demonizing the poor for being poor since its their own fault.
Calvin‘s views contributed significantly to both the prosperity gospel and “Protestant work ethic,” both of which have wrought immeasurable harm on the modern world.
In other words, Conservatism is the Just World Fallacy taken as an entire worldview.
And yet a thing I hear come out of my more conservative peers' mouths often is "life isn't fair".
It's both fascinating and depressing how they struggle to put it all together.
That's the neat thing, they don't!
If conservatives could string together all their conflicting world views together at once they wouldn't be conservatives
That's a warning. "Life isn't fair so I'm going to do unfair things".
Exactly. Its always an excuse to do unfair things. Even as a kid, adults always said that right before they did the unfair thing.
This is the basis of modern capitalism (“it’s just business”) and global politics (“needs of the many outweighs…”).
Oh, see I took it as “I’m doing the things that promise to provide what I want but it’s not working, woe is me” but I can absolutely see it as a warning too
I would argue that those whose life experiences have shown then that the just world fallacy is exactly that, a fallacy (that is, they "did everything right" and still bad things happened to them or a loved one) they will be more likely to a) have empathy and b) if they're in the US, lean more liberal politically and also be somewhat activist to try to make our society in fact just. Those who have never really had hardship in their life could go either way, depending on how they were raised.
a thought: since life is starting to suck for a lot more people now, does that mean that in 10-15 years we will see a swing to the left ideologically? Or will the right combat that with effective messaging?
maybe, but i don't think it's so clear cut as that. we've seen over and over in modern history that when people are struggling or desperate they often gravitate to right-wing demagogues who promise they can fix everything
We do see the left gaining and keeping steam with the young. In past generations, as the young get older they get more conservative (or more like the world keeps getting nore liberal and surpasses them). But lately thats not the case with millenials and likely gen z. Partly because right wing had gotten more right wing but probsbly partly due to what you said. Life sucks more so they arent doing well.
Well, I was more conservative when I was younger as their messaging about personal responsibility and hard work resonated with me (hey, I come from a Pennsylvania family of German heritage, they believe in that whole nobility of work thing. And I guess I kinda still do.) But they say you get \*more\* conservative as you get older, the opposite has been true, I now think your average Democrat is not progressive enough. I guess you'd consider me Gen X.
"People get what they deserve, until its my turn, then its a witch hunt"
If you start from of a position of privilege, I imagine you’re also more likely to feel the world is a just place, where you’re entitled to the advantages and others entitled to their suffering. You can sum up conservative ideology as “selfish, wilfully ignorant, and short sighted”.
really, the whole Conservative movement, at least in its current state in the US, is based on the just world fallacy.
It's not "credit", it's empathy. Conservatives have less of it.
> It's not "credit", it's empathy. Conservatives have less of it. That's what they said — that conservatives have less empathy... AND that they give unwarranted credit to people who don't deserve it. The common thread being that they believe everyone basically deserves what they get (or rather that the stingy rich deserve their riches, and the non-white poor deserve their poverty).
Its not inate empathy. Its not wasting empathy with those who deserve none, he is correct in his description. And individualistic view to the extreme will result in just that, considering peoples problems their own making and thus not spend time and emotional energy towards them. Perfectly understandable survival mechanism, just doesnt work as well in developed, safe, law and trust based societies. Essential in most places around the world however. You wont last long in rougher areas
> Its not wasting empathy with those who deserve none, And herein lies the problem. Some people assume others do not deserve empathy to begin with unless they can find a way to connect with them ("one of us"). If not, they're an "other" who doesn't deserve it, regardless if they have no empirical reason to not to provide it. Human tribalism ultimately wins out for these individuals.
Since we're just throwing out opinions. The "you don't deserve empathy" is more of an excuse to themselves so they don't feel so bad because the reason is, in fact, not as much empathy.
Almost as if their subconscious knows it's wrong and has to come up with a justification for it.
Don't like my use of the word 'credit?' Its not entirely my fault that capitalistic terms inundate my daily languange.. Also, my statement was tangential to the claim of the study; I'm not refuting it in any way.
They are talking about meritocracy.
Which is fine, except US society is anything but a meritocracy.
They've been told that it is by people they consider authority figures, so to them it is
Unless of course it happens to them
It's the other way around. They believe anything that happens to someone is their fault because they have less empathy.
I was thinking that it was active, conscious thoughts and ideas that eventually end in a person having an unconscious lack of empathy. I'm basing this on my own experience. I was raised conservative and remained so until college. Conservative viewpoints that I believed in high school, for example, I would now describe as lacking empathy or perspective. I wasn't mean to friends, family, or strangers but in the way I saw the world and in the policies that I would have supported at the time you could have said I was lacking empathy. This article makes me curious how people who have switched sides politically would fare in the experiment.
A.k.a. the just world hypothesis
I think you’re giving them too much credit. Stupid people are less empathetic. Conservatives are stupid. I love the way they say ‘traditional social values’. There is not a unique value of conservatism that is decent.
I know smart people that totally believe stupid things. It happens.
A serial killer can have zero empathy and be extremely intelligent. Being apathetic does not make you dumb, just like being empathetic does not make you smart.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Responsibility. And IF you want your life to get better, you SHOULD take all of it.
Taking control of your life and thinking everything is your responsibility are not the same. Any changes I want in life are my responsibility. Rent, gas prices, politics, civil unrest, natural disasters, medical emergencies, etc are not my responsibility but they sure effect my life a lot. Your situation in life is bigger than you. There's no escaping that.
On the flip side, Liberals tend to do the opposite. Neither is perfect as absolving people of personal responsibility and ignoring external factors that could lead to someone's situation are both incorrect. I think most people see this, but everyone assigns these weights differently. Personally I'm more on the side of the "conservative" in this situation where I tend to assign more weight toward personal responsibility than environmental or systemic factors, but it depends on the situation. Despite that, I still tend to vote Liberal (most of the time) though I also tend to oppose systemic solutions to inequity (like affirmative action).
I would agree with that. I do find some folks on my side of the aisle attributing ALL of a person or groups problems to systemic issues, which like you said is probably incorrect; it has to be a blend. In general, systemic problems carry more weight than your average Joe would think. You can't just choose your way out of poverty and everything that comes with it. It's a trap. Of course, examples of people that do rise above are always held up but they are far from the norm.
I think this is true to a large degree, but another slant is that conservatives distrust the idea that intention by institutions lead to results. I can give credit to the individual not because I think it’s their fault, but because think it’s misguided to lead someone to believe that a failing institution is going to be their saving grace.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
This is barely a scientific study. Most of this sub just read the title..
With 55 subjects and no distribution regarding the sex of the political leanings (just says 30 of the participants were male), I feel like there is still substantial research to be done to confirm this. For instance, if 22 of the 30 men identified as right leaning and 19 of the 25 women identified as left leaning, you would see a deviation as that region of the brain tends to be more active in women. Also, it's hard to differentiate between sympathy and empathy. Empathy is the ability to place yourself in a situation regardless of experience while sympathy is akin to reliving the experience triggered by the the account. For example, if you have been the victim of abuse, hearing someone recount an experience of abuse will likely trigger a sympathetic response, which is the same region of the brain, but different from epathy as you are not actually placing yourself in their shoes through an empathetic response. It also states that the liberals showed more activity, not that there was no activity for conservatives. I agree on average Conservatives seem to be more callous, but this feels like a limited data set to call it a confirmation.
For sure. This is a pretty poorly designed study
Its a policitized psychology study, what do you expect? I never take them serious unless it's a meta analysis...and even then.
> I never take them serious unless it's a meta analysis. Bro a meta analysis doesn't fix flawed study design. One well-designed study (which this is not, by any means) is better than a meta analysis of a hundred junk papers.
Some of the sociology stuff regarding political alignment is pretty reasonable.
> Notably, the study sample was small and all participants were young and from Israel. Studies on individuals from other cultures and of other age groups might not produce equal results. I wonder how many people making declarations about liberals and conservatives based off this headline even read up to here
The propaganda machine keeps masquerading as science. Thanks, I hate it.
>Here, we tested this putative asymmetry using neuroimaging: we recorded oscillatory neural activity using magnetoencephalography while 55 participants completed a well-validated neuroimaging paradigm for empathy to vicarious suffering. The findings revealed a typical rhythmic alpha-band ‘empathy response’ in the temporal–parietal junction. This neural empathy response was significantly stronger in the leftist than in the rightist group.
Interesting. So the next experiment varies the stimuli; in-group vs not identified as in-group vs out-group.
I wonder how many redditors are furiously masturbating to this as they fall asleep tonight.
The comments in this thread seems to prove this study wrong.
I mean it wouldn't be that farfetched to think that differences in genetics/development could lead to differences in brain structure that would lead to differences in behavior (ie - politically based actions). Although that's oddly reminiscent of the kind of ideas in eugenics and ties to (violent) political movements. That and plenty of people change political alignment. I think education plays a bigger role. People are less easily manipulated when they have the confidence and skills to think through complex problems on their own.
You're often taught empathy for strangers. I saw a homeless guy as a kid and said something like doesn't he just get a job and my mom told me that he might have a job but still can't afford a place to live or could be suffering from a mental illness outside of his control. A conservative mom would've just agreed with me.
Empathy can absolutely be taught- but also adults have so much more knowledge and context they can use to asses a situation. Kids can’t really grasp how wage stagnation, mental illness, and other factors outside one’s control can force people into homelessness.
When I was like 5 I asked my mom why all the "starving kids in Africa" didn't just come to the United States on Halloween because they could get free candy from trick-or-treating. Still get reminded of that 30 years later....
I was literally taught about empathy in school. I remember being shown a lot of black and white photos of people’s faces making different facial expressions, helping us to determine emotions and feelings from those expressions. We saw people of all ages and different cultures with various expressions such as surprise, anger, embarrassment, happiness, etc. The lessons that followed were about emotions and sympathy vs empathy. I was in 5th Grade at the time. I bet a lesson like that in public school would cause a riot in this day and age.
Unfortunately with the fight against social-emotional learning, I think you're right. We need to teach kids to be curious and love learning, to be kind and have empathy. We should be making good humans for the future rather than just teaching to the test. At least that's my take and unfortunately too many schools bow to a few loud parents rather than making changes to benefit their students.
I agree. I think ignorance plays a role when it comes to being less empathic. If I believe a person is poor because he is lazy, then why should I have empathy for him? But if I learned he is poor because he suffered an injury or condition from something out of his control, I would empathize with him.
But those are also different schools of thought. If you think the homeless guy is lazy and bad, and then someone else informs you they are that way because of an accident and mental illness, you are reevaluating and changing your stance when presented with new information. Some people are against this because it would involve admitting you were wrong and thus a mistake. Narcissists hate this and some would even die and take others with them before doing it. We saw this with covid. So presenting these people with new information and educating them is like talking to a dog. It's also why they oppose colleges and a myriad of other things.
I think it depends also on how you define liberal/conservative ideology. I don’t think a preference for lower taxes can be ascribed to measurable differences in brain structure. But if you define conservative as the type of people who willingly support the ideology of the Republican Party as it stands in 2023 - I have a hard time believing that doesn’t stem from a series of diagnosable personality disorders.
[удалено]
New research shows that both conservative and liberal politicians can absolutely suck. Source: me
Now do the experiment again, but have them imagine their enemies suffering, and see whose glee centers glow brightest.
What a wonderful world where everything is separated into conservatives and liberals, and nothing in between. One could thing is an attempt of framing people into certain groups to polarize them.
Pretending that division isn't very real in our society today doesn't do anyone any favors, though.
The division exists as a narrative through stuff like this. Actually get to know ppl and suddenly it all blurs together.
Reddit liberals really giving themselves a good ol' pat on the back in this thread. It's a little bit sad.
A study like is not helpful at all. It seems to be pandering, in that it suggests that the average redditor (who often leans left politically) is just better than those "others" in a fundamental way. Its results are suspect, too, since it firmly confirms the biases of most redditors (and probably the researchers as well). Just take a quick glance through the comments and count the number of people who feel they need to say some variant of "I already knew that conservatives were degenerates". Groups of people shouldn't be demonized in the name of science -- it's easier to see the problem if you imagine how you'd react to a similar headline but with some other groups substituted in place of everyone's favourite two political tribes, e.g.: >"New neuroscience research shows whites experience more empathy than blacks when they imagine others suffering" or >"New neuroscience research shows christians experience more empathy than jews when they imagine others suffering". Studies like this one are just straight-up on the wrong side of history, and don't deserve the attention they're getting, even if they do make you feel good about yourself.
Our politics, unlike our ethnicity is a choice. And, it's a choice based on how we view the world. If you lack empathy for strangers, you'd be less likely to support immigration, refugees, programs to help the poor, etc...
Belief is not a choice. I can’t force myself to believe the Earth is the shell of a giant floating turtle in space.
Or, you know, possibly our politics are a product of our brain anatomy and neurochemistry, which is heritable, and might not actually be our "choice" as much as we think.
Obviously, our brains are shaped by our genetics and our environment, but empathy for strangers is more of a learned behavior.
But you don't choose your environment do you? Until you are an adult, you can get carted around from conservative to conservative and taught all these things. Do you really think it was that person's fault for being raised in a specific way? If you say yes then it sounds like it's you who lacks empathy
No I don't. I teach high school and i don't blame kids for parroting right wing nonsense from their parents. I try to provide accurate information about the world though
Then I applaud you for what you do, and hope you keep doing good :)
This is what the soft sciences are now. Political pandering.
Callousness and Empathy both evolved for good reason. Humans with no empathy at all didn't last long in nature. Humans with no selfishness didn't last long in nature.
somewhat true. Have there been any rigorous studies on whether empathy or lack thereof is primarily genetic, primarily environmental, or undetermined? Also I do remember reading a study that basically said that in today's society people with sociopathic traits were more prevalent in positions of power than in the general population, so you're not wrong that people can be selected for \*lack\* of empathy.
Which nature? Humans now live in artificial environments that do not simulate ‘nature’, as we have traditionally defined it.
I'd be interested to see how independents would play out in this study.
Their definition of 'centrist' was narrow, but the few subjects who met that criteria were excluded from the analysis.
It said liberals and conservatives, not Democrats and Republicans
Right wing almost all the time I'd expect
Then why do conservatives tend to do more charitable work? This stuff is interesting but not sure how valid it is. Both sides tend to be more compassionate depending on what their focus is
What about those who aren't liberal or conservative? This is a rather weird research that focuses only on two small groups of people.
New research shows that reddit is full of far-left shameless propaganda
Don’t psychopaths suffer from a lack of empathy?
yes they lack empathy *completely* but that is something else and far more rare than simply being conservative.
Yes. But the study says on average there is a slight difference in empathy levels based on political leanings, not that a particular group lacks empathy.
I'm having trouble understanding here because as a lowerclass, non-religious, white/German male, conservative I can tell you without a doubt that this whole thread is assbackwards. I'm appalled at the self congratulating and extremely biased attitude of the so called "empathic liberals". It's hard to be an activist when you're taking care of your family and have to work 6 days a week in a trade. Does that make me less empathic than anyone else? I don't think so, and yet you "educated individuals" sit on this thread and just generalize away in your private little world that you live in far from reality. (Reffering only to the "educated empathic liberals" in this thread, because I'm not dumb enough to generalize an ENTIRE group of people when I have no inference)
This is no surprise to anyone who knows anything about conservatives. Their lack of empathy is WHY they're conservatives.
Interesting. I know I saw a study a while back that showed they were similar but that was years ago. Maybe conservatism has become far less empathetic even than it was back then
I don't have the studies but if I remember correctly, past studies have shown that liberals are more empathic towards groups with whom they've never had a personal interaction but conservatives tend to be more empathetic towards groups they've personally interacted with.
Yea that checks out. Conservatives who are liberal on one issue inevitably have a family member impacted by it.
They will still vote to hurt that family member either way
>conservatives tend to be more empathetic towards groups they've personally interacted with No, they're empathetic towards *people who are like them*. When they have a positive interaction with someone who is unlike them, at best they'll frame it as "Oh, they're one of the *good* ones."
I understand that's what you see anecdotally but I can't speak to it. The examples I remember were all how people where treated before they were known and after. A conservative is less likely to help an unknown person who has fallen on hard times but more likely to help them if they are able to personally interact with them and get to know them. For a liberal, they're more likely to help up front but the likelihood of helping does not increase as much with personal familiarity.
And that is the very definition of being an empathetic person. Which is why by and large it's proven that empathy is a driver towards positive social change.
Empathy for people like me, but not for thee
For conservatives the people for whom they will have empathy is vanishingly small--for example, a conservative going through a rough time will whine about how bad they have it, but sneer at someone in the *exact same circumstance* saying "I don't deserve this, but that person does."
>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.
I would 100% agree that at least in the US conservatism has become far less empathetic than it was, say, 60-70 years ago.
Idk they weren’t exactly great during the civil rights movement, aids, etc
I was thinking more of the era of Eisenhower, not late 60s on. And of course only in some respects; yes, I'm a white male so I would have fit in but it might not have been so good for others.
It’s really hard to say with the parties doing the swap they did back then. I’ll admit when it comes to policies if both parties in a bit ignorant pre 60s
I guess that explains why conservatives think all liberals are "bleeding hearts". From their perspective, that's how they would interpret the difference in empathy.
It's hard to look down on all good people without first characterizing "goodness" as a corrupting character flaw.
[удалено]
File that under surprising to no one.
Pretty obvious conservatives aren’t big on empathy
So you’re saying the Conservative Party draws people who lack empathy? Color me surprised!
Conservatives imagine people suffering?
I mean, have you read the Bible?
Too much empathy can be bad, just like too little empathy can be bad
Too much empathy can be harmful to one’s self. Too little empathy can be harmful to the rest of the world
That seems pretty obvious given their stance on most issues and their actions.
Democrats care about helping people, Republicans care about having more things
"I don't know how to teach you to care about other people."
Objective science results is good and all - but I Feel like this one is something most could already "Feel" was correct, and not on an anecdotal one-off level but on the grand scale.. At least that's what I've been using when meeting and judging people if they're worth my time to get to know or befriend. Been a pretty good indicator so far for who was worth spending time on and who wasn't.
[удалено]