One of the most influential people in the study of empathy is
the Professor of Primate Behavior, Frans de
Waal. See links to videos and articles about him and his work below.
We're
in front of a mirror here, how is empathy related to mirroring?
mirror
neurons
were
discovered in monkeys
can not
do these tests on humans, can't do single cell recording
self
awareness - recognizing the self in a mirror
more
cognitive forms of empathy need to differentiate self and the other
empathy
fuses the minds or body so to speak
more
advanced forms of empathy we need differentiate between my emotions and the
others
need to
be able to make the distinction between self and other
that
distinction correlates, we think, with self awareness
human
children when they are 2, they start to recognize themselves in the mirror
and
develop more complex forms of empathy
can
position themselves in the situation of somebody else
some
species - elephants, dolphins, great apes who recognize themselves in the mirror
which
allows them to have more complex forms of empathy than others
dog and
cat does not recognize itself in the mirror but do respond to emotion,
which is the basis of empathy
2:50
You have done mirror tests with elephants
Gordon
Gallup, 30 years ago discovered self recognition in apes
self
awareness in the apes corresponds to empathy
started
testing other animals
we did
mirror test with elephants.
we put a mark on their head.
elephants
passed the self awareness test
5:30
How do you define empathy?
empathy
has many layers
emotional
contagion
babies
cry when they hear another baby cry
visible
in all mammals
on top of
that we build more complex layers
where you
not only understand others emotions but try to do something
that's
more complex and is a cognitive layer on top of it
dogs
are very empathic animals, but not particularly good at taking the perspective
of someone
6:50 -
How can we build a culture of empathy?
first
step is to give empathy a positive sound
which it
has gotten in the mean time
I spoke
with scientists who started studying empathy 30 years ago and they said people
laughed at them
it was a
funny topic and in the same category as telepathy and astrology
it was
not a serous topic
The first
thing is to make it a serious topic with a positive sound
I've been
doing that by looking at empathy in animals
so that
people don't see it as some new cognitive ability but something that is deeply
engrained in human nature
deeply
engrained in our mammalian heritage which is 200 million years old
make
empathy a positive that is good for society
(In USA) we've
come out of a period where we though greed and selfishness was good for society,
I don't think it particularly is
with the
collapse of the economy a could of years ago people have started to reflect if
greed is so good.
I'm not
saying we will ever have a society that's without selfishness
it's a
balancing act
empathy
used to be a soft word that no one took seriously and I think that has to change
9:00
There seems to be a lot of other scientist working on this now?
yes, the
neuro scientists, the economists and anthropologist, people in animal behavior
it's
becoming a bigger and more respected topic
in the
next 25 years there will be an enormous amount of discoveries
10:00
Paul Ekman told me we need a Empathy Manhattan project! what
else can we do?
The other
things, that I'm not an expert on is education and culture of course. A cultural
and educational change that emphasizes empathy more. I would
also warn that empathy is not invariably positive. People
think that empathy is automatically a positive characteristic Empathy can be
used for bad purposes also.
the used
car salesman uses empathy to sell you a crappy car.
the
torturer needs to know know what will effect you
empathy
by itself is a neutral characteristic that we can use for good of for bad
but first
we need to learn how it works before we get into how we're going to enhance it.
11:20
There's a level of empathy that is so deep that you feel like your selves merge.
It's hard to do harm then?
males and
females are different in this regard
I think
the origin of empathy in mammals in female maternal care
the
female needs to respond to the needs of the offspring
so woman
have a more profound kind of empathy
the
mechanism is more developed, so to speak
it is
more automated than in men
I think
men can switch back and forth
I can
like you one moment, be empathic, but then you slight me then you become an
enemy
and all
my empathy is gone and I'll get you, one way or another
men are
like that, they can turn the switch on it, more than woman
there's
experimental studies on this
when you
talk about merging with the other that prevents you from exploiting the other,
I'm not sure that applies completely to men. I think men always have the ability
to step out of it.
12:45:
What do you think about the enlightened self interest argument?
it is
true that Americans do love that Self Interest story. If we do things for
yourselves and there's a positive byproduct for others that's ok,
it's the
Ayn Rand type of thinking
I don't
know why Americans like that sort of thinking so much, because it's not
particularly popular outside of the US.
that is
sort of the mythology, even though t people are very friendly and generous here
and not less empathic than anywhere else in my opinion
the
self-interest story
Empathy
is self interest, it evolved for survival like all characteristics that we have,
they serve some purpose
but once
it is there, it can be applied outside of that purpose
one you
have empathic capacity you can apply it to a stranded whale
certainly
empathy did not evolve for us to take care of a stranded whale
humans
can apply it outside of the context for which it was originally intended
we do
that all the time with all kinds of characteristics that we have
to call
that then self-interested, I'm not sure that's the right word for me
I'd say
it's the expanded use of the capacity of empathy
you can
empathize with
other
species,
individuals that you don't know
you see a
child fall and you flinch even thought you don't know the child
it's an
automated reaction that we have
it has
nothing to do with self interest in that particular instance
but the
capacity evolved in the end because it was beneficial for us
15:30
Once we have the capacity, we're not doing it out of self interest but embodying
our capacity?
not every
instance where you embody empathy is there a self interest going on
15:50
What do you think of the vision of building a culture of empathy?
I think it is important in society, especially at the moment. Now that
we have come out of this period where greed was so good. I think it is important to
emphasize that there are alternative ways of looking at society. A society where
solidarity is important and caring about others is important.
the whole
health care debate. it is not health business
the
European model is more about caring
it comes
out of care and responsibility
rather
than making money off it
17:30
How did empathy become important to you?
I studied
consolation in chimpanzees
20 years
ago, went to a conference and they talked about empathic concern in children
that's
the connection, consolation to empathic concern
I wasn't
calling it empathy but then started calling it empathy
there was
resistance from others
now it is
more and more accepted that animals have empathy
19:15
Have your studies made you more personally empathic?
I am
a very empathic person
studying
animals it helps to be empathic
many
field workers love the animals and empathize with them
they are
more interested in them
my
empathy doesn't stand in the way of object date gathering, I can do both
Human
morality is older than our current religions, and may go back to
tendencies observable in other mammals. In a bottom-up view of morality,
this talk is one man's road to discovering an array of positive
tendencies in animals at a time when competition and aggression were the
only themes.
2011-05-11 -
Were You Born Selfish?: An Interview with Frans de Waal
Richard Dawkins has declared that humans are “nicer than is good for our
selfish genes.” Emory University primatologist Frans de Waal argues
against this popular picture of evolution as a Hobbesian wilderness of
selfishly competing individuals, where life is “nasty, brutish, and
short.” De Waal focuses his research on the social behavior of primates,
studying questions of culture, altruism, morality, and empathy.
EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW WITH PROF. FRANS DE WAAL
We can learn about the origins of our sociality, both in
terms of hierarchies, competition and power games and in terms of
empathy and morality. We share both with our animal relatives, both the
good and the bad, and should stop blaming everything we don't like about
ourselves on our biology ("we're acting like animals!") while claiming
all good we do for our noble human nature. All of our tendencies evolved
for a reason among the social primates, and once we understand this, we
will better understand the dynamics of our own societies.
Frans de Waal, author of The Age of Empathy
(Society becoming more empathic, Supreme Court example,
from maternal care,
Oxytocin, cross species empathy, conservatives see Social Darwinism,
competition v. empathy, degrees of empathy in many animals).
2010-10-17 - Morals Without God?- Frans de Waal - NY Times
Such observations fit the emerging field of animal empathy, which deals
not only with primates, but also with canines, elephants, even
rodents. A typical example is how chimpanzees console distressed
parties, hugging and kissing them, which behavior is so predictable that
scientists have analyzed thousands of cases. Mammals are sensitive to
each other’s emotions, and react to others in need. The whole reason
people fill their homes with furry carnivores and not with, say, iguanas
and turtles, is because mammals offer something no reptile ever will.
They give affection, they want affection, and respond to our emotions
the way we do to theirs.
After many of such tests it
has now been concluded that, yes, primates other than humans love to
help each other. They do care about the welfare of others as much as
humans do, which is to say, some of the time.
This has implications for
modern human society, because all too often politicians start from
the assumption that society needs to be structured around competition,
given that this is how nature works. Their dismal, inaccurate view of
the natural world thus informs their view of human society. Too bad if
some people have no health insurance, so the argument goes, so long as
those who can afford it do. Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona went one step
further by voting against coverage of maternity care, because, as he
explained, he had never had any need for it himself.
I feel that we should hold
Senator Kyl and others of his species aloft in the glaring daylight and
see what their shadow tells us. If they don't see the sun soon, there
will be a never-ending winter.
2010-01-00 - Frans
de Waal.-
The Evolution of Empathy
http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/greatergood/2010/january/De_Waal.php Empathy's not a uniquely human trait, explains
primatologist
Frans de Waal. Apes and other animals feel it as well,
suggesting that empathy is truly an essential part of who we are.
Once upon a time, the
United States had a president known for a
peculiar facial display. In an act of controlled emotion, he would bite his
lower lip and tell his audience, "I feel your pain." Whether the display was
sincere is not the issue here; how we are affected by another's predicament is.
Empathy is second nature to us, so much so that anyone devoid of it strikes us
as dangerous or mentally ill.
At the movies, we can't help but get
inside the skin of the characters on the screen. We despair when their gigantic
ship sinks; we exult when they finally stare into the eyes of a long-lost lover.
2009-09-xx - Article -
By Frans de Waal - Bodies
in Sync
http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/features/251555/sept
Contagious laughter, yawns, and moods offer insight into empathy’s origins. That is where empathy and sympathy start—with the synchronization of
bodies—not in the higher regions of imagination, or in the ability to
consciously reconstruct how we would feel if we were in someone else’s “shoes.”
And yet empathy is often presented as a voluntary process, requiring role
taking, higher cognition, and even language. Accordingly, most scholarly
literature on empathy is completely human centered, never mentioning other
animals. As if a capacity so visceral and pervasive could be anything other than
biological! To counter such widespread views, I decided to investigate how
chimpanzees relate to and learn from one another.
The behavior of our ape relatives, known as peaceful vegetarians, once bolstered
the view that our actions could not be traced to an impulse to dominate. But in
the late 1970s, when chimpanzees were discovered to hunt monkeys and kill each
other, they became the poster boys for our violent origins and aggressive
instinct. ....
The empathy literature on animals is growing fast, and is no longer restricted
to such anecdotes. There are now systematic studies, and even experiments that
show that we are not the only caring species. At the same time, we are getting
used to findings of remarkable human empathy, such as those by neuroscientists
that reward centers in the brain light up when we give to charity (hence the
saying that "doing good feels good") or that seeing another in pain activates
the same brain areas as when we are in pain ourselves. Obviously, we are
hard-wired to be in tune with the emotions of others, a capacity that evolution
should never have favored if exploitation of others were all that mattered.
2009-10-15 -
Learning
Empathy From Apes
I'm Maureen Cavanaugh, and you're listening to These Days on KPBS.
Although Charles Darwin never said it, the phrase ‘survival of the fittest’ has
become part of what people understand about the theory of evolution. The
implication has always been that the ‘fittest’ referred to individual members of
species who were stronger, healthier and sometimes more clever than their
counterparts. But what if fittest also referred to behaviors that contribute to
the survival of groups of animals, behaviors that display awareness of the needs
of others? That’s the question posed in a new book by renowned primatologist and
psychologist Frans de Waal.
2009-10-10 - Article -
By Frans de Waal - Morals without God
http:/www.huffingtonpost.com/frans-de-waal/morals-without-god_b_316473.html
Without God, we will live like animals!
After listening to the
debate between Bill O'Reilly and Richard Dawkins, it struck me again that
the resistance to evolutionary theory largely stems from the illusion that
without God there can be no morality. Some believers feel threatened by
evolutionary theory not because the theory is right or wrong -- the evidence
doesn't seem to matter much to them -- but because accepting it would mean
accepting that we have been created by natural processes including our
morality. The final part is what bothers them the most.
2009 - How Bad Biology Killed the
Economy
http://www.thersa.org/fellowship/journal/features/features/how-bad-biology-killed-the-economy
An unnatural culture of greed and fear has brought the global economy to
its knees. We need to start playing to our pro-social strengths, says
Frans de Waal. The CEO of Enron - now in prison - happily applied
‘selfish gene’ logic to his human capital, thus creating a
self-fulfilling prophecy. Assuming that the human species is driven
purely by greed and fear, Jeffrey Skilling produced employees driven by
the same motives. Enron imploded under the mean-spirited weight of his
policies, offering a preview of what was in store for the world economy
as a whole.
In the meantime, primatologists were debating altruism, too, and found the same
or similar
empathy
and altruism outside of our own species. Monkeys and apes sometimes take
great risks to help each other, for example against predators (chimps in the
forest defend each other against leopards) or enemies (females defend each other
against violent males). Chimpanzees spontaneously share food with each other,
and in recent experiments it was found that primates will secure rewards for
others even if this does not benefit themselves in any way. Since they didn't
need incentives to do so, it is possible they were doing it for some internal
reward. Perhaps other primates, too, derive pleasure from giving.
