Posts Tagged ‘evolution’

The 21st-century Enlightenment?

June 14th, 2010

I enjoyed this post about an emerging worldview from Madeleine Bunting at the Guardian UK:

Taylor’s faith in empathy is widely shared, for example by those campaigning on aid for the developing world. An example often cited of growing empathy is the greater tolerance on race and sexual orientation showing dramatic progress in the course of just one generation. But, as Taylor concedes, over the same time period we have created a media culture of savage contempt for a range of public figures, from celebrities to politicians. Does the stock of empathy increase or simply get redistributed from time to time? More disturbingly, is empathy always benign? As John Gray pointed out in his Guardian review of Rifkin, it can lead to cruelty just as much as compassion. Empathy is not an easy recruit to this march of progress: the plight of others can prompt withdrawal, denial or willed ignorance instead of the impetus for global co-operation.

Read more…

Empathizing with a Value System

June 10th, 2010

I found this post from Marc Stoiber, blogging at the Huffington Post interesting not so much because he mentioned empathy, but rather the means he suggests using a system of understanding human values called spiral dynamics, first uncovered by Clare Graves, former Professor of Psychology at Union College in Schenectady, N.Y. Stoiber writes:

These differing worldviews are usually a factor of:

1. Different values lenses – different shades of values people have, which give them different perspectives on a story.
2. Different filtering styles – individual means of screening information based on triggers and internal sorting mechanisms.
3. Degrees of social optimism – Ways of interpreting realities based on the optimism or pessimism of the viewer.

Renowned social psychologist Clare Graves was an innovator in this field, breaking down audience worldviews according to eight levels of evolving human behavior systems.

1. Autistic thinking. Traced back to 40,000 BC, this type of thinking was characterized by living in the moment, and feeling helpless before the terror of nature. A strong desire to live in tribal units for security helped mankind evolve beyond this behavior.
2. Tribal thinking. Post 40,000 BC. Civilization was tribal, and suffocated by tribal rules. The chief factor contributing to the demise of this behavior system was the desire to break free and set out on journeys of self-determination.
3. Heroic thinking. 8000 BC. A behavior system favored by early conquerors like Atilla, Genghis – but very much alive today in dictators and gang lords. This form of thinking favors taking what one wants, creating empire, and domination. Clearly not a form of thinking for the meek, it was largely supplanted by the search for deeper meaning and a true, spiritual leader.
4. Absolutistic thinking. 4000 BC. A backlash against heroic thinking, absolutism favored the clarity and discipline of rigid morality. Honor, self-sacrifice, a fear of contradiction and a strict code of behavior characterize this behavior system. Today, absolutism is personified in conservative thinkers….

I’ve found spiral dynamics a great inroad to empathizing especially with people whose value systems appear to differ from my own.  One note of caution: I’ve noticed the temptation to pigeonhole people into these categories when in fact these memes are tendencies we possess rather than hard categories we act upon.

Read more…

The Empathic Civilization: Animated!

June 4th, 2010

Bestselling author, political adviser and social ethicist Jeremy Rifkin investigates the evolution of empathy and the profound ways that it has shaped our development and our society. Beautifully animated by the RSA.

Review and Critique: Jeremy Rifkin’s The Empathic Civilization and P.W. Singer’s Wired for War

March 5th, 2010

gary-olson-150Jeremy Rifkin’s The Empathic Civilization and P.W. Singer’s Wired for War: Review and Critique 
by Gary Olson 

Two recent books on the future, both seeking to interpret selected aspects of a rapidly moving, technologically complex world, are each deeply flawed but well worth examining for what’s missing.  One author fears we are heading toward global entropic destruction of the earth’s biosphere unless we reinterpret history in light of new scientific evidence that proves humans are an empathic species. The other, more narrowly focused, explores the advent of military robotics, the revolutionary technology that promises to dominate future battlefields. 
 
The first book, The Empathic Civilization by Jeremy Rifkin, is the second major treatment of empathy to appear in recent months. It “outwords” Frans de Waal’s The Age of Empathy by a door-stopping 675 pages to a mere 304 [1].  The second book, Wired For War by P.W. Singer, is a disturbing but impressively detailed account of the American military’s current and anticipated use of robotic warfare. 
 
Rifkin, a frequent advisor to CEOs, senior corporate management, and European Union officials, has authored 17 books on “big trend” topics, not infrequently self-proclaimed ones.  His previous work has featured doom and Gloom warnings about imminent apocalyptic crises. Were Rifkin a meteorologist he¹d be drawing unemployment. 
 
On occasion, an un-popped kernel of radical potential can be discovered. This was true about his early book on “pension fund socialism,” in The North Will Rise Again (with Randy Barber, 1978) and again in The End of Work (1995), both of which I assigned for my political economy courses. But his arguments are never carried to their logical anti-capitalist conclusion and that remains the case here. Thus he can accurately proclaim:  “The ability to extend individual empathy across national cultures, continents, oceans, and other traditional divides is enormous, with profound implications for the humanization of the human race” (p. 427). 
 
And further, although the social creation of surplus is a foreign concept to Rifkin, he does support ordinary citizens having access to a better quality of life and a more inclusive society.  The problems arise when Rifkin attempts to operationalize his objectives. 

» Read more: Review and Critique: Jeremy Rifkin’s The Empathic Civilization and P.W. Singer’s Wired for War

The Evolution of Empathy

January 27th, 2010

FransdeWaalI’ve been posting a lot of Frans de Waal writings and video lately.  I’m fascinated by the fact that empathy seems to have an instinctive basis.  That  its not purely a learned skill. In this article in Greater Good Magazine, de Waal explains that not only are humans innately empathic, but that empathy is not solely a human trait. From Greater Good:

Over the last several decades, we’ve seen increasing evidence of empathy in other species. One piece of evidence came unintentionally out of a study on human development. Carolyn Zahn-Waxler, a research psychologist at the National Institute of Mental Health, visited people’s homes to find out how young children respond to family members’ emotions. She instructed people to pretend to sob, cry, or choke, and found that some household pets seemed as worried as the children were by the feigned distress of the family members. The pets hovered nearby and put their heads in their owners’ laps.”

Read more…

David Berreby Interviews Frans De Waal (VIDEO)

January 18th, 2010

David Berreby, author of  “Us and Them” interviews Frans De Waal, author of  “The Age of Empathy” about empathy and morality. This is a webcam interview, courtesy of bloggingheads.tv

Frans de Waal: The Selfishness of Giving

January 17th, 2010

FransdeWaalFrom the Huffington Post, Professor de Waal, author of  “The Age of Empathy” (2009):

Today’s column by Nicholas Kristof in the New York Times entitled “Our Basic Human Pleasures: Food, Sex and Giving” struck a chord as he offered examples of how we feel good when we do good. Obviously, this relates to the massive response to the Haiti earthquake.

Let me add an evolutionary note.

The predominant opinion used to be that humans are rational profit-maximizers. Society was built around this principle, with Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan as its political champions. Biology supported it, by talking of “selfish genes,” which some mistook to mean that we must by definition be selfish, too. Greed was good.

Read more…