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 showed stronger brain reactions associated with empathy compared to conservatives. This pattern of brain activity was linked to participants’ self-reported political beliefs and their acceptance of right-wing values. The study was published in Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience. …

  • PatFusty@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    36
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Small sample size of 55 participants that were gathered online and all from Israel. They are all ~25 yrs old and were split up based on what newspaper they read. The participants were free to label themselves but it was backed by asking questions of how they feel about their current administration policies. Kind of odd study.

      • iturnedintoanewt@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        21
        ·
        1 year ago

        Well he’s not wrong. Would you back shitty facts if they follow your political leaning? I prefer real facts you can stand on that something that can be easily debunked later on.

        • PoliticalAgitator@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          Would you back shitty facts if they follow your political leaning?

          I would if I was a Trump supporter, since its functionally a requirement.

      • Shardikprime@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Bro, if you can’t even discuss a scientific study seriously I don’t even know what we are doing anymore

        • somethingsnappy@lemmy.world
          cake
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          I hate to say this. Really. But as a scientist (in vaccine development), the broader public may never be able to have real discussions of science. I don’t ask my neighbor’s opinion about the surgery my Hopkins trained doctor recommended. That isn’t how science works in the public discourse. I wish it was closer to reality that we were all educated enough that it would be productive.

          • Shardikprime@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Yeah well we all were born uneducated and someone cared enough to cram data into our skulls. Not your responsibility, fair enough, just saying not take everything in the worst possible way if you know you are willing to not correct the other person

      • Notyou@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        He (maybe she judging by username) brings up a good point with the study though. It is important to look at all the data and factors. I am biased toward the results. Meaning I agree with them, but it is a small study. We should be able to discuss these facts without it being a big deal.

    • stringere@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Overlooking how reductionist and incorrect that statement is: why is a political stance based around empathy a bad thing?

      • exohuman@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        Who said it was a bad thing and why would you assume it was? And it’s not incorrect: you can prove it in the liberal stance on social issues. All of those stances require empathy. The same is not true of conservative stances which are based around ideology to the point that it allows human suffering.

        • stringere@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I read your statement completely contrary to your intent, that’s how it’s a bad thing!

          My oops

  • Orphie Baby@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    That’s what defines “conservative”. They are sheltered and are afraid of everything that’s different, so they’re trying to conserve some distorted ideal of what they alone think is “normal”. That’s why they’re racists, gender bigots, and hate other religions. That’s why most conservatives live in rural areas, while most people who live in cities are liberal— because exposure to a variety of people and experiences creates empathy.

    I’m surprised not more people have caught onto this by now.

    • axtualdave@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      1 year ago

      Maybe not “need”, but yes, a fully peer reviewed study confirming or rejecting seemingly obvious conclusions is an important part of the scientific method. It’s how we gain confidence in what we (think we) know.

    • surewhynotlem@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      People are people. You care about people or you don’t. It isn’t a sports match where you root for a team.

      • Steve@compuverse.uk
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        You care about people or you don’t.

        That’s obviously and completely wrong. Everyone cares about different people to different degrees, depending on how close and well known they are. It’s not at all binary. If it were, you would by flying around the world to sit at the bed side of every kid with cancer you’ve ever heard of, as if they were your own child.

    • Steve@compuverse.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I would hesitantly say it probably would. They didn’t include that in the scan, but did in the self reporting questions. And found no real difference in either groups self reported empathy toward the other group.

      Furthermore, at the self-reported level, we assessed inter-group empathy levels (toward rightists vs leftists), and our results did not reveal any significant difference between the two groups, and rather moderate levels of empathy toward each other.

      That combined with the starkly increased measured of empathy for others generally, which was more pronounced than self reporting showed. It would make sense that the same pattern continued, even for the opposite associated group. I would expect rightists to be less empathetic to leftists than self-reported, and leftists to be more empathetic to rightists than self-reported.

  • shogun5000@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    39
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    And also a significantly higher percentage of mental illnesses.

    Edit: Uh oh, lol. The conformist hive mind got upset at facts. Again, actual scientific facts, not my opinion.