Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
dirtnap
Colonel
Joined: 28-Mar-2005
Location: Virgin Islands
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 605
|
Quote Reply
Topic: Why do we feel embarassed for others? Posted: 11-Mar-2006 at 14:20 |
Originally posted by Aydin
This is very true, and if you haven't really noticed this before you'll realise next time it happens. My friends spit like camels when they talk and it happens all the time, and when it happens it's very akward. You both kinda look at each other funny and you pretend it never happend.very weird... |
Maybe they were just scared of you and how intimidated you make them feel with your freakish imposing strength and your obvious intellectual superiority made them coward for fear of your devine wrath.
I know people who will walk up to you and look at your nose and start rubbing their own just to see if you will sub-consiously start rubbing your own nose. I wonder if their jedi mind tricks have ever worked...
Edited by dirtnap
|
|
Halevi
Colonel
Joined: 16-Feb-2006
Location: Neutral Zone
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 584
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 11-Mar-2006 at 06:23 |
Originally posted by Aydin
Here's another situation
to think about. It was actually an Aussie comic who said this at the
Just for Laughs festival and i was dying laughing when I saw it. He
said:
Why is it that when someone accidently spits on you when
theyre talking, you don't say anything? You see him look at the spit,
and he saw you look at it, so you both know it happened. But yet we
don't say anything because we don't want to embarass him in front of
other people. HE SPIT ON YOU and you're worried about hurting his
feelings lmfao.
This is very true, and if you haven't really
noticed this before you'll realise next time it happens. My friends
spit like camels when they talk and it happens all the time, and when
it happens it's very akward. You both kinda look at each other funny
and you pretend it never happend.
very weird... |
Hahhaha thats totally true. Good call. Very Seinfeld.
|
"Your country ain't your blood. Remember that." -Santino Corelone
|
|
Aydin
Baron
Suspended
Joined: 13-Aug-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 481
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 09-Mar-2006 at 23:16 |
Here's another situation to think about. It was actually an Aussie comic who said this at the Just for Laughs festival and i was dying laughing when I saw it. He said:
Why is it that when someone accidently spits on you when theyre talking, you don't say anything? You see him look at the spit, and he saw you look at it, so you both know it happened. But yet we don't say anything because we don't want to embarass him in front of other people. HE SPIT ON YOU and you're worried about hurting his feelings lmfao.
This is very true, and if you haven't really noticed this before you'll realise next time it happens. My friends spit like camels when they talk and it happens all the time, and when it happens it's very akward. You both kinda look at each other funny and you pretend it never happend.
very weird...
|
|
Aydin
Baron
Suspended
Joined: 13-Aug-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 481
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 09-Mar-2006 at 14:38 |
Originally posted by ArmenianSurvival
Originally posted by Constantine XI
When we see others undeservedly suffering or losing, it troubles us because this contradicts our sense of fairness or how we think outcomes should occur if we were in that person's position. The concept of fairness is deeply rooted in human consciousness, it was a major psychological development which occured as primates formed into collaborative groups with a degree of mutual need. Fairness is the primate logic which ensures things run well, for that process to be disrupted is psychologically troubling for us. |
I think this is one of the main points of the dilemma. Much like in economics, society also functions by way of the "invisible hand", i.e., some faith in the natural order of things that ensures that if we follow certain rules and meet certain criteria, we will get certain results, and that everything works itself out in the end. Perhaps I consciously or subconsciously felt that his difficulties were not deserved. But this means that I had to make the initial assumption that he was a benign person. This goes back to another thing Constantine said, where if this guy had treated me like crap and stole my girlfriend, I would never feel sorry for him. So I'm guessing I felt sorry for him because I made the initial assumption that he was generally a good person, and that his suffering (to whatever extent) was unwarranted. Why did I not assume that some other aspect of his life "made up" for the fact that he stutters? Would you say I didn't make this assumption because I have doubts about the fairness of the natural order of things?
Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl
I'll also add that putting ourselves into the shoes of someone else, even for a brief moment, help us to learn by mimicry. |
Originally posted by Constantine XI
I think that human beings have a natural tendency to feel empathy, or to place themselves in others' position |
Some philosophers who advocate secular morality over religious morality believe that the basis of all our moral actions comes from what you two (and others) just described. It is this "council of others" that we imagine in our heads everytime we are faced with a moral dilemma. "What would he think if I did this?", "What would they say if I did that?", and so on. Basically, putting ourselves in someone else's shoes to judge our own actions. For non-theists, this council includes loved ones and whoever is considered a valuable social contact. Theists have this same "council of others", except their council includes God(s). This "coucil of others" was one of the best ways (in my opinion) to explain the existence of morally-good atheists against the notion that "without religion, there is no morality". So in much the same way that we predict what people will think of our actions, maybe we also naturally put ourselves in others' position. The feeling of empathy could arise from the fact that we imagine what others will think of us if we were in that person's position. |
That is true. You are an educated person!
|
|
Aydin
Baron
Suspended
Joined: 13-Aug-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 481
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 09-Mar-2006 at 12:30 |
like yourself and others, it hurts when i see other people in distress or with dissabilities. i believe this sense of caring and even embarrasment, comes down to our humanity and the fact that regardless of our differences in appearance, language, religon, and so on, we are all in some way connected to each other.
unfortunately not every person has humanity. to some, it's all one big laugh.
|
|
Serge L
Baron
Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Location: Italy
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 485
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 08-Mar-2006 at 05:51 |
A very recent study provided ample evidences that altruistic behaviour is innate in human beings and, up to a certain extent, in other primates.
Some abstracts:
...
As recent findings by other researchers from the same institute show, these seem to be restricted to particular situations. Felix Warneken and Mike Tomasello found that children as young as 18 months willingly helped complete strangers. 'The results were astonishing because these children are so young - they still wear diapers and are barely able to use language,' says Warneken. 'But they already show helping behaviour.'
Warneken performed various tasks like hanging clothes on a line, and would drop a clothes peg out of his reach. For the first 10 seconds he reached for the peg. In the next 10 seconds he also looked at the child. After 20 seconds he said 'my peg!'. But he never directly asked the child for help, and did not thank or reward the child if the peg was retrieved. Virtually all children helped at least once in these situations and in 84% of cases they helped during the first 10 seconds, before Warneken even made eye contact.
'The children didn't fetch the peg automatically because in another part of the test I threw it on the ground deliberately and they didn't pick it up. They only gave it to me if they inferred that I needed the peg to complete my goal, in this case, hanging up the clothes.'
In case picking up clothes pegs was something the children had experienced before, Warneken invented new and more complicated situations. One was a box with a flap to retrieve objects inside the box. Warneken accidentally dropped a spoon inside and pretended he didn't know about the flap. Again, the children only helped Warneken retrieve the spoon if he was struggling to get it, as opposed to when Warneken threw the spoon inside deliberately.
...
But is helping unique to humans? A recent study by Jensen and colleagues [1] shows that chimpanzees only care about themselves when the goal is to retrieve food. However, chimpanzees might help in situations other than foraging. Therefore, Warneken conducted the same helping tasks also with human-raised chimpanzees. Although the chimpanzees didn't help in the more complex tasks, like the box experiment, they did help when their human caretaker was reaching for something.
...
Altruism in chimpanzees may mean our common ancestor already had rudimentary forms of helping behaviour before chimpanzees and humans split six million years ago.
'People thought helping behaviour was unique to humans, but maybe chimps aren't as different as we thought,' says Warneken with a smile. 'Perhaps there was a tiny bit of altruism in our evolutionary ancestor and it's grown so much stronger in modern humans.'
|
link to full article
|
|
ArmenianSurvival
Chieftain
Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1460
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 08-Mar-2006 at 01:48 |
Originally posted by Constantine XI
When we see others undeservedly suffering or losing, it
troubles us because this contradicts our sense of fairness or how we
think outcomes should occur if we were in that person's position. The
concept of fairness is deeply rooted in human consciousness, it was a
major psychological development which occured as primates formed into
collaborative groups with a degree of mutual need. Fairness is the
primate logic which ensures things run well, for that process to be
disrupted is psychologically troubling for us. |
I think this is one of the main points of the dilemma. Much like
in economics, society also functions by way of the "invisible hand",
i.e., some faith in the natural order of things that ensures that if we
follow certain rules and meet certain criteria, we will get certain
results, and that everything works itself out in the end.
Perhaps I consciously or subconsciously felt that his difficulties
were not deserved. But this means that I had to make the initial
assumption that he was a benign person. This goes back to another thing
Constantine said, where if this guy had treated me like crap and stole
my girlfriend, I would never feel sorry for him. So I'm guessing I felt
sorry for him because I made the initial assumption that he was
generally a good person, and that his suffering (to whatever extent)
was unwarranted. Why did I not assume that some other aspect of his
life "made up" for the fact that he stutters? Would you say I didn't
make this assumption because I have doubts about the fairness of the
natural order of things?
Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl
I'll also add that putting ourselves into the shoes
of someone else, even for a brief moment, help us to learn by
mimicry. |
Originally posted by Constantine XI
I think that human beings have a natural tendency to
feel empathy, or to place themselves in others' position |
Some philosophers who advocate secular morality over religious
morality believe that the basis of all our moral actions comes from
what you two (and others) just described. It is this "council of
others" that we imagine in our heads everytime we are faced with a
moral dilemma. "What would he think if I did this?", "What would they
say if I did that?", and so on. Basically, putting ourselves in someone
else's shoes to judge our own actions. For non-theists, this council
includes loved ones and whoever is considered a valuable social
contact. Theists have this same "council of others", except their
council includes God(s). This "coucil of others" was one of the best
ways (in my opinion) to explain the existence of morally-good atheists
against the notion that "without religion, there is no morality". So in
much the same way that we predict what people will think of our
actions, maybe we also naturally put ourselves in others' position. The
feeling of empathy could arise from the fact that we imagine what
others will think of us if we were in that person's position.
Edited by ArmenianSurvival
|
Mass Murderers Agree: Gun Control Works!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Resistance
Քիչ ենք բայց Հայ ենք։
|
|
flyingzone
Caliph
Joined: 11-Dec-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2630
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 07-Mar-2006 at 19:16 |
The newest focus of neuropsychological research on "empathy" is something called "mirror neuron", first discovered by Italian researchers Giacomo Rizzolatti, Leonardo Fogassi, and Vittorio Gallese at the University in Parma. Basically, a mirror neuron is a neuron that fires both when an animal is performing an action and when the animal is observing the same action performed by another animal (of the same species). In other words, the neuron "mirrors" the behavior of another animal, as though the observer were himself or herself performing the action. That explains why we ourselves feel "embarrased" by watching others performing embarrassing acts. The same explanation can be applied to why we scream, yell, and even cry while watching a ball game.
The significance of these "mirror neurons" and its implications for things from human language acquisition to the origin and treatment of autism (autistic people are allegedly people who have defective "mirror neurons", hence their inability to empathize and therefore to socialize with others) have been highlighted by world renowned neuroscientist V.S. Ramachandran (who has done research on and written about a lot of amazingly interesting bizarre neurological phenomena such as "phantom limbs", "blind sight", synesthesia, Capgras syndrome, etc.).
Fascinating stuff.
|
|
Quetzalcoatl
General
Suspended
Joined: 05-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 984
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 07-Mar-2006 at 17:36 |
Originally posted by Halevi
Originally posted by Constantine XI
Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl
Well I can only speculate. So, borrowing from the ideas of Constantine, I would say a complex form of mimicry has evolved to help our forebears, and hence us, to cope with the demands of a collaborative group. A strong emotional response to an event (someone else under stress) that indirectly concern an individual can be a more effective way to prepare that person to successfully tackle a similar situation in a near future.
|
I am in agreement with that, the only thing better than learning from your mistakes is learning from those of others. Perhaps when we see the failures of non-rivals, an emotional connection helps cement in our minds that we should avoid falling into such a situation ourselves. I think emotional memories are FAR more powerful in changing our behaviour than purely cognitive memories and learning. If placed in a similar position to the victim in future, our emotional memory of the past event will strongly motivate us to avoid a similar failure for ourselves.
|
Pretty tight. I like.
Does it work? (I dunno about you, but i can still get perceptibly nervous speaking in front of crowds!)
Also ... can we create a scenario in the evolutionary past in which this was literally adaptive? (Ie helped someone survive to go on to have more kids)
...
|
A lion is attacking an isolated ape-like ancestor of man, instead of running away, the rest of the group pick stones and sticks and scare away the lion by making a lot of noise mostly. Without any emotional response, the group would have been apathetic to the fate of the isolated ape under attack. Now a young ape was observing the scene from the safety of a high tree and felt empathy for the ape that had gone astray. In a near future that ape would know how to response to a similar threat.
Edited by Quetzalcoatl
|
|
Akolouthos
Sultan
Joined: 24-Feb-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2091
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 07-Mar-2006 at 10:33 |
One part genuine conscious concern, two parts subconscious arrogance/superiority complex.
OR...
Two parts genuine conscoius concern, one part subconscoius arrogance/superiority complex.
-Akolouthos
|
|
Lmprs
Arch Duke
Joined: 30-Dec-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1869
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 07-Mar-2006 at 10:20 |
Excellent topic. I think it is because we imagine ourselves in their position.
|
|
sedamoun
Baron
Joined: 18-Oct-2005
Location: Sweden
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 480
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 07-Mar-2006 at 10:03 |
Why would you be embarassed for someone else, you either don't care (90% of the time for my sake) because there is nothing other people hate more than pitty (as do I) or you think they deserve it the rest of the time.
When sombody falls on his a** (not funny situation) on the streets full of people:
- idiots laugh
- afraid people go like "Oh no... how i feel bad for him/her..."
- "normal" people arround help out and go along their way (or don't really care).
Cheers.
|
|
|
Mila
Tsar
Retired AE Moderator
Joined: 17-Sep-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4030
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 07-Mar-2006 at 09:12 |
Second-hand embarrassement, I hate it.
I think it happens mainly because, either consciously or
subconsciously, we realize how we appeared in a similar situation and
we to stop the other person because it's a horrible realisation.
|
[IMG]http://img272.imageshack.us/img272/9259/1xw2.jpg">
|
|
Halevi
Colonel
Joined: 16-Feb-2006
Location: Neutral Zone
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 584
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 07-Mar-2006 at 06:33 |
Originally posted by Constantine XI
Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl
Well I can only speculate. So, borrowing from the ideas of
Constantine, I would say a complex form of mimicry has
evolved to help our forebears, and hence us, to cope with the demands
of a collaborative group. A strong emotional response to an event
(someone else under stress) that indirectly concern an
individual can be a more effective way to prepare that
person to successfully tackle a similar situation in a near future. |
I am in agreement with that, the only thing better than learning from
your mistakes is learning from those of others. Perhaps when we see the
failures of non-rivals, an emotional connection helps cement in our
minds that we should avoid falling into such a situation ourselves. I
think emotional memories are FAR more powerful in changing our
behaviour than purely cognitive memories and learning. If placed in a
similar position to the victim in future, our emotional memory of the
past event will strongly motivate us to avoid a similar failure for
ourselves.
|
Pretty tight. I like.
Does it work? (I dunno about you, but i can still get perceptibly nervous speaking in front of crowds!)
Also ... can we create a scenario in the evolutionary past in which this was literally
adaptive? (Ie helped someone survive to go on to have more
kids)
...
Edited by Halevi
|
"Your country ain't your blood. Remember that." -Santino Corelone
|
|
Quetzalcoatl
General
Suspended
Joined: 05-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 984
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 07-Mar-2006 at 05:58 |
Originally posted by Constantine XI
Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl
Well I can only speculate. So, borrowing from the ideas of Constantine, I would say a complex form of mimicry has evolved to help our forebears, and hence us, to cope with the demands of a collaborative group. A strong emotional response to an event (someone else under stress) that indirectly concern an individual can be a more effective way to prepare that person to successfully tackle a similar situation in a near future.
|
I am in agreement with that, the only thing better than learning from your mistakes is learning from those of others. Perhaps when we see the failures of non-rivals, an emotional connection helps cement in our minds that we should avoid falling into such a situation ourselves. I think emotional memories are FAR more powerful in changing our behaviour than purely cognitive memories and learning. If placed in a similar position to the victim in future, our emotional memory of the past event will strongly motivate us to avoid a similar failure for ourselves.
|
Yep.
|
|
Constantine XI
Suspended
Suspended
Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 07-Mar-2006 at 05:55 |
Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl
Well I can only speculate. So, borrowing from the ideas of
Constantine, I would say a complex form of mimicry has
evolved to help our forebears, and hence us, to cope with the demands
of a collaborative group. A strong emotional response to an event
(someone else under stress) that indirectly concern an
individual can be a more effective way to prepare that
person to successfully tackle a similar situation in a near future. |
I am in agreement with that, the only thing better than learning from
your mistakes is learning from those of others. Perhaps when we see the
failures of non-rivals, an emotional connection helps cement in our
minds that we should avoid falling into such a situation ourselves. I
think emotional memories are FAR more powerful in changing our
behaviour than purely cognitive memories and learning. If placed in a
similar position to the victim in future, our emotional memory of the
past event will strongly motivate us to avoid a similar failure for
ourselves.
|
|
Quetzalcoatl
General
Suspended
Joined: 05-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 984
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 07-Mar-2006 at 05:38 |
Originally posted by Halevi
Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl
Interesting question and an even more interesting response from Constantine. Good job fellas.
I'll also add that putting ourselves into the shoes of someone else, even for a brief moment, help us to learn by mimicry. So if this mechanism is innate to a human being, it would seem normal that we would empathise with someone that is placed in an awkward and stressful situation, for it allows us to experience an event without being directly involved.
Not all individuals will feel the need to associate with the entity that has been placed under stress, especially if the individuals in question are well acquainted with the scenario.
|
Good point. So, if i understand correctly, youre postulating that our feeling of discomfort is a by-product of our adaptation to learn by mimicry?
|
Well I can only speculate. So, borrowing from the ideas of Constantine, I would say a complex form of mimicry has evolved to help our forebears, and hence us, to cope with the demands of a collaborative group. A strong emotional response to an event (someone else under stress) that indirectly concern an individual can be a more effective way to prepare that person (acting in a group or alone) to successfully tackle a similar situation in a near future.
That emotional response could be a feeling of discomfort or some other emotion. So the emotion is not a by-product, but the factor or the instinct that drives our ego.
Edited by Quetzalcoatl
|
|
Halevi
Colonel
Joined: 16-Feb-2006
Location: Neutral Zone
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 584
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 07-Mar-2006 at 05:18 |
Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl
Interesting question and an even more interesting response from Constantine. Good job fellas.
I'll also add that putting ourselves into the shoes
of someone else, even for a brief moment, help us to learn by
mimicry. So if this mechanism is innate to a human being, it would seem
normal that we would empathise with someone that is placed in an
awkward and stressful situation, for it allows us to experience an
event without being directly involved.
Not all individuals will feel the need to associate with the entity
that has been placed under stress, especially if the individuals
in question are well acquainted with the scenario. |
Good point. So, if i understand correctly, youre postulating that our
feeling of discomfort is a by-product of our adaptation to learn by
mimicry?
|
"Your country ain't your blood. Remember that." -Santino Corelone
|
|
Quetzalcoatl
General
Suspended
Joined: 05-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 984
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 07-Mar-2006 at 04:55 |
Interesting question and an even more interesting response from Constantine. Good job fellas.
I'll also add that putting ourselves into the shoes of someone else, even for a brief moment, help us to learn by mimicry. So if this mechanism is innate to a human being, it would seem normal that we would empathise with someone that is placed in an awkward and stressful situation, for it allows us to experience an event without being directly involved.
Not all individuals will feel the need to associate with the entity that has been placed under stress, especially if the individuals in question are well acquainted with the scenario that is flashing in from of them -- leaving them quite indifferent.
Edited by Quetzalcoatl
|
|
Halevi
Colonel
Joined: 16-Feb-2006
Location: Neutral Zone
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 584
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 07-Mar-2006 at 04:48 |
Originally posted by Constantine XI
I suppose if we know the person has honestly made the effort to answer
the question (studying, attending classes, behaving in the school
environment), we still feel it unfair they be so disadvantaged by a
factor for which they are neither to blame nor can they do very much
about. We ourselves would feel terrible if such an accident of
circumstance prevented us from achieving. On the other hand, if our
young Asian student screwed around in class and went out drinking with
his friends most nights he would not have our sympathy. This is because
we consider such causes of failure to be an individual's responsibility
to control, if we failed because of such vices (e.g. drinking and midbehaving) we would feel bad but
would not feel we had been unfairly cheated of success. The concept of
fairness involves the notion that we take reasonable steps to be in
command of our environment, though how far a person goes to do so gets
more individually subjective (hence why not everyone agrees 100% on
what is fair and what isn't) .
|
Well said.
However, i have an inkling that even just listening to someone stutter,
or speak nervously at length, for instance, makes us uncomfortable
(regardless of whether we think the person was amply prepared or not).
Could it be the opposite of alpha-male-trait attraction?
Phrased differently, why do you think we are less likely to listen
intently to someone who comes accross poorly/without confidence?
The fact that this is a (seemingly) universal phenomenon makes me think there's something evolutionary/adaptive going on here.
Ideas?
Edited by Halevi
|
"Your country ain't your blood. Remember that." -Santino Corelone
|
|