Humans need to read to feel more empathy with others.

Polyglot27 · 12-31-2011, 07:13 AM

According to an article in The Guardian, not only are humans hard-wired to read, it also is important because it improves their ability to feel empathy for others.

"Psychologists from Washington University used brain scans to see what happens inside our heads when we read stories. They found that "readers mentally simulate each new situation encountered in a narrative". The brain weaves these situations together with experiences from its own life to create a new mental synthesis. Reading a book leaves us with new neural pathways.

The discovery that our brains are physically changed by the experience of reading is something many of us will understand instinctively, as we think back to the way an extraordinary book had a transformative effect on the way we viewed the world. This transformation only takes place when we lose ourselves in a book, abandoning the emotional and mental chatter of the real world. That's why studies have found this kind of deep reading makes us more empathetic, or as Nicholas Carr puts it in his essay, The Dreams of Readers, "more alert to the inner lives of others".

This is significant because recent scientific research has also found a dramatic fall in empathy among teenagers in advanced western cultures. We can't yet be sure why this is happening, but the best hypothesis is that it is the result of their immersion in the internet and the quickfire virtual world it offers. So technology reveals that our brains are being changed by technology, and then offers a potential solution – the book."

Read full article here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...red-read-books

xg4bx · 12-31-2011, 07:24 AM

personally i'm an exception. i read a lot, i've always read a lot and the only things on earth i care about are myself, my wife and kittens.

DiapDealer · 12-31-2011, 08:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xg4bx

personally i'm an exception. i read a lot, i've always read a lot and the only things on earth i care about are myself, my wife and kittens.

Well aren't you just quite the hard-ass, uncaring brute?

Steven Lyle Jordan · 12-31-2011, 08:49 AM

Funny, I remember how certain movies and TV shows altered my view on the world... but very few books that have done that. But I guess the point is made.

And I agree with the suggestion that internet activity is, by nature, less supportive of empathy. It's a combination of the distance placed between others, and the anonymity of most web-based contact, therefore removing almost all real and potential intimacy with others, that encourages aggressive behavior and discourages empathy.

I suspect that, somehow, the removal of the possibility of intimacy created by reading a book (or watching a show) increases the desire to be intimate with those you are watching but removed from, creating a greater empathy for them.

Catlady · 12-31-2011, 09:43 AM

My gut reaction is that it's content that matters more than form; like Mr. Jordan, I can more readily point to movies and TV shows that shifted my worldview, rather than books, though I have always loved to read.

Mrs. Marple · 12-31-2011, 09:59 AM

Its the kind of books one chooses to read. I'm not into heart wrenching reads; give me a good murder. But I will watch something sad on t.v. So, my empathy is gained from t.v. Some of my misguided friends persist in reading meaningful books.

ProfCrash · 12-31-2011, 10:50 AM

I have read many more books then I have seen movies. I would guess that is true for most of the people on this board. I know this year I saw fewer then 15 movies, it might be under 10, at the theater but I have read 60 or so books. So I imagine it would be easier for me to remember a movie over a book.

Then again, A Tree Grows in Brooklyn, Eric (about a young man with leukemia), They Cage the Animals at Night (child abuse), To Kill a Mockingbird and other books have left a large footprint in my brain. It is actually a long list and would be longer if I were able to list every book that I read.

It could also be that since so few people read the way most of the people here read but probably see a fair number of movies it is easier to discuss the latest movie then it is the latest book that you read. I can easily discuss the movie the Girl with the Dragon Tattoo but most folks I know have not read the book. I know that there are even fewer people who I can discuss The Night Women, my most recent read, with because it is not a well known book and most of my friends would not be interested in reading about a slave revolt from the perspective of a Jamaican House slave.

I guess what I am saying is that since most of society is more prone to seeing movies and due to the selection size we tend to see many of the same movies, it is easier to discuss the movie and hence have it stick in our memories.

I wonder if people who are in book clubs remember what they read a bit more vividly.

Catlady · 12-31-2011, 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ProfCrash

I guess what I am saying is that since most of society is more prone to seeing movies and due to the selection size we tend to see many of the same movies, it is easier to discuss the movie and hence have it stick in our memories.

Some of the movies that greatly influenced me are ones I discovered on my own on TV, not ones I discussed with others. E.g., They Won't Forget, about the Leo Frank case. With the availability of DVDs, I've looked at a lot of TV and films that I only vaguely remembered from my formative years, and quite often I've realized after the fact how influential they were in my thinking.

There are a lot of books I love and remember very well, due to rereading and/or discussion, but for some reason I don't feel that they had quite as much influence on my worldview or my empathy as TV and movies.

Maybe it's that I was exposed to serious and thought-provoking ideas in TV and movies first, before I was getting them in the books I was reading as a kid.

RainingLemur · 12-31-2011, 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xg4bx

personally i'm an exception. i read a lot, i've always read a lot and the only things on earth i care about are myself, my wife and kittens.

Haha. I'm pretty much the same way. But, I also add my mamma into that mix.

Andrew H. · 12-31-2011, 03:30 PM

This is interesting, but I don't think the scientific data supports the "empathy" theory described in the article.

If you click through to the brain scan research, all it demonstrates is that the reading stimulates the same area of the brain that would be stimulated if the event happened in real life. I.e, when the reader read a passage about pulling a cord on a light switch, there was activity in the part of the brain that was used to cause your hand to make a grasping motion. While I think that this is very useful for understanding what happens when we read, there's nothing about "empathy" in the brain scan research. The empathy bit comes from a completely unrelated essay by someone else positing that reading makes people more empathetic...but there's no connection to the actual scientific research.

I'm kind of skeptical that reading makes people "better" anyway - Timothy McVeigh was described by everyone who knew him as an "avid reader," but I don't think anyone could call him empathetic.

xg4bx · 12-31-2011, 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RainingLemur

Haha. I'm pretty much the same way. But, I also add my mamma into that mix.

my mother is....hard to love and i'll leave it at that lol

reading has definitely opened new avenues of thought and given me an infinite amount of ideas to ponder. i'm just not a very warm person and find it hard to have empathy when a large majority of people are generally architects of their own misery.

the kitten part is true. i have vastly more sympathy and empathy for animals who have no say in a miserable situation and will suffer until they die. humans have the tools to leave poor situations or stop making poor life choices and if they choose not to then its no skin off my nose. *shrug*

TechnoCat · 12-31-2011, 07:52 PM

I read the Guardian article. There was a lot wrong with it.

The word "empathy" is used differently than we usually do, more like being able to see from another perspective.
The way it's defined, I consider more empathy a bad thing, especially in teens already overwhelmed with feelings and still learning to control them. IMHO, "empathy" as used results in the expectation that the village will compensate for any bad choices you (or anyone) makes in the interest of "fairness". (i.e. reduced consequences from teen pregnancy or skipping school, and higher taxes/penalties for getting a degree and earning more.)
The article blurred causation (teens lack empathy due to lacking reading) with correlation (due to environmental factors such as video games and TV, teens both lack empathy and the desire/attention span for reading.) I suspect correlation rather than causation.

Scott Nielsen · 01-01-2012, 08:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TechnoCat

[*]The word "empathy" is used differently than we usually do, more like being able to see from another perspective.[/LIST]

But that is what empathy means. It mustn't be confused by equating it to sympathy.

Ninjalawyer · 01-01-2012, 10:54 PM

What a load. Correlation does not equal causation; there's no particular reason to assume that a drop off in "empathy" has anything to do with internet use or any of the other usual boogeymen of modern society.

MV64 · 01-01-2012, 11:44 PM

I'm sorry...but how exactly are humans "hard-wired" to do something that wasn't invented for hundreds of thousands of years after we came into existence?

12-31-2011, 07:13 AM	#1
Polyglot27 Addict Posts: 231 Karma: 5588994 Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Paris, France Device: Cybook Gen3, Archos 80 G9, Sony PRS-650, Sony T1, Asus MemoPad.	Humans need to read to feel more empathy with others. According to an article in The Guardian, not only are humans hard-wired to read, it also is important because it improves their ability to feel empathy for others. "Psychologists from Washington University used brain scans to see what happens inside our heads when we read stories. They found that "readers mentally simulate each new situation encountered in a narrative". The brain weaves these situations together with experiences from its own life to create a new mental synthesis. Reading a book leaves us with new neural pathways. The discovery that our brains are physically changed by the experience of reading is something many of us will understand instinctively, as we think back to the way an extraordinary book had a transformative effect on the way we viewed the world. This transformation only takes place when we lose ourselves in a book, abandoning the emotional and mental chatter of the real world. That's why studies have found this kind of deep reading makes us more empathetic, or as Nicholas Carr puts it in his essay, The Dreams of Readers, "more alert to the inner lives of others". This is significant because recent scientific research has also found a dramatic fall in empathy among teenagers in advanced western cultures. We can't yet be sure why this is happening, but the best hypothesis is that it is the result of their immersion in the internet and the quickfire virtual world it offers. So technology reveals that our brains are being changed by technology, and then offers a potential solution – the book." Read full article here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...red-read-books

12-31-2011, 07:52 PM	#12
TechnoCat Zealot Posts: 131 Karma: 150390 Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: Pacific NorthWest Device: Kindle Fire	I read the Guardian article. There was a lot wrong with it. The word "empathy" is used differently than we usually do, more like being able to see from another perspective. The way it's defined, I consider more empathy a bad thing, especially in teens already overwhelmed with feelings and still learning to control them. IMHO, "empathy" as used results in the expectation that the village will compensate for any bad choices you (or anyone) makes in the interest of "fairness". (i.e. reduced consequences from teen pregnancy or skipping school, and higher taxes/penalties for getting a degree and earning more.) The article blurred causation (teens lack empathy due to lacking reading) with correlation (due to environmental factors such as video games and TV, teens both lack empathy and the desire/attention span for reading.) I suspect correlation rather than causation.

01-01-2012, 10:54 PM	#14
Ninjalawyer Guru Posts: 826 Karma: 18573626 Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Canada Device: Kobo Touch, Nexus 7 (2013)	What a load. Correlation does not equal causation; there's no particular reason to assume that a drop off in "empathy" has anything to do with internet use or any of the other usual boogeymen of modern society. Last edited by Ninjalawyer; 01-01-2012 at 10:59 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Unutterably Silly BBCA and Syfy - The 2 Being Humans	DixieGal	Lounge	12	03-09-2011 10:45 AM
Straw Dogs: Thoughts on Humans and Other Animals - John N. Gray	kennyc	Reading Recommendations	0	10-24-2010 08:13 AM
How does it feel to read comics in onyx boox	nitrocuadam	Onyx Boox	4	06-04-2010 01:29 AM
iPad The Failure of Empathy	kjk	Apple Devices	1	02-05-2010 09:01 AM

12-31-2011, 07:24 AM	#2
xg4bx Are you gonna eat that? Posts: 1,633 Karma: 23215128 Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Phillipsburg, NJ Device: Kindle 3, Nook STG	personally i'm an exception. i read a lot, i've always read a lot and the only things on earth i care about are myself, my wife and kittens.

12-31-2011, 08:49 AM	#4
Steven Lyle Jordan Grand Sorcerer Posts: 8,478 Karma: 5171130 Join Date: Jan 2006 Device: none	Funny, I remember how certain movies and TV shows altered my view on the world... but very few books that have done that. But I guess the point is made. And I agree with the suggestion that internet activity is, by nature, less supportive of empathy. It's a combination of the distance placed between others, and the anonymity of most web-based contact, therefore removing almost all real and potential intimacy with others, that encourages aggressive behavior and discourages empathy. I suspect that, somehow, the removal of the possibility of intimacy created by reading a book (or watching a show) increases the desire to be intimate with those you are watching but removed from, creating a greater empathy for them.

12-31-2011, 09:43 AM	#5
Catlady Grand Sorcerer Posts: 7,418 Karma: 52613881 Join Date: Oct 2010 Device: Kindle Fire, Kindle Paperwhite, AGPTek Bluetooth Clip	My gut reaction is that it's content that matters more than form; like Mr. Jordan, I can more readily point to movies and TV shows that shifted my worldview, rather than books, though I have always loved to read.

12-31-2011, 09:59 AM	#6
Mrs. Marple gossipy old village lady. Posts: 15 Karma: 400176 Join Date: Dec 2011 Device: Kobo Vox, Polaroid PMID 701C, Samsung Galaxy Tab2	Its the kind of books one chooses to read. I'm not into heart wrenching reads; give me a good murder. But I will watch something sad on t.v. So, my empathy is gained from t.v. Some of my misguided friends persist in reading meaningful books.

12-31-2011, 10:50 AM	#7
ProfCrash Tea Enthusiast Posts: 8,554 Karma: 75384937 Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Somewhere in the USA Device: Kindle1, Kindle DX Graphite, K3 3G, IPad 3, PW2	I have read many more books then I have seen movies. I would guess that is true for most of the people on this board. I know this year I saw fewer then 15 movies, it might be under 10, at the theater but I have read 60 or so books. So I imagine it would be easier for me to remember a movie over a book. Then again, A Tree Grows in Brooklyn, Eric (about a young man with leukemia), They Cage the Animals at Night (child abuse), To Kill a Mockingbird and other books have left a large footprint in my brain. It is actually a long list and would be longer if I were able to list every book that I read. It could also be that since so few people read the way most of the people here read but probably see a fair number of movies it is easier to discuss the latest movie then it is the latest book that you read. I can easily discuss the movie the Girl with the Dragon Tattoo but most folks I know have not read the book. I know that there are even fewer people who I can discuss The Night Women, my most recent read, with because it is not a well known book and most of my friends would not be interested in reading about a slave revolt from the perspective of a Jamaican House slave. I guess what I am saying is that since most of society is more prone to seeing movies and due to the selection size we tend to see many of the same movies, it is easier to discuss the movie and hence have it stick in our memories. I wonder if people who are in book clubs remember what they read a bit more vividly.

12-31-2011, 03:30 PM	#10
Andrew H. Grand Master of Flowers Posts: 2,201 Karma: 8389072 Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Naptown Device: Kindle PW, Kindle 3 (aka Keyboard), iPhone, iPad 3 (not for reading)	This is interesting, but I don't think the scientific data supports the "empathy" theory described in the article. If you click through to the brain scan research, all it demonstrates is that the reading stimulates the same area of the brain that would be stimulated if the event happened in real life. I.e, when the reader read a passage about pulling a cord on a light switch, there was activity in the part of the brain that was used to cause your hand to make a grasping motion. While I think that this is very useful for understanding what happens when we read, there's nothing about "empathy" in the brain scan research. The empathy bit comes from a completely unrelated essay by someone else positing that reading makes people more empathetic...but there's no connection to the actual scientific research. I'm kind of skeptical that reading makes people "better" anyway - Timothy McVeigh was described by everyone who knew him as an "avid reader," but I don't think anyone could call him empathetic.

01-01-2012, 11:44 PM	#15
MV64 Addict Posts: 271 Karma: 2000000 Join Date: Jan 2009 Device: Sony PRS-505	I'm sorry...but how exactly are humans "hard-wired" to do something that wasn't invented for hundreds of thousands of years after we came into existence?

Advert

Advert