7 ms·

> The idea that trauma and violence can have repercussions into future generations should help people be more empathetic, help policymakers pay more attention t

> The idea that trauma and violence can have repercussions into future generations should help people be more empathetic, help policymakers pay more attention to the problem of violence This seems like a pretty charitable read on policymakers. We inflict violence all the time that has multigenerational downstream effects without a genetic component and we don’t really care about the human cost, why would adding a genetic component change anything?

dleeftink 2y ago
Maybe the only way to get out of a cycle is, trying to get out of the cycle?
- stanleykm 2y ago
  Sure but I think if an appeal to empathy was going to work we’d already have seen it work.
  - haswell 2y ago
    Progress if often gradual and the result of continuous pressure over long periods of time. Not everyone will respond to an appeal to empathy, but I don't think "we'd have already seen it work" is a framing that makes sense.
    - weard_beard 2y ago
      Is it even desirable to avoid something nature selected for? The biggest assumption here is that these epigenetic mutations aren’t desirable for survival in a chaotic and violent world
      - EMIRELADERO 2y ago
        It's only undesirable under the assumption that a chaotic and violent world is an acceptable state of affairs.
        weard_beard 2y ago
        I could swallow that argument but in isolation this feels like using the abused as lab rats so we can more thoroughly destroy them at some future date
    - NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
      Progress is completely random and arbitrary. Sometimes it zooms forward, other times it regresses. The universe has no mystical rules that demand that it continue. >Not everyone will respond to an appeal to empathy I don't even think we use the word "empathy" correctly. It makes sense to me when we're talking about a non-general empathy, where you see a particular person close to you (physically, if not emotionally) and you feel for them. You can't have empathy with some abstract hypothetical. You can't even have empathy for some large loosely defined group of people of the non-hypothetical sort. And, most of all, it's largely spontaneous. If you go into it having already decided you feel empathy for them "just on principle", then what you're feeling isn't empathy. It's performative. It's virtue signaling. Pretending that is empathy does empathy no favors, and it does no favors to the people who are supposedly being empathized with. Because it is performative, it's always just this thin veneer of compassion over an inadequately hidden contempt. Worse still may be those who lie to themselves so successfully that they believe that it's real empathy, the hatred is buried deeper but festers all the more for it. Appeal to pragmatism instead of empathy. You can make rational arguments if you're trying to be pragmatic. Appeal to justice. Appeal to anything but empathy. When I hear the word "empathy", I know that I'm about to have a load of horseshit dumped on me. You all know it too, even if you're worried that other people will shun you if you admit it out loud.
      - bloomingkales 2y ago
        Would you accept the argument that someone who for whatever reason doesn't have empathy would also not be able to recognize it? For example, watching someone cry over current events would be unrecognizable to a sociopathic person. They may even accuse the person of lying or putting on a performance. Could you also accept the possibility that even if such a person could recognize empathy, they still lack or block the capacity to feel the empathy, and therefore the only use the recognition has is in manipulation (use it to corroborate a point, or use it to spread an attack, or just fuck it, just use it for anything since you can't actually feel it). You don't have to actually do anything with empathy, you can literally just sit there and cry. If you think empathy has a use first and foremost, then sure, I can see why you think someone is using it in a performance. You see, some of us cry because it hurts us. To get a better understanding, let's use something very analogous - Cringe. When we watch someone do something cringe, we feel it. The same is true for empathy you see, that's what it is. We feel someone else's pain. Psychologists say those that don't feel it are sociopaths. "Worse still may be those who lie to themselves so successfully that they believe that it's real empathy" Again, you have difficulty identifying real or not real empathy. This is not a problem for people that were raised without confusion. You can just say I'm from environments where I couldn't figure out if anyone cared about me or not (common). Is there a universe where you can accept this diagnosis or are you pure? We are all a constant work in progress. The gene expression of apathy needs to be studied as well.
eurekin 2y ago
Typical policymaker: "noted, so we have confirmation for condemning whole generations"
westurner 2y ago
Because later generations shouldn't be forced pay the cost for such violence that they didn't perpetrate or perpetuate. To make it real when there's no compassion, loving kindness, or the golden rule: War reparations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_reparations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_reparations
- tsunamifury 2y ago
  You could argue that’s the trauma expressing itself through derivative real experiences into the future.
  - westurner 2y ago
    It is the purpose of criminal and civil procedure to force parties that caused loss, violence, death and trauma to pay for their offenses. We have a court system that is supposed to abide Due Process so that there are costs to inflicting trauma (without perpetuating a vicious cycle).
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
- A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 2y ago
  I think you may want to re-read parent. They are saying that the reason you gave ( all of which were provided before ) barely restrained human kind from doing what it /was/is/will be doing.
  - westurner 2y ago
    If compassion and war reparations are insufficient to deter unjust violence, what will change the reinforced behaviors?
    - harimau777 2y ago
      Ironically, the ability to reciprocate with violence is the only thing that has reliably deterred violence.
bloomingkales 2y ago
I'll quote Michael Douglas from Traffic, "If there is a war on drugs, then many of our family members are the enemy. And I don’t know how you wage war on your own family". His daughter was knee deep in heroin addiction as he was tasked to criminalize everyone. By the end of the movie he was changed imo. We have no way of giving such an experience to those in power. The best we can do going forward is pick more well rounded people, and no, that doesn't mean great schools and great wealth. You must be experienced in life.
- boringg 2y ago
  I mean not to fan the flames of war on drugs - but its supposed to be targeting supply chain and large distributors
  - bloomingkales 2y ago
    It's a 24 year old movie. Around that time the history of the drug war involved a lot more petty criminalization (look how far we've come). This discussion can veer.
  - staplers 2y ago
    Law enforcement doesn't typically target itself and the ruling class.
    - derektank 2y ago
      Former Senator Bob Menendez would be very surprised to learn that
      - potato3732842 2y ago
        Ignoring the fact that the word "typically" was highly operative, he's a great example of the point you're trying to undermine. The government never would have gone away empty handed with no conviction of any sort like they did the first time they went after Menendez in the late 2010s. A normal peasant would have had their life ruined and been just barely scraping by in the 2020s when he was doing the things that ultimately got him put away.
butlike 2y ago
If you're in a violent environment, that environment will be so antithetical to survivability, it's prudent for your genes to transcript you were in a violent environment for multiple generations.
heresie-dabord 2y ago
> we don’t really care about the human cost Humanity risks a global return to a state of gleeful cruelty. "Lupus est homo homini". [1] The well-being of people is a characteristic of successful society. And labour is fundamentally valuable. For those who seek economic pre-eminence, it makes perfect sense to invest in the people doing the work. However, there are narrow-minded groups and individuals who see another equation: put workers in an exploitable condition and keep them in such condition over generations. Wars have been fought to preserve the investment in maintaining such conditions. Labour is valuable, but the individual cost in human life is usually dismissed through demagogy and populism. We had broken the historical cycle of misery, but we now risk the achievements of our civilisation. [1] _ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_homini_lupus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_homini_lupus
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
mlhpdx 2y ago
The nature of the changes aren’t well understood. It seems dangerous to assume that they are unhealthy, or somehow destructive when the opposite could just as easily be true. The children of those experiencing violence may be more robust in some ways rather than the opposite. It’s an interesting finding, and something to be understood better, but jumping to the conclusion that it’s a bad thing it’s just dismissive of the robustness of humanity in general.
clarkmoody 2y ago
Future generations aren't voting in the next election.
ch4s3 2y ago
The actual study is about exposure to pretty extreme violence during pregnancy having epigenetic effects beyond one generation to F4. This is the first study to ever present such evidence in humans since some caution is warranted here with any conclusions.

dleeftink 2y ago

Maybe the only way to get out of a cycle is, trying to get out of the cycle?

stanleykm 2y ago
Sure but I think if an appeal to empathy was going to work we’d already have seen it work.
- haswell 2y ago
  Progress if often gradual and the result of continuous pressure over long periods of time. Not everyone will respond to an appeal to empathy, but I don't think "we'd have already seen it work" is a framing that makes sense.
  - weard_beard 2y ago
    Is it even desirable to avoid something nature selected for? The biggest assumption here is that these epigenetic mutations aren’t desirable for survival in a chaotic and violent world
    - EMIRELADERO 2y ago
      It's only undesirable under the assumption that a chaotic and violent world is an acceptable state of affairs.
      - weard_beard 2y ago
        I could swallow that argument but in isolation this feels like using the abused as lab rats so we can more thoroughly destroy them at some future date
  - NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
    Progress is completely random and arbitrary. Sometimes it zooms forward, other times it regresses. The universe has no mystical rules that demand that it continue. >Not everyone will respond to an appeal to empathy I don't even think we use the word "empathy" correctly. It makes sense to me when we're talking about a non-general empathy, where you see a particular person close to you (physically, if not emotionally) and you feel for them. You can't have empathy with some abstract hypothetical. You can't even have empathy for some large loosely defined group of people of the non-hypothetical sort. And, most of all, it's largely spontaneous. If you go into it having already decided you feel empathy for them "just on principle", then what you're feeling isn't empathy. It's performative. It's virtue signaling. Pretending that is empathy does empathy no favors, and it does no favors to the people who are supposedly being empathized with. Because it is performative, it's always just this thin veneer of compassion over an inadequately hidden contempt. Worse still may be those who lie to themselves so successfully that they believe that it's real empathy, the hatred is buried deeper but festers all the more for it. Appeal to pragmatism instead of empathy. You can make rational arguments if you're trying to be pragmatic. Appeal to justice. Appeal to anything but empathy. When I hear the word "empathy", I know that I'm about to have a load of horseshit dumped on me. You all know it too, even if you're worried that other people will shun you if you admit it out loud.
    - bloomingkales 2y ago
      Would you accept the argument that someone who for whatever reason doesn't have empathy would also not be able to recognize it? For example, watching someone cry over current events would be unrecognizable to a sociopathic person. They may even accuse the person of lying or putting on a performance. Could you also accept the possibility that even if such a person could recognize empathy, they still lack or block the capacity to feel the empathy, and therefore the only use the recognition has is in manipulation (use it to corroborate a point, or use it to spread an attack, or just fuck it, just use it for anything since you can't actually feel it). You don't have to actually do anything with empathy, you can literally just sit there and cry. If you think empathy has a use first and foremost, then sure, I can see why you think someone is using it in a performance. You see, some of us cry because it hurts us. To get a better understanding, let's use something very analogous - Cringe. When we watch someone do something cringe, we feel it. The same is true for empathy you see, that's what it is. We feel someone else's pain. Psychologists say those that don't feel it are sociopaths. "Worse still may be those who lie to themselves so successfully that they believe that it's real empathy" Again, you have difficulty identifying real or not real empathy. This is not a problem for people that were raised without confusion. You can just say I'm from environments where I couldn't figure out if anyone cared about me or not (common). Is there a universe where you can accept this diagnosis or are you pure? We are all a constant work in progress. The gene expression of apathy needs to be studied as well.

eurekin 2y ago

Typical policymaker: "noted, so we have confirmation for condemning whole generations"

westurner 2y ago

Because later generations shouldn't be forced pay the cost for such violence that they didn't perpetrate or perpetuate. To make it real when there's no compassion, loving kindness, or the golden rule: War reparations: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_reparations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_reparations

tsunamifury 2y ago
You could argue that’s the trauma expressing itself through derivative real experiences into the future.
- westurner 2y ago
  It is the purpose of criminal and civil procedure to force parties that caused loss, violence, death and trauma to pay for their offenses. We have a court system that is supposed to abide Due Process so that there are costs to inflicting trauma (without perpetuating a vicious cycle).
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 2y ago
I think you may want to re-read parent. They are saying that the reason you gave ( all of which were provided before ) barely restrained human kind from doing what it /was/is/will be doing.
- westurner 2y ago
  If compassion and war reparations are insufficient to deter unjust violence, what will change the reinforced behaviors?
  - harimau777 2y ago
    Ironically, the ability to reciprocate with violence is the only thing that has reliably deterred violence.

bloomingkales 2y ago

I'll quote Michael Douglas from Traffic, "If there is a war on drugs, then many of our family members are the enemy. And I don’t know how you wage war on your own family". His daughter was knee deep in heroin addiction as he was tasked to criminalize everyone. By the end of the movie he was changed imo. We have no way of giving such an experience to those in power. The best we can do going forward is pick more well rounded people, and no, that doesn't mean great schools and great wealth. You must be experienced in life.

boringg 2y ago
I mean not to fan the flames of war on drugs - but its supposed to be targeting supply chain and large distributors
- bloomingkales 2y ago
  It's a 24 year old movie. Around that time the history of the drug war involved a lot more petty criminalization (look how far we've come). This discussion can veer.
- staplers 2y ago
  Law enforcement doesn't typically target itself and the ruling class.
  - derektank 2y ago
    Former Senator Bob Menendez would be very surprised to learn that
    - potato3732842 2y ago
      Ignoring the fact that the word "typically" was highly operative, he's a great example of the point you're trying to undermine. The government never would have gone away empty handed with no conviction of any sort like they did the first time they went after Menendez in the late 2010s. A normal peasant would have had their life ruined and been just barely scraping by in the 2020s when he was doing the things that ultimately got him put away.

butlike 2y ago

If you're in a violent environment, that environment will be so antithetical to survivability, it's prudent for your genes to transcript you were in a violent environment for multiple generations.

heresie-dabord 2y ago

> we don’t really care about the human cost Humanity risks a global return to a state of gleeful cruelty. "Lupus est homo homini". [1] The well-being of people is a characteristic of successful society. And labour is fundamentally valuable. For those who seek economic pre-eminence, it makes perfect sense to invest in the people doing the work. However, there are narrow-minded groups and individuals who see another equation: put workers in an exploitable condition and keep them in such condition over generations. Wars have been fought to preserve the investment in maintaining such conditions. Labour is valuable, but the individual cost in human life is usually dismissed through demagogy and populism. We had broken the historical cycle of misery, but we now risk the achievements of our civilisation. [1] _ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_homini_lupus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_homini_lupus

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

mlhpdx 2y ago

The nature of the changes aren’t well understood. It seems dangerous to assume that they are unhealthy, or somehow destructive when the opposite could just as easily be true. The children of those experiencing violence may be more robust in some ways rather than the opposite. It’s an interesting finding, and something to be understood better, but jumping to the conclusion that it’s a bad thing it’s just dismissive of the robustness of humanity in general.

clarkmoody 2y ago

Future generations aren't voting in the next election.

ch4s3 2y ago

The actual study is about exposure to pretty extreme violence during pregnancy having epigenetic effects beyond one generation to F4. This is the first study to ever present such evidence in humans since some caution is warranted here with any conclusions.