4 ms·
That's an awfully friendly reading of what's going on here. I'm not a biologist, much less an evolutionary one, but what I've heard is that explanations for the
by nhaehnle 13y ago
That's an awfully friendly reading of what's going on here. I'm not a biologist, much less an evolutionary one, but what I've heard is that explanations for the benefit of the whole group tend to be wrong or at least met with extreme skepticism.
Here's another reading: It could also be that we're wired to exploit situations of power. Isn't it convenient that empathy is reduced when you're more powerful, making it more likely for you to (ab)use that power in your own interest? That seems awfully likely to improve your personal reproductive success...
- chunky1994 13y agoIndeed, biologists frown on whole group explanations, however I am not suggesting it as an explanation of reproductive usefulness (for the whole group), merely as a successful factor of having a good social standing among the tribe (i.e the chances of someone being more powerful are better if they are able to act as a leader/someone who can protect their tribe), which would quite possibly lead to better mate prospectives.
- btilly 13y agoYou have cause and effect backwards here. What research has demonstrated is that success creates lack of empathy. And not that lack of empathy creates better leadership. Indeed the sociology research that I've seen on the latter question says that leaders who act in an entitled amoral fashion lead fundamentally less effective organizations than leaders who encourage empathy and cooperation.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]