Atheists are smarter, but believers are more empathetic (study)

[William Parcher]

Atheists are smarter, but believers are more empathetic

Here are two facts from a new social science study, at least one of which is likely to insult you:

• People who believe in God or a universal spirit generally aren't as smart as non-believers.

• People who don't believe generally aren't as empathetic or concerned about morals as believers.

It might already be tempting to disregard this study as insulting or, worse, use one of the aforementioned findings as ammunition on social media. Please don't. There's useful, interesting information in the details to come. So take a breath, close your Facebook tab and read on.

Researchers at Case Western Reserve University theorize that the brain has two distinct neural networks for dealing with moral concern and analytical thinking. These networks appear to compete with one another -- perhaps the origin of the broader conflict between scientific and spiritual world views...

http://www.oregonlive.com/faith/2016/04/belief_empathy_intelligence.html#incart_river_mobile_home

 

[Garrette]

I question -- without the expertise to really do so -- the validity of the empathetic finding. Going to the study itself, it says "Moral concern was indexed using the 7-Item Empathetic Concern subscale of the IRI." I know nothing of the IRI or its subscales, but the sample item listed in the abstract gives me pause:

"I often have tender, concerned feelings for people less fortunate than me."

Those who answer yes might actually often have those feelings, but I suspect there is a significant group who answered yes simply because they feel they should have such feelings. Further, I suspect that among the group who actually has those feelings there is a sub-group that has generalized feelings in that sense but those feelings do not translate into actual empathy or action.

I could be wrong, though.

 

[wasapi]

I question -- without the expertise to really do so -- the validity of the empathetic finding. Going to the study itself, it says "Moral concern was indexed using the 7-Item Empathetic Concern subscale of the IRI." I know nothing of the IRI or its subscales, but the sample item listed in the abstract gives me pause:

"I often have tender, concerned feelings for people less fortunate than me."

Those who answer yes might actually often have those feelings, but I suspect there is a significant group who answered yes simply because they feel they should have such feelings. Further, I suspect that among the group who actually has those feelings there is a sub-group that has generalized feelings in that sense but those feelings do not translate into actual empathy or action.

I could be wrong, though.

This is exactly why I have never been impressed with these types of "studies". It seems human nature for many people to answer questions in a way that "they feel they should".

Good point, Garrette.

 

[Dancing David]

I would question more a sample of 256 individuals...

 

[RussDill]

I often have tender, concerned feelings for people less fortunate than me.

Sometimes I don't feel very sorry for other people when they are having problems.

When I see someone being taken advantage of, I feel kind of protective towards them.

Other people's misfortunes do not usually disturb me a great deal.

When I see someone being treated unfairly, I sometimes don't feel very much pity for
them.

I am often quite touched by things that I see happen.

I would describe myself as a pretty soft-hearted person.

Of course, the outward behavior of a person would vary quite widely, on, say whether or not they think that the recent law passed in Mississippi is about treating people fairly and being protective of people that are being taken advantage of.

Incidentally, the tests regarding cognition did not just ask people, "do you consider yourself to be a smart person".

 

[Perpetual Student]

Highly religious people are less motivated by compassion than are non-believers

In three experiments, social scientists found that compassion consistently drove less religious people to be more generous. For highly religious people, however, compassion was largely unrelated to how generous they were, according to the findings which are published in the most recent online issue of the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science.

LINK

 

[Darwin123]

I question -- without the expertise to really do so -- the validity of the empathetic finding. Going to the study itself, it says "Moral concern was indexed using the 7-Item Empathetic Concern subscale of the IRI." I know nothing of the IRI or its subscales, but the sample item listed in the abstract gives me pause:

"I often have tender, concerned feelings for people less fortunate than me."

Those who answer yes might actually often have those feelings, but I suspect there is a significant group who answered yes simply because they feel they should have such feelings. Further, I suspect that among the group who actually has those feelings there is a sub-group that has generalized feelings in that sense but those feelings do not translate into actual empathy or action.

I could be wrong, though.

So the study indicates to me that atheists have better metacognitive skills than believers. The atheist tries to reduce the misfortune that catches some people, using whatever little emotion he has. The believer often tries to increase the numbers of unfortunate, because he cares so much for them.

Actually, the study you are quoting can be seen another way. I think that believers are VAINER than atheists, as a whole. Some of the believers answer what they think makes them superior to nonbelievers.

Lots of bloggers are comparing Bill Gates (atheist) o Mother Teresa (Saint). So who is really eliminating ‘misfortune’?

http://hittingbedrock.blogspot.com/2007/10/mother-teresa-less-charitable-than-bill.html
But, if we judge purely on how each of them used the financial resources at their disposal, I'm pretty sure Bill Gates is more devoted to helping the needy than Mother Teresa ever was. Again, Gates' devotion to the needy is far, far from perfect. But I think it's better than Mother Teresa's.

Since we don't really have solid numbers of Mother Teresa's finances, I'm speculating a bit here, but I feel pretty safe in saying that (considered in proportion to total funds controlled) Bill Gates has done much, much more than Mother Teresa ever did in terms of spending his money towards making people's lives tangibly better.



http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/magazine/13Psychology-t.html?_r=0
‘Which of the following people would you say is the most admirable: Mother Teresa, Bill Gates or Norman Borlaug? And which do you think is the least admirable? For most people, it’s an easy question. Mother Teresa, famous for ministering to the poor in Calcutta, has been beatified by the Vatican, awarded the Nobel Peace Prize and ranked in an American poll as the most admired person of the 20th century. Bill Gates, infamous for giving us the Microsoft dancing paper clip and the blue screen of death, has been decapitated in effigy in “I Hate Gates” Web sites and hit with a pie in the face. As for Norman Borlaug . . . who the heck is Norman Borlaug?

Yet a deeper look might lead you to rethink your answers. Borlaug, father of the “Green Revolution” that used agricultural science to reduce world hunger, has been credited with saving a billion lives, more than anyone else in history. Gates, in deciding what to do with his fortune, crunched the numbers and determined that he could alleviate the most misery by fighting everyday scourges in the developing world like malaria, diarrhea and parasites. Mother Teresa, for her part, extolled the virtue of suffering and ran her well-financed missions accordingly: their sick patrons were offered plenty of prayer but harsh conditions, few analgesics and dangerously primitive medical care.’


I wonder how Bill Gates and Mother Teresa would answer in this survey? The following quote indicates that Mother Teresa feels very highly about her compassion.

http://www.itinerantpreacher.org/who-has-changed-the-world-more-bill-gates-or-mother-teresa/
“It is not how much we do, but how much love we put in the doing. It is not how much we give, but how much love we put in the giving”. –Mother Teresa'


Lets also look at the question of that greatest of sins, pride. Beleivers often PRIDE themselves in their compassion. Now, I would love to see such surveys done with Lie Detector and MRI. I am not sure that the believers are telling the truth as they see it.

I don't think Gates has ever called himself compassionate. We can't see what a person feels, only what they do. So really, how do we even know that Teresa FEELS more than Gates?

 

[Garrette]

I agree completely with Darwin123.

 

[theprestige]

I question -- without the expertise to really do so -- the validity of the empathetic finding. Going to the study itself, it says "Moral concern was indexed using the 7-Item Empathetic Concern subscale of the IRI." I know nothing of the IRI or its subscales, but the sample item listed in the abstract gives me pause:

"I often have tender, concerned feelings for people less fortunate than me."

Those who answer yes might actually often have those feelings, but I suspect there is a significant group who answered yes simply because they feel they should have such feelings. Further, I suspect that among the group who actually has those feelings there is a sub-group that has generalized feelings in that sense but those feelings do not translate into actual empathy or action.

I could be wrong, though.

This is exactly why I have never been impressed with these types of "studies". It seems human nature for many people to answer questions in a way that "they feel they should".

Good point, Garrette.

If you wanted to research people's attitudes in a rigorous way, how would you go about designing a study that controlled for this kind of thing?

 

[Jodie]

I think all of this is utter BS. How, or what you believe, or don't believe, is based on genetic predisposition of your personality, life experience, and education all of which pull from several different areas of the brain at once, not to mention the plasticity of the neural network to begin with. This is one of those studies that functions as confirmation bias.

 

[Giordano]

Is it time for me to post-"I don't know and I don't care?"

 

[ArmillarySphere]

"Just because I understand doesn't mean I care"

-- Homer Simpson

 

[Mark6]

If you wanted to research people's attitudes in a rigorous way, how would you go about designing a study that controlled for this kind of thing?

Observe them and watch what do they actually do when confronted with a homeless beggar, or with a "lost" wallet lying on the ground -- and do not know they are being observed.

But this kind of study is significantly more difficult and expensive.