(Long time, no post, etc. Maybe one of these days I'll go into detail about what I've been up for the last semester or so. Also, the key insight that led to this post is due to my friend N
( Read more... )
Hi! Andrew Ducker pointed me at this post. It sounds like it could be a similar effect to the one discovered in this study, which was put down to a failure to activate the medial prefrontal cortex. I think "failure of theory of mind" is perfectly accurate, though - theory of mind isn't just about recognising what's going on in someone else's mind, it's also about recognising that they have a mind in the first place. Sometimes that's described as a precursor to true theory of mind, but not always.
I think this kind of failure is also recognised, at least by implication, in Kant's second formulation of the categorical imperative, which to him is the foundation of ethics: "Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end."
Huh, that's fascinating. It seems to suggest that when you expect hostility (ie. low warmth) from people, you're more likely to stop viewing them as people. I'll have to think about that a bit.
"used to suffer from terrible road rage .. is not typically an angry guy. ... wasn't seeing the other cars as vehicles containing living people with plans and emotions of their own"
I'm not sure that adds up. People generally don't get angry at inanimate objects, or not nearly as much as they do at people. There's no point because non-living things *don't* have plans and emotions to influence with anger. Shaking your fist at an avalanche is understood as a symbolic gesture, not the same thing as shaking our fist at a person.
Like Andrew I would disagree. I have not been violent towards another person since I was 16, but sometimes lose control with things - cracking my bedroom door by punching it, stomping on a laptop etc.
Comments 11
I think this kind of failure is also recognised, at least by implication, in Kant's second formulation of the categorical imperative, which to him is the foundation of ethics: "Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end."
Reply
Reply
Reply
I'm not sure that adds up. People generally don't get angry at inanimate objects, or not nearly as much as they do at people. There's no point because non-living things *don't* have plans and emotions to influence with anger. Shaking your fist at an avalanche is understood as a symbolic gesture, not the same thing as shaking our fist at a person.
Reply
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZLCoYrmZwk
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment