Is the milk of human kindness genetic? (plus: update on the Sandusky case)
Research indicates that some people seem to naturally have more empathy than others, and onlookers can tell the difference by watching them listen to people relating tales about sad events in their lives.
That would explain a lot, but perhaps not as much as one might think. The somewhat less empathic people aren’t sociopaths; they just lack as much natural ability in this arena. Nurture can change things. And of course it remains to be seen whether this research will be validated and repeated over time.
I’ve long puzzled over a phenomenon I’ve noticed: that some people who have been abused (either sexually or emotionally or physically or some combination of the three) will vow never to do that to another human being, and in some cases choose to enter professions where they try to prevent further abuse and/or heal others who have suffered in the same way. But a not insignificant percentage of abuse victims will take a very different path, going on to re-enact their own abuse by inflicting it on others. It’s as though they lack empathy, not just towards others but towards their former selves, and instead identify with and take on the mantle of the aggressor.
What accounts for the different choices between these two groups? A moralist would say the first chooses good and the second evil. But when we ask “why” in psychological terms, the answer is that we don’t know, although perhaps this kindness gene may come into play in some fashion.
Speaking of abuse, there are some new developments in the Sandusky cse. He has denied being an abuser, which should come as no surprise whatsoever. But even the mere fact that the guy has repeatedly showered with young boys (to which he’s admitted) makes him exceedingly suspect.
In general, I try to preserve the presumption of innocence, and were I one of Sandusky’s jurors I would certainly do so. But I’m not, and there’s so much smoke there (and of a certain type: eyewitnesses for several incidents, and many children coming forward separately with reports of abuse that resemble each other in approach and venue) that one is almost forced to assume a rather large and nasty fire.
Nevertheless, we’ve also got the fact that Sandusky’s lawyer (who has his own somewhat troubled past) reports that the child in the 2002 shower rape incident (or someone the lawyer has supposedly identified as having been that child) says it never happened and that there was no rape. That could mean either that (a) it’s not the same person; or (b) the lawyer is lying and the alleged victim is not saying that; or (c) the alleged victim is frightened of the publicity or was paid off to be quiet; or (d) the alleged victim has repressed the memory; or (e) the rape actually did not occur and it was McQueary who was lying or mistaken when he reported that he witnessed it.
Hard to believe, though, that McQueary would have any motivation to lie in order to implicate Sandusky as a rapist—and, by implication, himself, for not doing enough to stop him.
And now, just to make things even more complex, there are reports that McQueary has changed his story to make himself out to be more of a hero than before [hat tip: commenter “Wolla Dalbo”]. He’s purportedly been sending out emails to friends saying that, rather than walking away, he intervened to stop the rape before reporting it.
So now it’s McQueary who appears to have changed his story, at least part of it. Do this impeach him as a witness? Remember that, according to the grand jury, the report of the incident with Victim 2 (the anal rape in the shower) rests entirely on McQueary’s say-so, because the child (who would now be grown up, like all the other victims) never testified and never was interviewed. Also, it was McQueary’s word against that of Paterno, Curley, and Schultz, who all said that McQueary had not reported a crime such as anal rape to them, but rather some vague suspicious behavior in the shower.
Of course, Victim 2’s testimony is not needed in order for us to believe Sandusky guilty. The entire body of evidence is quite convincing: many victims, now in their early twenties, have testified to a wide range of sexually abusive behavior on his part—from inappropriate and suspicious touching all the way to oral sex and one attempt (rebuffed) at anal sex. Most of this behavior occurred in the shower, as with alleged Victim 2. But in order to understand exactly what happened at Penn State—what McQueary saw and especially what he told Paterno and the others about what he saw—his own veracity is important. And it just may have become more questionable.
Has anyone ever described an experiment which is capable of distinguishing between origin and expression? Is the distinction significant or even relevant?
These are tacky times in which we live. Maybe we need sharia after all.
Why would someone attempting to exonerate himself of child sexual abuse charges hire an attorney who himself impregnated an underage girl 32 years his junior?
There is not one single facet of this case that isn’t utterly sickening.
RandomThoughts: perhaps because he didn’t know the lawyer’s history.
Also, if you read the article, the lawyer and the girl got married, for what that’s worth.
Apparently hundreds of young boys passed through Sandusky’s charity “Second Mile” in its 34 year history, so prey for any pedophile–who usually don’t just stop at one victim and are almost impossible to cure–must have been enormously tempting, and thick on the ground.
This morning CBS carried a story saying that the New York Times was reporting that up to 10 new people have already come forward to allege that that they were victims of Sandusky.
Perhaps Sandusky was stupid enough to hire a lawyer without checking his background, if so, he deserves what he gets.
Perhpas in the clubby world of Penn State and Happy Valley/Centre County Amendola’s background was looked on as no biggie.
There must be a kindness gene in all humans; nature might overlook such a thing but surely not nature’s God. The empathetic may not be so because they alone have it but because they have nurtured it. I am reminded of a Yiddish proverb: “troubles overcome are good to tell’; surely such tellings, and hearings, can’t help but stimulate the kindness genetic code and make of it a more easily recognizable human code.
The defendant’s lawyer reports the victim says no rape took place. This is a rape case so that settles it. McQueary changes his story. Into the muddied pool goes all the evidence.
I don’t know how scientific it is, but you can tell a lot about a person by observing their dog. Kind people have kind dogs.
But a not insignificant percentage of abuse victims will take a very different path, going on to re-enact their own abuse by inflicting it on others
I have noticed similar behaviors — people who complain about how they were treated as children essentially acting the same way (although in diluted form) toward their own. Two thoughts occur:
1) People really do adopt behaviors of “role models” they are exposed to as young children,
2) People don’t see themselves recognize similarity in behavior because they have a different frame of reference. Oversimplifying: A man who beat his son, who verbally castigates his son, who constantly criticizes his son, who repeatedly “corrects”…. you get the idea. Each generation, comparing his own behavior with that of his father sees himself virtuously avoiding bad behavor but cannot see himself through the eyes of his own son, who also feels “abused.” “Why, son, you don’t know what real abuse is!”
Or not.
Or maybe more simply, being abused “teaches” (trains?) one how relative status in a group is achieved and, given the opportunity, responds with what he sees as “high-status” behavior. I guess that is the same as the “role-model” notion.
A bit OT: Over at PJM, Rick Richman has an article on SCOTUS. He reminds us that Obama didn’t vote to confirm John Roberts because of his lack of empathy.
When you’re telling someone a sad story and watch for responses, you might correct for a listener who is calculating how to either prevent another one or, given the proper circumstances, get the sumbitch who was the original bad guy.
That line of thinking might preclude conscious or unconscious expressions of empathy.
From my very limited understanding, those who sexually abuse children are often adults who were sexually abused when they were children. The solution seems simple to me. Adults who abuse children must be locked away for life. Children who have been abused need extensive care least they become abusers in the future.
Parker: Adults abuse children in different ways, and to different degrees. To lock the perp in every case of abuse away for life would not make any sense.
What’s more, although you are correct that the majority of perps were abused as children, the majority of abused children do NOT grow up to be perps.
Neo, I am a huge fan and I consider you required reading nearly, everyday, but, (here it comes) dissociative amnesia, or repressed memory that you referenced is total BS. I am a victim of it and even though the so-called Doctor and patient (my son)have confessed to making up the abuse that never happened, my family will be forever haunted with the allegations. This is in no way a defense of the abuse that alleged to have happened, but sudo-psycho illnesses like repressed memory is as phony as split personalities and has destroyed many innocent lives.
Rattso: repressed memory appears to exist, but is much much rarer than is usually thought. And it is especially suspect if the memory comes back as a result of suggestion, hypnosis, or leading questions.
See this, for example:
These are tacky times in which we live. Maybe we need sharia after all.
Occam, I know you’re kidding, but the Taliban were noted as huge fans of pederasty: it was proverbial even among the Afghanis that even the birds flying over Kandahar would clap one wing over their rear ends to keep from getting buggered. Which I got from an old New Yorker article, pre-2001, back when the libbies were up in arms about the Taliban’s crimes.
It had pictures of the photos of Talibani in Kandahar, vanity headshots that were a fad with the men: with rouged cheeks and pomaded curls. The writer mused that they were so savagely complete in cutting women out of their lives that The Feminine had expressed itself through their own bisexual and homosexual behavior.
Interesting piece. Dunno if it’s available online.
“Is the milk of human kindness genetic?”
Things seem to have gone downhill ever since scientists stopped contenting themselves with giving genetic explanations to eye color, height and obesity tendency and started to go Freud and Skinner with Theories Of Everything that would explain away the human soul as well (bonus for removing that pesky concept of free will).
SteveH,
“I don’t know how scientific it is, but you can tell a lot about a person by observing their dog. Kind people have kind dogs.”
Who cares how scientific it is? When did science become the replacement for scripture, in the sense that whenever a man wishes to “prove” a point he rallies “scientific evidence” to his side? This is a cultish attitude. What with each “scientific study” tearing to shreds the conclusion of the preceding one (“Cellphones cause cancer” – “The risk of cellphones is minimal” – “The risk of cellphones is real” – “Ignoramuses” – “Charlatans” – “Frauds” – “Snake-oil salesmen” et cetera ad nauseum), and the fact that even the disreputable fringes have their “scientific studies” (9/11 Troofers, Holocaust deniers), it’s no wonder the public’s trust in science has gone down the tubes.
The science bubble is as misplaced as other cases of blowing a good and important thing out of all proportions, just like the Dot-Com Bubble of 1999—2001. All this talk of “Science says we must…” and “The genes made him do it” is cultishness that is as far removed from the true, humble spirit of science as can be.
As I have said, although a Penn State grad, I don’t like football, and never really paid much attention to it when I was a student at Penn State or thereafter. So, I certainly knew Paterno’s name and that he was a big gun, but I apparently had no idea just how big and influential a gun Paterno really was.
I ran across this extensive review of the Sandusky/PSU pedophilia debacle at Sports Illustrated’s “Vault” (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1192198/6/index.htm) and it brought home to me just how powerful and influential Joe Paterno was—far more powerful and influential, if this story’s estimation of him and his position are correct, than I had ever dreamed.
Also of interest is the fact that PSU was able to influence the state legislature’s 2007 re-write of access to public records laws, to give Penn State and several other universities receiving state funds an exemption from having to allow public access to their internal records.
I don’t know how scientific it is, but you can tell a lot about a person by observing their dog.
A former cop said the same thing to me. He said experience police officers on entering a home note how the household’s animals interact with the people there, to get a quick read on the state of play in that household.
What with each “scientific study” tearing to shreds the conclusion of the preceding one (“Cellphones cause cancer” – “The risk of cellphones is minimal” – “The risk of cellphones is real”
A lot of these “scientific studies” are epidemiological in nature, and according to those more knowledgeable about such than I, most epidemiological studies are notoriously flaky. We’re not talking about rigorous experimental conditions, with positive and negative controls here. We’re talking about trying to hum along to a song we don’t know, and one that the musician is improvising on the spot.
Basically we have here two cases of abuse.
Penn U and Herman Cain.
What is similar about them is, “There is no hard proof nor evidence any abuse took place” No DNA. no video, no still pictures and no semen stained dress or injuries that show abuse.
Sexual Harrassment by H. Cain has no evidence beyond what a witness stated, same as the Penn U sexual abuse, there is only a verbal witness.
Until there is hard facts and proof this entire affair is moot.
It’s as if I stated I saw Joe Schmucatelli commit a crime but could not beyond my words prove it.
Innocent until proven guilty.
people lie for many reasons and this is starting to resemble a Salem Witch trial instead of a pedophile rape or sexual harrassment.
HEP-T: actually, we have a lot less in the Cain case because for the two accusers who settled with the NRA we don’t even know what they accused Cain of doing. Perhaps there were even witnesses. We just don’t know because we’ve had no access to any information about the charges or the settlements except that they occurred and what amount of money was involved. With Sandusky we have a grand jury’s 23-page report.
Although all these situations are “he said she said” (or, in the case of Sandusky, “he said he said”) there is another large difference: in Sandusky’s case, several of the “he’s” who have reported the abuse are not the victims but witnesses who had no particular thing to gain from their allegations. Whereas in Cain’s situation all of the accusers were the alleged victims, and all had something to gain.
This would tend to make the Sandusky allegations more credible. Plus, the sheer numbers of victims is greater. What’s more, you have a self-admitted fact of inappropriate behavior by Sandusky when he agreed that he showered with underage boys.
Occam’s,
I have the feeling that a lot of these studies are also just computer searches of many epidemiological studies, meaning that valid controls are impossible. They are just a way for mediocre “scientists” to make headlines and maybe write a book. A lot of the nutrition stuff seems to be of this type. I ignore it. Plus I just read somewhere that salt is now good for you.
What accounts for the different choices between these two groups?
nothing…
they are both solving the problem the same way
one is taking contrll through the system in which they can then effect change… they are not victims any more…
the other is taking control without the effort to become part of the system, and they are not victims any more either…
watch pink floyd the wall..
pink, the main character identifies with his father but then, the socia lists…
why?
because they beat the father, and is stronger. and you align yourself with power to stay safe
ie…
we emulate “winners”
and in the case of abuse, the winner was the predator who got away..
want to get away and not be a victim of others. be a lion among lions not a lamb.
It seems to me that humans have the innate potential for both evil and the potential for good in them, with the ratio of good to evil potential distributed on the usual bell curve i.e. some people at one extreme end of the curve have an excess of good tendencies, some people at the other extreme end of the curve have an excess of bad/evil tendencies, and for the majority of humans in the middle of the curve it is something like 50/50, in terms of tendencies if not expression. However, some evil people are just pure evil, and not redeemable.
In general, though, I believe that external forces–the social, economic, moral, cultural, and legal environment, experience and education–can encourage the expression of people’s innate good or bad/ evil tendencies.
If good is taught as the goal and there are severe penalties for evil than, on average, the proportion of good to bad/evil behavior in society and in individual action will predominate.
If, on the other hand, the goal of the good is not preached–or, as today, it is argued by many “thought leaders” that there is no such thing as the “good,” the penalties for evil are lessened and often not enforced, and many fewer things are deemed evil because, it is argued, there is no absolute “good” or “evil,” that they are social constructs that vary from society to society and from era to era and, therefore, there really is no objective good or evil, then such evil behavior will predominate over good.
I believe that over the course of the last several decades–say starting at the end of WWII– we have witnessed just such a shift in the balance, with a preponderance of good shifting to a preponderance of bad/evil.
Apparently only excerpts of the full interview with Jerry Sandusky have been reported in the MSM. Here are a couple of other excerpts that I think are even more damaging than the ones I have seen reported (see http://www.sportsgrid.com/ncaa-football/costas-sandusky-full-transcript/)
BOB COSTAS:
19:00:28:00 But isn’t what you’re just describing the classic MO of many pedophiles? And that is that they gain the trust of young people, they don’t necessarily abuse every young person. There were hundreds, if not thousands of young boys you came into contact with, but there are allegations that at least eight of them were victimized. Many people believe there are more to come. So it’s entirely possible that you could’ve helped young boy A in some way that was not objectionable while horribly taking advantage of young boy B, C, D, and E. Isn’t that possible?
JERRY SANDUSKY:
19:01:01:00 Well – you might think that. I don’t know. (LAUGHS) In terms of – my relationship with so many, many young people. I would – I would guess that there are many young people who would come forward. Many more young people who would come forward and say that my methods and – and what I had done for them made a very positive impact on their life. And I didn’t go around seeking out every young person for sexual needs that I’ve helped. There are many that I didn’t have – I hardly had any contact with who I have helped in many, many ways.