I’d be less concerned about folks apathetic to the tsunami and more concerned about the folks who take schadenfreude from it (like these folks and this one.)
Interesting observation about the evolutionary advantages. I have the exact same response.
Short answer: Yes, in my opinion, it does.
You have to be mentally unable to accept or realize that these things don’t discriminate, and that you could have been in the same situation that they are in order to say that you have no sympathy for the people who were affected by this. The damage is tremendous. The scale of destruction is simply unimaginable, and the pain suffered by so many people all at once is hard to ignore, even though most of us have never met anyone or even seen the regions affected. I think that sympathy and an urge to help are normal human responses to this, and to not feel these things is definitely a sign of sociopathology.
As I said. All around swell guy.
Jesus! If you don’t like strawmen, I suggest you stop throwing them around. Comprende?
I got that!
America! F*** yeah!
Now to answer the OP- there are I am sure 150,000+ people around the Indian Ocean whose world have literally be destroyed. I have a friend who has about three major bills coming due. I’m not proud but I’m also not terribly ashamed about who will get a larger contribution from me. I haven’t yet given to the Tsunami relief but I will this week soon as I can figure out which agency to give to.
Damn, now I’m gonna have to start a thread as to which group may be the most helpful to contribute to.
For those looking to give - give to the International Red Cross or Red Crescent. If you want to give a free 28% extra, donate to an English charity such as Oxfam (the government matches 28% of all charitable donations for any registered UK charity)
As for me, I am hoping to find out later today if I am able to go to Thailand or not. I hope to be there in a couple of days, helping to set up large area networks for the NGOs doing work over there, as well as any other way I can attempt to help (I have some experience with humanitarian missions from my time in the Air Force and Air National Guard). And my work might even pay for it. Thailand is a bit of a base for rescue and recovery efforts, as it was one of the least hard hit. I am also wondering if there is anything I can actually do.
So I guess I am not much of a sociopath. And wish me luck.
A Stalin quote that unfortunately has some truth to it:
“The death of a person is a tragedy, of a million people is statistics.”
I think even non-sociopaths might be a bit “detached” from the suffering and the scale of destruction in the Tsunami hit areas. Its so far away after all. If someone who lost their family was crying nearby they wouldn’t feel “detached”.
Personally I feel very sad for the victims and the lost livelihood. Still like many I think I’m being a bit like a street accident gawker right now. Curious about what happened in a morbid way perhaps ? I do feel touched by the personal accounts I see on TV though…
I’d say that many people are just totally unplugged from the news and didn’t get to know about because they are just busy living their pointless little lives. They don’t understand or attempt to understand other people. They aren’t sociopaths… just limited… very limited in perspective.
(Sven did make a nice point about knowing the world that would serve many a european and american)
Wow, I didn’t realize that comment had started a thread. A link and a comment back in the flag thread would have been nice…
I didn’t mean to say what the name of this thread implies.
I don’t think that people who lack personal feelings for the tsunami victims are sociopaths. I personally don’t feel any profound sense of grief or loss, for the reasons other posters have commented on.
However, I do think there is something wrong with exploiting the tsunami victims for personal gain. So if you truly didn’t give a shit about the dead–on either an abstract and intellectual or personal and emotional level–and acted otherwise to gain something for yourself (like political clout); well, I think there is something wrong with that. Maybe it’s not sociopathic in the clinical sense, but I don’t think it’s a completely off-base characterization of that kind of exploitative behavior.
I think we, collectively, may have gotten somewhat hardened to tragedy by the fact that we see it so much on television. Back before tv, it was rare to hear of violence, etc. constantly, in your little community, and word didn’t travel instantly.
I think if anyone is wondering whether they are a sociopath or not, they aren’t.
Well, I think it’s safe to assume you don’t have a psychology degree.
There’s a few issues here.
Empathy/sympathy: I’m sure many here have read about slavery in the U.S. While not particularly happy of its existence, I still might have been considered blasé about it. My whole attitude changed when I went on a plantation tour and got a gander of a row of slave houses. It put things in a new perspective. I admit there was a weird emotional trigger in me that suddenly welled deep in me.
Death vs. survival: The tsunami was off-the-scale huge. Not to sound callous, but I have more concern for the living and than for the dead. There are newly orphaned children, the toil and misery of those who must put their lives back together and just the sheer proportion of destruction holds my attention more than those who died. If nobody survived, then it would be a different matter. Oddly tho, this utter devastation doesn’t measure up to actually viewing the slave cabins. Which leads to my next point.
Maybe it’s like watching slasher movies. I can sit through those without a problem, but seeing a bike messenger splattered on the pavement by a car is a bit more disturbing. A lot of the emotional content in these events have different levels for different people. One death in general is felt a hundred different ways by a hundred different people. I believe the scale of trauma is the same way. Until it hits home, one never truly feels the true intense emotions associated with the event.
Now to the OPs point:
The short answer is yes, to a measured degree. It took him four days to poke his head out of his ranch to make a statement, and that was only afterClinton made a comment first and the “stingy” remark. If neither of those events happened, I have little doubt he would have stayed on vacation without comment. I believe, he does feel absolutely nothing toward the 150,000 dead unless he can use it to further his own cause. His words simply exude no sincerity whatsoever, which has as much to do with my low opinion of him as well as his delay in intialy responding. However, taking in account several other symptoms of this disorder, I could easily see him as a borderline sociopath. I do wish to make clear I am not a psychologist, I did watch one on TV.
A politician needs to play statesman whenever times call for it. It’s part of the job, and that’s one of the things, I guess, that makes it such hard work. Feigning sympathy toward things he could care less about might not be as easy as it seems.
You hit the nail on the head in the first sentence. Very few of us have been to the affected regions or know anyone from there. This tends to make things very abstract, especially in today’s immediate news world.
I know intellectually what the casualty figures are, how many people are homeless, etc… but they just seem like numbers. Without some kind of personal connection to it, it’s hard for me to have much of an emotional response. I’m not unemotional or sociopathic, but this tsunami event is just… abstract. I’m not particularly empathetic, but I’m not heartless either.
It’s kind of like the way that things are if someone you knew but weren’t friendly with dies. You’re not really upset- you’re not happy they’re dead, but it just doesn’t upset you much.
Finally, and I’m kind of ashamed to say it, but I think some of us have become somewhat numbed and/or indifferent to natural disasters killing hundreds and thousands in the Third World every year or two.
There are different levels of “not give a shit”
I don’t feel particularly unhappy about the tsunami. Nor did I feel unhappy about the WTC attacks, or Bali. I wasn’t affected by these things, and I don’t have any sort of personal connection to anyone who was affected.
That said, about half an hour ago I gave 1/3 of my next pay packet to the tsunami relief efforts.
Emotions aren’t important, IMO, except in how they affect what you do . If I were interacting with tsunami victims, then my empathy would be valuable to them as human beings. But since I’m not, my feeling bad about the whole thing does them no good - actual hard cash assistance, on the other hand, does.
I know there are probably a number of people who don’t really feel much about the tsunami, and also aren’t doing or giving anything to help. I find that much less problematic than if they were to feel very deeply about it … and also weren’t doing or giving anything to help. That’s just wallowing in emotions for the sake of it, and is, IMO, a bad thing.
There’s a certain sense in which it can be even pleasurable to hear about great disasters happening “out there” where they don’t affect us … a sort of international rubberneck effect. It seems to me that deliberately going out of your way to feel bad about a tragedy, unless you’re intending to use those feelings to provoke yourself into doing something, is rubbernecking. That’s not something I want to encourage in myself.
A lot of this is very subjective. To me it sounds like overemotional garbage. Maybe to someone else it was very moving, and a good argument for travel. I travelled the world in the military but that doesn’t mean I feel a deep connection with the world. Hell, I don’t feel a deep connection with my own home state at times.
You think people were more sensitive to violence in the old days? In the 19th and early 20th century public executions were spectacles that could attract thousands of observers. In the American west it was common to put slain outlaws on display and charge people to view them or have their pictures taken with them. After Dillenger was gunned down by the FBI, onlookers rushed to his corpse and dipped their hankerchiefs into his pooling blood in order to have mementos.
In all honesty I believe we’ve become more sensitive to violence. Mainly because death just doesn’t hit us as often as it did even two or three generations ago.
Marc
Try travelling it as a civilian, rather than as a military member. It’s miles different, and you actually feel a lot closer to the people in the countries you travel through. You aren’t insulated by the machinery of the military. I know, because I have done both.
On second thought, maybe you should stay home. There’s already tons of people just like you travelling the world, who don’t give a damn about the people or cultures they see, and it’s not much fun for me to be associated with them.
There has been much critique of the very damaging consequences of this rucksack-travel-through-pristine-natural-and-cultural-locations-and-get down-and-friendly-with-natives, tourism you seem to advocate. Not only is it vastly more resource demanding and degrading on many vulnerable nature preserves, it also ensures that soon there will be no pristine locations left anywhere; cultural or nature. If you want to do something for the earth, go on a two week standardised beach vacation to Ibiza (or whatever goes for that in America). Do not go trekking through the Himalayas or Orang-utan spotting in Sumatran rain forests. No matter how cosy you think you get with the natives and into local culture I seriously doubt it is worth the strain on the planet & chances are for all you care about the exotic people and cultures you see, you’re likely hurting them.
My point wasn’t about helping the ecology but around Americans learning more about the outside world so we’re a little less likely to bomb the hell out of it and a little more likely to lend a helping hand when others are in trouble.
As for the ecological protections, I’m not talking about wandering around Sumatra talking to Orangutans. I’m more talking about backpacking through Malaysia or hitchiking through Thailand or bumming around India. At least then more people would have a bit of an experience of the world outside of W Europe and the Americas…
People like you only think you’re being “insulated” when shipped overseas with the military. What you’re actually seeing is the real country, the real people. Not the smiling faces that want a hand out, or want to attract the big rich Westerner to their shops.
It’s amusing that you people travel the world and describe it in such a picturesque manner, because I’ve travelled the world and I’ve never seen any of these things.
I mean, yeah I’ve seen the nice old man peddling his wares by day and teaching his children how the clan across the river is evil and how they should strive to rape, kill, and enslave those people.
I’ve waded into the filth of third world society, and I mean the absolute filth of these countries. I’ve gone deep into districts where the local police (if there are any local police) haven’t gone in years, I’ve fished errant young soldiers under my command out of brothels in these areas. And these are brothels where you’ll see things that would probably make most of the enlightened posters on this forum sick to their stomach’s, so I won’t go over it here.
I also don’t think Sven is very well travelled if he thinks Indonesia or India are “third world” countries. Sure, there are parts of India and Indonesia that are somewhat backwards but as a whole these countries are Meccas of civilization compared to some of the places I’ve seen in Africa.
Have you ever seen an African village right after it’s been raided by a warlord? You’d be amazed at some fo the “interesting and diverse” customs certain clans will employ to “mark their presence” after a raid.
You ever watch a family of 10 eating dinner out of the trash? I have, of course I could have seen that at home if I decided to look in the right places.
And in further response to your post, no I don’t give a damn about these cultures. I find many foreign cultures to be repugnant and barbaric. Social relativism only goes so far with me, it stops usually around the point where we have cultures spawning sexual slave trades, forced starvations, genocides, and constant and neverending internal strife.
As for the people, I care a great deal about them. I love them all as I love myself, or at least I strive to, that is something I take seriously. I find it tragic they were born in the circumstances they were. I find it tragic that they must live in cultures that have developed so violently.
Of course this has little bearing on the OP. Aside from certain parts of Indonesia only Sri Lanka is really a “third world” area, at least in my mind. Of course third world is an archaic term. I’d say Indonesia and India fit better under the term “industrializing.”
Sorry to burst your bubble, but I am a combat veteran as well.
So where do you think I was stationed, Bali? Bollocks, in other words - you are insulated in the military. Either you’re seeing the very worst that a country has to offer, or you’re seeing not much other than your mates and your base and the bars and shops trying to get you to spend your money. You don’t see the good or even the middling good. I hated Korea when I was there in the service. It was dirty, unfriendly, and really not a nice place to visit; people protested the US presence once a week and at least every other week the protests ended in violence. As soon as I stripped off the unform and visited there again, as a civilian, it was a fabulous place, filled with friendly people who actually wanted to talk to me.
Never? Never seen someone helping someone else out? Never seen villagers get together to help each other? I will say this - you certainly don’t have rose-coloured glasses. Yours are colored midnight black and you refuse to see anything good outside of the US and Western Europe.
Wow. So you’ve had a rough time in some rough places. What’s your noble solution, let them all burn? Talk about sociopaths…
And your point is? I don’t think many people were talking about Africa, but since you’ve brought it up, wouldn’t a better understanding of the cultural issues at hand in Africa maybe arm us a bit better to help address them? Instead of going in blind to an incredibly violent and long-lived situation and trying to help by putting a band aid on a gunshot wound?
Yeah, I have. It’s not pretty, is it. So again, what’s your noble solution? Let them burn?
Yes, I have. And it was as a direct result of US military action in Iraq. I have also seen similar situations when we were air-dropping food to the Kurds in Nothern Iraq in 1992. I have also seen it in the wake of disasters in Honduras and Panama. What’s your point exactly? That since you’ve seen something nasty it entitles you to be the expert on international relations?
You mean cultures like the US and Western Europe, with their ever-growing hunger for sex with imported young girls and boys? Or our ham-handed attempts to bring order back to Somalia, and pulling out to leave them in deeper chaos than before when we got some of our own killed? Beat up the victims a bit more, why don’t you. Why not, they make such easy targets.
Sure you do. You hate the sin but love the sinner, right? Thank God for this, but you don’t get to decide whose culture is evil and should be destroyed. Because guess what, mate - our culture isn’t always the ones with the white hats, just cause we have it so much better than everyone else in the world. You can thank an accident of birth for that one.
But like I said before - I think it’s better that people like you don’t travel. In your case, I would take it even a step further, perhaps. Why don’t you move someplace remote, and build a big wall around your land. Then you can do whatever the hell you want, and talk about how evil the world outside is, and be nice and insulated and never have to worry about it effecting you ever again. Especially as you think it’s so bad, evil, and not worth looking at, much less saving.
Me, I would rather try to do what little I can to help, to change the world into a slightly better place. Rather than turn my back on it, declaring it savage and unsaveable, and walk away.
Have you ever been to Indonesia or India? I would guess not, if you think they are an ‘industrialized nation.’ Parts of both are industrialized, but the vast majority of both countries is not only dirt poor but absolutely dependent on agriculture as the only industry.