What do you think?
Rate this book
Zero Degrees of Empathy: A New Theory of Human Cruelty
Simon Baron-Cohen, expert in autism and developmental psychopathology, has always wanted to isolate and understand the factors that cause people to treat others as if they were mere objects. In this book he proposes a radical shift, turning the focus away from evil and on to the central factor, empathy. Unlike the concept of evil, he argues, empathy has real explanatory power. Putting empathy under the microscope he explores four new firstly, that we all lie somewhere on an empathy spectrum, from high to low, from six degrees to zero degrees. Secondly, that deep within the brain lies the 'empathy circuit'. How this circuit functions determines where we lie on the empathy spectrum. Thirdly, that empathy is not only something we learn but that there are also genes associated with empathy. And fourthly, while a lack of empathy leads to mostly negative results, is it always negative? Full of original research, "Zero Degrees of Empathy" presents a new way of understanding what it is that leads individuals down negative paths, and challenges all of us to consider replacing the idea of evil with the idea of empathy-erosion.
190 pages, Hardcover
First published December 21, 2011
577 people are currently reading
19004 people want to read
About the author
Simon Baron-Cohen
38 books295 followersSimon Baron-Cohen FBA is Professor of Developmental psychopathology at the University of Cambridge in the United Kingdom. He is the Director of the University's Autism Research Centre, and a Fellow of Trinity College. He has worked on autism, including the theory that autism involves degrees of mind-blindness (or delays in the development of theory of mind) and his later theory that autism is an extreme form of what he calls the "male brain", which involved a re-conceptualisation of typical psychological sex differences in terms of empathising-systemising theory.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 612 reviews
February 1, 2022
Reading this, I couldn't get out of my head that the author's first cousin is Sasha Baron-Cohen. It was the vision of the ultimate evil mischief-maker that Borat was. Borat in a fluorescent green mankini was behind every word I read. Once seen, never forgotten...
So one of them makes a living out of analysing people and philosophising on whether cruelty and evil is genetic and the other makes his living out of exploiting people with deliberate cruelty that I'm sure his victims think is evil.
Schadenfreude is a very evil sense of humour. Laughing at other people's misfortune is cruel. I wonder it is inborn in us or cultural? How come Sacha specialises in it and how come Simon doesn't find it funny at all?
The book was ok, not exhaustive and I didn't agree with the author's conclusions quite often. 3.5 stars.
So one of them makes a living out of analysing people and philosophising on whether cruelty and evil is genetic and the other makes his living out of exploiting people with deliberate cruelty that I'm sure his victims think is evil.
Schadenfreude is a very evil sense of humour. Laughing at other people's misfortune is cruel. I wonder it is inborn in us or cultural? How come Sacha specialises in it and how come Simon doesn't find it funny at all?
The book was ok, not exhaustive and I didn't agree with the author's conclusions quite often. 3.5 stars.
April 6, 2013
This is more a 2.5 star which as people who follow me know, I truncate, not round up. This book started out very riveting. The theory proposed in this book is about the impacts based on the lack of empathy. There were two interesting concepts of Zero Negative and Zero Positive people. Basically Borderline, Psychopaths and Narcissists all fall under the Zero Negative. Different forms of autism falls under the Zero Positive.
The ideas in this book are interesting to read. What Mr. Baron-Cohen postulates did make me think. I can see his point regarding the how a person with zero negative and zero positive would behave. His research and theories on why these people became w/o empathy dropped me from a 4 star down to a 3 star. Yes, at the beginning, the first two chapters were very good and had me at a 4 star. At chapter 3 I started to lose interest. This is because he correlates a person with zero negative stemming from how their mother raised them. In each example, it was abuse, neglect, etc from a mother. Where is the father in all of this? Were these children through immaculate conception? This immediately made Mr. Baron-Cohen lose respectability in my eyes. To his point, he does point out it is genetics and a combination of nurture which causes a person to be a zero negative. The examples he chose left a bad taste in my mouth and I'm not even a mother.
This "mommy didn't love me enough" or "daddy abandoned me" type of victimized mentality doesn't work for me. Whenever I read this, I consider the writer yet another 1st world privileged philosopher who is only looking at "1st world" problems. Is this judgmental? You betcha. I'm tired of people using their parents as excuses for their behaviour. The victim mentality is detrimental because it focuses on how the person is helpless. I'd rather focus on the series of events which shaped a person and for them to be a survivor.
Now, Mr. Baron-Cohen did indicate while an abusive or neglectful mother isn't the only variable causing a child to become a psychopath, there was a positive correlation. He does also mention that the tie can't be that strong because otherwise, we'd have more psychopaths running around in the world. However, the book is already tainted for me because his victim theory.
Now, there are some concepts in here that are interesting. He explains that it's not that people are evil. It's because their lack of empathy which causes them to behave in manners that don't make sense to the general populace. If people w/o empathy treat the another person as a thing, one can understand how atrocities such as Jew concentration camps and the genocide of Armenians can occur. With this, I agree. That is why the military teaches it's soldiers to call them "targets". It removes the humanity of it.
Still, this book is running at a 3 star, especially the section on the zero positive. I couldn't stop thinking of the Observers from Fringe when he describes the pattern recognition in the zero positives. The highly functioning abilities of systematizing is fascinating. What was disturbing is seeing how I possibly could have been categorized as a zero positive in my early teens.
Chapter 6 is what brought the book down another 1/2 star. While it is nice to think every person can be "rehabilitated" with the single flower nurtured in the desert analogy, it's a fantasy. Here's the problem, in order for rehabilitation, the person must want to rehabilitate. I don't believe people want to change. In fact, I'd like to propose that more than the majority of people prefer not to change. I see it time and time again in both personal and professional life. People don't like to know their flaws and they don't want to improve. They'd rather hide their flaws from themselves and rationalize it is other people. So his idea to help people overcome their "lack of empathy" while noble is a pipe dream in my book. If he had specific methods of how to accomplish this, it would be a different story. Instead, he concludes the book with condemning the death penalty and explaining that "evil" actions of people are not exactly under their control. Instead, it is a combination of chemical, genetic and nurture. We should instead try to help rehabilitate all these people rather than sentence them in jail for years or kill them. These are the fancies of an ivory tower academician untouched by the stubborn people of the real world.
The ideas in this book are interesting to read. What Mr. Baron-Cohen postulates did make me think. I can see his point regarding the how a person with zero negative and zero positive would behave. His research and theories on why these people became w/o empathy dropped me from a 4 star down to a 3 star. Yes, at the beginning, the first two chapters were very good and had me at a 4 star. At chapter 3 I started to lose interest. This is because he correlates a person with zero negative stemming from how their mother raised them. In each example, it was abuse, neglect, etc from a mother. Where is the father in all of this? Were these children through immaculate conception? This immediately made Mr. Baron-Cohen lose respectability in my eyes. To his point, he does point out it is genetics and a combination of nurture which causes a person to be a zero negative. The examples he chose left a bad taste in my mouth and I'm not even a mother.
This "mommy didn't love me enough" or "daddy abandoned me" type of victimized mentality doesn't work for me. Whenever I read this, I consider the writer yet another 1st world privileged philosopher who is only looking at "1st world" problems. Is this judgmental? You betcha. I'm tired of people using their parents as excuses for their behaviour. The victim mentality is detrimental because it focuses on how the person is helpless. I'd rather focus on the series of events which shaped a person and for them to be a survivor.
Now, Mr. Baron-Cohen did indicate while an abusive or neglectful mother isn't the only variable causing a child to become a psychopath, there was a positive correlation. He does also mention that the tie can't be that strong because otherwise, we'd have more psychopaths running around in the world. However, the book is already tainted for me because his victim theory.
Now, there are some concepts in here that are interesting. He explains that it's not that people are evil. It's because their lack of empathy which causes them to behave in manners that don't make sense to the general populace. If people w/o empathy treat the another person as a thing, one can understand how atrocities such as Jew concentration camps and the genocide of Armenians can occur. With this, I agree. That is why the military teaches it's soldiers to call them "targets". It removes the humanity of it.
Still, this book is running at a 3 star, especially the section on the zero positive. I couldn't stop thinking of the Observers from Fringe when he describes the pattern recognition in the zero positives. The highly functioning abilities of systematizing is fascinating. What was disturbing is seeing how I possibly could have been categorized as a zero positive in my early teens.
Chapter 6 is what brought the book down another 1/2 star. While it is nice to think every person can be "rehabilitated" with the single flower nurtured in the desert analogy, it's a fantasy. Here's the problem, in order for rehabilitation, the person must want to rehabilitate. I don't believe people want to change. In fact, I'd like to propose that more than the majority of people prefer not to change. I see it time and time again in both personal and professional life. People don't like to know their flaws and they don't want to improve. They'd rather hide their flaws from themselves and rationalize it is other people. So his idea to help people overcome their "lack of empathy" while noble is a pipe dream in my book. If he had specific methods of how to accomplish this, it would be a different story. Instead, he concludes the book with condemning the death penalty and explaining that "evil" actions of people are not exactly under their control. Instead, it is a combination of chemical, genetic and nurture. We should instead try to help rehabilitate all these people rather than sentence them in jail for years or kill them. These are the fancies of an ivory tower academician untouched by the stubborn people of the real world.
Read
September 16, 2011I can't really review this book, for the simple reason that I do not trust it, and am simply unsure what to believe and what not to. Perhaps my attitude is unfair, but it was these two passages that pushed me into Sgt. Schultz mode:
Some people compare him to the character that Dustin Hoffman played in the film Rain Man, which was based on a real person (Kim Peek) with autism, because... (p. 106, my edition)
Consider that back in 1542 Martin Luther wrote a pamphlet entitled Against the Jews (calling on Catholics to attack them) in which he advocated burning synagogues and destroying Jewish homes. (p. 166, my edition)
Kim Peek did not have autism. One need dig no deeper than his NY Times obituary (link) to ferret that fact out. I'd put this down as an honest mistake for most, but Baron-Cohen is supposed to be a world renowned expert on the topic of...autism. Sorry, dude, but you flat-out blew it.
Martin Luther's tedious imbecility on the topic of Jews is certainly true, but how Baron-Cohen got the idea he was trying to incite Catholics against them is not only wrong, it is utterly preposterous. In fact, Luther even took a swipe at Catholics...in the very document Baron-Cohen claims was used "incite" them. Viz:
Similarly among us Christians the papists can no longer pass for the church. For they will not let God be their God, because they refuse to listen to his word, but rather persecute it most terribly, then come along with their empty husks, chaff, and refuse, as they hold mass and practice their ceremonies. And God is supposed to recognize them and look upon them as his true church, ignoring the fact that they do not acknowledge him as the true God, that is, they do not want him to speak to them through his preachers. His word must be accounted heresy, the devil, and every evil. This he will indeed do, as they surely will experience, far worse than did the Jews.
Link to document - The switch from Jews to Catholics occurs at the end of Part II, though it is back to the Jews in Part III.
'Course Luther had a reason to be sore with Catholicism, since he'd been excommunicated and had a Church sanctioned document issued against him personally, wherein he could be killed on sight with neither civil nor religious penalties accruing against his murderer. (A Catholic version of a fatwa? Maybe. But it also seems to be the case that no one ever bothered trying, as best I can tell.) In fact, I'd say you could make a case Luther was saying Catholics, or possibly just the Church hierarchy, was in deeper doo-doo than Jews with God, based upon that last sentence.
Perhaps the two errors cited above are the only two in the book, and perhaps everything else is scholarship so pure it hurts the eyes to glance upon. But I doubt it. In my eyes the entire book took on the mantle of sloppy scholarship after hitting those two easily checked, inexcusable errors. I make no claims at genius or expertise -- quite the contrary! -- so if I'm picking up on wince-worthy passages, how many more might there be in here? Certainly in the Martin Luther bit he cites a source that he himself never bothered reading. (Would he tolerate such a thing from one of his students?)
Anyway, I'm giving the work no rating, since I cannot confidently say that there are sections of this work with which I have little familiarity (and that would be most of it) containing errors similar to the ones I've noted. His level of credibility with me has essentially fallen off a cliff; I'm not certain I'd accept anything he's written without independent verification. Very sad, since I'd previously held him in high regard.
Some people compare him to the character that Dustin Hoffman played in the film Rain Man, which was based on a real person (Kim Peek) with autism, because... (p. 106, my edition)
Consider that back in 1542 Martin Luther wrote a pamphlet entitled Against the Jews (calling on Catholics to attack them) in which he advocated burning synagogues and destroying Jewish homes. (p. 166, my edition)
Kim Peek did not have autism. One need dig no deeper than his NY Times obituary (link) to ferret that fact out. I'd put this down as an honest mistake for most, but Baron-Cohen is supposed to be a world renowned expert on the topic of...autism. Sorry, dude, but you flat-out blew it.
Martin Luther's tedious imbecility on the topic of Jews is certainly true, but how Baron-Cohen got the idea he was trying to incite Catholics against them is not only wrong, it is utterly preposterous. In fact, Luther even took a swipe at Catholics...in the very document Baron-Cohen claims was used "incite" them. Viz:
Similarly among us Christians the papists can no longer pass for the church. For they will not let God be their God, because they refuse to listen to his word, but rather persecute it most terribly, then come along with their empty husks, chaff, and refuse, as they hold mass and practice their ceremonies. And God is supposed to recognize them and look upon them as his true church, ignoring the fact that they do not acknowledge him as the true God, that is, they do not want him to speak to them through his preachers. His word must be accounted heresy, the devil, and every evil. This he will indeed do, as they surely will experience, far worse than did the Jews.
Link to document - The switch from Jews to Catholics occurs at the end of Part II, though it is back to the Jews in Part III.
'Course Luther had a reason to be sore with Catholicism, since he'd been excommunicated and had a Church sanctioned document issued against him personally, wherein he could be killed on sight with neither civil nor religious penalties accruing against his murderer. (A Catholic version of a fatwa? Maybe. But it also seems to be the case that no one ever bothered trying, as best I can tell.) In fact, I'd say you could make a case Luther was saying Catholics, or possibly just the Church hierarchy, was in deeper doo-doo than Jews with God, based upon that last sentence.
Perhaps the two errors cited above are the only two in the book, and perhaps everything else is scholarship so pure it hurts the eyes to glance upon. But I doubt it. In my eyes the entire book took on the mantle of sloppy scholarship after hitting those two easily checked, inexcusable errors. I make no claims at genius or expertise -- quite the contrary! -- so if I'm picking up on wince-worthy passages, how many more might there be in here? Certainly in the Martin Luther bit he cites a source that he himself never bothered reading. (Would he tolerate such a thing from one of his students?)
Anyway, I'm giving the work no rating, since I cannot confidently say that there are sections of this work with which I have little familiarity (and that would be most of it) containing errors similar to the ones I've noted. His level of credibility with me has essentially fallen off a cliff; I'm not certain I'd accept anything he's written without independent verification. Very sad, since I'd previously held him in high regard.
February 9, 2016
Holy fear-mongering, Batman!
Never have I read a book more toxic for the attitude towards the mentally ill. This book teaches the readers to be afraid of people who suffer really awful things already!!
Not only are the facts in this book wrong (bpd patients not having empathy? Are you kidding me right now???), they are incredibly intolerant and hurtful. The last thing the mentally ill need are outsiders telling them they're awful, unethical, evil people the way this book argues. If you value the respect of anyone with a mental illness, please do not touch this book.
Never have I read a book more toxic for the attitude towards the mentally ill. This book teaches the readers to be afraid of people who suffer really awful things already!!
Not only are the facts in this book wrong (bpd patients not having empathy? Are you kidding me right now???), they are incredibly intolerant and hurtful. The last thing the mentally ill need are outsiders telling them they're awful, unethical, evil people the way this book argues. If you value the respect of anyone with a mental illness, please do not touch this book.
November 29, 2020
Wow...stating that people with Autism or Borderline Personality Disorder lack empathy is grossly inaccurate. For example, many people with BPD feel empathy to the extreme, to the point where it destroys their lives.
It’s dangerous to write books with false information parading around as fact.
Many of these conditions are so poorly understood and it’s truly harmful to people who suffer from them.
How did this get published? Horrifying.
It’s dangerous to write books with false information parading around as fact.
Many of these conditions are so poorly understood and it’s truly harmful to people who suffer from them.
How did this get published? Horrifying.
March 5, 2012
I find that this book could be a lot shorter than it is, for the fact that it is repetitive and offers a lot of hypothesis and questions rather than answers or true discoveries. It regurgitates what has already been mentioned about narcissism, autism, antisocial disorder, and borderline disorder. I am not an expert on psychological studies but it appeared to only state what has already been stated and suggest that there are links between those disorders and levels of empathy in certain individuals and how that could potentially cause them to be inclined towards evil ways. Not that I think this is a bad link to be studying, but it basically stated that they are not sure if there is a link between the two and was so vague that I felt that this book accomplished nearly nothing. You are left with just as many questions if not more than when you went in and while it may be good in some cases to write something that causes society to question something that is being under-questioned, I read the book to get answers and data on proof or near-proof to actual conclusions.
However the book was very interesting for about 5 pages when it discussed the discoveries about empathy that were observed in animals such as mice and monkeys.
I felt that a more interesting question isn't how Hitler or certain people in history could be so evil but rather, how they were able to get so many 'normal' or 'common' people to commit such horrendous acts when they were seemingly healthy psychologically. The fact that Hitler may have been messed up psychologically and that that could have contributed to his demise is not ground breaking, earth shattering information that I couldn't have gathered on my own.
It was interesting but I don't know that I would recommend it because I feel reading it came quite close to a waste of my time. Especially when you consider how many other books are out there to read and all the books you could be reading instead of this one.
However the book was very interesting for about 5 pages when it discussed the discoveries about empathy that were observed in animals such as mice and monkeys.
I felt that a more interesting question isn't how Hitler or certain people in history could be so evil but rather, how they were able to get so many 'normal' or 'common' people to commit such horrendous acts when they were seemingly healthy psychologically. The fact that Hitler may have been messed up psychologically and that that could have contributed to his demise is not ground breaking, earth shattering information that I couldn't have gathered on my own.
It was interesting but I don't know that I would recommend it because I feel reading it came quite close to a waste of my time. Especially when you consider how many other books are out there to read and all the books you could be reading instead of this one.
March 7, 2019
4 Informative-Stars! ☆★☆★
There are some books that you read with your mouth open and all of your emotions displayed across your face. This is one of those books. Be warned, 'The Science of Evil' will make you disgusted and enlightened at the same time. What dug into my heart even more were the real life photos of acts of terror. It's gut-wrenching to see what people are capable of. It's unspeakable.
First Chapter:
★ Nazi scientists severed a woman's hands and then sewed them back Switched. So her thumbs on the outside of her hands.
Holy F#%K!!!
★ Some Nazi held experiments to see if people could survive being submerged in freezing water up to 3 hours. Double F#%K!!
★ Rebel soldiers ordering women to bash their children's heads into poles until they died to survive another day. Jesus, F#%king F#%K!!!!!
★ Nazis were not to first to kill thousands of people. The Turks killed over 1.5 million Armenians in 1890. They weren't even allowed to testify in court as witnesses, let alone pled their case. Did i say Fff#%kk!?!?!!!
★ In 1994, in Democratic Republic of Congo rebels attacked a village and forced a woman's son to have sex with her while they watched and then they shot him in front of her. Then each one of the soldiers raped the woman while her husband was forced to watch and then he was shot as well in front of the woman. Last but not least, they left her staring at her burning house and took her 3 daughters away from her. She hasn't heard from her daughters since. I cant even.... F... :o
The scariest part, these cruel people who did these operations were doctors. People we are brought up to trust, performing unethical experiments on innocent lives.
And soldiers that are there to protect.
I found it interesting how the author examined further into what makes people "evil". Evil is a broad definition that is used to describe many different people. He substituted evil with the word empathy or lack of empathy. Suddenly, character traits were more easily defined and their actions were explained. Some had lack of empathy because of their desire to protect and were blinded, others because of revenge or hate and in some instances, pure hunger. The things you will do when you've been starved for days, and pure instinct takes over are unfathomable. Emotions are dissected....
“When our empathy is switched off, we are solely in the "I" mode. In such a state we relate only to things or to people as if they were just things.”
Each chapter gave me goosebumps. I learned things that shocked me to the core! I had so many chills that i had to take breaks just to collect myself. Im grateful to learn about the human mind and how we as a society have evolved but some of these atrocities just made me sick. It was like reading horror story after horror story.
★ Fun Fact: Marilyn Monroe's real name was Norma Jean Mortenson. Norma?! Really? ...huh. I guess I'm the only one who's a huge fan of Psycho. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
★ I never knew that Marilyn Monroe was a child of divorced parents and a mother who was in the psychiatric ward most of her life. She went from foster care to foster care. When she was 11 and she was sexually molested by her stepfather! What?! She first got married when she was 16 to her neighbor to get out of foster care. She remarried 2 more times to all failed marriages. She was in and out of psychiatric clinics like her mother and attempted suicide three times! She succeeded killing herself, overdosing in 1962. Whoa...
I think my biggest take away after reading this book is how empathy is related to the brain. I never knew that certain parts of our brain control our lack or over abundance of the trait with hormones and proteins. It is really interesting.
(-1★) I took away a star for the sole reason of some of the tests mentioned. 'Bla bla bla, this test shows this information according to this doctor and this many patients, bla bla bla, but it is not conclusive; or it was not proven; or the patients life history was never taken into account or recorded....etc.' ☠ -Wait, WHAT? Why would you mention test results if they are not 99% true or even taken correctly?! I felt like my time was wasted reading those sentences over and over again.
When i read a science or psychology book i want concrete hard proof of the evidence your basing your topic on. Not hearsay.
Its like saying "1+1=11, because Eddie from the store told me, but it needs more working out." Ugh!!!! ☠
I liked the statement: "Narcissists have monologues, not dialogues."
During the Nazi reign, people who helped gather up the jews did not consider themselves part of the killing, instead they justified their actions by making statements like this...
➤ Person A: "I simply had the list of Jews in my municipality. I did not round up the Jews, but I did pass this list on when requested to do so."
➤ Person B: "I was told to go to these addresses, arrest these people, and take them to the train station. That's all I did."
➤ Person C: "My job was to open the doors of the train—that was it."
➤ Person D: "My job was to direct the prisoners onto the train."
➤ Person E: "My job was to close the doors, not to ask where the train was going or why.”
➤ Person F: "My job was simply to drive the train."
[through all the other small links in the chain that could lead to . . .]
➤ Person Z: "My job was simply to turn on the showers out of which the poison gas was emitted.”
All in all, there is a lot of important information in this book about the brain, people's personalities and upbringings. T discusses the how they impact one another and how to judge each one. This book made me dissect the word 'evil' as a word used to describe someone and dive further into what made them do the act. I enjoyed the book and appreciated the message. I agree that empathy or lack of empathy should hold a bigger part in psychology than it does. :)
There are some books that you read with your mouth open and all of your emotions displayed across your face. This is one of those books. Be warned, 'The Science of Evil' will make you disgusted and enlightened at the same time. What dug into my heart even more were the real life photos of acts of terror. It's gut-wrenching to see what people are capable of. It's unspeakable.
First Chapter:
★ Nazi scientists severed a woman's hands and then sewed them back Switched. So her thumbs on the outside of her hands.
Holy F#%K!!!
★ Some Nazi held experiments to see if people could survive being submerged in freezing water up to 3 hours. Double F#%K!!
★ Rebel soldiers ordering women to bash their children's heads into poles until they died to survive another day. Jesus, F#%king F#%K!!!!!
★ Nazis were not to first to kill thousands of people. The Turks killed over 1.5 million Armenians in 1890. They weren't even allowed to testify in court as witnesses, let alone pled their case. Did i say Fff#%kk!?!?!!!
★ In 1994, in Democratic Republic of Congo rebels attacked a village and forced a woman's son to have sex with her while they watched and then they shot him in front of her. Then each one of the soldiers raped the woman while her husband was forced to watch and then he was shot as well in front of the woman. Last but not least, they left her staring at her burning house and took her 3 daughters away from her. She hasn't heard from her daughters since. I cant even.... F... :o
The scariest part, these cruel people who did these operations were doctors. People we are brought up to trust, performing unethical experiments on innocent lives.
And soldiers that are there to protect.
I found it interesting how the author examined further into what makes people "evil". Evil is a broad definition that is used to describe many different people. He substituted evil with the word empathy or lack of empathy. Suddenly, character traits were more easily defined and their actions were explained. Some had lack of empathy because of their desire to protect and were blinded, others because of revenge or hate and in some instances, pure hunger. The things you will do when you've been starved for days, and pure instinct takes over are unfathomable. Emotions are dissected....
“When our empathy is switched off, we are solely in the "I" mode. In such a state we relate only to things or to people as if they were just things.”
Each chapter gave me goosebumps. I learned things that shocked me to the core! I had so many chills that i had to take breaks just to collect myself. Im grateful to learn about the human mind and how we as a society have evolved but some of these atrocities just made me sick. It was like reading horror story after horror story.
★ Fun Fact: Marilyn Monroe's real name was Norma Jean Mortenson. Norma?! Really? ...huh. I guess I'm the only one who's a huge fan of Psycho. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
★ I never knew that Marilyn Monroe was a child of divorced parents and a mother who was in the psychiatric ward most of her life. She went from foster care to foster care. When she was 11 and she was sexually molested by her stepfather! What?! She first got married when she was 16 to her neighbor to get out of foster care. She remarried 2 more times to all failed marriages. She was in and out of psychiatric clinics like her mother and attempted suicide three times! She succeeded killing herself, overdosing in 1962. Whoa...
I think my biggest take away after reading this book is how empathy is related to the brain. I never knew that certain parts of our brain control our lack or over abundance of the trait with hormones and proteins. It is really interesting.
(-1★) I took away a star for the sole reason of some of the tests mentioned. 'Bla bla bla, this test shows this information according to this doctor and this many patients, bla bla bla, but it is not conclusive; or it was not proven; or the patients life history was never taken into account or recorded....etc.' ☠ -Wait, WHAT? Why would you mention test results if they are not 99% true or even taken correctly?! I felt like my time was wasted reading those sentences over and over again.
When i read a science or psychology book i want concrete hard proof of the evidence your basing your topic on. Not hearsay.
Its like saying "1+1=11, because Eddie from the store told me, but it needs more working out." Ugh!!!! ☠
I liked the statement: "Narcissists have monologues, not dialogues."
During the Nazi reign, people who helped gather up the jews did not consider themselves part of the killing, instead they justified their actions by making statements like this...
➤ Person A: "I simply had the list of Jews in my municipality. I did not round up the Jews, but I did pass this list on when requested to do so."
➤ Person B: "I was told to go to these addresses, arrest these people, and take them to the train station. That's all I did."
➤ Person C: "My job was to open the doors of the train—that was it."
➤ Person D: "My job was to direct the prisoners onto the train."
➤ Person E: "My job was to close the doors, not to ask where the train was going or why.”
➤ Person F: "My job was simply to drive the train."
[through all the other small links in the chain that could lead to . . .]
➤ Person Z: "My job was simply to turn on the showers out of which the poison gas was emitted.”
All in all, there is a lot of important information in this book about the brain, people's personalities and upbringings. T discusses the how they impact one another and how to judge each one. This book made me dissect the word 'evil' as a word used to describe someone and dive further into what made them do the act. I enjoyed the book and appreciated the message. I agree that empathy or lack of empathy should hold a bigger part in psychology than it does. :)
March 21, 2019
Odlično napisana knjiga svakodnevnim jezikom. Izneta su zapažanja autora na temu odsustva empatije i rezultati istraživanja vezanih za moguće medicinske uzroke toga. Fun fact: pisac je rođak Saše Barona Koena a.k.a. Borata. Bonus: test na kraju knjige koji vam otkriva vaš EQ (koeficijent emocionalne inteligencije).
October 15, 2021
I hate, HATE this book. The beginning started off promising, but I quickly realized that this guy and his “theories” (or rather, opinions, with little actual results of scientific research to back him up) and I were not going to get along. I am disturbed that this man is the director of an Autism Research Center at a university. Judging by this book, he is the sort of “scientist” that goes in with a theory and ignores any findings that might prove his theory wrong. Therefore, I found very little evidence-backed science in what I read, and before long I was so sick of his prejudice that I had to quit reading.
I think it’s gross that this book is out there. I think it’s dangerous. From quite near the beginning, he starts spreading the idea that, people on the autism spectrum lack empathy and have “male brains” (weird), both things I know—from personal experiences and my own psychological research—are completely untrue. At first, I was willing to hear him out, see what he might mean by this—I feel like I’m pretty open-minded—but his thoughts grew less and less research-backed and were just… oddly biased and, quite frankly, weird.
Perhaps some on the spectrum struggle with empathy, but so do a lot of people *not* on the spectrum. My son and I (who are both on the spectrum) worry about people all the time and how they’re feeling—it’s why I want to be a psychologist. We become absolutely *devastated* at the thought of making someone feel bad. We both struggle to read facial expressions and body language, but we both can effortlessly imagine ourselves in other people’s shoes and can feel their sorrow. My dad is also on the spectrum, and all he does is go out of his way to alleviate the suffering of others. It’s constant! He does it every. single. day. How can you do that and lack empathy?
I feel like marking all people on the spectrum as lacking empathy—especially for something as stupid as being unable to read people (there are brilliant psychopaths who can read people like a book and use it to manipulate them so, according to this man, they have more empathy than people on the spectrum, apparently, simply because they can read people and we can’t, because according to this man, empathy has little to do with, well, *empathizing* with people and being willing to be selfless and help them and wanting them to be happy)—gives out a very awful and inaccurate impression that people on the spectrum are dangerous, and I feel like that is unfair and unacceptable.
Especially from someone who claims to want to help them—he’s making things worse! Life is hard enough for people on the spectrum. What’s wrong with this man? Someone get him out of the autism research department!
Adding to my point and my distress—just read through the comments under this book and see how many people are willing to believe that folks on the autism spectrum lack empathy because of his “expertise.” “Oh, well, he must know, since he’s the director of autism research and stuff…”
They’ll call him out on other things, but on the autism part, they’ll say, “He’s probably right about that.”
He’s not. Do your own research, maybe get to know someone on the spectrum, and see for yourself.
I could cry. It’s not right.
Anyway, I’m calling for a book burning—burn this book. There’s very little actual science in it, and a whole lot of weird, biased opinions.
… I threw my copy in the garbage instead of burning it. But now I’m wishing I had set it on fire in a safe, controlled setting. Maybe roasted marshmallows over its ashes. It would’ve been very satisfying.
I think it’s gross that this book is out there. I think it’s dangerous. From quite near the beginning, he starts spreading the idea that, people on the autism spectrum lack empathy and have “male brains” (weird), both things I know—from personal experiences and my own psychological research—are completely untrue. At first, I was willing to hear him out, see what he might mean by this—I feel like I’m pretty open-minded—but his thoughts grew less and less research-backed and were just… oddly biased and, quite frankly, weird.
Perhaps some on the spectrum struggle with empathy, but so do a lot of people *not* on the spectrum. My son and I (who are both on the spectrum) worry about people all the time and how they’re feeling—it’s why I want to be a psychologist. We become absolutely *devastated* at the thought of making someone feel bad. We both struggle to read facial expressions and body language, but we both can effortlessly imagine ourselves in other people’s shoes and can feel their sorrow. My dad is also on the spectrum, and all he does is go out of his way to alleviate the suffering of others. It’s constant! He does it every. single. day. How can you do that and lack empathy?
I feel like marking all people on the spectrum as lacking empathy—especially for something as stupid as being unable to read people (there are brilliant psychopaths who can read people like a book and use it to manipulate them so, according to this man, they have more empathy than people on the spectrum, apparently, simply because they can read people and we can’t, because according to this man, empathy has little to do with, well, *empathizing* with people and being willing to be selfless and help them and wanting them to be happy)—gives out a very awful and inaccurate impression that people on the spectrum are dangerous, and I feel like that is unfair and unacceptable.
Especially from someone who claims to want to help them—he’s making things worse! Life is hard enough for people on the spectrum. What’s wrong with this man? Someone get him out of the autism research department!
Adding to my point and my distress—just read through the comments under this book and see how many people are willing to believe that folks on the autism spectrum lack empathy because of his “expertise.” “Oh, well, he must know, since he’s the director of autism research and stuff…”
They’ll call him out on other things, but on the autism part, they’ll say, “He’s probably right about that.”
He’s not. Do your own research, maybe get to know someone on the spectrum, and see for yourself.
I could cry. It’s not right.
Anyway, I’m calling for a book burning—burn this book. There’s very little actual science in it, and a whole lot of weird, biased opinions.
… I threw my copy in the garbage instead of burning it. But now I’m wishing I had set it on fire in a safe, controlled setting. Maybe roasted marshmallows over its ashes. It would’ve been very satisfying.
January 31, 2020
I read this over Christmas while having a mini breakdown and it did nooooot help, haha!
Life is insane.
Life is insane.
June 23, 2011
I met Simon Baron Cohen in 2004 as part of my exploration of the role of empathy (and lack of it or autism) in my field of conflict research. He is an extraordinary person to discuss these issues, with and his knowledge and compassion for the children he treats for development disorders strongly evident. His book 'The Essential Difference' played a major role in the evolution of my theory of 'induced autism' in conflict.
His latest book extends his thinking into the role of zero degrees of empathy in the commission of acts of extreme evil. Since I met him, neuroscience has moved on rapidly and his latest book brings up to date the 10 areas of the brain that seem most implicated in empathy, or its lack, and also the half a dozen or so genes whose expression also contributes a genetic dimension to empathy or its absence. Identical twin research suggests that empathy has about 60% heritability, but the sample size and peer review process is probably not complete for that to be taken as proven.
I literally read this book in one sitting (despite the trans-Atlantic jet lag) and would strongly recommend it to anyone interested in the problem of evil from a scientific viewpoint, and especially if you are interested in reducing it! Though the author warns at the onset: don't read this book if you are sensitive to descriptions of appalling evil, as that is how he starts out defining what he is trying to understand, though there is far more to the book than this. He systematically un-picks the different empathy deficiencies of borderline personality, psychopath and narcissistic disorders and how they have at their extreme zero degrees of empathy. His accounts of the genetic and developmental causes of these disorders is strongly evidence based, though in the case of extreme narcissism the research is so far limited.
He also builds on his work in The Essential Difference on the systematizer/empathizer contrast and provides a convincing case that many of those with zero empathy are not borderline, psychopath or narcissistic but in fact use their strong systematizing to build very rigid moral structures. Extreme systematizers also have given us most of our science and technology.
The only weak part of the book is that Simon stops too soon and his phenomenal ability to develop ways to address issues of autism is not fully deployed. He ends with ten steps to increase empathy in the world and even grow in those with zero degrees. I would have loved another full chapter on where now.
His latest book extends his thinking into the role of zero degrees of empathy in the commission of acts of extreme evil. Since I met him, neuroscience has moved on rapidly and his latest book brings up to date the 10 areas of the brain that seem most implicated in empathy, or its lack, and also the half a dozen or so genes whose expression also contributes a genetic dimension to empathy or its absence. Identical twin research suggests that empathy has about 60% heritability, but the sample size and peer review process is probably not complete for that to be taken as proven.
I literally read this book in one sitting (despite the trans-Atlantic jet lag) and would strongly recommend it to anyone interested in the problem of evil from a scientific viewpoint, and especially if you are interested in reducing it! Though the author warns at the onset: don't read this book if you are sensitive to descriptions of appalling evil, as that is how he starts out defining what he is trying to understand, though there is far more to the book than this. He systematically un-picks the different empathy deficiencies of borderline personality, psychopath and narcissistic disorders and how they have at their extreme zero degrees of empathy. His accounts of the genetic and developmental causes of these disorders is strongly evidence based, though in the case of extreme narcissism the research is so far limited.
He also builds on his work in The Essential Difference on the systematizer/empathizer contrast and provides a convincing case that many of those with zero empathy are not borderline, psychopath or narcissistic but in fact use their strong systematizing to build very rigid moral structures. Extreme systematizers also have given us most of our science and technology.
The only weak part of the book is that Simon stops too soon and his phenomenal ability to develop ways to address issues of autism is not fully deployed. He ends with ten steps to increase empathy in the world and even grow in those with zero degrees. I would have loved another full chapter on where now.
March 28, 2021
5 Stars for The Science of Evil: On Empathy and the Origins of Cruelty (audiobook) by Simon Baron-Cohen read by Jonathan Cowley. Books on psychopaths have been popular lately. I think this is a must read if you are interested in the subject. This really helps put the subject into perspective.
stricken
December 21, 2011Baron-Cohen does crap science; I don't need to read this
January 3, 2023
I'm confused about how this author can talk about the people he is studying as having 'zero degrees of empathy' when the manner in which he speaks is so devoid of any empathy towards his patients / subjects. His descriptions of people with borderline personality disorder in particular, or 'borderlines' as Baron-Cohen chooses to call them, is completely out of line with the rest of the recent literature on this subject. This is not because he has a unique ground-breaking insight, but rather because he is choosing to use stigmatising and false descriptions of this group of people which serve to reinforce negative stereotypes.
March 11, 2020
Can evil be quantified? If you had to study 'evil' from a scientific perspective, with all the bells and whistles available within a laboratory, how would you go about it? This is the question that has fascinated me for a long time and if it fascinates you then this is a book you should peruse.
Cohen begins with the fascinating idea of redefining evil as an absence of empathy. This tiny little change opens the door for a scientifically valid method of quantifying evil from a psychological perspective.
If empathy is the ability to identify with someone else's thinking and responding in an acceptable manner then a complete absence of such an intuition opens the door for categorizing different personality types typically accused of being evil. The book initially elaborates on borderline personality disorder, psychopathy and narcissistic personality disorder. The author goes into detail with regards to the parts of the brain contributing to the sense of empathy (cumulatively the 'empathy circuit') and explains well how these areas fire abnormally in the brains of people with such psychological issues.
The definition of empathy that the author proposes also opens up a window into understanding autism spectrum disorders from a fresh perspective. If psychopaths are people who do not feel any empathy (no affective empathy) but can recognize the feeling from the expressions/body language in others (cognitive empathy), what if people in the autistic spectrum are the exact opposite? According to this thesis, if the empathy circuit in the brain is wired such that a person can feel empathy (affective empathy) but cannot understand that others are capable of the same (cognitive empathy) then psychologists commonly diagnose such individuals under the umbrella term of autism-spectrum. Cohen gives a lot of experimental findings that seem to support this idea and to me it was a fascinating experience to gain a new perspective into autism and asperger syndrome. Here I also learned about 'alexithymia' - the inability of understanding emotion (of others and one's own), literally meaning 'without words for emotion' and this is something individuals with autism invariably experience (hence supporting the cognitive empathy prognosis in the previous sentence).
Cohen's appeal that psychologists and psychiatrists should pay more attention to empathy and the empathy centers of their patients before treating them sounded like good advice by the end of the book.
The main idea that this book propounds and one which I found fascinating even if it requires further experimental evidence to be accepted fully is that when acts of cruelty occur, they are invariably the result of a malfunctioning empathy circuit. Various factors could influence this malfunction such as genetics, cultural sanctions, personal ideology, obedience etc. This puts goosebumps-inducing force into the words of Historian Ian Kershaw - "The path to Auschwitz was paved with indifference"
The reason why I enjoyed reading this book was summed up eloquently by the author himself - "If I have an agenda, it is to urge people not to be satisfied with the concept of "evil" as an explanatory tool, and if I have successfully moved the debate out of the domain of religion and into the social and biological sciences, I will feel this book has made a contribution."
I enjoy books that talk about new ideas that I wasn't previously familiar with and that probably added to my enjoyment. If you are someone well-versed/well-read in cognitive psychology and behavioral sciences then there may not be much that is new here for you. For others, this may be a fun book to read.
Cohen begins with the fascinating idea of redefining evil as an absence of empathy. This tiny little change opens the door for a scientifically valid method of quantifying evil from a psychological perspective.
If empathy is the ability to identify with someone else's thinking and responding in an acceptable manner then a complete absence of such an intuition opens the door for categorizing different personality types typically accused of being evil. The book initially elaborates on borderline personality disorder, psychopathy and narcissistic personality disorder. The author goes into detail with regards to the parts of the brain contributing to the sense of empathy (cumulatively the 'empathy circuit') and explains well how these areas fire abnormally in the brains of people with such psychological issues.
The definition of empathy that the author proposes also opens up a window into understanding autism spectrum disorders from a fresh perspective. If psychopaths are people who do not feel any empathy (no affective empathy) but can recognize the feeling from the expressions/body language in others (cognitive empathy), what if people in the autistic spectrum are the exact opposite? According to this thesis, if the empathy circuit in the brain is wired such that a person can feel empathy (affective empathy) but cannot understand that others are capable of the same (cognitive empathy) then psychologists commonly diagnose such individuals under the umbrella term of autism-spectrum. Cohen gives a lot of experimental findings that seem to support this idea and to me it was a fascinating experience to gain a new perspective into autism and asperger syndrome. Here I also learned about 'alexithymia' - the inability of understanding emotion (of others and one's own), literally meaning 'without words for emotion' and this is something individuals with autism invariably experience (hence supporting the cognitive empathy prognosis in the previous sentence).
Cohen's appeal that psychologists and psychiatrists should pay more attention to empathy and the empathy centers of their patients before treating them sounded like good advice by the end of the book.
The main idea that this book propounds and one which I found fascinating even if it requires further experimental evidence to be accepted fully is that when acts of cruelty occur, they are invariably the result of a malfunctioning empathy circuit. Various factors could influence this malfunction such as genetics, cultural sanctions, personal ideology, obedience etc. This puts goosebumps-inducing force into the words of Historian Ian Kershaw - "The path to Auschwitz was paved with indifference"
The reason why I enjoyed reading this book was summed up eloquently by the author himself - "If I have an agenda, it is to urge people not to be satisfied with the concept of "evil" as an explanatory tool, and if I have successfully moved the debate out of the domain of religion and into the social and biological sciences, I will feel this book has made a contribution."
I enjoy books that talk about new ideas that I wasn't previously familiar with and that probably added to my enjoyment. If you are someone well-versed/well-read in cognitive psychology and behavioral sciences then there may not be much that is new here for you. For others, this may be a fun book to read.
July 26, 2019
Kada čujem reč zlo, kao i većina ljudi, pomislim na nešto što je mistično, na neku određenu neobjašnjivu silu, bilo unutrašnja ili spoljna ("đavo") koja tera ljude da urade neke loše stvari, kao nešto iz horor filmova kojem ne želimo da priđemo. Međutim Koen ne želi da se zadovolji tom definicijom zla. Ne želi da završi diskusiju o nekoj okrutnoj radnji sa objašnjenjem "To je on/ona uradila zato što je zao/zla". Umesto toga, kao naučnik traži objašnjenje ljudske surovosti sa psihološkog i biološkog aspekta. A zlo, manifestovano u bilo kom obliku, ima uvek istu karakteristiku - tretiranje drugog živog bića kao da je neživi objekat, zanemarivanje njegovih stavova, potreba i osećanja. Tako da pokušava zlo da definiše sa aspekta nedostatka empatije tako što prvo definiše empatiju i njene nivou i onda daje objašnjenja tri glavna negativna tipa poremećaja ličnosti koji nemaju empatiju, odnosno obzira prema drugim bićima. Tipovi su prikazani slikovito kroz primere, objašnjenje njihovih načina razmišljanja, kao i uzroke tih poremećaja, i ukoliko vam to nije dovoljno, tipovi su prikazani čak i iz aspekta neurologije. Međutim, Koen ne staje na tome. Iako je nedostatak empatije osnova za kreiranje zla, ono ne mora nužno dovesti do toga, što najbolje oslikava autizam, stanje u kojem ne postoji empatija, druga živa bića su tretirani kao objekti, ali samo zbog toga što ljudi sa autizmom se tako nesvesno ponašaju jer ne umeju da pojme ljude i socijalna okruženja zato što nisu modelirani po čistim, striktnim pravilima.
Ovo je bilo svakako zanimljivo štivo, pogotovo za mene koju zanimaju mentalni poremećaji. Koen je poremećaje približio čitaocu, tako da bi čitalac mogao da zamisli kakvi su ti ljudi i zašto rade to što rade, pobio je nekoliko mitova što svi kupimo iz holivudskih filmova i serija i iznenadio sa par stvari i svaka stavka je podržana naučnom osnovom. Jedina zamerka koju bih mogla da imam jeste to što znam da ne može svaka neempatičnost da se svrsta u tri kategorije, pa je zato mogao da navede još nekoliko tipova i u kratkim crtama objasni, ali sa obzirom na organizaciju koncepta knjige, razumem u potpunosti što nije. Preporuka za svakoga!
Ovo je bilo svakako zanimljivo štivo, pogotovo za mene koju zanimaju mentalni poremećaji. Koen je poremećaje približio čitaocu, tako da bi čitalac mogao da zamisli kakvi su ti ljudi i zašto rade to što rade, pobio je nekoliko mitova što svi kupimo iz holivudskih filmova i serija i iznenadio sa par stvari i svaka stavka je podržana naučnom osnovom. Jedina zamerka koju bih mogla da imam jeste to što znam da ne može svaka neempatičnost da se svrsta u tri kategorije, pa je zato mogao da navede još nekoliko tipova i u kratkim crtama objasni, ali sa obzirom na organizaciju koncepta knjige, razumem u potpunosti što nije. Preporuka za svakoga!
April 7, 2019
Na "Teorię zła" natrafiłam zupełnym przypadkiem i szczerze się cieszę, że tak się stało, bo to jedna z lepszych książek, z którymi się w tym roku zetknęłam. Chętnie poczytałabym coś podobnego!
September 16, 2012
This is a disappointing book. The author overstates the case for empathy. "Empathy itself is the most valuable resource in the world," he writes. Since uncaring leads to cruelty and inappropriate social responses, he argues that we need more empathy. If it were as simple as asserting that it be so.
The author defines empathy as only a good thing as far as social relationships are concerned, but some have argued that it is this capacity to identify with what goes on in others that gives sadists pleasure or possibly underlies homophobia. Still, we know that the author doesn't mean that kind of empathy. He says the good kind of empathy varies across a range (the empathy bell curve) from zero to much, and argues that both environmental and genetic factors interact in ways that determine where one falls within that range. That suggests we can work on enhancing empathy (teaching, good habits, etc.), but it also suggests that a good part of human kind is inherently predisposed to anti-social behavior.
Then there are the empirical measures the author uses for empathy. Empirical suggests scientific, but the measures seem subjective and likely miss the essence of what he's after. Among his top ten measures, he asks whether one enjoys caring for others, whether it's hard to know what to do in a social situation, and whether it bothers one to be late meeting a friend. It's common enough to not really "enjoy caring" for others, but that's not the same as wishing them ill and acting to harm. It could be the awkwardness of a social situation is due to boredom or frustration with superficiality. As for lateness, does this mean a good part of the non western world is not empathetic? If these questions seem nit picky, look at these measures from another perspective: Are some "non-empathetic" sociopaths good at manipulation because they are acutely aware of how others will react to what they do?
Something more fundamental is missing from this discussion of "the science of evil." The widespread cruelty throughout history by leaders and collective groupings of people points in the direction of deeper biological factors that override empathy. These, for example, may involve the role of alpha leaders and their followers, and tribal dynamics that result in the need to hate, demonize and dehumanize.
The author defines empathy as only a good thing as far as social relationships are concerned, but some have argued that it is this capacity to identify with what goes on in others that gives sadists pleasure or possibly underlies homophobia. Still, we know that the author doesn't mean that kind of empathy. He says the good kind of empathy varies across a range (the empathy bell curve) from zero to much, and argues that both environmental and genetic factors interact in ways that determine where one falls within that range. That suggests we can work on enhancing empathy (teaching, good habits, etc.), but it also suggests that a good part of human kind is inherently predisposed to anti-social behavior.
Then there are the empirical measures the author uses for empathy. Empirical suggests scientific, but the measures seem subjective and likely miss the essence of what he's after. Among his top ten measures, he asks whether one enjoys caring for others, whether it's hard to know what to do in a social situation, and whether it bothers one to be late meeting a friend. It's common enough to not really "enjoy caring" for others, but that's not the same as wishing them ill and acting to harm. It could be the awkwardness of a social situation is due to boredom or frustration with superficiality. As for lateness, does this mean a good part of the non western world is not empathetic? If these questions seem nit picky, look at these measures from another perspective: Are some "non-empathetic" sociopaths good at manipulation because they are acutely aware of how others will react to what they do?
Something more fundamental is missing from this discussion of "the science of evil." The widespread cruelty throughout history by leaders and collective groupings of people points in the direction of deeper biological factors that override empathy. These, for example, may involve the role of alpha leaders and their followers, and tribal dynamics that result in the need to hate, demonize and dehumanize.
September 6, 2018
An attempt to explain evil from an empirical standpoint rather than an ideological or a philosophical one. The author is only dealing with a certain type of evil; not natural evil (things like earthquakes and flooding) but moral evil (things like murder and rape). In a move parallel to Augustine of Hippo, he defines evil in terms of privation. Just as one might define darkness as the absence of light, Augustine defined evil as the absence of good, and Baron-Cohen defines it as the absence of empathy. There is a continuum between light and darkness. People are not either staring directly into the sun or trapped in a lightless grotto deep beneath the earth at any given moment (I would be remiss if I didn't point out that the fact that a person who is staring at the sun and a person trapped in a lightless room are equally blind serves as a useful metaphor for the dangers of extremism). One can parallel the light/dark continuum with the continuum between empathy and a lack of empathy in the psychology of individual human beings. It is by using this continuum that the author tries to better understand human evil. The author considers two ways of relating to the world, the Ich-Du (I-you) mode of being and the Ich-Es (I-it) mode of being. In the first mode of being you connect with another person as the end in itself. A highly empathetic person would operate in this mode of being since they would have the ability to identify what someone else is thinking or feeling and to respond to their thoughts and feelings with an appropriate emotion. In the second mode of being you connect with another person as a means to an end. They are not a person so much as an object to be used in the pursuit of some purpose. A person without empathy operates entirely in the Ich-Es mode of being. People are things. The author writes: 'Treating other people as if they were just objects is one of the worst things you can do to another human being, to ignore their subjectivity, their thoughts and feelings.' As the old chest nut goes, you can love people and use things or love things and use people.
A mistake we might make is thinking once again that these are binary options. The author uses the helpful metaphor of a light switch. It is not a matter of whether we are in the off position (Ich-Es) or the on position (Ich-Du) because people are not like traditional light switches that must be entirely in one of these states or the other. They are more like dimmer switches. Empathy erosion is like a person who has the dimmer switch turned low, either as a temporary state or as a permanent trait. In his words: 'I'm going to argue that some people are at the low end of this empathy dimension in a potentially permanent way, and that some (but not all) of those at this extreme end are whom we might call “evil” or cruel. That is, they never had much empathy and they may never. Others may be at the low end of the empathy dimension because they experienced a transient shutting down of their empathy as the result of their current situation. That is, they had empathy and lost it, however briefly. But however you get to this low point on the empathy scale, the result can be the same. At that point you become capable of dehumanizing other people, of turning other people into objects, and this can have tragic consequences.'
The author rightly points out that saying people engage in certain behaviours because they are evil is a sort of non-explanation: 'Why did the murderer kill the innocent child? Because he was evil. Why did the terrorist become a suicide bomber? Because she was evil.' The empirical approach he advocates is not content to merely slap a label on this type of behaviour and be done with it but is an attempt to understand how some people are capable of behaving in ways that other people find abhorrent. To do this he substitutes the phrase 'empathy erosion' where we would usually place the word evil. He then asks two questions: 1) What is empathy? 2) Why do some people have less than others?
He writes: 'Empathy occurs when we suspend our single-minded focus of attention and instead adopt a double-minded focus of attention.' You actively step out of your perspective and to the best of your ability step into the perspective of the other. Here is a real world example the author gives:
'I sat in Alyth Gardens synagogue in Golders Green in north London last year. Two men went up on the stage. The first one spoke. “I am Ahmed, and I am a Palestinian. My son died in the Intifada, killed by an Israeli bullet. I come to wish you all Shabbat Shalom.” Then the other man spoke. “I am Moishe, and I am an Israeli. My son also died in the Intifada, killed by a homemade petrol bomb thrown by a Palestinian teenager. I come to wish you all Salaam Aleikem.”
I was shocked: Here were two fathers, from different sides of the political divide, united by their grief and now embracing each other's language. How had they met? Moishe had taken the opportunity offered by a charity called the Parents Circle for Israelis and Palestinians to make free phone calls directly into each other's homes to express their empathy to bereaved parents on the other side of the barbed-wire fence. Ahmed described how he had been at home in Gaza one day when the phone rang. It was Moishe, at that time a stranger in Jerusalem, who had taken that brave first step. They both openly wept on the phone. Neither had ever met or spoke to someone from the other community, but both told the other they knew what the other was going through.'
The book delves a fair bit into the brain based aspect of empathy, identifying ten areas of the brain that are associated with the ability to empathize with other people. Much of this area of research is based on the behaviour of people that have suffered damage to these areas of the brain. The author also examines studies on whether there are correlations between how active any of these areas are and the level of empathy a particular individual demonstrates.
Four types of non-empathetic people are examined in depth, three that the author identifies as level 0 negative personalities (borderline personality disorder, psychopathy, and narcissism) and one level 0 positive personality (Asperger's Syndrome). The author then goes on to consider the role of genetic and environmental factors in how empathetic any particular individual is. As is often the case in behavioural studies, comparing the behaviour of identical and non-identical twins is considered, and also whether adopted children end up sharing more in common with their birth parents or their adopted parents. The book also looks at empathy in the animal kingdom.
The book ends with a number of questions for further study: Are evil acts always the result of early environmental factors (emotional deprivation) or biological factors (genes and/or hormones, neurotransmitters, etc.) affecting the empathy circuit? If empathy is missing in childhood or adolescence, can it be developed later? The role of biology and environment in fashioning the self you are is an interesting question in itself. It is kind of hard to deny they play a very large role in making you the self that you are but a further question is this: can the self that you are then turn around and take a conscious hand in fashioning who it is? I am inclined to say yes.
I mostly agree with what the author has to say in this book. The biggest problem I have with it is that though it is only a partial explanation, it is presented in a way that lulls you into thinking it is a complete explanation. One could easily imagine situations where it is your experiencing empathy for another person that could lead to morally ambiguous actions so whatever empirical approach you might want to take to understanding evil, there are clearly more facets to it than a lack of empathy. The fact that he spends a portion of the book discussing non-empathic people that are not malevolent demonstrates that there are other factors to consider. Evil requires a better explanation than the mere absence of something. It clearly has positive (in the sense of existent) qualities of its own. To steal a metaphor from Dorothy L. Sayers, the categories are not Hamlet and non-Hamlet, they are Hamlet and anti-Hamlet.
A mistake we might make is thinking once again that these are binary options. The author uses the helpful metaphor of a light switch. It is not a matter of whether we are in the off position (Ich-Es) or the on position (Ich-Du) because people are not like traditional light switches that must be entirely in one of these states or the other. They are more like dimmer switches. Empathy erosion is like a person who has the dimmer switch turned low, either as a temporary state or as a permanent trait. In his words: 'I'm going to argue that some people are at the low end of this empathy dimension in a potentially permanent way, and that some (but not all) of those at this extreme end are whom we might call “evil” or cruel. That is, they never had much empathy and they may never. Others may be at the low end of the empathy dimension because they experienced a transient shutting down of their empathy as the result of their current situation. That is, they had empathy and lost it, however briefly. But however you get to this low point on the empathy scale, the result can be the same. At that point you become capable of dehumanizing other people, of turning other people into objects, and this can have tragic consequences.'
The author rightly points out that saying people engage in certain behaviours because they are evil is a sort of non-explanation: 'Why did the murderer kill the innocent child? Because he was evil. Why did the terrorist become a suicide bomber? Because she was evil.' The empirical approach he advocates is not content to merely slap a label on this type of behaviour and be done with it but is an attempt to understand how some people are capable of behaving in ways that other people find abhorrent. To do this he substitutes the phrase 'empathy erosion' where we would usually place the word evil. He then asks two questions: 1) What is empathy? 2) Why do some people have less than others?
He writes: 'Empathy occurs when we suspend our single-minded focus of attention and instead adopt a double-minded focus of attention.' You actively step out of your perspective and to the best of your ability step into the perspective of the other. Here is a real world example the author gives:
'I sat in Alyth Gardens synagogue in Golders Green in north London last year. Two men went up on the stage. The first one spoke. “I am Ahmed, and I am a Palestinian. My son died in the Intifada, killed by an Israeli bullet. I come to wish you all Shabbat Shalom.” Then the other man spoke. “I am Moishe, and I am an Israeli. My son also died in the Intifada, killed by a homemade petrol bomb thrown by a Palestinian teenager. I come to wish you all Salaam Aleikem.”
I was shocked: Here were two fathers, from different sides of the political divide, united by their grief and now embracing each other's language. How had they met? Moishe had taken the opportunity offered by a charity called the Parents Circle for Israelis and Palestinians to make free phone calls directly into each other's homes to express their empathy to bereaved parents on the other side of the barbed-wire fence. Ahmed described how he had been at home in Gaza one day when the phone rang. It was Moishe, at that time a stranger in Jerusalem, who had taken that brave first step. They both openly wept on the phone. Neither had ever met or spoke to someone from the other community, but both told the other they knew what the other was going through.'
The book delves a fair bit into the brain based aspect of empathy, identifying ten areas of the brain that are associated with the ability to empathize with other people. Much of this area of research is based on the behaviour of people that have suffered damage to these areas of the brain. The author also examines studies on whether there are correlations between how active any of these areas are and the level of empathy a particular individual demonstrates.
Four types of non-empathetic people are examined in depth, three that the author identifies as level 0 negative personalities (borderline personality disorder, psychopathy, and narcissism) and one level 0 positive personality (Asperger's Syndrome). The author then goes on to consider the role of genetic and environmental factors in how empathetic any particular individual is. As is often the case in behavioural studies, comparing the behaviour of identical and non-identical twins is considered, and also whether adopted children end up sharing more in common with their birth parents or their adopted parents. The book also looks at empathy in the animal kingdom.
The book ends with a number of questions for further study: Are evil acts always the result of early environmental factors (emotional deprivation) or biological factors (genes and/or hormones, neurotransmitters, etc.) affecting the empathy circuit? If empathy is missing in childhood or adolescence, can it be developed later? The role of biology and environment in fashioning the self you are is an interesting question in itself. It is kind of hard to deny they play a very large role in making you the self that you are but a further question is this: can the self that you are then turn around and take a conscious hand in fashioning who it is? I am inclined to say yes.
I mostly agree with what the author has to say in this book. The biggest problem I have with it is that though it is only a partial explanation, it is presented in a way that lulls you into thinking it is a complete explanation. One could easily imagine situations where it is your experiencing empathy for another person that could lead to morally ambiguous actions so whatever empirical approach you might want to take to understanding evil, there are clearly more facets to it than a lack of empathy. The fact that he spends a portion of the book discussing non-empathic people that are not malevolent demonstrates that there are other factors to consider. Evil requires a better explanation than the mere absence of something. It clearly has positive (in the sense of existent) qualities of its own. To steal a metaphor from Dorothy L. Sayers, the categories are not Hamlet and non-Hamlet, they are Hamlet and anti-Hamlet.
June 25, 2018
I wish I can give this book negative 5 stars. It's subjective and weakly supported and overall a mess of a book. Don't bother with it.
I DNF this book. It is incredibly bias and lumps up people into categories without considering their other qualities. He doesn't see "people" he sees "a psychopath" "a borderline" and "a narcissist." He might be more reliable about what he says about Autism, but he has very weak understanding and knowledge of personality disorders. He basically makes these weird categories "negative zero/positive zero etc" which not only sound dumb, but are not quantified anywhere. I researched these categories, and nada. So who is to judge empathy then? who are you to lump people into black and white categories based on stereotypes and slap some weak research findings onto them. He picks bias research, doesn't make objective and well supported arguments. In fact he mostly uses specific situations and pathos, and to make things worst, he doesn't address the main topic: the science of evil. Having no empathy does NOT mean you are evil, it does NOT mean that you are socially inept, and it does NOT automatically result in you being a criminal or aggressive.
The book repeats it self, and is quiet disorganized and lacks clarity. His views are black and white, yet he says disorders are spectrums, but then he says that Cluster B disorders have NEGATIVE ZERO empathy! FIRST OF ALL, YOU CAN'T SAY ZERO NEGATIVE OR POSITIVE, IT IS JUST STUPID AND SHOWS A LACK OF UNDERSTANDING OF A SIMPLE CONCEPT OF A NUMBER THAT REPRESENTS A BASELINE OR THE ABSENCE OF SOMETHING. This whole book could be summed in a couple of condensed pages.
Also measuring empathy objectively is nearly impossible. Using one test to quantify empathy lacks scientific ground. A couple of things about research you must consider:
-Validity-- Is the instrument we are using to measure, is actually accuretly measuring what we want to measure?
- reliability-- Internal reliability is a measure of how well your test is actually measuring what you want it to measure. External reliability means that your test or measure can be generalized beyond what you’re using it for.
Considering these 2, it is clear to me that this book is not a good source of info.
I DNF this book. It is incredibly bias and lumps up people into categories without considering their other qualities. He doesn't see "people" he sees "a psychopath" "a borderline" and "a narcissist." He might be more reliable about what he says about Autism, but he has very weak understanding and knowledge of personality disorders. He basically makes these weird categories "negative zero/positive zero etc" which not only sound dumb, but are not quantified anywhere. I researched these categories, and nada. So who is to judge empathy then? who are you to lump people into black and white categories based on stereotypes and slap some weak research findings onto them. He picks bias research, doesn't make objective and well supported arguments. In fact he mostly uses specific situations and pathos, and to make things worst, he doesn't address the main topic: the science of evil. Having no empathy does NOT mean you are evil, it does NOT mean that you are socially inept, and it does NOT automatically result in you being a criminal or aggressive.
The book repeats it self, and is quiet disorganized and lacks clarity. His views are black and white, yet he says disorders are spectrums, but then he says that Cluster B disorders have NEGATIVE ZERO empathy! FIRST OF ALL, YOU CAN'T SAY ZERO NEGATIVE OR POSITIVE, IT IS JUST STUPID AND SHOWS A LACK OF UNDERSTANDING OF A SIMPLE CONCEPT OF A NUMBER THAT REPRESENTS A BASELINE OR THE ABSENCE OF SOMETHING. This whole book could be summed in a couple of condensed pages.
Also measuring empathy objectively is nearly impossible. Using one test to quantify empathy lacks scientific ground. A couple of things about research you must consider:
-Validity-- Is the instrument we are using to measure, is actually accuretly measuring what we want to measure?
- reliability-- Internal reliability is a measure of how well your test is actually measuring what you want it to measure. External reliability means that your test or measure can be generalized beyond what you’re using it for.
Considering these 2, it is clear to me that this book is not a good source of info.
April 14, 2013
2.5 stars, rounded down. A bit too dry. However the tiny part on Nazi atrocities at the beginning made me cry in public :(
August 25, 2024
This is really not a book about evil. Believe the subtitle. The author makes his case that there are individuals who are hard wired, by genetics and development, to lack empathy and that 3 types of these individuals are capable of inflicting harm on others without considering the harm done. Three types of personality disorder fit into the most harmful category as we know it from standard psychological classifications: psychopathic, borderline and narcissistic personality disorders. When fully expressed, people with each of these disorders really suffer from a lack of empathy. They are unable to feel or understand what another person feels. The author uses scientific evidence to show that empathy is wired into 10 different regions of our brains and that the brains of people who lack empathy show both anatomic variations and differences from "normal" on functional MRI scanning.
For each of us, other people may be reduced to objects at times of stress. Soldiers in the heat of battle, must see the enemy, for better or worse, as an enemy, not a human being. Each of us, when stressed or hurried, might walk by a person lying on the street and not even notice the human being that is there. Sometimes shutting down our empathy circuits is a good thing, a positive adaptation. A surgeon needs to see only the problem she is working on, not the human being. All of these cases occur in everyday life. Most people are capable of recognizing, at least in retrospect, that we have caused harm by objectifying others. We can experience regret, remorse and even shame for our actions.
This is not so with those who truly lack empathy. Their behavior shows that they treat other people as objects to be manipulated, and their thoughts often conform without regret and without shame. Of course, a lack of empathy alone does not lead to evil actions. The author argues that environmental factors and opportunity combined with a lack of empathy can lead to some awful actions, including abuse, neglect, and murder. Examples are cited which are real, and they just make me shake my head. We know that there are people who do evil. We just can't understand it.
Simon Baron-Cohen helps us to understand how it is possible, due to a total lack of empathy, for a mother to neglect her children, for a father to rape his daughter and keep her locked up for years and for a gang member to rape and murder without remorse.
Unfortunately, he is less helpful helping us figure what out to do with knowledge based on his theories and evidence. The people he describes would generally be thought of as "bad people" who do bad things and should be punished or just locked away to keep the rest of us safe. Or should they? Can people who are biologically lacking in empathy be rehabilitated? Can they change? Can they learn empathy? Are they responsible for their crimes?
With a few quick remarks about the death penalty and philosophy, the book draws to a conclusion. This has left me with an uneasy feeling. I am uneasy just being reminded that there are people out there who can commit crimes and hurt people as a matter of course, with no thoughts to the feelings of their victims. I know these people exist. I know that they do bad things. I just find that explaining their evil actions using a fixed biological and scientific framework leaves me with a very negative and depressing and hopeless view of the world. How can we escape the biology of ruthless killers in the world? To paraphrase Jack Nicholson's character speaking in the movie A Few Good Men, "We can't handle the truth!" He may be right.
For each of us, other people may be reduced to objects at times of stress. Soldiers in the heat of battle, must see the enemy, for better or worse, as an enemy, not a human being. Each of us, when stressed or hurried, might walk by a person lying on the street and not even notice the human being that is there. Sometimes shutting down our empathy circuits is a good thing, a positive adaptation. A surgeon needs to see only the problem she is working on, not the human being. All of these cases occur in everyday life. Most people are capable of recognizing, at least in retrospect, that we have caused harm by objectifying others. We can experience regret, remorse and even shame for our actions.
This is not so with those who truly lack empathy. Their behavior shows that they treat other people as objects to be manipulated, and their thoughts often conform without regret and without shame. Of course, a lack of empathy alone does not lead to evil actions. The author argues that environmental factors and opportunity combined with a lack of empathy can lead to some awful actions, including abuse, neglect, and murder. Examples are cited which are real, and they just make me shake my head. We know that there are people who do evil. We just can't understand it.
Simon Baron-Cohen helps us to understand how it is possible, due to a total lack of empathy, for a mother to neglect her children, for a father to rape his daughter and keep her locked up for years and for a gang member to rape and murder without remorse.
Unfortunately, he is less helpful helping us figure what out to do with knowledge based on his theories and evidence. The people he describes would generally be thought of as "bad people" who do bad things and should be punished or just locked away to keep the rest of us safe. Or should they? Can people who are biologically lacking in empathy be rehabilitated? Can they change? Can they learn empathy? Are they responsible for their crimes?
With a few quick remarks about the death penalty and philosophy, the book draws to a conclusion. This has left me with an uneasy feeling. I am uneasy just being reminded that there are people out there who can commit crimes and hurt people as a matter of course, with no thoughts to the feelings of their victims. I know these people exist. I know that they do bad things. I just find that explaining their evil actions using a fixed biological and scientific framework leaves me with a very negative and depressing and hopeless view of the world. How can we escape the biology of ruthless killers in the world? To paraphrase Jack Nicholson's character speaking in the movie A Few Good Men, "We can't handle the truth!" He may be right.
September 5, 2018
Interesting details concerning the make-up of evil inherent in the human species, especially dealing with empathy, or as touched on in this book, the lack thereof. This book broke down the science of the condition, explaining how that we are all not, either good or bad, but rather in measure, we are all a mixture of both. I'm reminded of the cartoon I used to see where every person has an invisible little angel on one shoulder and a little devil on the other, each trying to persuade us to do either right or wrong.
Simon used a scale, breaking down the difference between those who only had minor deficiencies in expressing empathy and those who lack it completely. A lot of the signs are characteristics that I recognize in people I have known throughout my life; some to a greater extent than others. I thought the part that was most disturbing was the realization that those who are at the lowest scale in lacking empathy can not only be extremely heartless and cruel, but in most cases, do not even realize that they are being that way. Their brains are not wired to make the distinction. A person who could hurt, or possibly even kill, for whatever exaggerated reason and not feel the slightest regret or even understand that what they have done is wrong, is about as scary a monster as I can imagine.
Over all this was an informative read on the subject, and I have a much clearer understanding now of my ex-wife.
Simon used a scale, breaking down the difference between those who only had minor deficiencies in expressing empathy and those who lack it completely. A lot of the signs are characteristics that I recognize in people I have known throughout my life; some to a greater extent than others. I thought the part that was most disturbing was the realization that those who are at the lowest scale in lacking empathy can not only be extremely heartless and cruel, but in most cases, do not even realize that they are being that way. Their brains are not wired to make the distinction. A person who could hurt, or possibly even kill, for whatever exaggerated reason and not feel the slightest regret or even understand that what they have done is wrong, is about as scary a monster as I can imagine.
Over all this was an informative read on the subject, and I have a much clearer understanding now of my ex-wife.
October 25, 2020
This was a really short but interesting look at the origins of evil and empathy.
I found this book really fascinating. Even though I knew some of what was mentioned having studied psychology, I definitely learnt some new stuff too.
This book is really quick, less than 200 pages. It's more that in depth so its more of a book that you pick up and if you find interesting, then you want to read more about. It's a great introduction to the topic.
I think this book is really accessible. It does have a bit of science included, however, I think it's written in a simplistic and easy to understand way that is nicely broken down so it never gets confusing.
I find this topic fascinating. If you love true crime and want to find out more about what being evil really means, then I highly recommend this book!
TW: real life descriptions of mass genocide, abuse, suicide, murder, violence and torture
I found this book really fascinating. Even though I knew some of what was mentioned having studied psychology, I definitely learnt some new stuff too.
This book is really quick, less than 200 pages. It's more that in depth so its more of a book that you pick up and if you find interesting, then you want to read more about. It's a great introduction to the topic.
I think this book is really accessible. It does have a bit of science included, however, I think it's written in a simplistic and easy to understand way that is nicely broken down so it never gets confusing.
I find this topic fascinating. If you love true crime and want to find out more about what being evil really means, then I highly recommend this book!
TW: real life descriptions of mass genocide, abuse, suicide, murder, violence and torture
November 19, 2015
Interesting book. That's about all I can really say. I don't find this as practical for the "layperson" as some books on the idea of evil and the human brain and mind are. Still you may find it draws you in a bit.
I think how this one hits you will depend on your own bent and interests. I picked it up after reading a few books on Psychopathy. That's not exactly what's discussed here, but it is interesting.
I think how this one hits you will depend on your own bent and interests. I picked it up after reading a few books on Psychopathy. That's not exactly what's discussed here, but it is interesting.
November 17, 2011
I only ready 1/3 of this book before giving up. I wanted to mark it as read in case I thought about reading it again. Don't do it Jeannette! It's not about evil, but about different levels of empathy. It was a dry, super sciencey book that a doctor might enjoy, but not for consumption by the average Joe.
December 1, 2017
Cannot finish the book and suggest others don’t bother. Lost faith in the knowledge of the author after he claimed that those with BPD are cruel with no empathy.
October 30, 2022
বই: The Science of Evil: On Empathy and the Origins of Cruelty
লেখক: Simon Baron-Cohen
প্রকাশক: Basic Books
প্রকাশকাল: 1st edition; 31 May 2011
ফরম্যাট: Paperback
পৃষ্ঠাসংখ্যা: 288 pages
ওজন: 249 g
ডাইমেনশন: 13.72 x 2.03 x 20.57 cm
মূল্য: ১৩১৭/-
**সমালোচকের কৈফিয়ত:
ইন্টারটেক্সচুয়াল রিডিং একাধারে মনোমুগ্ধকর, অত্যাশ্চর্য একটি কনসেপ্ট ; আবার অন্যদিকে সাংঘাতিক বিরক্তিকর। রিভিশন দিচ্ছিলাম দাদার 'যুদ্ধ' নামক বইটি। সেটির একটি অংশ পড়তে পড়তে চড়াম করে মাথাটি ঘুরে গেল।
বিভাস দা লিখছেন, "যুদ্ধ জয় করতে গেলে একজন সেনাপতির কতগুলি অত্যাবশ্যক গুণ থাকা প্রয়োজন; সে জিতবে যে ভালো জানে কখন যুদ্ধ করতে হবে আর কখন করতে হবে না, যে তার থেকে শক্তিশালী বা দূর্বল প্রতিপক্ষকে সঠিক ভাবে হ্যান্ডেল করতে জানে,যার সেনাদলে নীচের তলা থেকে শুরু করে উপর স্তর পর্যন্ত সবাই সমান ভাবে উদ্বুদ্ধ। সেই বিজয়ী হবে যে নিজের দলকে ঠিক ভাবে ট্রেনিং দিয়ে তৈরি করেছে, যে শত্রুকে অপ্রস্তুত অব���্থায় আক্রমণ করতে পারবে,যার সৈন্যবল আছে আর তার মিলিটারি ব্যবস্থার মধ্যে রাষ্ট্র হস্তক্ষেপ করে না।
তাই 'আর্ট অফ ওয়ার' বলছে, তুমি যদি তোমার শত্রুর আর নিজের ক্ষমতা সঠিক ভাবে জানো, তবে একশ যুদ্ধের ফলাফল নিয়ে চিন্তা করতে হবে না। যদি কেবল নিজের শক্তি জানো, শত্রুর ক্ষমতার ব্যাপারে অজ্ঞ, তাহলে প্রত্যেক বিজয়ের সাথে তার মূল্য চুকাতে হবে। আর যদি নিজের আর শত্রু শক্তি কোনটাই ঠিক জানা না থাকে তবে প্রত্যেক যুদ্ধে পরাজয় নিশ্চিত।
নিজেকে পরাজয় থেকে বাঁচানো নিজের উপরে নির্ভর করে। কিন্তু শত্রু নিজেই সুযোগ দেয় তাঁকে পরাজিত করার। তাই একজন সেরা যোদ্ধা নিজেকে পরাজয় থেকে দূরে রাখতে পারে। কিন্তু শত্রুর পরাজয় নিশ্চিত করতে পারে না। একজন চতুর যোদ্ধা শুধু যুদ্ধ জেতে না, অত্যন্ত সহজ সাবলীল ভঙ্গীতে জেতে।
ফলে সমাজে তার যুদ্ধনীতি, জ্ঞান, আর সাহসের প্রশংসা হয় না। ...."
রেফারেন্স গেলাম বুদ্ধদেব বসুর 'মহাভারতের কথা' ও বিতর্কিকা পত্রিকার 'আগ্নেয়াস্ত্র' সংক্রান্ত একটি লেখায়। সেখান থেকেই কোন পথ ধরে এই বইয়ে ঢুকে পড়লাম , খোদায় মালুম।
**মুখবন্ধ:
এক শ্রেণীর মনস্তত্ববিদ বলেছেন যে হিংস্রতার কোনও স্বাভাবিক প্রবণতা মানুষের না থাকলেও অন্যের উপর নিজের তাধিপত্য বিস্তার করার প্রবৃত্তি মানুষের মধ্যে দেখা যায়। Alfred Adler যেমন মনে করেছেন যে অন্যের তুলনায় নিজেকে বড় করে তোলার প্রবৃত্তি মানুষের মধ্যে খুব প্রবল। এবং এই প্রবৃত্তি দ্বারা তার আচরণ বিশেষভাবে নিয়ন্ত্রিত হয়। Karen Horney বলেন যে যারা বাল্যকালে অবহেলিত হয় এবং বিশেষ কোন মর্যাদা পায় না তাদের মনে এক ধরনের হীনম্মন্যতার জাগরণ ঘটে ও তাদের মধ্যে কেউ কেউ পরবর্তী জীবনে যেভাবেই হোক এবং যে পথেই হোক কৃতকার্যতা লাভ করে এবং অন্যের উপর ছড়ি ঘুরিয়ে আনন্দ পায়।
**আলোচনা:
বইয়ের নাম 'The Science of Evil: On Empathy and the Origins of Cruelty', লেখক Simon Baron-Cohen। লেখক কেমব্রিজ বিশ্ববিদ্যালয়ে মনস্তত্ত্বের অধ্যাপক। সামাজিক মনস্তত্ত্বের এক প্রাচীন অথচ গূঢ় জিজ্ঞাসায় ডুব দিয়েছেন লেখক।
বইয়ের মূল প্রেমিস কী ? University of Washington-এর যুগ্ম অধিকর্তা Andrew N. Meltzoff, বলছেন: “What makes someone evil? What’s the brain got to do with it? Baron-Cohen confronts the most urgent and controversial questions in social neuroscience. Both disturbing and compassionate, this brilliant book establishes a new science of evil, explaining both its brain basis and development. Baron-Cohen fundamentally transforms how we understand cruelty in others and in so doing forces us to examine ourselves.
Reading this book invites us to widen our own circle of empathy — compelling us to grow and comprehend, if not forgive.”
মানুষের মধ্যে দেবত্ব ও পশুত্ব এই দুই ধরনের প্রবৃত্তিই রয়েছে। সহিংসতা হলো পশুর স্বভাব এবং শান্তি, সহমর্মিতা ইত্যাদি দেবতাসুলভ স্বভাব। শান্তি ও নিরাপত্তা সকল মানুষের পরম চাওয়া। শান্তিপ্রিয় মানুষ কামনা করে প্রেম-ভালোবাসা, মিলন, সহৃদয়তা, দয়া-মায়া-মমতা, ক্ষমা ও পুনর্মিলন।
ফ্রয়েড মনে করতেন যে মানুষের প্রকৃতির ভিতর একটা আক্রমণাত্মক প্রবণতা বা 'aggressive instinct' বিরাজমান, এবং হিংস্রতা ও যুদ্ধই শেষ পর্যন্ত সেই প্রবণতার প্রকাশ।আদিম গোষ্ঠীবদ্ধ সমাজ থেকে সামন্ত সমাজ পর্যন্ত মানুষকে সমস্ত দার্শনিকরাই উল্লেখ করতেন সমাজবদ্ধ সামাজিক জীব হিসেবে। কিন্তু বুর্জোয়ার উৎপত্তি হবার সাথে সাথে প্রয়োজন পড়লো মানুষের সামাজিক পরিচয় ভুলিয়ে দিয়ে মানুষকে নৃশংস, আক্রমণাত্মক হিসেবে দেখানোর।
এক ব্যক্তিবাদী সমাজবিচ্ছিন্ন জন্তুরূপে মানুষকে দেখাতে হলো আগ্রাসী লোভী হিসেবে। দার্শনিক টমাস হবসের জবানিতে বুর্জোয়ারা মানুষকে নেকড়ের মতো হিংস্র, লোভি, নোংরা পশু হিসেবে সর্বপ্রথম উপস্থিত করে।
আধুনিক যুগের বিভিন্ন মনস্তত্ববিদ এবং নৃতত্ত্ববিদরা ফ্রয়েডের এই মতবাদ সম্পূর্ণ স্বীকার করেন না। হিংস্রতা প্রদর্শন বা যুদ্ধ করার একটা স্বাভাবিক প্রবৃত্তি মানুষের অন্তরে নিহিত আছে বলে তাঁরা মনে করেন না। Malinowski, Clyde Kluckhohn প্রমুখ নৃতত্ত্ববিদরা মনে করেন যে মানুষ যখন তার স্বাভাবিক প্রবৃত্তিগুলি চরিতার্থ করার পথে বাধা পায় তখনই তার মনে আক্রমণাত্মক প্রবণতা সৃষ্টি হয়।
তার নিরাপত্তা বা স্বাভাবিক যৌথ জীবন যখন কোন কারণে ব্যাহত হয় তখনই তার মনে সংগ্রাম স্পৃহা বা আক্রমণাত্মক প্রবণতা সৃষ্টি হয়ে থাকে। অতএব তাঁরা মনে করেন যে আক্রমণাত্মক প্রবণতা মানব-প্রকৃতির স্বাভাবিক বৈশিষ্ট্য নয়—পরিবেশ এবং অভিজ্ঞতার ফলে মানুষের মনে এই ধরনের প্রবণতা সৃষ্টি হয়।
ছয় অধ্যায়ে বিভক্ত বইটি --
১) Explaining “Evil” and Human Cruelty
২) The Empathy Mechanism: The Bell Curve
৩) When Zero Degrees of Empathy Is Negative
৪) When Zero Degrees of Empathy Is Positive
৫) The Empathy Gene
৬) Reflections on Human Cruelty
মানুষের স্বাভাবিক হিংস্রতা ও পৈশাচিক প্রবৃত্তির রূপরেখা এঁকেছে এই বই।
লেখক তাঁর বইয়ের শুরুতেই জানিয়েছেন, তিনি জন্মেছেন ইহুদি পরিবারে। আর, এই জন্মসূত্রে বাঁধা পড়েছে তাঁর গবেষণা। কী ভাবে? তাঁর বয়েস যখন সাত, তখন বাবার মুখে শুনেছিলেন ইহুদিদের বিরুদ্ধে নাৎসি বর্বরতার কাহিনি। নাৎসিরা এক জন ইহুদিকে মানুষের বদলে মনে করত একটা জিনিস। জড় বস্তু। যেমন খুশি তেমন ভাবে ব্যবহারের যোগ্য। একেই লেখক বলছেন , 'Turning People into Objects'
এই প্রসঙ্গে মনে আসে অ্যাডলফ অটো আইখমান নামক মানুষটির কথা। দ্বিতীয় বিশ্বযুদ্ধ কালে অ্যাডলফ হিটলারের বিশ্বস্ত লেফটেন্যান্ট কর্নেল তিনি ছিলেন বিশেষ কাজের দায়িত্বে। ইহুদিরা প্রকৃত মানুষ নয়, ঈষৎ নিম্ন প্রজাতির জীব এই বিশ্বাস থেকে হিটলার হুকুম দিয়েছিলেন পৃথিবীকে ইহুদি-শূন্য করার।
তাঁর শাসনাধীন ইউরোপের ভূখণ্ড থেকে খুঁজে খুঁজে গ্রেফতার করা হয়েছিল ৬০ লক্ষ ইহুদি। এদের অধিকাংশকে হত্যাও করা হয়। গুলির অভাবে শুধু গ্যাস চেম্বারে ঢুকিয়ে। শয়ে শয়ে ট্রেন ভর্তি ইহুদি আবালবৃদ্ধবনিতাকে গ্যাস চেম্বারের ঠিকানায় পাঠানোর কাজটা করতেন ওই আইখমান।
ব্যারন কোহেন বাবার মুখে শুনেছিলেন তাঁর প্রেমিকার মায়ের দুর্দশা। ভদ্রমহিলা নিজের দু’হাতের পাতা উপুড় করে পাশাপাশি রাখলে দেখা যেত, দুটো বুড়ো আঙুল কাছাকাছি নেই। ও দুটো রয়েছে দু’দিকে। পাশাপাশি বরং দুটো কড়ে আঙুল। কেন বৃদ্ধার এই হাল? বন্দি শিবিরে দিনযাপনের পরিণাম।
নাৎসি সার্জেনরা কেটে ফেলেছিল তালুর গোড়া থেকে তার দুটো হাত। তার পর সেলাই করে দিয়েছিল বাঁ হাতে ডান তালু, ডান হাতে বাঁ তালু। কেমন দেখায়, তা পরখ করতে। ডাক্তার হিসেবে শারীরবিদ্যার এক সেমিনারে ব্যারন কোহেন জেনেছিলেন এক তথ্য। মানুষ কত ঠান্ডা সহ্য করতে পারে, সে ব্যাপারে সবচেয়ে গভীরে জানেন জার্মান বিজ্ঞানীরা।
কেন? ইহুদি নারী-শিশু-বৃদ্ধদের বরফ-ঠান্ডা জলের ট্যাঙ্কে ডুবিয়ে ওরা পরীক্ষা করতেন তাদের হৃৎস্পন্দন।
নাৎসি নৃশংসতা যে হতে পারে কত রকমের, তার বুঝি ইয়ত্তা নেই। বন্দি শিবিরে মৃত্যুর দরজা থেকে ফেরত এক প্রত্যক্ষদর্শীর আত্মজীবনীতে বর্ণিত ঘটনার উল্লেখ করেছেন ব্যারন-কোহেন।
শিবির থেকে পালিয়ে বাঁচার চেষ্টা করেছিল এক ইহুদি। ধরা পড়ে গেল। চেষ্টার শাস্তি মৃত্যু। কিন্তু নাৎসি গার্ড গুলি করে মারল না তাকে। হত্যাকে নারকীয় মাত্রা দিতে ইহুদির পাশে দাঁড় করাল তার সবচেয়ে কাছের বন্ধুকে। হুকুম করল, তাকে ইহুদির গলায় পরাতে হবে ফাঁসির দড়ি। বন্ধু পারল না নির্দেশ মানতে।
ভয়ে, ব্যথায় কাঁপতে লাগল সে। তার করুণ অবস্থা দেখে এগিয়ে এল ইহুদি। বন্ধুর হাতখানিতে চুমু খেল এক বার। তার পর নিজের গলায় পরে নিল ফাঁসির দড়ি। মৃত্যুর আগে এ ভাবেই বন্ধুকে মুক্তি দিয়ে গেল গ্লানি থেকে।
ব্যারন-কোহেন কবুল করেছেন, ইহুদি পরিবারে বড় হয়ে ও রকম সব ঘটনার বিবরণ শুনে বা পড়ে তিনি প্ররোচিত হয়েছেন নিষ্ঠুরতা গবেষণায়।
তবে, শুধু নাতসি বর্বরতার ব্যাখ্যা অভীষ্ট নয়। ‘দ্য সায়েন্স অব ইভিল’ বইখানিতে তিনি প���শ করেছেন পিশাচবৃত্তির বহু আধুনিক নমুনা। এটা বোঝাতে যে, নৃশংসতা দেশ-কালে সীমাবদ্ধ নয়, তার থাবা যখন-তখন যেখানে-সেখানে পড়ে।
সোনার আংটির লোভে নাইরোবি-র সুপার মার্কেটে মহিলার হাত কেটে নিয়ে পালায় ছিনতাইবাজ। উগান্ডার গ্রামে চড়াও এক দল মহিলা সেনা অফিসার বেছে নেয় সন্তান-সমেত সাত মহিলাকে; বন্দুকের নলের সামনে দাঁড় করিয়ে ওদের বাধ্য করে খুঁটিতে মাথা ঠুকে নিজেদের বাচ্চাকে মেরে ফেলতে।
কঙ্গো-র এক গ্রামের বাড়িতে হানা দিয়ে উগ্রপন্থীরা প্রথমে গৃহস্বামীর হাত-পা বেঁধে ফেলে; তার সামনে তার ছেলেকে বাধ্য করে নিজের মায়ের শ্লীলতাহানি করতে; গৃহস্বামী ও ছেলেটিকে খুন, মহিলাটিকে ধর্ষণ এবং বাড়িটিকে আগুনে ধূলিসাৎ করার পর তারা গ্রাম ছাড়ে।
লেখক বলছেন, "Here’s my last example of extreme human cruelty, this time from the Congo. Mirindi Euprazi was at home in her village of Ninja in the Walungu region of the Democratic Republic of Congo in 1994 when the rebels attacked.
She told her story: “They forced my son to have sex with me, and when he’d finished they killed him. Then they raped me in front of my husband and then they killed him too. Then they took away my three daughters”.
She hasn’t heard of the three girls since. She describes being left naked while her house burned. I imagine—like me—you are astonished beyond words by this event.
How do rebel soldiers lose sight of the fact that this person was a woman, no different from their own mothers? How can they treat her as an object in this way?
How do they ignore that this boy—forced to have sex with his mother—is just a teenager, with normal feelings?"
কেমন করে মানুষ এমন পাশবিক হয়ে ওঠে?
প্রশ্নের উত্তর সন্ধানে ব্যারন-কোহেন পেশ করেছেন নতুন তত্ত্ব। আর, এ জন্য তিনি প্রথমেই খারিজ করে দিয়েছেন ���ভিল শয়তান বা শয়তানি দিয়ে নৃশংসতা ব্যাখ্যার চেষ্টা। তাঁর মতে, ওটা মানা যায় না।
তিনি বলছেন, “The challenge is to explain, without resorting to the all-too-easy concept of evil, how people are capable of causing extreme hurt to one another. So let’s substitute the term “evil” with the term “empathy erosion.” Empathy erosion can arise because of corrosive emotions, such as bitter resentment, or desire for revenge, or blind hatred, or a desire to protect. In theory these are transient emotions, the empathy erosion reversible. But empathy erosion can be the result of more permanent psychological characteristics.”
হত্যাকারী কেন নির্দোষ শিশুটিকে খুন করল? কারণ, ও শয়তান।
উগ্রপন্থী কেন সুইসাইড-বম্বার হল? কারণ। ও শয়তান।
ব্যারন-কোহেন লিখেছেন, এমন সব মন্তব্য হল ‘নন-এক্সপ্লানেশন’। কোনও ব্যাখ্যাই নয়। বরং একটা ধাঁধাকে আর একটা ধাঁধা দিয়ে ব্যাখ্যার চেষ্টা। বিজ্ঞানে এটা চলে না। নাতসিরা নৃশংস, কারণ ওরা শয়তান এটা বললে কিছু বোঝা যায় না। ব্যারন-কোহেন মনে করেন, ‘ইভিল’ আইডিয়াটা ধর্মবিশ্বাসের উপহার।
বহু ধর্মের কাহিনিতে শয়তান বড়সড় ভাবে হাজির।
তো সেই শয়তানকে নির্বাসনে পাঠিয়েছেন ব্যারন-কোহেন। ‘ইভিল’-এর বদলে নিষ্ঠুরতা ব্যাখ্যায় আমদানি করেছেন নতুন শব্দ। এমপ্যাথি। সহমর্মিতা। তিনি বলছেন, “When our empathy is switched off, we are solely in the “I” mode. In such a state we relate only to things or to people as if they were just things. Most of us are capable of doing this occasionally”
নিষ্ঠুরতাকে ‘ইভিল’-এর মতন একটা অর্থহীন শব্দের খাঁচায় বেঁধে না রেখে ওই বিজ্ঞানী তাকে ফেলেছেন সহমর্মিতা শব্দটির মাইক্রোস্কোপের তলায়। নিষ্ঠুরতা, ওঁর দৃষ্টিতে, এমপ্যাথি ইরোশন বা সহমর্মিতার অবক্ষয়।
এমপ্যাথি কী? হ্যাঁ, তারও একটা বৈজ্ঞানিক সংজ্ঞা দিয়েছেন ব্যারন-কোহেন। লিখেছেন, শুধু নিজের ভাবনায় বুঁদ হয়ে না থেকে, অন্যের অনুভূতি উপলব্ধি করে যথোপযুক্ত আবেগের তাড়না হল এমপ্যাথি। অভিধানে সহমর্মিতা শব্দটার অর্থও তো সেটাই।
নিষ্ঠুরকে শয়তান আর নিষ্ঠুরতাকে শয়তানি না বলে, ওগুলোকে নতুন ভাবে ব্যাখ্যা করায় লাভ?
তা আছে বইকী! পদার্থবিদ লর্ড কেলভিন বলেছিলেন, যা মাপা যায় না, তা বিজ্ঞানের আওতায় পড়ে না। ব্যারন-কোহেন দাবি করেছেন, নিষ্ঠুরতাকে সহমর্মিতার অভাব হিসেবে দেখলে, নিষ্ঠুরতাকে মাপা যায়।
মানে, তার একটা স্কেল বানানো যায়। তিনি যে স্কেল বানিয়েছেন, তাতে গ্রেড সাতটি। জিরো, ওয়ান, টু, থ্রি থেকে সিক্স ডিগ্রি অব এমপ্যাথি।
পৃথিবীর সব মানুষ সহমর্মিতায় ওই মাপকাঠিতে কোনও না কোনও গ্রেড-এ পড়বে। এক দিকে জিরো ডিগ্রি এমপ্যাথির মানুষ।
লেখক বলছেন, "Zero degrees of empathy means you have no awareness of how you come across to others, how to interact with others, or how to anticipate their feelings or reactions.
Your Empathy Mechanism functions at Level 0. You feel mystified by why relationships don’t work out, and your lack of empathy creates a deep-seated self-centeredness. Other people’s thoughts and feelings are just off your radar. This leaves you doomed to do your own thing, in your own little bubble, not just oblivious to other people’s feelings and thoughts but also oblivious to the idea that there might even be other points of view.
The consequence is that you believe 100 percent in the rightness of your own ideas and beliefs, and judge anyone who does not hold your beliefs as wrong or stupid."
যারা নিজের চিন্তায় এতটা মশগুল যে, অন্যের অনুভূতি কিচ্ছুটি উপলব্ধি করে না। এরা নিষ্ঠুরতম মানুষ। এবং মানসিক বিকারগ্রস্ত। অন্য দিকে সিক্স ডিগ্রি এমপ্যাথি। সর্বোচ্চ সহমর্মিতা। এমন মানসিকতার মানুষ নিজের সব ভুলে অন্যের দুঃখে কাতর।
এক দিকে খুনি, অন্য দিকে দয়ার অবতার। মাঝখানের সব মানুষ পাঁচ শ্রেণির। সহমর্মিতা যাদের পাঁচ রকম ডিগ্রির।
কেন এক এক জনের সহমর্মিতা এক এক মাপের? উত্তরের খোঁজে নেমে ব্যারন-কোহেন দেখেছেন, মানব মস্তিষ্কের দশটি অংশের ক্রিয়া সমষ্টিগত ভাবে জন্ম দেয় সহমর্মিতার।
মানুষে মানুষে ওই ক্রিয়া আলাদা, তাই এক এক জনের সহমর্মিতা এক এক মাপের? তা হলে ওই মাত্রা ভেদের মূলে কি জিন?
মানুষ কি নিষ্ঠুর কিংবা দয়ালু হয়েই জন্মায়?
না, ব্যারন-কোহেন দেখিয়েছেন, জিনের প্রভাব থাকলেও, মস্তিষ্কের ওই দশটি অংশ কতটা কাজ করবে, তা নির্ভর করবে শৈশবে এক জন মানুষ মা-বাবার স্নেহ কতটা পেয়েছে, তার ওপর।
সহমর্মিতার সঙ্গে যুক্ত মস্তিষ্কের দশটি অংশের খোঁজ ব্যারন-কোহেন পেয়েছেন বিশেষ গবেষণার সূত্রে। কেমব্রিজ ইউনিভার্সিটিতে তাঁর কাজের মূল বিষয় অটিজম এবং অ্যাসপারগার’স সিনড্রোম। যে সব মানুষ ও দু’টির কোনও একটিতে আক্রান্ত, তারা, যথেষ্ট বুদ্ধিমান হওয়া সত্ত্বেও, অন্যদের সঙ্গে মেলামেশায় একেবারে অপটু।
কেন?
দেখা গেছে, ওরা অন্যদের মনের ভাব একদম উপলব্ধি করতে পারে না। মানে, ওদের এমপ্যাথি জিরো ডিগ্রি। কিন্তু, ওরা তো খুনি নয়। হোক না ওদের মস্তিষ্কে দশটি অংশের ক্রিয়া একটু আলাদা। ওদেরই দলে পড়েন কোনও কোনও বিজ্ঞানী কিংবা শিল্পী।
যারা নিজেদের গবেষণা কিংবা সৃষ্টিকর্মে এত মগ্ন যে, অন্যদের কথা স্বার্থপরের মতো ভুলে যান। ওরাও কিন্তু খুনি নন। এ সব আবিষ্কার থেকে ব্যারন-কোহেন জিরো ডিগ্রি এমপ্যাথিকে আবার দুই শ্রেণিতে ভাগ করেছেন। যাদের কথা বলা হল, তাঁরা জিরো-পজিটিভ।
সহমর্মিতা এদের শূন্য হলেও, এরা অন্যের ক্ষতি করেন না। আর এক দল জিরো-নেগেটিভ। যারা মস্তিষ্কের বিকারগ্রস্ত, খুনি।
বিজ্ঞান মানে বিতর্ক। ব্যারন-কোহেন যা বলছেন, তার সবটা নিয়ে না হলেও, ঘোর তর্ক উঠেছে একটা প্রশ্নে। জিরো ডিগ্রি এমপ্যাথি নিয়ে। নিষ্ঠুর মানুষ যে নৃশংস আচরণে লিপ্ত হয়, তা কি অত্যাচারিতের বেদনা উপলব্ধি করতে না পেরে?
না কি তা সম্পূর্ণ উপলব্ধি করে? যে নাৎসি গার্ড ইহুদির বন্ধুকে হুকুম করেছিল তার গলায় ফাঁসির দড়ি পরাতে, সে যদি না বুঝত ইহুদির যন্ত্রণা, তা হলে ও রকম নির্দেশ সে দিত কি?
**পরিশেষে:
বহুসংখ্যক মনস্তত্ববিদের ধারণা যে জীবন সংগ্রামে ও প্রতিযোগিতার ক্ষেত্রে বিফলতার ফলে যে নৈরাশ্যের উদয় হয় তা কোন কোন সময় মানুষের মনে এক ধ্বংসাত্মক ও আগ্রাসী মনোভাবের সৃষ্টি করে এবং সেই আক্রমণাত্মক মনোভাব যে কোন মানুষের বিরুদ্ধে পরিচালিত হতে পারে।
একই যুক্তি জাতি সম্বন্ধেও প্রযোজ্য। প্রথম বিশ্বযুদ্ধে বিফলতা এবং ভাসাইএর অপমানের পর জার্মানীতে যে নৈরাশ্যের ভাব সৃষ্টি হয় তা হিটলারের নেতৃত্বে এক চরম আগ্রাসী মনোভাবের রূপ নেয়। এই কথা ঠিক যে এ্যাডলার বা হনে কখনও বলেননি যে নিজেকে বড় বরে তোলার বা অন্যের উপর আধিপত্য বিস্তার করার প্রবৃত্তি একমাত্র রাজনৈতিক পথেই চরিতার্থ করা সম্ভব।
পুরুষ মানুষ স্ত্রী-সন্তান, আত্মীয়স্বজন, বন্ধুবান্ধব, পাড়া প্রতিবেশী প্রভৃতির উ��র বিভিন্ন ভাবে নিজের আধিপত্য বিস্তার করতে পারে। Karen Horney যেমন মনে করেন যে, প্রথম জীবনের গ্লানি ও ব্যর্থতার ফলে একজন মানুষ যে কোন ক্ষেত্রে—চিন্তার ক্ষেত্রে, ধর্ম বা শিল্পের ক্ষেত্রে, সামাজিক কাজে, রাজনৈতিক নেতৃত্ব ইত্যাদি—কৃতকার্যতা অর্জন করার চেষ্টা করতে পারে।
সমস্যা হল যে যদি এই ধরনের মানুষ রাজনৈতিক নেতৃত্ব লাভ করে তবে তার ব্যক্তিত্বের জটিলতার জন্য নানারকম রাজনৈতিক সমস্যা এবং যুদ্ধের সম্ভাবনাও সন্টি হতে পারে।
Harold Lasswell যাদের 'political type' বলে বর্ণনা করেছেন অথবা বিফলতা ও পরাজয়ের ফলে যাদের মন ধ্বংসাত্মক ও আগ্রাসী রূপ ধারণ করেছে তারা যখন রাজনৈতিক ক্ষমতায় প্রতিষ্ঠিত হয় তখন একই সমস্যা দেখা দেয়।
এই বইয়ের লেখকের মতে, সহমর্মিতাই উত্তর। Panacea ।
লেখক বলছেন, "Empathy is a universal solvent. Any problem immersed in empathy becomes soluble. It is effective as a way of anticipating and resolving interpersonal problems, whether this is a marital conflict, an international conflict, a problem at work, difficulties in a friendship, political deadlocks, a family dispute, or a problem with a neighbor.
I hope you have been persuaded that this resource is a better way to resolve problems than the alternatives (such as guns, laws, or religion).
And unlike the arms industry, which costs trillions of dollars to maintain, or the prison industry and legal system, which cost millions of dollars to keep oiled, empathy is free.
And unlike religion, empathy cannot by definition oppress anyone...."
অলমিতি।
লেখক: Simon Baron-Cohen
প্রকাশক: Basic Books
প্রকাশকাল: 1st edition; 31 May 2011
ফরম্যাট: Paperback
পৃষ্ঠাসংখ্যা: 288 pages
ওজন: 249 g
ডাইমেনশন: 13.72 x 2.03 x 20.57 cm
মূল্য: ১৩১৭/-
**সমালোচকের কৈফিয়ত:
ইন্টারটেক্সচুয়াল রিডিং একাধারে মনোমুগ্ধকর, অত্যাশ্চর্য একটি কনসেপ্ট ; আবার অন্যদিকে সাংঘাতিক বিরক্তিকর। রিভিশন দিচ্ছিলাম দাদার 'যুদ্ধ' নামক বইটি। সেটির একটি অংশ পড়তে পড়তে চড়াম করে মাথাটি ঘুরে গেল।
বিভাস দা লিখছেন, "যুদ্ধ জয় করতে গেলে একজন সেনাপতির কতগুলি অত্যাবশ্যক গুণ থাকা প্রয়োজন; সে জিতবে যে ভালো জানে কখন যুদ্ধ করতে হবে আর কখন করতে হবে না, যে তার থেকে শক্তিশালী বা দূর্বল প্রতিপক্ষকে সঠিক ভাবে হ্যান্ডেল করতে জানে,যার সেনাদলে নীচের তলা থেকে শুরু করে উপর স্তর পর্যন্ত সবাই সমান ভাবে উদ্বুদ্ধ। সেই বিজয়ী হবে যে নিজের দলকে ঠিক ভাবে ট্রেনিং দিয়ে তৈরি করেছে, যে শত্রুকে অপ্রস্তুত অব���্থায় আক্রমণ করতে পারবে,যার সৈন্যবল আছে আর তার মিলিটারি ব্যবস্থার মধ্যে রাষ্ট্র হস্তক্ষেপ করে না।
তাই 'আর্ট অফ ওয়ার' বলছে, তুমি যদি তোমার শত্রুর আর নিজের ক্ষমতা সঠিক ভাবে জানো, তবে একশ যুদ্ধের ফলাফল নিয়ে চিন্তা করতে হবে না। যদি কেবল নিজের শক্তি জানো, শত্রুর ক্ষমতার ব্যাপারে অজ্ঞ, তাহলে প্রত্যেক বিজয়ের সাথে তার মূল্য চুকাতে হবে। আর যদি নিজের আর শত্রু শক্তি কোনটাই ঠিক জানা না থাকে তবে প্রত্যেক যুদ্ধে পরাজয় নিশ্চিত।
নিজেকে পরাজয় থেকে বাঁচানো নিজের উপরে নির্ভর করে। কিন্তু শত্রু নিজেই সুযোগ দেয় তাঁকে পরাজিত করার। তাই একজন সেরা যোদ্ধা নিজেকে পরাজয় থেকে দূরে রাখতে পারে। কিন্তু শত্রুর পরাজয় নিশ্চিত করতে পারে না। একজন চতুর যোদ্ধা শুধু যুদ্ধ জেতে না, অত্যন্ত সহজ সাবলীল ভঙ্গীতে জেতে।
ফলে সমাজে তার যুদ্ধনীতি, জ্ঞান, আর সাহসের প্রশংসা হয় না। ...."
রেফারেন্স গেলাম বুদ্ধদেব বসুর 'মহাভারতের কথা' ও বিতর্কিকা পত্রিকার 'আগ্নেয়াস্ত্র' সংক্রান্ত একটি লেখায়। সেখান থেকেই কোন পথ ধরে এই বইয়ে ঢুকে পড়লাম , খোদায় মালুম।
**মুখবন্ধ:
এক শ্রেণীর মনস্তত্ববিদ বলেছেন যে হিংস্রতার কোনও স্বাভাবিক প্রবণতা মানুষের না থাকলেও অন্যের উপর নিজের তাধিপত্য বিস্তার করার প্রবৃত্তি মানুষের মধ্যে দেখা যায়। Alfred Adler যেমন মনে করেছেন যে অন্যের তুলনায় নিজেকে বড় করে তোলার প্রবৃত্তি মানুষের মধ্যে খুব প্রবল। এবং এই প্রবৃত্তি দ্বারা তার আচরণ বিশেষভাবে নিয়ন্ত্রিত হয়। Karen Horney বলেন যে যারা বাল্যকালে অবহেলিত হয় এবং বিশেষ কোন মর্যাদা পায় না তাদের মনে এক ধরনের হীনম্মন্যতার জাগরণ ঘটে ও তাদের মধ্যে কেউ কেউ পরবর্তী জীবনে যেভাবেই হোক এবং যে পথেই হোক কৃতকার্যতা লাভ করে এবং অন্যের উপর ছড়ি ঘুরিয়ে আনন্দ পায়।
**আলোচনা:
বইয়ের নাম 'The Science of Evil: On Empathy and the Origins of Cruelty', লেখক Simon Baron-Cohen। লেখক কেমব্রিজ বিশ্ববিদ্যালয়ে মনস্তত্ত্বের অধ্যাপক। সামাজিক মনস্তত্ত্বের এক প্রাচীন অথচ গূঢ় জিজ্ঞাসায় ডুব দিয়েছেন লেখক।
বইয়ের মূল প্রেমিস কী ? University of Washington-এর যুগ্ম অধিকর্তা Andrew N. Meltzoff, বলছেন: “What makes someone evil? What’s the brain got to do with it? Baron-Cohen confronts the most urgent and controversial questions in social neuroscience. Both disturbing and compassionate, this brilliant book establishes a new science of evil, explaining both its brain basis and development. Baron-Cohen fundamentally transforms how we understand cruelty in others and in so doing forces us to examine ourselves.
Reading this book invites us to widen our own circle of empathy — compelling us to grow and comprehend, if not forgive.”
মানুষের মধ্যে দেবত্ব ও পশুত্ব এই দুই ধরনের প্রবৃত্তিই রয়েছে। সহিংসতা হলো পশুর স্বভাব এবং শান্তি, সহমর্মিতা ইত্যাদি দেবতাসুলভ স্বভাব। শান্তি ও নিরাপত্তা সকল মানুষের পরম চাওয়া। শান্তিপ্রিয় মানুষ কামনা করে প্রেম-ভালোবাসা, মিলন, সহৃদয়তা, দয়া-মায়া-মমতা, ক্ষমা ও পুনর্মিলন।
ফ্রয়েড মনে করতেন যে মানুষের প্রকৃতির ভিতর একটা আক্রমণাত্মক প্রবণতা বা 'aggressive instinct' বিরাজমান, এবং হিংস্রতা ও যুদ্ধই শেষ পর্যন্ত সেই প্রবণতার প্রকাশ।আদিম গোষ্ঠীবদ্ধ সমাজ থেকে সামন্ত সমাজ পর্যন্ত মানুষকে সমস্ত দার্শনিকরাই উল্লেখ করতেন সমাজবদ্ধ সামাজিক জীব হিসেবে। কিন্তু বুর্জোয়ার উৎপত্তি হবার সাথে সাথে প্রয়োজন পড়লো মানুষের সামাজিক পরিচয় ভুলিয়ে দিয়ে মানুষকে নৃশংস, আক্রমণাত্মক হিসেবে দেখানোর।
এক ব্যক্তিবাদী সমাজবিচ্ছিন্ন জন্তুরূপে মানুষকে দেখাতে হলো আগ্রাসী লোভী হিসেবে। দার্শনিক টমাস হবসের জবানিতে বুর্জোয়ারা মানুষকে নেকড়ের মতো হিংস্র, লোভি, নোংরা পশু হিসেবে সর্বপ্রথম উপস্থিত করে।
আধুনিক যুগের বিভিন্ন মনস্তত্ববিদ এবং নৃতত্ত্ববিদরা ফ্রয়েডের এই মতবাদ সম্পূর্ণ স্বীকার করেন না। হিংস্রতা প্রদর্শন বা যুদ্ধ করার একটা স্বাভাবিক প্রবৃত্তি মানুষের অন্তরে নিহিত আছে বলে তাঁরা মনে করেন না। Malinowski, Clyde Kluckhohn প্রমুখ নৃতত্ত্ববিদরা মনে করেন যে মানুষ যখন তার স্বাভাবিক প্রবৃত্তিগুলি চরিতার্থ করার পথে বাধা পায় তখনই তার মনে আক্রমণাত্মক প্রবণতা সৃষ্টি হয়।
তার নিরাপত্তা বা স্বাভাবিক যৌথ জীবন যখন কোন কারণে ব্যাহত হয় তখনই তার মনে সংগ্রাম স্পৃহা বা আক্রমণাত্মক প্রবণতা সৃষ্টি হয়ে থাকে। অতএব তাঁরা মনে করেন যে আক্রমণাত্মক প্রবণতা মানব-প্রকৃতির স্বাভাবিক বৈশিষ্ট্য নয়—পরিবেশ এবং অভিজ্ঞতার ফলে মানুষের মনে এই ধরনের প্রবণতা সৃষ্টি হয়।
ছয় অধ্যায়ে বিভক্ত বইটি --
১) Explaining “Evil” and Human Cruelty
২) The Empathy Mechanism: The Bell Curve
৩) When Zero Degrees of Empathy Is Negative
৪) When Zero Degrees of Empathy Is Positive
৫) The Empathy Gene
৬) Reflections on Human Cruelty
মানুষের স্বাভাবিক হিংস্রতা ও পৈশাচিক প্রবৃত্তির রূপরেখা এঁকেছে এই বই।
লেখক তাঁর বইয়ের শুরুতেই জানিয়েছেন, তিনি জন্মেছেন ইহুদি পরিবারে। আর, এই জন্মসূত্রে বাঁধা পড়েছে তাঁর গবেষণা। কী ভাবে? তাঁর বয়েস যখন সাত, তখন বাবার মুখে শুনেছিলেন ইহুদিদের বিরুদ্ধে নাৎসি বর্বরতার কাহিনি। নাৎসিরা এক জন ইহুদিকে মানুষের বদলে মনে করত একটা জিনিস। জড় বস্তু। যেমন খুশি তেমন ভাবে ব্যবহারের যোগ্য। একেই লেখক বলছেন , 'Turning People into Objects'
এই প্রসঙ্গে মনে আসে অ্যাডলফ অটো আইখমান নামক মানুষটির কথা। দ্বিতীয় বিশ্বযুদ্ধ কালে অ্যাডলফ হিটলারের বিশ্বস্ত লেফটেন্যান্ট কর্নেল তিনি ছিলেন বিশেষ কাজের দায়িত্বে। ইহুদিরা প্রকৃত মানুষ নয়, ঈষৎ নিম্ন প্রজাতির জীব এই বিশ্বাস থেকে হিটলার হুকুম দিয়েছিলেন পৃথিবীকে ইহুদি-শূন্য করার।
তাঁর শাসনাধীন ইউরোপের ভূখণ্ড থেকে খুঁজে খুঁজে গ্রেফতার করা হয়েছিল ৬০ লক্ষ ইহুদি। এদের অধিকাংশকে হত্যাও করা হয়। গুলির অভাবে শুধু গ্যাস চেম্বারে ঢুকিয়ে। শয়ে শয়ে ট্রেন ভর্তি ইহুদি আবালবৃদ্ধবনিতাকে গ্যাস চেম্বারের ঠিকানায় পাঠানোর কাজটা করতেন ওই আইখমান।
ব্যারন কোহেন বাবার মুখে শুনেছিলেন তাঁর প্রেমিকার মায়ের দুর্দশা। ভদ্রমহিলা নিজের দু’হাতের পাতা উপুড় করে পাশাপাশি রাখলে দেখা যেত, দুটো বুড়ো আঙুল কাছাকাছি নেই। ও দুটো রয়েছে দু’দিকে। পাশাপাশি বরং দুটো কড়ে আঙুল। কেন বৃদ্ধার এই হাল? বন্দি শিবিরে দিনযাপনের পরিণাম।
নাৎসি সার্জেনরা কেটে ফেলেছিল তালুর গোড়া থেকে তার দুটো হাত। তার পর সেলাই করে দিয়েছিল বাঁ হাতে ডান তালু, ডান হাতে বাঁ তালু। কেমন দেখায়, তা পরখ করতে। ডাক্তার হিসেবে শারীরবিদ্যার এক সেমিনারে ব্যারন কোহেন জেনেছিলেন এক তথ্য। মানুষ কত ঠান্ডা সহ্য করতে পারে, সে ব্যাপারে সবচেয়ে গভীরে জানেন জার্মান বিজ্ঞানীরা।
কেন? ইহুদি নারী-শিশু-বৃদ্ধদের বরফ-ঠান্ডা জলের ট্যাঙ্কে ডুবিয়ে ওরা পরীক্ষা করতেন তাদের হৃৎস্পন্দন।
নাৎসি নৃশংসতা যে হতে পারে কত রকমের, তার বুঝি ইয়ত্তা নেই। বন্দি শিবিরে মৃত্যুর দরজা থেকে ফেরত এক প্রত্যক্ষদর্শীর আত্মজীবনীতে বর্ণিত ঘটনার উল্লেখ করেছেন ব্যারন-কোহেন।
শিবির থেকে পালিয়ে বাঁচার চেষ্টা করেছিল এক ইহুদি। ধরা পড়ে গেল। চেষ্টার শাস্তি মৃত্যু। কিন্তু নাৎসি গার্ড গুলি করে মারল না তাকে। হত্যাকে নারকীয় মাত্রা দিতে ইহুদির পাশে দাঁড় করাল তার সবচেয়ে কাছের বন্ধুকে। হুকুম করল, তাকে ইহুদির গলায় পরাতে হবে ফাঁসির দড়ি। বন্ধু পারল না নির্দেশ মানতে।
ভয়ে, ব্যথায় কাঁপতে লাগল সে। তার করুণ অবস্থা দেখে এগিয়ে এল ইহুদি। বন্ধুর হাতখানিতে চুমু খেল এক বার। তার পর নিজের গলায় পরে নিল ফাঁসির দড়ি। মৃত্যুর আগে এ ভাবেই বন্ধুকে মুক্তি দিয়ে গেল গ্লানি থেকে।
ব্যারন-কোহেন কবুল করেছেন, ইহুদি পরিবারে বড় হয়ে ও রকম সব ঘটনার বিবরণ শুনে বা পড়ে তিনি প্ররোচিত হয়েছেন নিষ্ঠুরতা গবেষণায়।
তবে, শুধু নাতসি বর্বরতার ব্যাখ্যা অভীষ্ট নয়। ‘দ্য সায়েন্স অব ইভিল’ বইখানিতে তিনি প���শ করেছেন পিশাচবৃত্তির বহু আধুনিক নমুনা। এটা বোঝাতে যে, নৃশংসতা দেশ-কালে সীমাবদ্ধ নয়, তার থাবা যখন-তখন যেখানে-সেখানে পড়ে।
সোনার আংটির লোভে নাইরোবি-র সুপার মার্কেটে মহিলার হাত কেটে নিয়ে পালায় ছিনতাইবাজ। উগান্ডার গ্রামে চড়াও এক দল মহিলা সেনা অফিসার বেছে নেয় সন্তান-সমেত সাত মহিলাকে; বন্দুকের নলের সামনে দাঁড় করিয়ে ওদের বাধ্য করে খুঁটিতে মাথা ঠুকে নিজেদের বাচ্চাকে মেরে ফেলতে।
কঙ্গো-র এক গ্রামের বাড়িতে হানা দিয়ে উগ্রপন্থীরা প্রথমে গৃহস্বামীর হাত-পা বেঁধে ফেলে; তার সামনে তার ছেলেকে বাধ্য করে নিজের মায়ের শ্লীলতাহানি করতে; গৃহস্বামী ও ছেলেটিকে খুন, মহিলাটিকে ধর্ষণ এবং বাড়িটিকে আগুনে ধূলিসাৎ করার পর তারা গ্রাম ছাড়ে।
লেখক বলছেন, "Here’s my last example of extreme human cruelty, this time from the Congo. Mirindi Euprazi was at home in her village of Ninja in the Walungu region of the Democratic Republic of Congo in 1994 when the rebels attacked.
She told her story: “They forced my son to have sex with me, and when he’d finished they killed him. Then they raped me in front of my husband and then they killed him too. Then they took away my three daughters”.
She hasn’t heard of the three girls since. She describes being left naked while her house burned. I imagine—like me—you are astonished beyond words by this event.
How do rebel soldiers lose sight of the fact that this person was a woman, no different from their own mothers? How can they treat her as an object in this way?
How do they ignore that this boy—forced to have sex with his mother—is just a teenager, with normal feelings?"
কেমন করে মানুষ এমন পাশবিক হয়ে ওঠে?
প্রশ্নের উত্তর সন্ধানে ব্যারন-কোহেন পেশ করেছেন নতুন তত্ত্ব। আর, এ জন্য তিনি প্রথমেই খারিজ করে দিয়েছেন ���ভিল শয়তান বা শয়তানি দিয়ে নৃশংসতা ব্যাখ্যার চেষ্টা। তাঁর মতে, ওটা মানা যায় না।
তিনি বলছেন, “The challenge is to explain, without resorting to the all-too-easy concept of evil, how people are capable of causing extreme hurt to one another. So let’s substitute the term “evil” with the term “empathy erosion.” Empathy erosion can arise because of corrosive emotions, such as bitter resentment, or desire for revenge, or blind hatred, or a desire to protect. In theory these are transient emotions, the empathy erosion reversible. But empathy erosion can be the result of more permanent psychological characteristics.”
হত্যাকারী কেন নির্দোষ শিশুটিকে খুন করল? কারণ, ও শয়তান।
উগ্রপন্থী কেন সুইসাইড-বম্বার হল? কারণ। ও শয়তান।
ব্যারন-কোহেন লিখেছেন, এমন সব মন্তব্য হল ‘নন-এক্সপ্লানেশন’। কোনও ব্যাখ্যাই নয়। বরং একটা ধাঁধাকে আর একটা ধাঁধা দিয়ে ব্যাখ্যার চেষ্টা। বিজ্ঞানে এটা চলে না। নাতসিরা নৃশংস, কারণ ওরা শয়তান এটা বললে কিছু বোঝা যায় না। ব্যারন-কোহেন মনে করেন, ‘ইভিল’ আইডিয়াটা ধর্মবিশ্বাসের উপহার।
বহু ধর্মের কাহিনিতে শয়তান বড়সড় ভাবে হাজির।
তো সেই শয়তানকে নির্বাসনে পাঠিয়েছেন ব্যারন-কোহেন। ‘ইভিল’-এর বদলে নিষ্ঠুরতা ব্যাখ্যায় আমদানি করেছেন নতুন শব্দ। এমপ্যাথি। সহমর্মিতা। তিনি বলছেন, “When our empathy is switched off, we are solely in the “I” mode. In such a state we relate only to things or to people as if they were just things. Most of us are capable of doing this occasionally”
নিষ্ঠুরতাকে ‘ইভিল’-এর মতন একটা অর্থহীন শব্দের খাঁচায় বেঁধে না রেখে ওই বিজ্ঞানী তাকে ফেলেছেন সহমর্মিতা শব্দটির মাইক্রোস্কোপের তলায়। নিষ্ঠুরতা, ওঁর দৃষ্টিতে, এমপ্যাথি ইরোশন বা সহমর্মিতার অবক্ষয়।
এমপ্যাথি কী? হ্যাঁ, তারও একটা বৈজ্ঞানিক সংজ্ঞা দিয়েছেন ব্যারন-কোহেন। লিখেছেন, শুধু নিজের ভাবনায় বুঁদ হয়ে না থেকে, অন্যের অনুভূতি উপলব্ধি করে যথোপযুক্ত আবেগের তাড়না হল এমপ্যাথি। অভিধানে সহমর্মিতা শব্দটার অর্থও তো সেটাই।
নিষ্ঠুরকে শয়তান আর নিষ্ঠুরতাকে শয়তানি না বলে, ওগুলোকে নতুন ভাবে ব্যাখ্যা করায় লাভ?
তা আছে বইকী! পদার্থবিদ লর্ড কেলভিন বলেছিলেন, যা মাপা যায় না, তা বিজ্ঞানের আওতায় পড়ে না। ব্যারন-কোহেন দাবি করেছেন, নিষ্ঠুরতাকে সহমর্মিতার অভাব হিসেবে দেখলে, নিষ্ঠুরতাকে মাপা যায়।
মানে, তার একটা স্কেল বানানো যায়। তিনি যে স্কেল বানিয়েছেন, তাতে গ্রেড সাতটি। জিরো, ওয়ান, টু, থ্রি থেকে সিক্স ডিগ্রি অব এমপ্যাথি।
পৃথিবীর সব মানুষ সহমর্মিতায় ওই মাপকাঠিতে কোনও না কোনও গ্রেড-এ পড়বে। এক দিকে জিরো ডিগ্রি এমপ্যাথির মানুষ।
লেখক বলছেন, "Zero degrees of empathy means you have no awareness of how you come across to others, how to interact with others, or how to anticipate their feelings or reactions.
Your Empathy Mechanism functions at Level 0. You feel mystified by why relationships don’t work out, and your lack of empathy creates a deep-seated self-centeredness. Other people’s thoughts and feelings are just off your radar. This leaves you doomed to do your own thing, in your own little bubble, not just oblivious to other people’s feelings and thoughts but also oblivious to the idea that there might even be other points of view.
The consequence is that you believe 100 percent in the rightness of your own ideas and beliefs, and judge anyone who does not hold your beliefs as wrong or stupid."
যারা নিজের চিন্তায় এতটা মশগুল যে, অন্যের অনুভূতি কিচ্ছুটি উপলব্ধি করে না। এরা নিষ্ঠুরতম মানুষ। এবং মানসিক বিকারগ্রস্ত। অন্য দিকে সিক্স ডিগ্রি এমপ্যাথি। সর্বোচ্চ সহমর্মিতা। এমন মানসিকতার মানুষ নিজের সব ভুলে অন্যের দুঃখে কাতর।
এক দিকে খুনি, অন্য দিকে দয়ার অবতার। মাঝখানের সব মানুষ পাঁচ শ্রেণির। সহমর্মিতা যাদের পাঁচ রকম ডিগ্রির।
কেন এক এক জনের সহমর্মিতা এক এক মাপের? উত্তরের খোঁজে নেমে ব্যারন-কোহেন দেখেছেন, মানব মস্তিষ্কের দশটি অংশের ক্রিয়া সমষ্টিগত ভাবে জন্ম দেয় সহমর্মিতার।
মানুষে মানুষে ওই ক্রিয়া আলাদা, তাই এক এক জনের সহমর্মিতা এক এক মাপের? তা হলে ওই মাত্রা ভেদের মূলে কি জিন?
মানুষ কি নিষ্ঠুর কিংবা দয়ালু হয়েই জন্মায়?
না, ব্যারন-কোহেন দেখিয়েছেন, জিনের প্রভাব থাকলেও, মস্তিষ্কের ওই দশটি অংশ কতটা কাজ করবে, তা নির্ভর করবে শৈশবে এক জন মানুষ মা-বাবার স্নেহ কতটা পেয়েছে, তার ওপর।
সহমর্মিতার সঙ্গে যুক্ত মস্তিষ্কের দশটি অংশের খোঁজ ব্যারন-কোহেন পেয়েছেন বিশেষ গবেষণার সূত্রে। কেমব্রিজ ইউনিভার্সিটিতে তাঁর কাজের মূল বিষয় অটিজম এবং অ্যাসপারগার’স সিনড্রোম। যে সব মানুষ ও দু’টির কোনও একটিতে আক্রান্ত, তারা, যথেষ্ট বুদ্ধিমান হওয়া সত্ত্বেও, অন্যদের সঙ্গে মেলামেশায় একেবারে অপটু।
কেন?
দেখা গেছে, ওরা অন্যদের মনের ভাব একদম উপলব্ধি করতে পারে না। মানে, ওদের এমপ্যাথি জিরো ডিগ্রি। কিন্তু, ওরা তো খুনি নয়। হোক না ওদের মস্তিষ্কে দশটি অংশের ক্রিয়া একটু আলাদা। ওদেরই দলে পড়েন কোনও কোনও বিজ্ঞানী কিংবা শিল্পী।
যারা নিজেদের গবেষণা কিংবা সৃষ্টিকর্মে এত মগ্ন যে, অন্যদের কথা স্বার্থপরের মতো ভুলে যান। ওরাও কিন্তু খুনি নন। এ সব আবিষ্কার থেকে ব্যারন-কোহেন জিরো ডিগ্রি এমপ্যাথিকে আবার দুই শ্রেণিতে ভাগ করেছেন। যাদের কথা বলা হল, তাঁরা জিরো-পজিটিভ।
সহমর্মিতা এদের শূন্য হলেও, এরা অন্যের ক্ষতি করেন না। আর এক দল জিরো-নেগেটিভ। যারা মস্তিষ্কের বিকারগ্রস্ত, খুনি।
বিজ্ঞান মানে বিতর্ক। ব্যারন-কোহেন যা বলছেন, তার সবটা নিয়ে না হলেও, ঘোর তর্ক উঠেছে একটা প্রশ্নে। জিরো ডিগ্রি এমপ্যাথি নিয়ে। নিষ্ঠুর মানুষ যে নৃশংস আচরণে লিপ্ত হয়, তা কি অত্যাচারিতের বেদনা উপলব্ধি করতে না পেরে?
না কি তা সম্পূর্ণ উপলব্ধি করে? যে নাৎসি গার্ড ইহুদির বন্ধুকে হুকুম করেছিল তার গলায় ফাঁসির দড়ি পরাতে, সে যদি না বুঝত ইহুদির যন্ত্রণা, তা হলে ও রকম নির্দেশ সে দিত কি?
**পরিশেষে:
বহুসংখ্যক মনস্তত্ববিদের ধারণা যে জীবন সংগ্রামে ও প্রতিযোগিতার ক্ষেত্রে বিফলতার ফলে যে নৈরাশ্যের উদয় হয় তা কোন কোন সময় মানুষের মনে এক ধ্বংসাত্মক ও আগ্রাসী মনোভাবের সৃষ্টি করে এবং সেই আক্রমণাত্মক মনোভাব যে কোন মানুষের বিরুদ্ধে পরিচালিত হতে পারে।
একই যুক্তি জাতি সম্বন্ধেও প্রযোজ্য। প্রথম বিশ্বযুদ্ধে বিফলতা এবং ভাসাইএর অপমানের পর জার্মানীতে যে নৈরাশ্যের ভাব সৃষ্টি হয় তা হিটলারের নেতৃত্বে এক চরম আগ্রাসী মনোভাবের রূপ নেয়। এই কথা ঠিক যে এ্যাডলার বা হনে কখনও বলেননি যে নিজেকে বড় বরে তোলার বা অন্যের উপর আধিপত্য বিস্তার করার প্রবৃত্তি একমাত্র রাজনৈতিক পথেই চরিতার্থ করা সম্ভব।
পুরুষ মানুষ স্ত্রী-সন্তান, আত্মীয়স্বজন, বন্ধুবান্ধব, পাড়া প্রতিবেশী প্রভৃতির উ��র বিভিন্ন ভাবে নিজের আধিপত্য বিস্তার করতে পারে। Karen Horney যেমন মনে করেন যে, প্রথম জীবনের গ্লানি ও ব্যর্থতার ফলে একজন মানুষ যে কোন ক্ষেত্রে—চিন্তার ক্ষেত্রে, ধর্ম বা শিল্পের ক্ষেত্রে, সামাজিক কাজে, রাজনৈতিক নেতৃত্ব ইত্যাদি—কৃতকার্যতা অর্জন করার চেষ্টা করতে পারে।
সমস্যা হল যে যদি এই ধরনের মানুষ রাজনৈতিক নেতৃত্ব লাভ করে তবে তার ব্যক্তিত্বের জটিলতার জন্য নানারকম রাজনৈতিক সমস্যা এবং যুদ্ধের সম্ভাবনাও সন্টি হতে পারে।
Harold Lasswell যাদের 'political type' বলে বর্ণনা করেছেন অথবা বিফলতা ও পরাজয়ের ফলে যাদের মন ধ্বংসাত্মক ও আগ্রাসী রূপ ধারণ করেছে তারা যখন রাজনৈতিক ক্ষমতায় প্রতিষ্ঠিত হয় তখন একই সমস্যা দেখা দেয়।
এই বইয়ের লেখকের মতে, সহমর্মিতাই উত্তর। Panacea ।
লেখক বলছেন, "Empathy is a universal solvent. Any problem immersed in empathy becomes soluble. It is effective as a way of anticipating and resolving interpersonal problems, whether this is a marital conflict, an international conflict, a problem at work, difficulties in a friendship, political deadlocks, a family dispute, or a problem with a neighbor.
I hope you have been persuaded that this resource is a better way to resolve problems than the alternatives (such as guns, laws, or religion).
And unlike the arms industry, which costs trillions of dollars to maintain, or the prison industry and legal system, which cost millions of dollars to keep oiled, empathy is free.
And unlike religion, empathy cannot by definition oppress anyone...."
অলমিতি।
November 18, 2015
I have approached writing this book review several times and have hesitated ...This book was extremely difficult for me to review because it is a nice, neat, concise little package, which I felt was rather suspect considering the daunting topic of providing an explanation for human cruelty. I expected complexity, but I almost feel as if Baron-Cohen has provided a simple “no brainer”: people who are capable of cruelty lack empathy.
Honestly though, he goes a little further and he groups his findings into neat categorizations, which are admittedly quite intriguing. He talks specifically about personality “disorders”, three in particular, and how they all involve impaired empathy as one of their traits. Baron-Cohen writes neatly and tidily and presents his theories very simply and attainably for the lay reader.
I suppose my real difficulty, in the process of creating a review, was accepting his theories. At best, I think what Baron-Cohen has done is put the available pieces of a puzzle together and extrapolated what was missing, to create a partial picture of what is occurring on a societal and personal level with regards to people with impaired empathy. I think what is missing is the complete science, the complete understanding of the intricacies of the internal functions of the brain. Baron-Cohen layers in some psychology with the explanation of each “zero empathy” case, what makes them unique, and summarizes his theories will a philosophical final chapter. Nice, neat, right? The problem is that which is classified as “borderline” is neither simple, neat nor concise. There are borderlines who do not harm others in the extreme way as in the singular example. There are also psychopaths who exude empathy, enough in fact to lure and trap victims. They ARE reading people, whether their neural activity is demonstrating so or not. Meanwhile people with Asperger’s Syndrome are kind of the anomaly, there is a distinction making them zero empathy positive: morals. Yet, the very existence of morals demands an understanding of empathy. Morals are social rules; social rules are learned or understood mainly through empathy. Or so it would seem?
In addition to categorizing minds and personalities along a spectrum of empathy, Baron-Coen goes further to suggest that conventional systems of justice should not be applicable to certain kinds of zero empathy behavior, especially when the person committing the offense suffers from conditions such as autism. Baron-Cohen suggests an inherent lack of moral agency in a person suffering from autism, based on the fact that in an autistic mind the empathy circuit had been negatively impacted. Without empathy autistic people might be inclined to commit socially inappropriate acts. However, in his view they should not be held responsible according to classical retributive justice systems because if their mind is impaired they lack the requisite moral agency to know how to better behave.
This argument is of course interlaced with the debate on free will and human consciousness. Baron-Cohen clearly acknowledges this and also the fact that, in the case of grave crime, restoring a sense of justice is crucial for ensuring societal peace.
The final issue which was not addressed much in the book, are the evolutionary advantages and disadvantages of possessing empathy or lacking empathy. While some theorists argue that empathy is at the root of human survival, others believe that the capability for switching off the empathy circuit could be to an evolutionary advantage.
One thing was clear when reading Baron-Cohen’s sensitive writing on the subject; he is a scientist, a systematized thinker, with a clear and genuine function of empathy. I learned much from this book and it is recommended reading for any interested in psychology and neuroscience.
Honestly though, he goes a little further and he groups his findings into neat categorizations, which are admittedly quite intriguing. He talks specifically about personality “disorders”, three in particular, and how they all involve impaired empathy as one of their traits. Baron-Cohen writes neatly and tidily and presents his theories very simply and attainably for the lay reader.
I suppose my real difficulty, in the process of creating a review, was accepting his theories. At best, I think what Baron-Cohen has done is put the available pieces of a puzzle together and extrapolated what was missing, to create a partial picture of what is occurring on a societal and personal level with regards to people with impaired empathy. I think what is missing is the complete science, the complete understanding of the intricacies of the internal functions of the brain. Baron-Cohen layers in some psychology with the explanation of each “zero empathy” case, what makes them unique, and summarizes his theories will a philosophical final chapter. Nice, neat, right? The problem is that which is classified as “borderline” is neither simple, neat nor concise. There are borderlines who do not harm others in the extreme way as in the singular example. There are also psychopaths who exude empathy, enough in fact to lure and trap victims. They ARE reading people, whether their neural activity is demonstrating so or not. Meanwhile people with Asperger’s Syndrome are kind of the anomaly, there is a distinction making them zero empathy positive: morals. Yet, the very existence of morals demands an understanding of empathy. Morals are social rules; social rules are learned or understood mainly through empathy. Or so it would seem?
In addition to categorizing minds and personalities along a spectrum of empathy, Baron-Coen goes further to suggest that conventional systems of justice should not be applicable to certain kinds of zero empathy behavior, especially when the person committing the offense suffers from conditions such as autism. Baron-Cohen suggests an inherent lack of moral agency in a person suffering from autism, based on the fact that in an autistic mind the empathy circuit had been negatively impacted. Without empathy autistic people might be inclined to commit socially inappropriate acts. However, in his view they should not be held responsible according to classical retributive justice systems because if their mind is impaired they lack the requisite moral agency to know how to better behave.
This argument is of course interlaced with the debate on free will and human consciousness. Baron-Cohen clearly acknowledges this and also the fact that, in the case of grave crime, restoring a sense of justice is crucial for ensuring societal peace.
The final issue which was not addressed much in the book, are the evolutionary advantages and disadvantages of possessing empathy or lacking empathy. While some theorists argue that empathy is at the root of human survival, others believe that the capability for switching off the empathy circuit could be to an evolutionary advantage.
One thing was clear when reading Baron-Cohen’s sensitive writing on the subject; he is a scientist, a systematized thinker, with a clear and genuine function of empathy. I learned much from this book and it is recommended reading for any interested in psychology and neuroscience.
September 22, 2011
I picked up this book because the dust jacket mentioned the role of mirror neurons in how people understand one another. Baron-Cohen argues that mirror neurons are only a small part of a more elaborate system he calls the empathy circuit. Using a questionnaire (a copy of which is in the book) that measures empathy, what he calls the empathy quotient, he focuses on those who measure zero. As you might anticipate, psychopaths are on this end of the scale. What is interesting is that he also places borderline personalities and the narcissistic personalities there as well. He calls this group zero negative, meaning, they measure zero in empathy and have negative personality traits. Naturally, there are a range of scores that can be found in these groups and, when you look at the questions used in the instrument and try to imagine someone who scores zero, you know they are, thankfully, rare. Perhaps more interesting though, he describes those with Asperger's syndrome and autism as zero positive, meaning that though they have zero empathy, they do not generally hurt others. Rather, they choose to avoid social situations altogether. They may be strong in something he calls the systemizer quotient meaning they are able to see patterns where others don't.
These classifications are underpinned by reference to neuroimaging studies that have focused on those areas of the brain that have been found to be involved in empathy. Those who score low or zero in empathy have underactive empathy pathways as demonstrated by these studies.
The framework described here leads to lots of questions: what problems are encountered by people who score very high on the EQ? What environmental cues are important in encouraging and empathic state (as distinct from trait)? This is especially interesting in the health care setting where, I expect we have many situations that blunt people who are normally empathic. However, is it always useful to be very empathic? If a surgeon were to be highly empathic, would he/she be able to do their job?
These classifications are underpinned by reference to neuroimaging studies that have focused on those areas of the brain that have been found to be involved in empathy. Those who score low or zero in empathy have underactive empathy pathways as demonstrated by these studies.
The framework described here leads to lots of questions: what problems are encountered by people who score very high on the EQ? What environmental cues are important in encouraging and empathic state (as distinct from trait)? This is especially interesting in the health care setting where, I expect we have many situations that blunt people who are normally empathic. However, is it always useful to be very empathic? If a surgeon were to be highly empathic, would he/she be able to do their job?
Displaying 1 - 30 of 612 reviews