Comment by noname123 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by noname123 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

"No widely accepted cognitive theory explains savants' combination of talent and deficit. It has been suggested that individuals with autism are biased towards detail-focused processing and that this cognitive style predisposes individuals either with or without autism to savant talents. Another hypothesis is that savants hyper-systemize, thereby giving an impression of talent. Hyper-systemizing is an extreme state in the empathizing–systemizing theory that classifies people based on their skills in empathizing with others versus systemizing facts about the external world. Also, the attention to detail of savants is a consequence of enhanced perception or sensory hypersensitivity in these unique individuals." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savant_syndrome)

I am very fascinated by the semantics vs. syntax of empathy. Suppose you have a savant who is good at systematic identification of literary characters, or criminal profiling or DSM-IV case files; in another words, he or she is very good at reading people and classifying them into logical/hierarchical systems of mental, historical and social backgrounds; and miming their behavior when interacting with them, just as a savant with photographic memory can "mime" the Manhattan skyline in drawing.

Would we classify such a person as empathetic or sociopathic? If their empathy comes not from a human emotional instinct but from logical deduction?

Really interesting question! Considering this sort of trade-off, I wonder if maybe the two talent regimes are actually using the same neurological resources, so that if large portions of available time/energy/nodes/etc are consumed in systematizing only small amounts will remain for empathizing, and vice versa. Then your question gets really thorny: if a "literary" savant is using the same resource to perform the same function, but in a seemingly qualitatively different way than the empath, neurology may not offer much explanation.

I suspect that would depend upon whether they "cared" for the welfare of the individual they could read or if they "used" that info against them.

I personally don't think there is a clear line between those two things. I have known many people with natural social skills who routinely used them to influence social settings to their personal benefit, often without being particularly noticed by most of the people involved. I think it is more complicated than a simple binary choice.

As I understand it, sociopaths/psychopaths are entirely inner directed. They either don't notice the damage they're doing or they power trip on it.

They literally don't see other people as people at all - they see other people as resources they can play with and consume.

Empaths may be manipulative, but it's hard to be a master of manipulation when you're aware your actions are making someone else unhappy and this makes you unhappy too.

When I took an Intro to Psychology class, I realized that my then husband had five of the six traits typical of serial killers (this includes high intelligence -- they are not all negative traits). My oldest son likely has the same five traits. He was quite the challenge to raise.

So, this is a problem space I have read some about, studied a hair formally, and that hits quite close to home. I managed to raise a decent human being, in spite of his innate wiring. Thus, I am convinced that it is far more complicated than you are making it out to be. There is innate wiring. There is upbringing. There are many factors here.

You can take someone with empathy who is very kind and put them through hell and break them of some of their excessive niceness. You can raise a sociopath with a model of enlightened self interest.

I think it is a fascinating area, but I no way believe it boils down to a singular personality trait.

I think a large part of empathy is being able to actually feel (to varying degrees) the mental state of another person, and not just being able to construct a logical framework of their thoughts and feelings.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com