Name: Anonymous 2011-08-25 2:21
A five year study intended to measure the level of sympathic difference between humans and chimpanzees, has revealed some baffling results.
In the beginning of the study, the groups were shown people and animals getting hurt in various ways, while measuring the distress levels of their brains. Both human and chimpanzee responded in normal ways, showing distress and sympathy for living things as small as insects, with the exception of one ethnic subgroup of the human testgroup.
Testers were puzzled by this subgroup largely not responding at all, and decided to extend the experiment to interviews detailing in particular how this subgroup valued life and wellbeing in others, in comparison to the rest of the human race. It was revealed that it simply didn't value human life or wellbeing, as long as their own life or wellbeing wasn't directly dependent on it.
The subgroup often compensated for this through developing social behavioral skills ("politeness") and when asked to rationalize their uncaring behavior, they made up makeshift reasons to cover for their behavior: The victims weren't polite enough, the victims weren't cool enough, the subjects had more important things on their minds, the victims should have been able to take care of themselves, and so on. The subgroup relied on friendliness and politeness to bridge the ethical gap, sporting warm and confident smiles at the interviewer in attempts to make emotional connections.
In the beginning of the study, the groups were shown people and animals getting hurt in various ways, while measuring the distress levels of their brains. Both human and chimpanzee responded in normal ways, showing distress and sympathy for living things as small as insects, with the exception of one ethnic subgroup of the human testgroup.
Testers were puzzled by this subgroup largely not responding at all, and decided to extend the experiment to interviews detailing in particular how this subgroup valued life and wellbeing in others, in comparison to the rest of the human race. It was revealed that it simply didn't value human life or wellbeing, as long as their own life or wellbeing wasn't directly dependent on it.
The subgroup often compensated for this through developing social behavioral skills ("politeness") and when asked to rationalize their uncaring behavior, they made up makeshift reasons to cover for their behavior: The victims weren't polite enough, the victims weren't cool enough, the subjects had more important things on their minds, the victims should have been able to take care of themselves, and so on. The subgroup relied on friendliness and politeness to bridge the ethical gap, sporting warm and confident smiles at the interviewer in attempts to make emotional connections.