TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • Other

      • /r/AllPillDebate
      • /r/AlreadyRed
      • /r/altTRP
      • /r/AntiFeminists
      • /r/askFDS
      • /r/askMRP
      • /r/askRPC
      • /r/becomeaman
      • /r/BlackPillScience
      • /r/Chadfish
      • /r/Divorce_Men
      • /r/EverydayMisandry
      • /r/ExRedPill
      • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
      • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
      • /r/GEOTRP
      • /r/MalePsychology
      • /r/Male_Studies
      • /r/MenSupportMen
      • /r/MGTOW2
      • /r/MuslimRedPill
      • /r/newTRP
      • /r/PussyPass
      • /r/PussyPassDenied
      • /r/RedPillBooks
      • /r/RedPillParenting
      • /r/RedPillWives
      • /r/RedPillWomen
      • /r/RedPillWorkplace
      • /r/RPChristians
      • /r/ThankTRP
      • /r/TheRedPillStories
      • /r/trpGAME
      • /r/TRPOffTopic
      • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
      • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • A Voice for Men
    • Dalrock
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Heartiste
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • Return of Kings
    • The Power Moves
    • The Rational Male
    • The Spearhead
    • Other

      • Alpha Game
      • Archwinger
      • Artful Prudence
      • Black Label Logic
      • Caleb Jones
      • Captain Capitalism
      • Corporate Machiavelli
      • Days of Game
      • Deep Strength
      • Dicipres
      • Donal Graeme
      • Female Misogynist
      • Free Northerner
      • Gaming My Wife
      • Hawaiian Libertarian
      • Illimitable Men
      • In Mala Fide
      • Justice for Men and Boys
      • Kill Your Inner Loser
      • KillToParty
      • Krauser PUA
      • LaidNYC
      • Mensactivism
      • NO MA'AM
      • Omega Virgin Revolt
      • Pook's Mill
      • Random Xpat Rantings
      • Red Pill Theory
      • Red Pill Wifery
      • RedPillDad
      • RedPillDoctor
      • Rian Stone
      • RooshV
      • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
      • Sigma Frame
      • The Feminine Woman
      • The Futurist
      • The Masculine Principle
      • The Modern Man
      • The New Modern Man
      • The Obsidian Files
      • The Private Man
      • The Red Pill Room
      • The Red Quest
      • The Rules Revisited
      • Troy Francis
      • Wintery Knight
      • Woujo
      • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Support

Empathy has a genetic component, men have lower empathy on average, but the genetic component is not responsible for men having lower average empathy. What then?

MathematicianNo4277

February 22, 2022
22 upvotes
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
https://www.pasteur.fr/en/press-area/press-documents/genes-play-role-empathy
Archived from /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates

r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates is a place for the discussion of men's issues from a left wing perspective.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill subreddits and blogs. This page is our copy of the original post.

/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates archive

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB
Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title Empathy has a genetic component, men have lower empathy on average, but the genetic component is not responsible for men having lower average empathy. What then?
Author

MathematicianNo4277

Upvotes 22
Comments 39
Date February 22, 2022 12:03 PM UTC
(4 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/comments/sylzmy/empathy_has_a_genetic_component_men_have_lower/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/empathy-has-a-genetic-component-men-have-lower.1103539
https://theredarchive.com/post/1103539
Top posts by MathematicianNo4277

We live in a dystopia: Spanish courts for violence against women

166 upvotes
January 29, 2022
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates

Belgium: An incel facing exceptionnal trial by jury for hatespeech

153 upvotes
October 12, 2021
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates

My name is Victory

133 upvotes
June 13, 2022
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates

Request for the academics among us

44 upvotes
August 31, 2021
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates

Honest discussion on Dave Chappelle?

43 upvotes
October 15, 2021
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates

Just realized I have way fewer friends than I thought

29 upvotes
February 4, 2022
/r/MenSupportMen

Comments

[–]Phantombiceps 10 points11 points12 points 4 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

I am not a psychologist. But here’s my 2 cents.

My guess is that empathy can be bad news, as in, an out of control, immaterial, immediate, simulated form of caring. Basically, you feel the other person’s pain, maybe even project your impression of their pain onto them and feel that, and that’s it. Basically just an intense cathartic and short lived mood where you identify with pain and feel it.

This could explain why both empathetic and non empathetic people may paradoxically appear to act cruelly.

Compassion, by contrast to empathy, might be the ability to sort of mediate or frame empathetic feelings you have, and hold them in your mind. Rather than feeling them all at once, you also intellectualize some portion of them. This could be why compassion seems to last longer, and to lead to practical action to alleviate or consider suffering, rather than just identifying with it.

Edit: also if empathy is just a feeling of identification, it can roll. So i cry for you as i hear your story, then i suddenly get a call from your enemy with his/her story of suffering at your hands- and my empathy rolls to them. I switch sides and strike you.

[–]DandyDoge5 6 points7 points8 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Why are people making it seem as if their conclusion is that men "are" less empathetic like as if it's some determinant thing...

All i see is that they find men to be lower in empathy on average. Obviously this comes down to social conditioning and exposure.

[–]MathematicianNo4277[S] 26 points27 points28 points 4 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

I would have published this in r/malestudies but it seems to be abandoned.

My guess would be that those who receive shall give. Empathy is largely learned by following the example of people being empathetic to you. Boys get less empathy, so they learn less empathy. Just an unsupported hypothesis.

I'm more interested in what you guys and gals here think of it.

[–]Oncefa2left-wing male advocate 28 points29 points30 points 4 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

Empathy is largely learned by following the example of people being empathetic to you. Boys get less empathy, so they learn less empathy. Just an unsupported hypothesis.

I have a theory that empathy is self-serving to a lot of women because they receive most of it.

On the outside it seems like a pro-social position that paints you as a good person, but it's easier to take that position when, consciously or unconsciously, you know that it's mainly for your benefit, and not for others.

Kind of like how wealthy people can afford to be philanthropic. In extreme cases, wealthy people use their philanthropy to shame the lower classes, who can't afford to give money away, as selfish.

Not that being nice to people shouldn't be a priority on it's own. But if you understand that to mean you doing things for other people as opposed to other people doing things for you, then you might be less inclined to support social attitudes that endorse empathy.

[–]Deadlocked02 19 points20 points21 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I always feel like a lot of it comes down to choosing the right aspects to uphold a supremacist agenda. “The more empathetic gender”, “the fairest gender”, etc. Like yeah, if you highlight this kind of emotional intelligence in the very abstract field of words and feelings, I don’t doubt women will perform better than men. But they also like to sweep the field of action under the rug, where men are notoriously willing to put their lives on the line to help people. A willingness that society benefits a great deal from. That’s why it’s mostly men choosing the most dangerous jobs or being the heroes in those headlines that everyone loves, where a guy puts his life on the line or even sacrifices himself to save others. Luckily for them, there’s no one with an agenda to create a male supremacist narrative out of these stories.

[–]MathematicianNo4277[S] 7 points8 points9 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

This is a good point. Women in my experience are good at vocalizing their empathy, but when you need someone to actually do something about it, a man might be your safer bet.

Luckily for them, there’s no one with an agenda to create a male supremacist narrative out of these stories.

I wouldn't go that far. Traditionalist conservatives still go strong in many places. The way the word "hero" was being thrown around a lot after 9/11 in the US by conservatives speaking of soldiers, firemen, policemen etc was a good example.

[–]RockmanXX 12 points13 points14 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Tradcons are not male supremacists. They view men like dehumanized Tools. There's a big overlap between Tradcons&Feminists, you'd be surprised at how similar they are once you ignore their main conflicts of interests(women's freedom).

conservatives speaking of soldiers, firemen, policemen etc was a good example.

That's not male supremacy, that's Nationalism. Male Supremacy is claiming that Men are superior to Women.

[–]BloomingBrains 3 points4 points5 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Not only that but one could even argue the fact that women are the more frequent beneficiaries of empathy means a lot of male empathy goes unappreciated. It's taken for granted because "that's just the way things are supposed to work".

Take courtship rituals for example. Men are socially conditioned to be hyper aware of their would-be paramour's feelings. Is she uncomfortable? Could what I'm doing be seen as harassment? Am I wooing/impressing her enough? Does she feel special and desired? These are all questions straight guys need to ask themselves constantly. And this is, of course, in no way a bad thing, but my observation would be that it is rarely reciprocal (at the very least, not being socially enforced to the same degree). In this light, it would almost make more sense in an evolutionary context for men to have more empathy for women than vice versa.

Of course, people are quick to point out how much empathy women typically have for children, but all this proves is that its genetically advantageous for women to have empathy for children. One might say empathy flows down the provider-providee spectrum, not up it, at least in evolutionary terms.

[–]Oncefa2left-wing male advocate 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

r/male_studies is active.

[–]MathematicianNo4277[S] 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Subtle difference. Thanks! Should I remove here and post there?

[–]Oncefa2left-wing male advocate 4 points5 points6 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

That's up to you. I think it's relevant here but that's just my opinion.

I'd probably make another post over there though at the very least. Copy the abstract into your comment if you make one. I think that's a rule over there.

[–]MathematicianNo4277[S] 3 points4 points5 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Need to link to the full paper also. Will do when I find it. Thanks!

[–]a-man-from-earthleft-wing male advocate 4 points5 points6 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

No need to remove here. It's generating some good discussion.

[–]gratis_eekhoorn 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

I still don't think men have lower empathy than women at all

[–]a-man-from-earthleft-wing male advocate 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I would have published this in r/malestudies but it seems to be abandoned.

/r/Male_Studies is active

[–]RhinoNomad 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

r/Male_Studies is the new place to post studies such as this one!

[–]Pantusu 5 points6 points7 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Hoo boy. For those who follow such things, Simon Baron-Cohen is not entirely well-regarded. It's also worth stating that psychology, while unquestionably useful, is still several steps removed from actual quantifiable data. What IS quantifiable is basically transcribed into comparative analysis, which brings all the problems of observer-dependent implicit biases to any models derived therefrom. You have to take leaps of logic, and the distance traveled is subjective.

Regardless, this is fairly old at this point, but here it is: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41398-017-0082-6

[–]BloomingBrains 7 points8 points9 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I'd wager that men and women don't really have that much different levels of empathy. The reason for the perceived difference most likely arises from the way in which they are measuring empathy.

Remember, women generally show more emotion than they feel and men show less emotion than they feel. That has already been proven by science. So if they aren't actually looking at brain scans and they are just measuring, say, people's outwards reactions to things, then its going to seem like women are more empathetic than they really are, while men will seem less so.

Men and women also generally show empathy in different ways. Men are generally problem-solvers and women are generally talkers. This is part of the reason people say mental health is heavily biased towards women--most therapists are women and they use what they know works for them. I.E. "talk therapy", and it isn't very effective for most men.

So chances are if a guy is trying to solve someone's problem, that means he actually cares enough about it to do so. Yet its a common cliche at this point for wives/girlfriends/etc. to complain that their partner is trying to fix everything instead of just listening. So if anyone researching empathy is going to approach their work with the same mindset, there's obviously going to be a disconnect in how "empathy" is defined, and that surely skews the results.

[–]KochiraJin 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

You can look at and take the test they used here. The questions look to mostly be a mix of how you feel about yourself and how others feel about you.

[–]BloomingBrains 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I find this test more than a little strange. How is it possible to answer questions regarding how others feel about you? I mean, its not really possible to know that, is it? And then there are random questions like how much do you dream, etc. I don't see what questions like that have to do with empathy.

Moreover, once I reached the end of the test it gave me a result of being autistic, which isn't actually true. Autism also encompasses a lot more traits than empathy anyway, so this doesn't appear to be a test that measures empathy alone.

Lastly (and this goes back to what I was saying before about men showing less than they feel), questions like "How emotionally affected are you by movies", etc. aren't actually measuring empathy itself, rather how much emotionality is displayed. Just because I don't start crying while watching a movie doesn't mean I don't feel bad for a character dealing with some kind of trauma, for example.

Therefore I guess I would say I'm skeptical of the idea of measuring empathy scientifically in and of itself, since all you have to go on is self-reporting and how much empathy is displayed, which gives women (generally speaking) an unfair advantage. Researchers can't actually directly compare (much less quantify) how much emotion I'm internally feeling compared to someone else without being able to read both of our minds.

[–]KochiraJin 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

How is it possible to answer questions regarding how others feel about you?

Those questions are typically phrased something like people often tell me X. So you know because people tell you that.

For the random unrelated questions they could be backed by a significant correlation or possibly be there to hide what the test is supposedly measuring. I don't actually know how the questions are weighted although I'm sure that information is available somewhere.

I don't think the test is meant to be used to diagnose autism alone. Just help indicate the possibility. It does mention that there is a high variability in its measurements between individuals.

For you last point I think the self reporting nature of the survey actually helps with that. Even if you don't outwardly display your emotions you still feel them. If movies produce a strong emotional response then you can report that even if you don't show it outwardly. Wile you can't compare the feelings two people are having directly we can communicate emotions in words and compare those.

It's reasonable to be skeptical, especially in things like this where the connection is not obvious. You should be able to find the reasoning as why they think it works and what it's used for though. the survey isn't particularly new.

[–]RockmanXX 8 points9 points10 points 4 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

men have lower empathy on average

And yet for absolutely NO DISCERNIBLE REASON, majority of the people who put their lives in danger to save others are Men! Wow, i guess you can be a selfless hero without any empathy?

Don't let the trash bin of history hit your legs on the way out, Pseudo Scientists!

[–]bkon3rdgen 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Ill copy and paste u/Oncefa2's comment from below because it applies here:

It may be imperfect but there's a lot of research and science about the link between autism, gender, and emotional intelligence. Especially in cases where people are otherwise very "things" smart.

Like being able to read a face and tell if the person is happy or sad. Verses computing an algebraic equations or something like that.

Men tend to score higher in "things intelligence" whereas women score higher in "people intelligence". And the larger number of people with autism who are men follows from this.

Note that empathy / EQ / "people intelligence" is not the same thing as having sympathy. You can have a lot of empathy but very little sympathy and vice versa. In fact that's basically what a sociopath is. Having a high emotional intelligence is important to be able to manipulate people and get away with crimes.

In other words, measures of empathy are not pseudoscience, and the fact that men are more likely to put themselves in unsafe heroic situations doesnt have anything to do with the type of empathy this study analyzes

[–]RockmanXX 3 points4 points5 points 4 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

with the type of empathy this study analyzes

So, it's a dishonest study which deliberately IGNORES the many ways Men display empathy to arrive at the incorrect conclusion that Men have less Empathy? Sounds like Pseudo Science to me, for the last couple of years I've been witnessing soft Sciences lose credibility with stuff like APA treating Toxic Masculinity as a Fact.

I also don't consider what this papers lists as "Congitive Empathy" as EMPATHY. Empathy is putting yourself into the shoes of someone. The ability to read people's emotions("Congitive Empathy") is not Empathy and "Affective Empathy" is literally just Sympathy, simply reacting to someone's sad emotions.

From what i understand, they've simply redefined what Empathy means. Empathy originally used to mean "Understanding" where someone is coming from beyond their surface emotions. The ability to read someone's emotions and then reacting accordingly is Sympathy, they've redefined Empathy as Sympathy.

To explain my point here's examples:-

  • Sympathy (or "Empathy" as these Scientists see it): You look at a homeless man outside, you realise that he's sad and you feel sad, so you give him a blanket&food.

  • Empathy: You see a homeless man outside, you realise that he needs a job ASAP so you lead him to a place where he can get a job and also a cheap lodge for him to stay.

Sympathy is feeling sad for someone who is sad, Empathy is understanding WHY he's sad and helping him with it. Empathy requires more knowledge than simply the emotions that are on display! A woman for ex, may genuinely find it impossible to understand why Men aren't afraid of walking alone at night or throwing hands when needed, Why? Because of their gap in KNOWLEDGE about how Men are Socialized.

[–]hottake_toothache 16 points17 points18 points 4 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

Measure women's level of empathy for men, and then tell me that they are more empathic. BS.

[–]Peptocoptr 4 points5 points6 points 4 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

I don't wanna step over your freedom of expression, but this seems like the kind of comment I would find on r/mensrights. I understand where you're coming from, but be careful not to demonize women as a whole.

[–]hottake_toothache 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

How are we supposed to make progress if we can't honestly share our observations and experiences? I encouraged someone to to engage in conversations to help them understand where women are coming from.

[–]Peptocoptr 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Observations and experiences aren't worthless, but they can lead to harmful over-generalizations when used as your exclusive lens with which you percieve the world. In the same way a woman's shitty experience with men can lead her to believe beyond doupt that they're all trash, your observation and experiences about women lacking empathy for men could lead you to think this is universally true for all of them. It's an issue worth careful consideration for sure, but not every man shares the same experience in that regard. To me, it kind of seems like you're starting to go down a slippery slope with comments like these. This sub is great and I don't want it to end up spiteful in the same way as feminist communities. I don't think this is as bad as the lenghts they're willing to go to, but I still think we should lead by example.

TL;DR: Not all women. That's important to keep in mind.

[–]danbert2000 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I agree with you completely. We can discuss men without demonizing women and without silencing diverse perspectives.

[+][deleted] 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]a-man-from-earthleft-wing male advocate 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I'm sorry, but the "not all women" objection in this case is a silencing tactic

Nonsense. We can be precise in our language, and acknowledge there are exceptions.

[–]Peptocoptr 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Furthermore, that comment was really hypocritical. Need I say why? For the love of God, can we just stay consistent?

[–]LaserowaPani 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Well.. Yoy need to remember that not every male is considered a man in womans mind. For those they do they have alot of empathy. The rest is just invisible.

[–]hottake_toothache 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I don't know that they have empathy for those few, but the rest certainly are invisible.

[–]LaserowaPani 0 points1 point2 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

There are examples in the internet. But unfortunately i didnt save them :( Maybe when you notice one day an article about some criminal that is objectively chad you could open the comments and look what at least some women say.

[–]hottake_toothache 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, I know what you mean.

[–]Skirt_Douglas 3 points4 points5 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I don’t really know much about EQ, but I’m not really willing to just buy into it being the be all end all empirical measurement of empathy, for the same reasons I’m skeptical of IQ.

[–]Oncefa2left-wing male advocate 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

It may be imperfect but there's a lot of research and science about the link between autism, gender, and emotional intelligence. Especially in cases where people are otherwise very "things" smart.

Like being able to read a face and tell if the person is happy or sad. Verses computing an algebraic equations or something like that.

Men tend to score higher in "things intelligence" whereas women score higher in "people intelligence". And the larger number of people with autism who are men follows from this.

Note that empathy / EQ / "people intelligence" is not the same thing as having sympathy. You can have a lot of empathy but very little sympathy and vice versa. In fact that's basically what a sociopath is. Having a high emotional intelligence is important to be able to manipulate people and get away with crimes.

[–]Skirt_Douglas 3 points4 points5 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

But can it tell the difference between ability to empathize and willingness to empathize?

That’s how I see the difference anecdotally, at least for me anyway. I see myself as very much capable of empathy, but I often choose to withhold it because making yourself feel someone’s suffering can often be hard on your own mental state, it’s often not very useful in a situation whereas compassion is.

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter