Talk:Empathy/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Major point for consideration

Surely empathy is more than just awareness of the thoughts or feelings of others. Empathy means entering into the mind or being of the other, to experience what the other experiences. The OED defines empathy as "The power of projecting one's personality into (and so fully comprehending) the object of contemplation". Identification, not simple awareness, is the key here. So the second sentence of the current definition gets it right, not the first sentence. This also means that the sentence about the con-artist ("A con-artist may possess and rely on empathy — awareness of others' thoughts and feelings — but fail to experience sympathy, which might prevent him from victimizing others.") is incorrect and ought to be deleted. Experiencing empathy for others would prevent someone from conning them. Again: empathy is more than simple awareness of what others are thinking or feeling.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Scales (talk • contribs) 19:39, 3 January 2005 (UTC)

Value Judgements?

Is there not a bit of value judgement going on here, clouding the definition of empathy?

Imagine an executioner who is not very good at his job, because he has a lot of empathy for the condemned, whom he has to despatch. I think it would be unfair to say that he has not got genuine empathy, just because he gets on with his job. Would you say he only gets true empathy if he stops his work and resigns? Surely his empathy led him to resign, therefore you cannot say that empathy prevents us from causing others harm. Perhaps all we can say is that people with empathy are unlikely to harm others, or that we most approve of the kind of empathy which prevents a person at all costs from harming others.

A similar situation is where a person is forced to torture others, as I think occurred in the Japanese invasion of China early last century. He or she may do the torture reluctantly, on pain of having even greater harm enacted upon others, and the person may do it with great reluctance and sensitivity for the suffering. The person cannot avoid harming others, whether he/she complies or not. The person is acting under situational pressures, but has not therefore lost his empathy.

TonyClarke 16:56, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Can Psychopaths not have empathy ? As I have often read the methods of such people are based on their understanding of the victim/s feelings and emotions to get closer to their end. To be capable of empathy is surely not necessarily a benevolent mode. I am sure I have read this during an interesting browse. To the same end to be capable of empathy may not mean that it is a constant ?— Preceding unsigned comment added by BrianWest1971 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Psychopaths are psychopathic -- that is something you do not want to be around. You can stick lit matches in their arms, and it makes them relax (from what I have read). Total loss there; they are just sick.

The other question is more relevant, as you see this in every thing you do. To survive in this competitive world, you have to limit your empathy. For instance, if you start feeling sorry for the 10,000's of animals that have been cruelly butchered for your meals, you may startle your family. But if you stop eating meat, you will likely live ten years longer-- you were not meant to eat that much meat (not you personally, but the average you). Being empathic in this case means being selfish.

There is a world religion that protects people who are selfish in this empathic way; it is called Buddhism. True Buddhists don't kill anything; they have empathy for everything-- there is no limit to their empathy.

Actually, that's not entirely true. As part of protecting empathy, they practice self-defense, or martial arts. Buddhism absorbed martial arts as part of their pacifying Asia. In Japan the Shogunate warriors became the Buddhist Samurai, but never gave up their weapons. While empathy is often described as "walking in another's shoes" it can be described at times as "putting the shoe on the other foot." Domineering Christians are often surprised by this; they expect Buddhists and other empathic pacifists to always turn the other cheek.— Preceding unsigned comment added by John van v (talk • contribs) 01:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

We often assume that someone who has empathy would not harm anyone, but I do not believe that assumption is warranted. A person may harm someone out of lack of empathy, or a sadist's may harm people from a desire to do harm, knowing exactly what the victim will experience.--RLent (talk) 21:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Empathy, it seems, is an ability to understand or percieve the others' feelings, not necesserily caring about them. To be an effective bully for example, one needs to have empathy, for only if you know what would embarass and hurt a person a lot can you arrange it for them. Maxim K (talk) 18:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Empathy is not the same as Telepathy

Personally, I believe there is a difference between feelings and thoughts. I am an empath (based on feeling) and not a telepath (based on thought). There are people that possess both abilities, but that does not mean they are the same ability. So I believe that any reference to an empath having an accurate trait of reading peoples thoughts is wrong.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.104.2.152 (talk) 07:58, 31 March 2005‎

Oh, my! Agreed! I never would have thought of the two being confused, but I once had a relationship in which the person may have been confused about this! I never realized this before reading your post above! She was quite miffed when I had to explain that I did not automatically know what she was thinking, so I could not respond to her thoughts. She thought that if we were true friends, I would be able to do this! At the time, I had to just let it go, but it really bothered me then, that I was so deficit that I had no ability to do this. I have blamed myself since that the friendship disintegrated, but I think you have something there. Thank you. Raina 07:43, 1 April 2005‎

does anyone know who coined the term "imaginative empathy" or the term "appropriative empathy"?

I have been using both but want to give credit where it is due, if it is. Thanks!

Sara Koopman

From the paper I just handed in: Azar Nafisi, an Iranian writer living in the West, who writes in opposition to the controlled and war-like conditions in her native country, makes a most important contribution as she describes for us how these combined forces within our minds can extend our empathy beyond our senses to transcend distance and social differences. She describes how the brain's most elegant constructs, empathic thought and imagination, naturally work together to create humanity's most noble reflections, and how necessary these reflections are.

No amount of political correctness can make us empathize with a child left orphaned” .. “Only curiosity about the fate of others, the ability to put ourselves in their shoes, and the will to enter their world through the magic of imagination, creates this shock of recognition. Without this empathy there can be no genuine dialogue, and we as individuals and nations will remain isolated and alien, segregated and fragmented.” (Azar Nafisi)

http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=ddk32zv4_134d7psqf — Preceding unsigned comment added by John van v (talk • contribs) 01:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I have requested mediation

I have requested mediation to prevent an edit war, and resolve our disputes --Whicky1978 05:40, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

Joseph,

I just find your edits pointless rather than particularly damaging. Having a clear written style is not about slavishly sticking to pendantic grammatical rules. In particular, avoiding the use of 'I', 'we' or 'our' at all costs is an unjustified scientific (rather than academic) convention that tries to preserve the myth of total objectivity. Obviously the point of these articles is not just to spout personal opinion, Yet it is standard academic practise to use 'we' when guiding a conceptual inquiry.

Ultimately clarity and straightforwardness is my guiding principle.

• Could whoever is the main opposer of Joseph's edits indicate in the WP:RFM page wether they'd accept mediation? I'm sure it's possible to write a version with grammar you can both agree to. Mgm|^(talk) 17:26, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

My objections are not based on "total objectivity". The use of "we" is inappropriate when the subject is not inclusive of the reader--Whicky1978 23:11, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

What's up with the picture? Whicky's rendition of empathy? Huh?

• WP:SIG

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Whicky1978 (talk • contribs) 05:08, 11 June 2005 (UTC)

Autism and tantrums

Many, if not all, autistic people have had temper tantrums. This contradicts the alexithymia diagnosis as anger is an emotion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.204.100.157 (talk) 18:10, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it does not. Alexithymia is not the lack of emotion, but the difficulty in identifying and describing it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ganondox (talk • contribs) 14:54, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Telepathy reference

Can we remove that? Telepathy still hasn't been verified scientifically... I would explain the telephathic empathy more in the lines of cognitive biases and non verbal communication...— Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.91.14.14 (talk) 22:18, 22 June 2007‎

Animals

The first paragraph suggests animal empathy may be due to a "ulterior" motive of survival. This shows a lack of understanding of genetics and evolution. Empathy arises because it is useful for survival, but the organism is not conscious of this fact. Humans do not act empathetically thinking "I am doing this because my genes benefit". They do it because the genes program the behaviour that is beneficial to the genes. In the same way sexual lust is programmed for reproduction, but people still do it using condoms without thinking about babies. The point is empathy in animals always has a ulterior motive in a sense, because it exists to enhance survival and reproduction of the genes that program the trait, but the organism isn't aware, human, or otherwise.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.118.128.10 (talk) 09:35, 16 April 2015‎

Criticism

Someone has reverted my edit which was to create a "Criticism" section. The reason for the reversion was not well-explained, imho. It seems to me that a criticism which actually challenges the existence of the concept of empathy is worthy of a separate section. (DouglasBell (talk) 19:04, 12 August 2017 (UTC))

DouglasBell, I reverted you on this per WP:Undue weight; take the time to read that portion of the WP:Neutral policy. It states, in part, "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a 'see also' to an article about those specific views. [...] Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements. In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space." So, yes, dedicating a section to one author who challenges the idea of empathy is a violation of that policy. I'm not convinced that he should be mentioned at all. But if we do mention him in this article, he should not get his own section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:15, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

tahank you

hola lo podrian traducir al español no sean malos por favor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.189.20.78 (talk) 01:36, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Autism and empathy

Autistic people don't lack affective empathy. Simon Baron-Cohen was wrong, and even he admitted it: https://mobile.twitter.com/sbaroncohen/status/956061933907664896?lang=en — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sidney Sol (talk • contribs) 12:18, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Sidney Sol, Simon Baron-Cohen isn't the only researcher on this topic, though. Keep WP:Due weight and WP:MEDRS in mind. Please read those pages. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:22, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Spindle cells and empathy

Someone pointed a suggestion made by a professor that spindle cells are the ”Cells responsible for empathy”. Thais ks innacurate as there ks no reasearch or data on that. In fact, the article on Wikipedia about such cells, linked in the same sentence, clearly states that “(...) permitting fast information processing and transfer along highly specific projections and that evolved in relation to emerging social behaviors.”. The same and other sources point out that these cells are mainly responsible for communication behaviors.

I suggest the removal of such sentence since it’s based on a one man assumption without any reference apart from the author’s book. Guzforster (talk) 16:53, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Citation style

The original citation style of this article was parenthetical. Over the years more than two hundred footnotes have been added in violation of WP:CITEVAR. Can we mend this by forming explicit consensus to switch to footnote style, please? It will be much easier to turn the dozen or so remaining parentheticals into footnotes than more than two hundred footnotes into parentheticals. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:18, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Feel free to either go back to the original style or use a different style. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:01, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Best to wait until Benteziegen and I have worked out the article format, though. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:19, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't really care about the citation style that much as long as there's a reference for me to lookup. Curtis (talk) 05:33, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Done. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:28, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Sourcing

The Terrible Mutant Hamster, hi. I've seen you at the Sex differences in emotional intelligence and Sex differences in cognition articles and thought about addressing you then. Regarding this, we should try to stick to secondary and tertiary sources. Literature reviews, meta-analyses and stuff like that. We should usually avoid primary sources. This is per WP:SCHOLARSHIP and WP:MEDRS. MEDRS especially applies when it comes to text about physiological and brain neuroimaging aspects.

Using this "Men, women…who cares? A population-based study on sex differences and gender roles in empathy and moral cognition" source, You added, "Whereas experimental and neuropsychological measures show no reliable sex effect, self-report data consistently indicates greater empathy in females." But then the section goes on to state things like "However, a series of studies, using a variety of neurophysiological measures, including MEG, spinal reflex excitability, electroencephalography and N400 paradigm have documented the presence of an overall gender difference in the human mirror neuron system, with female participants tending to exhibit stronger motor resonance than male participants." and "Using fMRI, neuroscientist Tania Singer showed that empathy-related neural responses tended to be significantly lower in males when observing an 'unfair' person experiencing pain."

I know that you stated that the section needs reworking, presumably because of the text you added, but it should not be reworked to give WP:Undue weight to males displaying as much empathy as females. The literature is consistently clear that females tend to have/show more empathy than males. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:44, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn, hello. I know that I made the section somewhat messy with my edit. However, the researches I cited are scientific, none the less than many others from the article. fMRI studies are criticized by scientists for very small sample sizes (for example, here) and not considered reliable. The sample in Singer's research comprises 16 men and 16 women. It's too small for a reliable result. Primary Caretaker/Hunter-Gatherer theories are criticized by geneticists, for example, here. Somehow psychologists never bothered to consult geneticists about biological inheritance. And the literature is not clear about females having more empathy than males. That's exactly what the article you cited here says. Clearness depends on the mode of assessment. Sticking to meta-reviews is what I going to do when trying to rework this section. (I am currently busy with another article, so it will take a couple of months.) Popular literature about empathy is usually very biased. Cheers, The Terrible Mutant Hamster (talk) 11:15, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

The Terrible Mutant Hamster, I'll tweak the section and remove some primary source material from it. But to repeat, the literature is clear about females having more empathy than males. It overwhelmingly reports this, as also indicated by reviews and meta-analyses in the section. Females having more empathy than males is seen across cultures and is supported by the vast majority of studies, just like males being significantly more aggressive and violent than females are is seen across cultures and is supported by the vast majority of studies. This is what I mean by WP:Due weight. We give most of our weight to what most of the literature states. Whether females having more empathy than males is solely due to biology or solely due to social factors (girls being nurtured in that direction), or both, is something to consider. But most researchers do believe that it's due to both (biology and environment). This research is not just a "popular literature" matter. We are not here to right the perceived great wrongs. We are here to follow the literature with due weight. That fMRI studies have been criticized does not mean we should not report on them when literature reviews do. Also, not all reviews, including meta-analyses, are created equal. We can add criticisms with regard to the "females have more empathy than males" aspect, but we shouldn't make it seem as though the literature casts significant doubt on it. It doesn't. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:09, 27 July 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:18, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Changed it to this for now. The aforementioned population-based study is one of the sources I removed. I changed the "whereas" sentence you added to include the word "some" before "experimental and neuropsychological measures show no reliable sex effect." This sentence currently needs to be supported by a secondary or tertiary source. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:28, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn, thank you for your assistance! You said yourself that we should gravitate towards secondary sources and meta-reviews. I am not against mentioning all the points of view, however, we shouldn't forget that it's a number of study subjects, not a number of studies with minuscule samples that clarifies the situation. Also, the majority of your overwhelming studies relies on self-report. I propose that we divide self-report results and experimental assessment in the section. Otherwise, it remains a mess. Male "higher aggressiveness" is also not as clear as many wish it to be. Testosterone levels tend to increase or decrease according to the situation, and it's a situation that makes a male aggressive (but still it's only a hypothesis). Also, a cross-cultural study (unfortunately, it also relies on self-report) revealed no significant sex difference in empathy among Mainland Chinese (here), unlike Australians, though. The Terrible Mutant Hamster (talk) 09:05, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't see the section as a mess. The section is not that big, and so I don't see a need to divide it into two subsections, but I'm not strongly opposed to doing that (as long as it's only divided into two subsections). As for male aggression, all that I'm relaying is what the academic source I linked to states and what the literature generally states on that matter. No one is saying that a girl or woman can't be more aggressive or violent than a boy or a man, but, on average, boys and men are more aggressive and violent than girls and women are. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:03, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn, looks like I didn't make my point clear. For me, males being more aggressive and showing on average more aggression are not synonymous. I know that in Western Culture males tend to show more aggression and less empathy, and that is confirmed by academic literature. As I mentioned above, it's otherwise among Mainland Chinese. For me, not clarifying the mode of assessment makes information a mess. EQ is assessed through self-report, but the article fails to mention it. Also, I really don't know which meta-reviews are more equal. (You said: "not all reviews, including meta-analyses, are created equal" and I am still baffled.) I am all into discussing which meta-analyses we should include in the section. The one championing "Primary Caretaker Hypothesis" is, of course, important. However, geneticists criticize such a fanciful approach to the Evolutionary Theory, and I think it's also worth mentioning. The Terrible Mutant Hamster (talk) 11:22, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I got your point; I just don't agree with you saying that "male 'higher aggressiveness' is also not as clear as many wish it to be." This is because you seemed to being using that to compare to female aggressiveness. I'm saying that it's still a fact that males are typically more aggressive than females are. I don't agree with you distinguishing "being more aggressive" from "showing more aggression." The literature does not when it comes to stating that males are more aggressive than females are. And it's not just "in Western Culture," as though males have simply been conditioned to be this way. It's a finding that has been seen throughout history, across various cultures. Exceptions existing do not negate the fact that males are typically more aggressive and violent than females are.

As for "self-report," what you call self-report is not like it's women simply saying "I'm more empathetic than males are" or "I'm more empathetic than [my brother] or [so and so]." It's these women's empathy being tested against men's empathy, and women consistently showing more empathy than men. So I don't think we should have a subsection in this regard titled "Self-report." If we are to have a heading regarding testing, I would prefer a different title. And, again, yes, there is some talk of whether girls and women being more empathetic than boys and men is due to social conditioning, but many researchers also believe it to be partly biological...for various reasons. Researchers know, for example, that men tend to be more sadistic than women are, including when it comes to murders and rape. Sexual sadism disorder is significantly more common in men than in women. Men weren't taught that.

By "not all reviews, including meta-analyses, are created equal," I mean the quality of the journal it was published in, whether or not the test subjects only or mostly reside in the United States (or only or mostly reside in some other country or area), the different types of literature reviews that exist, and what WP:MEDDATE states about recentism.

I don't know what type of setup/sources you are looking to propose/add. You could show me in your sandbox. You also stated, "I am currently busy with another article, so it will take a couple of months." So no rush. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:04, 29 July 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:20, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I tend to distinguish historical social roles imposed on males (of course soldiers were more aggressive than nurses) and everyday behavior. Is a male University Professor more aggressive than his female colleague? If he is, what makes him so? Natural testosterone level or maybe higher self-esteem, nurtured by society? That's what needs to be clarified about human behavior.

About self-reports. Women on average have a higher opinion about their empathy and emotional intelligence than men, that's all the self-reports among Western people can show us about sex/gender differences. "Various reasons" is a very vague point, but I suppose you may mean different prenatal testosterone levels that are known to be one of the factors that affect children behavior and choice of toys. Boys (and girls with high prenatal testosterone level) are known on average to choose wheeled toys (some researchers mistook them for mechanical, but other scientists pointed out that kids were primarily interested in moving, not mechanics) over other types of toys early in childhood. Prenatal testosterone level also affects behavior during the play with boys and the aforementioned girls being more rough and physically active. It may have an effect on the development of empathy, but the boy-typical rough play is not a form of aggression as there is no intention of inflicting damage.

About sexual violence. Well, you know women and men significantly differ in their genitalia, and men on average considerably physically stronger than women. Looks like scientists have no disagreement about those two factors affecting the incidence of sexual crimes. It's much harder for a woman to rape someone even if she wants. There are more males among registered sexual offenders, but it's not clear how many women have sexual sadism disorder because they don't have the same freedom of action as similarly affected men.

Got your point about the sources. I will invite you to my sandbox as soon as the first draft is ready. The Terrible Mutant Hamster (talk) 09:17, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

No matter how one tends to distinguish things on this matter, we follow the literature with due weight on Wikipedia. And that literature is explicitly clear that males are more aggressive and violent than females are, and enough of the literature is clear that this cannot simply be attributed to social roles (historical or otherwise) imposed on them. If we look from the beginning to now, how did males become more aggressive and violent than females? Because of social roles? No. And saying so would be no different than saying that violent males constructed that life for boys. So then how did those violent males who constructed that life for boys become violent themselves? Males being more aggressive and violent than females are is something that is seen throughout the animal kingdom (which humans are a part of). There are exceptions, such as with the female spotted hyena with regard to aggression and dominance, but female spotted hyenas are masculinized via androgens. And we know that androgens are primarily male hormones. So the more aggressive/dominant behavior of female spotted hyenas due to androgens is no coincidence. When questioning why males are more aggressive and violent, you are trying to divorce biology (and I don't mean physical strength) from the matter as a possibility. But the vast majority of scientists do not. Society playing a part in some cases is looked at, but the vast majority of scientists/researchers do not think that biology plays no role. Across various aspects, males are more violent than females are. Again, we can see this with murders, including serial killing and mass murder. We can even see this with suicide.

You speak of strength. Strength does not dictate males being more sadistic with their murders. Once the person is dead, strength is no longer a factor. So then why do significantly more males than females go on to mutilate the dead body? Were they taught that? No. Strength is also not necessarily a factor in setting up what type of way one should die. And yet we don't see women setting up nearly as gruesome ways to die as men do. Even with suicide, males choose more violent and/or gruesome ways to die significantly more often than females do; I will note that researchers suggest that this may be partly attributed to women being more concerned about how their corpse will look, which is due to societal conditioning. And serial killers? There are significantly more male serial killers than there are female serial killers. Is that due to society? No. There is no researcher who believes that society has made it so that the environment is more favorable to males than females being serial killers. Furthermore, male serial killers are more driven by sexual and/or sadistic motives, while female serial killers are more driven by material gain (such as money). Rape? Scientists are not convinced that there would be just as many female rapists as male rapists if only women were typically physically stronger or as strong as men. Maybe if they had just as high of androgen levels coursing throughout their bodies as men do, sure, but then how would men and women differ biologically? How would this not be due to biology rather than social differences? You are now speaking on an area I am significantly well-versed in. Even when it comes to child sexual abuse, there are significantly more male than female perpetrators. And although female perpetrators are likely underreported, researchers are clear that underreporting cannot account for why there are so many more male child sexual abusers than there are female child sexual abusers. Sexologists/psychologists such as James Cantor (who I've discussed the matter with times before) and Michael C. Seto are clear about this. They have also studied pedophiles (including their brains) extensively. (Keep in mind that pedophilia is not the same thing as child sexual abuse.) And they know that the vast majority of pedophiles are male, and that this is due to biology (whether or not there is some complex interaction with social environment). And considering paraphilias in general? The vast majority of those with paraphilias are men. Is this due to social conditioning? No. Social aspects no doubt contributed to many paraphilias, but social conditioning did not make it so that the vast majority of those with paraphilias are men. You saying that "it's not clear how many women have sexual sadism disorder because they don't have the same freedom of action as similarly affected men" is not what any researcher on the matter says.

You stated, "Women on average have a higher opinion about their empathy and emotional intelligence than men, that's all the self-reports among Western people can show us about sex/gender differences." That's your opinion. And, to repeat, girls and women being more empathetic than boys and men and is not just a "Western people" matter. I was not speaking of toy preference, or hormones affecting toy preference, or boy-typical rough play being seen as a form of aggression. Also, when it comes to "boys," many sources include teenage boys in that category.

Again, I have no issue with the section noting whether females having more empathy than males is solely or partly due to social factors (girls being nurtured in that direction), or both. We should include that. What I am saying to you is that we should not give WP:Undue weight to any idea regarding the sex differences on empathy. I'm saying that we should not make it seem as though the literature significantly casts doubt on "females are more empathic than males." I'm saying we are not here to challenge the literature and right the perceived great wrongs. If anyone is here at Wikipedia to challenge any literature on males being less empathetic, more aggressive or more violent than females are, they should rethink their approach to editing here. I'm not saying that you are a men's rights editor, but that is the usual type of editor we get here on Wikipedia trying to challenge such literature. I'm also not saying that you are definitely trying to challenge it. I just want you to be aware of our WP:Due weight policy, including what it states about false balance. I will also go ahead point to WP:Not a forum. I see no reason for us to keep discussing men being more aggressive and violent than women are unless it's directly about improving this article. We clearly have different lines of thinking on the matter, and Wikipedia is not the place for debate that is unrelated to improving an article's content. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:09, 30 July 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:38, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

The literature is so clear, that it still can't find out what exactly makes human males "more aggressive". Also, among animals, male's higher aggression is primarily linked to their sexual behavior. Do humans have... ahem... a mating season? No animal has such a complex intellectual life as a human. No animal is interested in Arts, Science, Religion and in trying to impose one's personal opinion on another animal. So you say that literature is clear about human males being more aggressive and less empathic. Then show me your clearness. I need good scientific sources for reworking the section.

You forgot that serial killers are usually diagnosed as mentally ill. And there are sexual differences in mental disorders (schizophrenia, for example). You can't write off the prevalence of men among serial killers/rapists on "male's higher aggressiveness". I recommend you to research the topic. You're not convincing here. Trying to use mental disorders as an argument in favour of "male's higher aggressiveness" only shows that you don't know the topic well. However, if you have scientific sources for your persistent belief in "male's higher aggressiveness", show them, please. They may be useful for the article.

Being, here, is also your opinion. Science doesn't accept being that easy. And I got you the first time when you mentioned Undue weight. "Clear", "significantly" and other adjectives are also your opinion. Science doubts everything. Whatever I will write in the section, I will take from meta-reviews and peer-reviewed scientific literature. I know the difference between Science and Psychology Today. Cheers and chills, The Terrible Mutant Hamster (talk) 21:50, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

There being biological and social causes (as the vast majority of researchers believe) for why men are more aggressive and less empathic than women are doesn't make the literature any less clear on the fact that human males are more aggressive and less empathic than human females are. Something can be a fact without knowing exactly why it's a fact. Researchers obviously don't always know the exact cause of something. I never stated or implied that the prevalence of male serial killers is due to "male's higher aggressiveness." But I was certainly pointing to biology and making clear that it can't be contributed to society conditioning males to be that way. I don't need to study the topic of serial killers; I'm already well-studied on the matter. You, on the other hand? To repeat your commentary: "I recommend you to research the topic. You're not convincing here." You state that "serial killers are usually diagnosed as mentally ill." I think you need to read up on what passes as mentally ill and what that could mean with regard to being a serial killer. You say you know the difference between Science and Psychology Today. Well, while society is quick to call serial killers mentally ill, the psychological and psychiatric community are not so quick to jump to that conclusion. And mental disorders are within their domain. So is empathy. One can act like those professions don't fall within the domain of science as much as that person wants to, but that person would be wrong. Cognitive science and neuroscience overlap with psychology and psychiatry. The study of mental disorders is quite scientific. Yes, serial killers are significantly likely to display antisocial personality disorders. Because of this, they may be considered to have sociopathy or psychopathy (which are commonly considered the same thing, which is why they redirect to the same article -- Psychopathy), but neither are termed mental illnesses by the American Psychiatric Association (APA). And serial killers certainly usually are not so mentally ill that they can typically use an insanity defense. They usually know right from wrong. Mass murderers, who are also almost always male, are usually not insane either. They usually know right from wrong. And significantly more males than females being rapists certainly is not about mental illness either. The DSM-5 lists psychopathy and sociopathy under "Antisocial Personality Disorders (ASPD)." Shared traits include a disregard for laws and social mores, a disregard for the rights of others, a failure to feel remorse or guilt, and a tendency to display violent behavior. That's not insane. It's not "this condition made me a serial killer."

Yes, "mental disorder" and "mentally ill" are commonly used as synonyms, but use of "mentally ill" is considered somewhat problematic today, since so many laypeople take it to mean "crazy"/insane or without a sense of reality/without a sense of what is right or wrong. Many do the same with regard to "mental disorder," but it's worse for "mentally ill." Also see this section on definitions/terminology in the Mental disorder article. Serial killers usually are not insane. Nor are they usually suffering from schizophrenia, although some are. Even the schizophrenia source you pointed to states, "More research is needed to understand the causal roles of sex differences in schizophrenia in order to ultimately develop sex-specific treatment of this serious mental illness." And are most people with schizophrenia serial killers? No. There are various mental disorders, and having one or more doesn't mean that the person is likely to be a serial killer. More violent in some cases? Maybe. But being violent is a large jump to being a serial killer. Obsessive–compulsive disorder is also a mental disorder. Some serial killers may have that. Did obsessive–compulsive disorder cause them to be serial killers? No. Furthermore, stating "serial killers are usually diagnosed as mentally ill," when the vast majority of serial killers are male, makes it seem as though this is because males are suffering from mental illnesses more than females are. But like this source from the World Health Organization (WHO) states, "Overall rates of psychiatric disorder are almost identical for men and women but striking gender differences are found in the patterns of mental illness." And, yes, the source states, "Gender is a critical determinant of mental health and mental illness." And goes on to explain why. But I know of no source (reliable or unreliable) that states that the reason that there are significantly more male serial killers than female serial killers is due to mental disorders. The WHO source also states, "There are no marked gender differences in the rates of severe mental disorders like schizophrenia and bipolar disorder that affect less than 2% of the population." Also take note that the source states, "Violence related mental health problems are also poorly identified."

Nothing I stated above about the literature is my opinion. With regard to "being," researchers state "are." They state that women are more empathetic than males. They don't simply state "show more empathy than males." My use of "being" is right in line with the literature. And "peer-reviewed scientific literature"? Peer review is not the same thing as literature review. If the peer reviewed piece is a primary source, it's a no for me, just like it's generally a no for Wikipedia. And science doubts everything? Eh. If you want to sit here and keep debating in a WP:Not a forum fashion, I repeat that we should not. It is a waste of time, as "we clearly have different lines of thinking on [these matters], and Wikipedia is not the place for debate that is unrelated to improving an article's content." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:10, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello again, I need to remind you of your own words about WP:Not a forum. Sorry, but I am not interested in your personal evaluation of the topic. (And stop trying to convince me otherwise. Unsourced information is an opinion.) I need the sources for your "facts without knowledge". Your "majority of researchers believe" is not a source. You now started to contradict yourself -- first, you used sexual disorders as an argument in favour of "male's higher aggressiveness", now you say that "violence-related mental health problems are also poorly identified". So this is your "clearness". Show me your "literature" or take your own advice and stop wasting your time. Who states that women are more empathic than men? The Terrible Mutant Hamster (talk) 14:31, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I see. So after you went on with your personal evaluation of the topic and unsourced opinions, and I pointed you to WP:Not a forum, you want to try to turn that around on me. Clever. I already pointed to sources to support things like males are more aggressive than females are. And the literature reviews and other sources in the article are clear that women are more empathetic than men are. I already challenged you, with the DSM-5 and WHO source, on mental illness. I haven't contradicted myself in the least, and you misrepresenting what I stated by saying "first, [I] used sexual disorders as an argument in favour of 'male's higher aggressiveness'" doesn't change that. I suggest you either present what you are looking to add in your sandbox and stick to the literature with due weight, or move on. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:29, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Of course I turn it around on you. It was not me who wrote essays about spotted hyenas and their supposed connection with male aggression. I have used sources in brackets for several of my statements. Have you read them? As for mental illnesses, you pointed out that it's not clear how sex affects mental disorders. I agree here. Males tend to mutilate corpses more often than women, but it's not clear what drives them. After all, 99% of people (both sexes) feel horror at the thought of cutting a human corpse into pieces, so this points towards some difference between serial killers and other people. And that difference is mental. Whether the difference is some illness or not, I am not competent to judge.

The source you pointed out is the article by Dr. Campbell. The first thing that should be noted that she is an evolutionary psychologist and presents an evolutionary psychologist's point of view. It should be taken into account because evolutionary psychologists usually don't analyze social factors and use an experimental approach (for example, fMRI studies are experimental), they just use supposed sex/race difference for their fanciful theories. In short, evolutionary psychological articles are theoretical. (Evolutionary biology is not a theory anymore because now it is founded on solid science, such as genetics.) Dr. Campbell's views are criticized here and here. While I am on the side of the critics, I, of course, support Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. So I agree that the majority of evolutionary psychologists support the theory of "male higher aggression and lesser empathy". However, we also need an experimental approach to the topic. Also, non-aggression is not empathy. I still need your "clear literature about women being more emphatic". The theory is not knowledge, so it cannot be clear. The Terrible Mutant Hamster (talk) 21:52, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

"Of course [you] turn it around on [me]."? You are the one who went into "I tend to distinguish historical social roles imposed on males" and "Well, you know women and men significantly differ in their genitalia, and men on average considerably physically stronger than women." talk. No, it was not you who "wrote essays about spotted hyenas and their supposed connection with male aggression." I didn't either since what I stated was not an essay and there is no "supposed connection." Researchers note that female spotted hyenas are as aggressive as they are due to androgens. You can call this speculation, but, considering that there is a link between aggression and androgens (although that link is not as clear as scientists would like it to be) and researchers see the difference in aggression between the sexes with regard to the vast majority of female animals (who are not as aggressive as their male counterparts), it's a solid conclusion that the reason female spotted hyenas are as aggressive as they are is due to androgens. It was you who tried to make it seem as though male aggression can be divorced from biology and can simply be attributed to societal conditioning. That is why I stated, "Males being more aggressive and violent than females are is something that is seen throughout the animal kingdom (which humans are a part of). There are exceptions, such as with the female spotted hyena with regard to aggression and dominance, but female spotted hyenas are masculinized via androgens." As for "males tend to mutilate corpses more often than women, but it's not clear what drives them," my point is that aggression and less empathy, which are found in males significantly more than in females, are linked to violence and criminality. My point is that whatever it is that has contributed to men tending to be more sadistic, including mutilating corpses significantly more often than women do, cannot be attributed societal conditioning. And if one wants to attribute it to a mental disorder, then what mental disorder? And what mental disorder has made it so that significantly more males than females are sadistic? A part of sadism is a lack or absence of empathy. It's not just serial killers who are more sadistic. Males are more sadistic than females are. That statement is not a controversial statement. Nor is it seriously contested in the scholarship. There is no scientist who thinks that males being more sadistic than females are is due to social reasons.

As for evolutionary psychology, when Campbell states that males are more aggressive than females are and that this is especially seen with to regard physical violence, he's not stating anything that numerous other reliable sources, across various fields, do not state. So I see no need to point out that the source is an evolutionary psychology source. What he is saying on that matter is not theoretical. Neither is the sexual coercion among animals aspect that evolutionary psychologists and other researchers look at. With sexual coercion among animals, we see males being the far more aggressive/violent/dominant animal across the animal kingdom. These animals weren't socialized to be that way. It seems that you want to make an exception for humans. Throughout history, it has been shown that human males are not the exception.

I never stated that "non-aggression is not empathy." As for you still needing my "clear literature about women being more emphatic," I'm not going to sit here and list sources that you are aware of, some of which are in the article, especially with you referring to the matter as a theory. That you are hung up on me stating "clear" is something to move on from. It's obvious that by "clear," I am referring to what the literature states over and over again, based on different kinds of research. That you don't see the research as clear because of questions like "Why is this the case?" doesn't change what researchers state on the sex differences in empathy. You know that they don't just state "women show more empathy," but also state that "women are more empathic." What are you hoping for by continuing to discuss everything that we've discussed? If we don't see things exactly the same way and won't, which is clear, why keep discussing it? That's not what Wikipedia is about, when the discussion is not about improving the article. Why not move on to working on material in your sandbox (at your own pace, of course) and us just sticking to what the literature states and giving aspects their appropriate weight? I'm sure we can work out a version that we can both agree on. Again, I'm fine waiting for you to craft material in your sandbox and for us to discuss it once it's done...before the material goes live. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:02, 3 August 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:26, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Of course we should distinguish social roles if we want to find out what makes men "more aggressive". How can you even think about researching human behaviour without paying attention to social influence? You are right about pointing that the connection between androgens and aggression is not clear. But now you again give your own opinion about "the vast majority of female animals" being less aggressive. Source, please! Animals vary greatly in their behaviour: while Deer males use aggression to achieve reproductive success, Lions of both sexes use aggression to protect their territory.

Well, it's not a good idea to discuss mental disorders without understanding what mental disorder is. As I suppose you know, 99% of the human population of both sexes feel repulsion at the thought of mutilating corpses. So there is some difference between serial killers and other people. Perhaps enjoying killing other people is just another form of being. Hope psychiatrists and neurophysiologists will clear it out. And, please, your sources about sadistic behaviour in humans. Once again, we are not here to share personal opinions.

Dr. Campbell is she. Evolutionary psychologists are theoretical. They can't confirm their views by casual linkages. Darwin proposed Natural selection as the key mechanism of evolution and it was confirmed by genetics. Evolutionary psychologists propose some fancy theories to explain the differences in human/animal behaviour. Theories explain nothing. They just propose. And, once again, males are not more aggressive across the animal kingdom. Usually, they show aggression towards each other when competing for a female, while both sexes show aggression when protecting their territory. Females always show aggression when protecting their offspring. So who is more aggressive?

So you're unable to confirm your opinion with anything except evolutionary psychology theory. I am ok with that. Have a nice day. The Terrible Mutant Hamster (talk) 15:23, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Cut out the patronizing tone. As one of the WP:Med editors on this site, I very much understand what mental disorders are. Those mental disorder questions were so that you would get the point about why you were wrong to invoke mental disorders the way you did. And, of course, there were the DSM-5 and WHO sources I used to counter your "mental disorder" line of thinking. You stated that "we are not here to share personal opinions," which is what I have tried to relay to you. From the start, you came to this discussion with personal opinions and things like "I tend to distinguish historical social roles imposed on males (of course soldiers were more aggressive than nurses) and everyday behavior." and "About sexual violence. Well, you know women and men significantly differ in their genitalia, and men on average considerably physically stronger than women." Yes, what the sources say be damned. Red flag from the beginning. No one said a thing about "even thinking about researching human behaviour without paying attention to social influence." I've consistently acknowledged both biological and social influence. Nature and nurture. That's obviously why I stated, "There being biological and social causes (as the vast majority of researchers believe) for why men are more aggressive and less empathic than women are doesn't make the literature any less clear on the fact that human males are more aggressive and less empathic than human females are. Something can be a fact without knowing exactly why it's a fact. Researchers obviously don't always know the exact cause of something." For some aspects of human behavior, there is little or no evidence of social influence being the cause, whatever contribution it may have had, and the stronger evidence in those cases may point to a biological cause. While a social aspect may have contributed to a certain man being sadistic, I repeat that "there is no scientist who thinks that males being more sadistic than females are is due to social reasons." You have consistently indicated that you take an "it's social" approach rather than an "it's biological" approach. So let's not pretend that you are even considering both a biological and social approach. The connection between androgens and aggression is clear enough for researchers to know that there is a link.

I meant to check the gender of Campbell.

Your "males are not more aggressive across the animal kingdom" commentary contradicts what the literature states. Exceptions do not negate the fact that researchers have consistently found males to be more aggressive than females across the animal kingdom. For you to act like this is just an evolutionary psychology theory is beyond disingenuous. Providing a list of sources, as I am known to do on talk pages when challenging editors' assertions, would be a waste of time and would keep this discussion going in the WP:Not a forum direction. And you trying to keep a WP:Not a forum discussion going rather than getting back on topic, after the last paragraph of my previous post attempted to push us back in that direction, just shows me that this discussion is now about WP:WINNING and WP:The last word for you.

Oh, and that additional account you seem to have made to push your POV elsewhere was not a smart move. I've contacted a WP:CheckUser about it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:13, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I am not interested in your personal evaluation of my manners just like I am not interested in your opinion about possible sex differences in aggression/empathy among humans. I asked you for sources repeatedly and all I got is the evolutionary psychologist's opinion. I tried to explain what evolutionary psychologists' model of "research" is. Looks like I failed. However, I gonna mention evolutionary psychologist's opinion about supposed sex differences. I also gonna mention fMRI results which are contradictory and considered not reliable because of minuscule samples. I also gonna mention self-report approach which shows that women on average have higher opinion about their empathy than males. Finally, I gonna mention the large sample study that reported no significant sex difference in empathy and which is considered the "first large-scale study assessing sex differences and gender roles in empathy and moral cognition". (this one) Looks like your claim about the "majority of scientists who believe in higher female empathy" is a bit unfounded.

I agree that I was wrong when I didn't mention that it's not only me who "tend to distinguish historical social roles imposed on males and everyday behavior." My fault. However your "majority of scientists" looks like just a fantasy as you're unable to source this claim. Where is your clearness? Who is clear about it? All your answers are your personal claims. "The connection between androgens and aggression is clear for researchers to know that there is a link." SOURCE??? Btw, you know what causal link means? For example, the is a confirmed causal link between testosterone and male patterned baldness. ([1]) Testosterone causes baldness, but baldness doesn't raise testosterone level. This is an example of a causal link. I don't know what research confirms the causal link between androgens and aggression. Can you please show me one?

My approach is sceptical. I see no evidence of biological causes in "men higher aggression and lesser empathy". Evolutionary psychologists are unable to provide the evidence. They only provide theories. Who are your researchers who "have consistently found males to be more aggressive than females across the animal kingdom"? Why do you spend so much time typing the texts I don't appreciate instead of providing a couple of links?

I am really sorry our talk turned into a row, but claiming I have an additional account is also not smart. At least give me a link to that account if you can't give me the sources. The Terrible Mutant Hamster (talk) 20:10, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

More of the same. And you are uncharacteristically more active today. I care not about what evidence you see; I care about reporting the literature in accordance with our policies and guidelines. If your "sceptical" approach interferes with Wikipedia, that will be a problem and it will likely lead to me reporting you at an appropriate noticeboard. I've made it perfectly clear to you why primary sources should be avoided, no matter how big the study is. You should not frame anything in Wikipedia articles that is not explicitly supported by the sources. You should not use any primary source to try to contradict a review of the literature, and that includes any review on fMRI results. Either way, after this paragraph, I'm not repeating myself again on how Wikipedia is supposed to work or on how your claims are contradicted by the general literature (including some literature already sourced in this article), what you deem to term "popular literature." Otherwise, this discussion will keep going and going. I've already been clear that "providing a list of sources, as I am known to do on talk pages when challenging editors' assertions, would be a waste of time [in this case] and would keep this discussion going in the WP:Not a forum direction." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:21, 4 August 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:43, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

What a shame! You now started to behave just like a snitch during the Soviet Era. Our talk is over. All my edits will be done without consulting you. Goodbye and think about your behavior. The Terrible Mutant Hamster (talk) 20:30, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

And your edits will be reverted if they don't adhere to what I stated above, including what I stated in my "More of the same" post. Doc James will be there to review and revert. And If I have to bring in other editors from WP:Med or elsewhere, they will also revert any problems with the text you add. It seems you are saying that if I revert you, no discussion is to be had. Good, because I've stated all that I need to state above. And if you WP:Edit war, you will be reported. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:43, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Reviewing is exactly what I need. Actually, it was the reason I started discussing the sources with you. Never imagined it would turn this bad. Also, remember Wikipedia policy applies to all, including you. Your edits and reverts are also may be reported. Cheers, The Terrible Mutant Hamster (talk) 20:54, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

"Reviewing is exactly what [you] need", and yet you engaged in the problematic editing you engaged in, which is why I started this discussion. Hmm. I'm sure that any report you make in regard to me will be futile. The only thing you will be reporting me for is following our policies and guidelines. Quite a lot of primary sourcing I need to cut from this article. WP:Synthesis as well. Just like I did with your addition. And since there would be more than one person reverting you if you add problematic material again, I very much doubt that reporting me for edit warring will be productive. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:05, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Stop trying to harass me. I had (and still have) doubts about the sources and I hoped that your sources would help me, but our discussion proved futile. If you start Edit war, I'll be the first to report and ask assistance. Goodbye, The Terrible Mutant Hamster (talk) 21:38, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

You do not understand WP:Harassment. I have nothing further to state to you on this matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:51, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Hamster, I have now read this entire exchange. Flyer is correct. We hold to WP:MEDRS on these things. It is clear to me that you are starting from a preferred conclusion and evaluating the evidence on that basis. As a side point, evolutionary psychology is a legitimate theoretical perspective, as others are. That does not mean it is beyond critique, but it is not worthless as you seem to think. Many of your talking points are decades old and discredited, created to push the outdated "blank slate" view of the mind. I would like to point out too that your use of animal examples is fallacious. You cannot compare animals being aggressive to kill prey or defend territory to aggession toward others of one's own species. In the vast majority of species, males engage in the latter far more than females. The same is true across human cultures. -Crossroads- (talk) 01:38, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello! I got my conclusion from meta-reviews, not from my head. I used sources. Actually, I have started to exchange sources with Flyer, but it didn't go well. Which of my points "are decades old"? Also, it was Flyer who introduced an animal example. What are your sources about "males engage in the aggression towards each other far more than females"? Once again, unsourced information is only an opinion. The Terrible Mutant Hamster (talk) 01:58, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Here are the secondary sources that contradict or question the "females are more emphatic" theory: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. What is the problem with them?! And I didn't say that evolutionary psychologic approach is not worth mentioning, I just pointed out that it's purely theoretical. The Terrible Mutant Hamster (talk) 02:20, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Theory and empirical section

I would propose to put this section in the following order: (1) Neural and psychological basis (2) Connection between empathy and helping (3) Factors that influence empathy (4) Certain special context --Benteziegen (talk) 13:06, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

What I just realized: many of the topics in the sub-section closely correspond to other main sections. In fact, many topic appear in different sections of the article. Is there a reason for this structure?--Benteziegen (talk) 13:08, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

My last change (Feb 5th) related to the points mentioned above. I have primarily edited the structure, i.e. brought the article into a new order. The article was chaotic, the same points were discussed in different places. Sometimes things were said in different formulations in different chapters (development, science...). Redundancies here and there. I brought order in, summarized aspects and partly reformulated. I did not change anything about citation style. --Benteziegen (talk) 13:28, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

As you know, I reverted your edit. I'm not fully clear on how your setup is superior to the current setup. Maybe show what your version will look like in your sandbox and link to your version here? Also, it looked to me like you added sources. Sources for this topic should be WP:MEDRS-complaint. Read WP:MEDRS for what I mean. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:28, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Done: User:Benteziegen/sandbox --Benteziegen (talk) 11:45, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Looking at your sandbox and the current version side by side, I'm not sure. Some things, such as the "Empathy in other animals" section, in your sandbox stand out as pieces that should remain where they are in the article. Per WP:MEDMOS, we keep the "Other animals" section lower. I'll see about having WP:Med take a look. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:59, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

We can certainly discuss about specific points. I figured it would make sense to create one "development" section and include the comparitive biology/other animals part in the phylogenetics sub-section, the development in the human individual in ontogenesis. Other than that: I don't really see your reason for pointing to those medicine pages. I don't consider this a medicine topic. With respect to structure but also with respect to sources. I have followed the way I found in the article. And those sources that I added basically refer to philosophy, psychology and neuroscience texts - not medical literature. --Benteziegen (talk) 23:21, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Psychology and neuroscience are aspects of the medical field. Even distress, which the article also covers, is a medical topic. These are aspects of human health, such as mental disorders. WP:MEDRS states that Wikipedia "is widely used among those seeking health information. For this reason, all biomedical information must be based on reliable, third-party published secondary sources, and must accurately reflect current knowledge." The WP:Biomedical information page states, "Biomedical information is information that relates to (or could reasonably be perceived as relating to) human health." The Empathy article deals with a number of medical/health topics, ranging from autism, borderline personality disorder, schizophrenia, psychopathy, and so on. All of that obviously concerns mental health. The entire "Impairment in psychopathology" section is about medical matters. That section stating "Autism spectrum disorders have been associated with various combinations, including deficits in cognitive empathy as well as deficits in both cognitive and affective empathy." is absolutely a medical matter and is absolutely something that should be supported by WP:MEDRS-compliant sources. How are you not seeing empathy as a medical topic? This talk page is not tagged with WP:Med above, but that doesn't make the medical/health aspects of the article any less a WP:MEDRS matter. Philosophical stuff doesn't need to be WP:MEDRS-compliant. Looking at the WikiProject tags above, WP:WikiProject Cognitive science is semi-active, WP:WikiProject Autism is inactive and WP:WikiProject Psychology usually doesn't pull in any help when contacted; that project is pretty much inactive as well. So, since this article covers so much medical/health material and WP:MEDRS should be adhered to in that case, I contacted WP:Med. Since no one from WP:Med has yet weighed in, I will contact WP:Neuroscience, which is related to WP:Med. If no one weighs in after that, then it will just be you and me working out some sort of format. WP:WikiProject Spirituality and WP:WikiProject Philosophy are the other two WikiProjects, but WikiProject Spirituality is also semi-active and I don't see that contacting those two projects will be benefit this discusion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:16, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you on the fact that this article does cover medical issues. Especially the section about impairments in psychopathology is medical in a strict sense. However, empathy as it is covered in the article is a topic for various disciplines in science and humanities. To me, it seems like medical aspects are only a minor proportion of the article. And I did not really touch these. If there are issues in these sections, they have been there before my editing. I regard neuroscience and psychology as distinct fields in science that have overlap with, but are not sub-disciplines of medicine. This applies even more to the fields of anthropology, evolutionary biology, philosophy and cultural science, which (as it seems to me) cover the major part of the article. Well, let's move on to the article. I offered this draft version and we should discuss what is an improvement and what isn't. If you think it's important that the animal part is further down, then that's what we do.--Benteziegen (talk) 11:58, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Obviously, empathy is not only a medical topic. If it were, it wouldn't be tagged with WP:WikiProject Spirituality and WP:WikiProject Philosophy among the other WikiProjects it's tagged with. But I don't see it as only having a small relation to medicine/health, and I'm not seeing medical/health aspects only being a minor proportion of the article. Either way, WP:MEDRS covers biomedical information, which is information "that relates to (or could reasonably be perceived as relating to) human health." Exceptions to WP:MEDRS are things like history, society and culture, and other things mentioned as exceptions at WP:Biomedical information. How the human brain works and matters that impact it are a medical/health matter. If one is philosophizing about the brain, that's different. If one is making an anatomical claim, medical or health claim, the content needs to be WP:MEDRS-compliant...unless it's framed purely as a philosophical or cultural belief. Even a theory might need to adhere to WP:MEDRS. The Medicine article includes neuroscience as a branch of medicine because it is one...in a sense. Like the Neurology article currently states, "Neurological practice relies heavily on the field of neuroscience, the scientific study of the nervous system." Like this 2012 "Second Language Teaching: A View from the Right Side of the Brain" source, from Springer Science & Business Media, page 22, states, "Neurology: is the branch of medicine that studies the nervous system and its diseases." And like this 2000 "Integrative Neuroscience: Bringing Together Biological, Psychological and Clinical Models of the Human Brain" source, from CRC Press, page 211, states, "Second, psychiatry is a branch of medicine, in particular it uses the methods and shares the models of neurology." Even in our anatomy articles, we try to stick to WP:MEDRS-compliant sources as best we can. Anatomy (as also mentioned in the Medicine article) is a branch of medicine as well, which is why WP:MEDSECTIONS has a section on it. And I mentioned psychology as being an aspect of medicine because of what sources like the "Integrative Neuroscience" source state, and because of its overlap with psychiatry. I mean, clinical psychology is clearly a medical/health topic. No one from WP:Med or WP:Neuroscience coming to weigh in on this or the article format is just one reason why I miss Jytdog, a former Wikipedia/WP:Med editor who didn't stick to strictly medical topics. When it comes to brain topics, he was also about sticking to WP:MEDRS-compliant sources at the Neuroscience of sex differences article.

Moving on to your article format... One issue I have with it is that you created one huge "Scientific research on empathy" section, meaning that it comprises the vast majority of the article since most of the article concerns scientific research. Yes, it would comprise most of the article regardless. Obviously. But there is no need to have a "Scientific research on empathy" title and to then have the section consist of so many subheadings. By the headings alone, it goes without stating that most of this topic is scientific. It makes more sense to me to not have a "Scientific research on empathy" heading. Taking that away, which section things best fit in is something to ponder. Why did you move "Somatic" out of the "Classification and types of empathy" section? Is it because the section begins by stating "Empathy is generally divided into two major components"? And where did you move the material? Is it still in the article? The version before your edit has a section titled "Major theories and empirical findings." Why do you feel that we shouldn't go with that heading? You changed the title to "Current debates and empirical findings" and moved some content out of it. Why did you move the "Gender differences," "Educational contexts," "Intercultural contexts" and "Developmental and environmental influences" subsections out of it? Well, I understand why you moved the "Developmental and environmental influences" subsection to the "Development of empathy" section, but developmental and environmental influences do concern theories. If we are not to go with the "Scientific research on empathy" heading, then the "Current debates" aspect of the "Current debates and empirical findings" heading isn't clear that we mean "scientific debates" since there are other types of debates concerning the topic. That stated, I'm not suggesting that the title should be "Current debates and empirical findings." "Current" is WP:Dated wording. I'm questioning why we shouldn't continue to go with the "Major theories and empirical findings" heading. If any content under that heading isn't a major theory, it can be moved. You've also unnecessarily lengthened some headings; going with "Influence of empathy on helping behavior" is simpler and than going with "From empathy to action: influence of empathy on helping behavior." As for the "Other animals" section, well, even before your edit, there was already an "Evolutionary development across species" section that should be merged with the "Other animals" section.

And it's not just changes to the article format. You added material that equals 2,520 characters. What are you adding? Sources? If so, what sources? Text and sources? Comparing the article's References section before your edit to after your edit, you clearly added sources. Before your edit, there are 213 references. After your edit, there are 220 references. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:39, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Looks like we just have a different definition in mind for what counts as "medicine". You being broad and me being narrow. That neurological practice relies heavily on the field of neuroscience doen't lump neuroscience with medicine. Neurology is a medicial dicipline, neuroscience isn't. Speaking generally: while (human) biology informs and underlies medicine, it is not part of medicine. And clinical psychology is a sub-dicipline of psychology that overlaps with psychiatry, aka medicine. However, environmental psychology or industrial and organizational psychology don't, although they might study empathy in various ways. In my understanding: psychology ≠ medicine. Anyhow, I think there might be no right or wrong. And it might not be fruitful to argue about definitional issues. Let's move on to the article as it is...

"Current debates and empirical findings" might be a stupid title. However, "Major theories and empirical findings" isn't much better: it just doesn't reflect the content. It might cover "empirical findings" - but not more than the rest of the article. And it's certainly not about "major theories"! Maybe we should opt for a totally different title or integrate the content somewhere eles. As it is right now, there are 6 subsection that are neither "major theories" on empathy nor do they stick out in terms of "empirical findings". For instance: why should "Developmental and environmental influences" appear there and not in "Development of empathy"? Why sould there be a subsection "5.3 Gender differences" and a separate main section "7 Individual differences"? The subsections 5.4 and 5.5 are clearly about applied research, still they appear in "Major theories and empirical findings" while we also have "6 Applications" and "11 Practical issues". Why is "8 Genetics" a separate section and is not classified under 4 or 5? And I did not include "somatic empathy" in the top-classification because empathy is usually divided into "affective" and "cognitive", with somatic aspects being included in the former. And although I did include sources, these should not conflict with WP:MEDRS as I read it.--Benteziegen (talk) 11:46, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't see it as a broad vs. narrow matter; I see it as a matter of what reliable sources state and what the fields cover. That neuroscience is both a biology and medical/health topic is mentioned in reliable sources. You stated, "Neurology is a medicial dicipline, neuroscience isn't." And yet, whether we want to call it a branch or sub-discipline of medicine, or neither, clinical neuroscience (also known as medical neuroscience) is a medical topic, which is why sources like this 2005 "Medical Neuroscience" source, from Hayes Barton Press, exist and the "About this book" piece on Google Books states, "Medical Neuroscience provides medical students with sufficient understanding of the nervous system by distilling from neuroscience those elements that have significance for the practicing clinician." It's why the "About this book" piece of this 2011 "Clinical Neuroscience: Psychopathology and the Brain" source, from Oxford University Press, states, "Clinical Neuroscience informs students of relevant neurobiological foundations of various mental illnesses." I'm not considering neuroscience an of aspect medicine on personal opinion, but rather because of the numerous medical aspects it covers...supported by reliable medical sources and other academic sources. Yes, I also see it as a common sense issue, but, although the WP:Common sense supplement page exists, I try not to argue solely from a common sense matter on Wikipedia. You stated, "Speaking generally: while (human) biology informs and underlies medicine, it is not part of medicine." But Genetics (a branch of biology), for example, is directly a branch of medicine. I suppose, if one wanted to be specific, they would state "medical genetics" instead of "genetics." But our Medicine Wikipedia article currently lists Genetics under the "Basic sciences" subsection, and the Genetics article is tagged as being within the scope of WP:Med. Anyway, our debate on definitions reminds me of the genomics debate. Like this 2009 "Essentials of Genomic and Personalized Medicine" source, from Academic Press, page 2, states, "To some, genetics is a subfield of genomics; to others, genomics is a subfield of genetics. Arguably, depending on the perspective one has in mind, both may be right!" And any case, like I stated, "If one is making an anatomical claim, medical or health claim, the content needs to be WP:MEDRS-compliant...unless it's framed purely as a philosophical or cultural belief." An article could be about sports, but if it is making a health claim, that claim should be supported by a WP:MEDRS-compliant source, unless it's social commentary stuff on health...such as social commentary about how dangerous American football is.

The headings... Maybe "Major theories and empirical findings" isn't much better than "Current debates and empirical findings," but I do see it as a better title. It's just a matter of accurately fitting content in it. As for a third option, what title do you suggest? I noted that I understand why you moved "Developmental and environmental influences" to "Development of empathy," but do you see none of the material as theoretical? The section relays, in part, "Many theorize that environmental factors, such as parenting style and relationships, play a significant role in the development of empathy in children." That stated, "major theory" is not the same as "theory" and that part is currently unsourced. I don't get what you mean by "Why s[h]ould there be a subsection '5.3 Gender differences' and a separate main section '7 Individual differences'"? "Gender differences" is a subsection under both versions (the current version and your version). Do you think it shouldn't be a subsection at all? I don't see the issue with "Individual differences" being a standalone section, but I understand why you made "Individual differences" a main heading and created an "Empathy as a personality trait" subheading and moved "Gender differences" under the "Individual differences" heading as well. Good point about the "Genetics" section. Maybe we need to work in your sandbox together? I can try a setup and see what you think, and then we can comment on it on that sandbox's talk page...or rather this one so that the work will be forever documented and readily available for others to see (meaning when they check the archives)?

As for sources you added, which ones did you add? And did you add any text? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:29, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I like this quote "Arguably, depending on the perspective one has in mind, both may be right!" - maybe we can settle this dispute on definitions with that. About the "Theory + empirical findings" section: does it make sense to integrate the content in other parts of the article. I don't see how this section, as it is, is unique and outstanding. Pretty much the whole article is about theory + empirical findings. And: I basically added the subsection 5.5.2 "Affective isomorphism..." with text and sources --Benteziegen (talk) 13:40, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Sure. Show me what you have in mind in your sandbox? Also, do you mind me editing your sandbox to try some different versions and see what we agree on as a format? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:37, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Ok, go ahead. You can edit the sandbox.--Benteziegen (talk) 09:25, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Okay. I will edit the material once I'm logged out of Wikipedia and am not distracted by other articles. I won't save my changes to the sandbox until after I've completed all of the changes (which will include WP:Tone fixes as well). The saving will go on my computer before I save the final version to your sandbox. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:19, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I am totally fine with you editing my sandbox, but then again: doesn't it make sense to move the draft to the real article. First of all, our work remains tracable and transparent in the long term. And above all: if other users make changes to the actual article in parallel (which is already happening), at some point we will hardly have a chance to merge both versions.--Benteziegen (talk) 13:49, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

We disagree on the draft. So it's best not to implement and work on it live. As for editors being able to see what was done, they will know, per this talk page, that the draft is a version that came from your subpage. Draft edits do not necessarily need to be saved. As seen with Talk:Star Wars: The Last Jedi/Archive audience response, what we discussed on the talk page was preserved, but the edit history of the draft was not. Also, this article is not highly edited; so I won't have to worry about smoothly merging the draft with the recent edits. And either way, merging wouldn't be an issue for me. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:12, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Benteziegen, sorry for taking so long. I've been getting sidetracked on this matter. I will get on with it soon. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:10, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Flyer22, are you done with your work on the draft/sandbox?--Benteziegen (talk) 21:24, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Will present it after this weekend. Again, sorry for the long wait. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:56, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Spent part of the weekend working this, as noted on that article's talk page. Will now move on to the empathy matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:52, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I had wanted to add sourcing for the material and to tweak wording; that's part of why it's taken me so long. Instead, I'm just going to focus on the the rearrangement for now. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:14, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

What do you think how long it will take you? Cause I'd really like to make this move soon. Before I'm completely out of the topic.--Benteziegen (talk) 11:47, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

If you don't have anything to add to the sandbox, I'd start to merge the content to the article.--Benteziegen (talk) 13:46, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

What I stated on your talk page is true. When I kept giving a time range, it kept being extended. But I am working the matter now. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:29, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Benteziegen, what do you feel is the best title for "Major theories and empirical findings"? Or do you think some of the material needs its own section? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:24, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

We should do away with this section and integrate the content elsewhere. The whole article is about "Major theories and empirical findings". It makes no sense to single these out.--Benteziegen (talk) 11:10, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

A lot of the article is not about theories, though. That's why I'm wondering about retaining a section called "Theories" and then listing what the theories are. What is a "major theory," however, is WP:OR unless I have source for it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:57, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Fine with me.--Benteziegen (talk) 08:44, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

No changes since March. If you don't object, I'd move the content of the sandbox to the article.--Benteziegen (talk) 08:50, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

The current sandbox version isn't the version I'm looking to implement. It's the same material from before. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:04, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Did we misunderstand each other at this point? I assumed that you wanted to change this sandbox version. You reset my changes earlier this year. We then agreed to save my version in the sandbox. You wanted to change the things you didn't like about my version. Nothing has been changed since March. I asked you about it in March, and your answer was: Benteziegen, sorry for taking so long. I've been getting sidetracked on this matter. I will get on with it soon. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:10, 11 March 2019 (UTC). Again, I brought this point up in April, and you answered Will present it after this weekend. Again, sorry for the long wait. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:56, 6 April 2019 (UTC) And so it went. What's the point of this?--Benteziegen (talk) 12:53, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

The point is to implement a version I've been working on off Wikipedia into your sandbox and then implement that version into the article. My mistake was trying to put a time limit on the matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:04, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

What is the point of you working offline on your private version of the article. Which you may - or may not - include in my sandbox?! At some point in the distant future. Wouldn't it make more sense to do the changes in the sandbox straight away. And collaborate on the draft.--Benteziegen (talk) 21:48, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Go back up to my "17:19, 24 February 2019 (UTC)" post above. I stated, "I will edit the material once I'm logged out of Wikipedia and am not distracted by other articles. I won't save my changes to the sandbox until after I've completed all of the changes (which will include WP:Tone fixes as well). The saving will go on my computer before I save the final version to your sandbox." You essentially agreed to this. You certainly did not object to it. And the point is the following: I disagree with implementing the version in your sandbox as is. We have been over why. You agreed to me making changes that I disagree with. I prefer to work offline on Wikipedia articles so that I'm not distracted by other articles and other Wikipedia issues. I am a very active Wikipedia editor who has many articles on my watchlist and is always getting WP:Notifications. It is much easier to work on the changes offline. I thought I was clear that once I made the changes, I would add them to your sandbox and we would discuss if you were okay with them. You could then obviously tweak anything you feel needs tweaking or discuss with me things you would like to see changed. This would be us collaborating on it before it goes live. Like I stated, "My mistake was trying to put a time limit on the matter." If you want me to add what I have thus far to your sandbox and us to edit it that way, I can do that. But it's not the finished product and what we debated was a sourcing and format change. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:09, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

I essentially agreed to this, but at that time I figured it would be a matter of days, or let's say weeks. That's the impression you gave me. In fact I would think it's best if you upload the version you have so far to the sandbox and we both work on this issues.--Benteziegen (talk) 13:42, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

So? What do you think?--Benteziegen (talk) 10:09, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Benteziegen, what do you think of this format I made with this edit? Are you mainly or completely okay with it? Any suggestions for changes? As you can see, the "Major theories and empirical findings" heading is gone. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:42, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Okay. I was just scanning it. Did you integrate the theory section into other parts or just delete it completely? --Benteziegen (talk) 18:21, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Integrated. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:34, 26 September 2019 (UTC)