Sunday, August 11, 2013

A New Floor (You Need 'Em Whenever You Hit Bottom)

"It's the hard knock life for us 
It's the hard knock life for us! 
Instead of treated, we get tricked 
Instead of kisses, we get kicked 
It's the hard knock life!"

Snoop Dogg would've worked, too - blacks had this all figured out centuries ago:
People have more empathy for abused puppies and dogs than they do for adult humans who have been abused, a new study suggests. 
However, empathy for abused children was about the same as that for puppies and dogs, the study found. 
Researchers surveyed 240 college students and asked them to read one of four versions of a fictional news article about a brutal beating. The wording in articles was the same, except for the identity of the victim, which was either: an infant, an adult in his 30s, a puppy or a 6-year old dog. Participants then rated their level of empathy for the victim. 
Participants had higher levels of empathy for the abused child, puppy and dog than they did for the abused adult, the study found. 
The researchers had hypothesized that younger victims would receive more empathy, regardless of species. Instead, they found "Age makes a difference for empathy toward human victims, but not for dog victims," the researchers wrote in their study abstract, which will be presented this week at the American Sociological Association meeting in New York.

It even explains Rodney Allen Rippy.

So, the next time you see Ann Althouse and Meade, out walking someone else's dogs - how nice - ask 'em how their black friend with the bulging discs and horrible tale of abuse is doing, and how they reacted to his pain, and resulting desire for a little less discretion regarding the truth. 


They'll probably look flustered, hand you a kibble, and keep going,...
 

11 comments:

  1. Women in the study were more empathetic than men towards human and animal victims. Studies show that women are generally more empathetic than men, Levin said. "The reason may be partially biological, given the role of females in childbirth and childrearing activities," he said.

    Because the new study involved only college-age students, it's not clear if the results apply to people who are significantly older or younger.


    The research "science" sounds a little new agey, don't you think?

    ReplyDelete
  2. "They'll probably look flustered, hand you a kibble, and keep going,... "

    The truth is I was one of your first readers to offer you real sympathy and advice with dealing with your hiccups. A dog would've at least wagged his tail a little to show his, you know, gratitude.

    "How nice" seems sort of sarcastic and hostile, Troy. How do you know that the dogs I walk don't belong to people who have fallen on hard times - injured their backs, had spouses leave them, etc.? Maybe you should think about dropping the macho pose and instead try to muster up a little empathy.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Funny you should bring this up, as I'm into dogs and horses (and one cat, but he doesn't count here).

    A lot of what I see, with the dogs especially, is a misplaced altruism of a pathological (or close to it) nature. Such altruism becomes something that is very far from altruism. And after seeing it for so many years, I'd make an unprofessional's diagnosis that it has a lot to do with "fixing" something else's "problem" in order to avoid fixing oneself. I've seen the same behavior exhibited in social work volunteers and social justice action groups at the college (I'm not into those, but the work place caused me to run into such things daily -- they were nearly always about as useful, when it came to the actual work that was to be done, as tits on a boar).

    In short, the reason why the local dog club gets swamped every year at this time has to do with people rushing out and "rescuing" the poor, little pound puppy when in reality the real issue is what's going on inside of them; that "rescue" isn't really about the dog, it's all about the person, all about the "me" -- and society is condoning, cheering on this dysfunction when they really shouldn't.
    (right now pit bulls are the rescue de jour, and it's a nightmare -- I like pits, but there's all sorts of wrong going on in the rescue of them -- to the point that nothing is really getting rescued -- yes, the majority of clients are college age women...sometimes their boyfriends, who heh, don't really act like men, at least insofar as I was led to believe men should act; trouble usually starts brewing between the two of them at about week 3)

    PW

    *and I've always made it a habit of treating people like I do my horses and dogs (well, to a point -- I can't swat people with a rolled up newspaper no matter how much I'd like to sometimes), then again, I believe in giving my dogs and horses as fair a break as I can; it is after all my responsibility to make sure they know the ins and outs of the relationship while allowing them their part, I cannot, must not take away their intrinsic nature from them, I have to let their individual temperment come out if the work is to be any good (and yes, I do believe they need work, a job, an outlet, a meeting place with me) -- if they fall short in this or their selves shut down, that reflects rather poorly on me now doesn't it?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Ann and Meade are the two most incredible people I've ever encountered:

    THEY'RE NEVER WRONG!

    Every word out of their mouths is gospel truth, and they beam sunshine out their assholes.

    While calling everyone "losers".

    And they think I won't notice.

    Two simple-minded passive-aggressive fucks.

    Fuck you, Meade.

    Just fuck you.

    ReplyDelete
  5. You mistreat me the way some people mistreat dogs.

    And that is racist of you.

    ReplyDelete
  6. To keep with the dog theme:

    As an outside observer with no dog in the fight...Mr. Althouse, you and your wife did take big old dumps on a lot of people's floors by calling them losers (which was unwarranted and rhetorical suicide, but I digress)...which you aggravated by getting pissy with them for having their hackles up later in another post (which had some good points, but by this time you'd screwed the pooch one too many times, so your readers appeared to bite the hand that fed them, when in reality you should never jerk a hound's chain too often).

    And now that I've had my fun...seriously, what harm could there be in a simple, heartfelt "I'm sorry; I was wrong" for all of this, with the knowledge that they may say "fuck you" and hey, fair enough if they do? Empathy works all sorts of ways, levels, and all sides of the street.

    Just an idea from the peanut gallery.

    PW

    ReplyDelete
  7. PW, why do you address me as "Mr. Althouse"?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Isn't Ann Althouse your wife?
    Therefore: Meade and Ann Althouse?
    So therefore: Mr. Althouse (I'm not using "Meade" because I don't know you in the sense you've been to my house and hung out with me and shit).

    PW

    ReplyDelete
  9. But back to topic: I realize you've been sticking up for you wife -- that's a noble thing and all, and I can respect the notion...but have you ever considered maybe going to her and saying "hey, baby, maybe we should apologize?". Defending the people you love is great and shit, but if they are in the wrong, then maybe it's not a good idea to let it persist.
    You did step on some people when they didn't deserve to be stepped on; calling them losers was bullshit and unnecessary -- continuing with it was even more bullshit and unnecessary. Of course they were going to get pissed off.

    Just a thought, again.

    PW

    ReplyDelete

COMMENTS ARE BACK ON