Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) apply to all other comments.
**Do you have an academic degree?** We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. [Click here to apply](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/flair/#wiki_science_verified_user_program).
---
User: u/giuliomagnifico
Permalink: https://www.jcu.edu.au/news/releases/2024/june/animal-empathy-differs-among-men
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
On one hand I agree, but on the other hand, I don't think we needed any survey at all to know that the premise of this was true... Pet owners are more likely to empathize with animals than professional meat producers. It might as well say "Research shows that sky is, on average, higher than ocean."
As a former hog,cattle farmer I can say that this is true. The livestock were not in the same category as my dog however we did treat the animals as well as was possible. Cattle in particular can have about as good a life as most any animal can even at large scales. Commercial hog operations are about as poor of conditions for animals I have seen but we did it small scale and they were as happy as a pig in mud. We even tried free ranging them for a while. It works if you have few people around.
Just because something feels obvious intuitively doesn't mean it's true empirically. Someone has to go do those studies to verify if those things are true. Just like people have gone out and actually figured out that the sky is "higher" than the ocean (which is actually only true from a certain perspective, which we would not know if not for scientists testing "basic" ideas).
Thanks, we definitely needed research to figure out *checks notes*… people with pets typically like animals more than those without pets.
edit: **typically** - adverb - definition - "in most cases" synonyms; usually, generally, commonly, ordinarily...
Edit part 2: some of you need to spend either a lot less or a lot more time in this sub… reading comprehension is important. Practice it before commenting.
Some people don't have pets because they are aware of their own limitations in rendering the level of care those animals deserve. On the other hand, there's no shortage of openly abusive or negligent dog owners.
Explain people who own fighting dogs? Or who abuse their pets. How does this study or your core assumption fit that reality?
How does it fit the reality of how cruel it is to breed certain breeds of dog? How can you be empathetic yet willingly feed demand for dogs like pugs? Or how about the reality that most Americans treat their pets like disposable emotional service slaves? How is cutting your dogs balls off “for his own good” rather than live as he was born to live?
People on average treat their pets worse than the typical smallholder farmer around the globe treats their animals.
Glad that someone figured out that there isn't a cliff at the "end" of the ocean because that seemed so obvious to the generations of humans before they actually went and tested that idea.
This is a basic cross-sectional design that has been peer-reviewed. I'd say an N of 91 is appropriate for a survey like this. The concern would be sampling, but no single study is going to be able to get a perfectly representative sample, so it's overly simplistic to write it off as, "This one study isn't conclusive." Sure, that's true of all scientific studies, hence the need for differing kinds of replication. But that doesn't make the reported results invalid.
I'm not going to respond to everyone, so I'll make a new comment chain. It's good practice for us to test hypotheses, even if we "know" something. There have been numerous cases where the commonly accepted thought was wrong, so it's best to test.
>As expected, AE levels differed significantly between groups, with those in the pet ownership experience group demonstrating higher AE levels than the other two groups [low experience/farmers].
For example, for a bit of nuance, this article isn't actually about pet owners and non-pet owners, but about people with pet ownership experience versus people with low pet ownership experience and farmers.
>idea that not all experiences are worth the same, with the responsibility and sacrifice involved in pet caring appearing to be most influential to the development of [animal empathy]
I'm not going to read more than the abstract today, but this bit seems to go on to suggest that simply living in a house with a pet isn't enough, you have to actually care for it to be associated with higher animal empathy (which they define in the first sentence as human empathy towards non-human animals).
>this bit seems to go on to suggest that simply living in a house with a pet isn't enough, you have to actually care for it to be associated with higher animal empathy
I bet it's the same for kids. Caring for kids is not the same as being a parent.
All of this just sounds like, "people are more likely to grow attached to family members than food." It's great that they've proven this is true when you are eating animals as well as when you are a cannibal, but it's still something that we already knew pretty well.
I'll bet you could get the same result with a houseplant vs. a corn crop. This isn't really something we need proved.
Is that not normal for this sub?
Everytime something interesting from this sub pops up in my feed, I read the paper then read the comments. It’s like 90% of commentators don’t know how scientific studies work. People always seem to think everything is black and white, when that is never the case.
Yes, you're entirely right; these types of studies are absolutely scientifically useful and their importance should not be downplayed. But to be fair, this sub, or Reddit in general, isn't necessarily the place for studies in which the data strongly supports the common-sense expectation, especially in the social sciences. Reddit, at its core, is a social media platform based around entertainment and news. This sort of study isn't particularly entertaining or newsworthy, as it merely confirms naive expectations in a non-controversial way regarding a topic that isn't really at the forefront of the public consciousness.
Smoking was healthy, or at worst neutral. Beating kids doesn't cause any long-term harm to them and is a good disciplinary tool. Women are not as intelligent as men.
The Earth is round. The sun is the center of the solar system. Disease is caused by microscopic organisms.
It used to be "obvious" that the earth was flat, the center of the universe, and that disease was caused by angry spirits.
Just to be clear, even the classical world knew the Earth wasn't flat. Any ocean-faring civilisation would figure that out pretty quickly just based on the horizon. Flat-earthers are actually a fairly modern phenomenon, like 18th-century+.
How, exactly, did men's empathy find such a thing? Is my empathy alone capable of finding things out, or is it only the collective empathy of men which is capable of investigation and finding?
Increasingly, the comments around this subreddit seem to include a lot of people going "uh, *yeah obviously*, why did you do a study for that?"
And I just... I need you all to stop. Please. Studies on things that are "obvious" are still valuable. Having more information, clearer numbers, or even just updating things we "know" as time moves on and society changes, that's all useful. Also, often (though not in this particular case) these studies come from students or newer researches publishing something for the first time. Small steps toward adding to the sum total of human knowledge.
And you know how most papers reference at least like 20 others during their research? Well you never know what crossover relevance stuff will have for other things in the future.
And it's quite sad to see that on a science subreddit. Yes, this sub is very deep in "popular science" territory at this point, but that's bound to happen given the "eternal September" state of reddit.
I like to explain it a different way. Yes it's "obvious", but the reason why it actually happens may be obvious, and understanding the mechanics of it is the other half.
For example, it's obvious that when you drop an apple, it falls to the ground. But for a long time, it wasn't understood why, so when more research was done turns out that gravity is actually incredibly complicated for how it interacts with other physics.
Studies on things that are obvious are indeed valuable, but at this point I'd argue we have ample evidence that people feel differently about anything – people, animals, plants, toys – that they perceive as part of their family vs. what they plan to eat.
Honestly, try to imagine the counter-intuitive result of this study, that all humans, regardless of experience, have the same level of empathy for animals, or that humans who have the least experience with animals in their family are more empathic to them than humans who have spent years taking care of an animal. That would be madness. It would strike you as so impossible, so counter to your lived experience that you would reject it outright.
People who have lived with a dog have more empathy for them than people who have never lived with a dog? Yes. Also true of dolls. The degree that people empathize with dogs depends on the length and intensity of their relationship? Yes. People who are willing to spend their money taking care of an animal for no advantage other than emotional support feel emotionally connected to the animals they bought for that purpose? Shockingly, yes.
Just because there's a place for studies that are testing assumptions doesn't mean that we have to automatically accept that this isn't a bit silly.
Philosophically and broadly-speaking, I'd say: Low enough to do what must be done, and high enough to do it kindly.
(For example, a doctor debriding a wound isn't going to be any good at his job if he's crippled with guilt for causing pain, nor if he relishes it and deliberately causes more.)
Both our posts above seem to presume a single optimum level...when in reality there may be multiple levels depending to what degree one has reduced their relationship with animals to a physical utility (farming).
>not an objective truth.
It might be an objective truth if defined by optimization of yet another outcome. Below it seems the proper empathy level for farmers is defined in some sense by the productivity of their farms.
>The team analysed 91 responses from three groups of adult men – farmers, pet owners and non-pet owners.
>Dr Oliva said animal empathy levels differed significantly between groups, with those in the pet ownership experience group demonstrating higher AE levels than the other two groups.
>She said all three groups displayed evidence that interactions with animals in adulthood were most influential in shaping their beliefs about how animals think and feel.
>“However, our results support the idea that not all experiences are worth the same, with the adult responsibility and sacrifice involved in caring for animals - without the expectation of financial gain -appearing to be most influential to the development of animal empathy,” said Dr Oliva.
Paper: [Support for the ‘Pets as Ambassadors’ hypothesis in men: Higher animal empathy in Australian pet-owners vs non-owners and farmers](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/animal-welfare/article/support-for-the-pets-as-ambassadors-hypothesis-in-men-higher-animal-empathy-in-australian-petowners-vs-nonowners-and-farmers/E82803F3F7D0DAF98F2A3A43BA03DA05)
Did they study the different empathy levels of the farmer with his animal stock versus their actual pets. Farmers often have pets, some of them even take on a farm animal like a chicken or such. And they treat them with as much empathy as anyone would.
Of course farmers aren't out there petting the cows and naming them and tucking them in at night. They're a product to them. Were they expecting that farmers would be crying everytime a cow dies like when the family dog dies? This study is a nothing burger
That's actually brought up in the study!
>Experience and knowledge gained through working with animals in the agricultural industry may help to promote empathy in farmers, as it is through this experience that farmers learn about animal behavior and cognition, supporting the so-called “contact hypothesis” (Allport [Reference Allport1954](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/animal-welfare/article/support-for-the-pets-as-ambassadors-hypothesis-in-men-higher-animal-empathy-in-australian-petowners-vs-nonowners-and-farmers/E82803F3F7D0DAF98F2A3A43BA03DA05#r1)).
However, it may also act as a barrier to developing empathy, given that the animals they would develop empathy for would inevitably be exposed to farming practices that may cause them sufferance and death.
To protect themselves from this pain they may therefore discredit the internal experience of the animals so as to be able to do their jobs emotionally unharmed, i.e. by morally disengaging to avoid feelings of cognitive dissonance (Gradidge et al. [Reference Gradidge, Zawisza, Harvey and McDermott2021](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/animal-welfare/article/support-for-the-pets-as-ambassadors-hypothesis-in-men-higher-animal-empathy-in-australian-petowners-vs-nonowners-and-farmers/E82803F3F7D0DAF98F2A3A43BA03DA05#r14)).
This has been demonstrated in veterinary students with Colombo *et al.* ([Reference Colombo, Pelosi and Prato-Previde2016](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/animal-welfare/article/support-for-the-pets-as-ambassadors-hypothesis-in-men-higher-animal-empathy-in-australian-petowners-vs-nonowners-and-farmers/E82803F3F7D0DAF98F2A3A43BA03DA05#r7)) demonstrating that AE declines over time in this population, which may be a protective mechanism enabling them to remain on a career path with the potential to be highly emotionally challenging.
It also references other studies about how the collective tradition around farm animal welfare emphasizes a more "brutal" and "Unsentimental" treatment of the animals, and so farmers pick up on the behaviors and mindsets of the people who teach them and start withdrawing empathy in response.
That doesn't mean you can't extrapolate things for 'personal use.' Do you think you can't even have an opinion without multiple blind studies that deal directly with it?
> the adult responsibility and sacrifice involved in caring for animals - without the expectation of financial gain -appearing to be most influential to the development of animal empathy
I read somewhere that most psychopaths/sociopaths love dogs but hate cats, because dogs always revere their owners (which is what those people crave from a subordinate) whereas cats are indifferent to them.
People have speculated this about psychopaths, sociopaths and narcissists, using those interchangeably despite not being the same. It comes up on the Internet a lot but I'm not aware of any data whatsoever to back it up. Would love to see it if it exists.
That's interesting and makes sense topically. But I just wanted to say, cats aren't indifferent. They just don't like most people because people approach them incorrectly. People also get put off by the bite because there is a specific bite they do to acknowledge you as a group member. Most people take it as aggression, so you are petting the cat and everything is fine and then bite. What the hell cat? No. That's a group mate sign. Some bite harder so you have to watch it but that's not aggression. Anyways, not relevant that part but just be aware if you wanna be friends with cats.
Me when my cat is nibbling on my arm and poking holes in my thighs while I'm petting her in my lap: "I love you, I would die for you, my sweet little fuzzy wuzzy cutie pie"
Yeah I know - I've had cats my whole life. I love cats. I know they've got personality and can be affectionate and stuff... but the idea is that since they don't do it automatically (like dogs do), pyschos don't like 'em.
A lot of people are saying things like farmers don't name the product etc. but living in farm land I can tell you that lack of empathy for animals goes far beyond their own livestock. Dog misbehaves? Take it behind the barn and put it down and bury it. Among other things most people wouldn't think of doing in a million years.
Yep, I don't know a single person who'd do this, and if I heard that someone I knew would, the ones I'd suspect first are all city people.
(I'm more city than country myself, so that's not a rural dig at city people. It's a dig at *those specific* people.)
Christy Noam is the current news example of rural people with no regard for animal life. They certainly exist, and I grew up with a lot of them in a small town (1800 people).
I'm my personal experience (which is not valid science I know but I feel it's useful) boys grew up to be unsympathetic towards animal life because it was "manly". I had an incredibly warped view of life that I had to correct once I went to the city for college. Some examples: torturing gophers they snared, killing neighbourhood cats, abusing their own animals, swerving into the ditch to hit a deer with their big truck just to wake up sleeping passengers, and a classmate of mine even admitted to running over my neighbour's dog on purpose but that he "felt bad afterwards". These actions were by different people I grew up with who were a mixture of town and farm kids, so either I grew up in a serial killer factory or there really is a deep rooted issue of empathy in certain rural populations. I personally killed a fox with a snowmobile (very illegal) about 15 years ago. At the time it seemed normal and fun, but I regret it everyday now. That poor fox died scared and confused, but even if I had failed to kill it in that moment it would have died anyway because just chasing animals with vehicles kills them (to any kids reading, do not chase animals with vehicles, they will die whether or not you actually hit them and you will feel terrible about it).
Everytime I look back I realized just how fucked up everyone's perception on animals was, including mine. Many of those guys have a healthier view on life now from what I've seen, but I imagine some of them never did grow out of it.
Yeah as an example of that, im pretty comfortable saying most cats and dogs taken out to the countryside and abandoned were from people in the city. I personally think that crueller than taking ol' yeller behind the barn, those animals are going to suffer and starve.
Really though, there are examples of poor animal care/abuse wherever you want to look.
>Really though, there are examples of poor animal care/abuse wherever you want to look.
Yeah, there's a reason both humane societies and livestock rescues exist.
It’s fairly common for the livestock to have names where I’m from. Perhaps it’s because these are dairy cows and so it’s not expected that you raise them for purely slaughter, but they all have names. Now can farmers identify each cow without reading that ear tag? I cannot say.
I also had an acquaintance who was into chicken farming. His dog got out and killed some chickens. He took killed the dog and made his son (who got the dog as a birthday gift the year prior) bury it. One of the reasons that relationship soured…
Now those are nice anecdotes, but that’s to say the study findings don’t entirely surprise me.
I'm not going to argue that people like that don't exist in rural areas, but they are very few and far in between. The ratio is probably very close to how many urban and suburban people would abuse their pets in the same way.
Still shouldn't let your cats roam the neighborhood so they can add to this terrible problem. 65 species are extinct in North America alone solely from domesticated and feral cats. They kill BILLIONS every year.
Certainly, and I'm sure there are many responsible cat owners. But the stray and feral domesticated cat population would not exist if people never kept cats as pets.
Every farm is different, I grew up on a small farm and we named a bunch of them. Can make it harder, for sure, but I dont think its healthy to try and shut off all emotion towards an animal, even if you are raising it for eating eventually.
Grandpa had no trouble naming all the pigs (to be killed every Christmas!) after his grandkids. The practice stopped only after my aunt threw a massive fit.
I suspect there is a big difference between small and big (100+ animals) in here.
Yup, was awkward a few times when we had people over for dinner mum would tell them the name of the cow/pig, etc. Overall though, much prefer that style of farming than a more mechanical process.
I may be in the minority, but I hate having pets (dogs, cats, birds, reptiles, whatever) and have massive empathy for animals in general. I don’t want them near me but I want them respected.
I have had farmers assure me how much they cared for and loved their animals. But then they killed and ate them.
A poor member of my family spends thousands he doesn't really have for medical treatments to increase the comfort of his elderly dog.
Different definitions of love.
"Empathy toward animals found to be higher in men who view animals as companions versus men who view animals as assets" seems like kind of a no-brainer?
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) apply to all other comments. **Do you have an academic degree?** We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. [Click here to apply](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/flair/#wiki_science_verified_user_program). --- User: u/giuliomagnifico Permalink: https://www.jcu.edu.au/news/releases/2024/june/animal-empathy-differs-among-men --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
On one hand I agree, but on the other hand, I don't think we needed any survey at all to know that the premise of this was true... Pet owners are more likely to empathize with animals than professional meat producers. It might as well say "Research shows that sky is, on average, higher than ocean."
As a former hog,cattle farmer I can say that this is true. The livestock were not in the same category as my dog however we did treat the animals as well as was possible. Cattle in particular can have about as good a life as most any animal can even at large scales. Commercial hog operations are about as poor of conditions for animals I have seen but we did it small scale and they were as happy as a pig in mud. We even tried free ranging them for a while. It works if you have few people around.
Just because something feels obvious intuitively doesn't mean it's true empirically. Someone has to go do those studies to verify if those things are true. Just like people have gone out and actually figured out that the sky is "higher" than the ocean (which is actually only true from a certain perspective, which we would not know if not for scientists testing "basic" ideas).
Thanks, we definitely needed research to figure out *checks notes*… people with pets typically like animals more than those without pets. edit: **typically** - adverb - definition - "in most cases" synonyms; usually, generally, commonly, ordinarily... Edit part 2: some of you need to spend either a lot less or a lot more time in this sub… reading comprehension is important. Practice it before commenting.
Some people don't have pets because they are aware of their own limitations in rendering the level of care those animals deserve. On the other hand, there's no shortage of openly abusive or negligent dog owners.
That's a flawed perspective. There are plenty of people who love animals out there who just know they can't afford to own one.
Empathy is not the same thing as liking animals. You don't know how many pet owners have low empathy for them AND like them.
Yes, we definitely did. That's how science works.
Explain people who own fighting dogs? Or who abuse their pets. How does this study or your core assumption fit that reality? How does it fit the reality of how cruel it is to breed certain breeds of dog? How can you be empathetic yet willingly feed demand for dogs like pugs? Or how about the reality that most Americans treat their pets like disposable emotional service slaves? How is cutting your dogs balls off “for his own good” rather than live as he was born to live? People on average treat their pets worse than the typical smallholder farmer around the globe treats their animals.
Glad that someone figured out that there isn't a cliff at the "end" of the ocean because that seemed so obvious to the generations of humans before they actually went and tested that idea.
This is a basic cross-sectional design that has been peer-reviewed. I'd say an N of 91 is appropriate for a survey like this. The concern would be sampling, but no single study is going to be able to get a perfectly representative sample, so it's overly simplistic to write it off as, "This one study isn't conclusive." Sure, that's true of all scientific studies, hence the need for differing kinds of replication. But that doesn't make the reported results invalid.
I'm not going to respond to everyone, so I'll make a new comment chain. It's good practice for us to test hypotheses, even if we "know" something. There have been numerous cases where the commonly accepted thought was wrong, so it's best to test.
I'm convinced nobody in this post actually read the paper. It is much more nuanced than, "pet owners like animals better than non pet owners".
>As expected, AE levels differed significantly between groups, with those in the pet ownership experience group demonstrating higher AE levels than the other two groups [low experience/farmers]. For example, for a bit of nuance, this article isn't actually about pet owners and non-pet owners, but about people with pet ownership experience versus people with low pet ownership experience and farmers. >idea that not all experiences are worth the same, with the responsibility and sacrifice involved in pet caring appearing to be most influential to the development of [animal empathy] I'm not going to read more than the abstract today, but this bit seems to go on to suggest that simply living in a house with a pet isn't enough, you have to actually care for it to be associated with higher animal empathy (which they define in the first sentence as human empathy towards non-human animals).
>this bit seems to go on to suggest that simply living in a house with a pet isn't enough, you have to actually care for it to be associated with higher animal empathy I bet it's the same for kids. Caring for kids is not the same as being a parent.
All of this just sounds like, "people are more likely to grow attached to family members than food." It's great that they've proven this is true when you are eating animals as well as when you are a cannibal, but it's still something that we already knew pretty well. I'll bet you could get the same result with a houseplant vs. a corn crop. This isn't really something we need proved.
Is that not normal for this sub? Everytime something interesting from this sub pops up in my feed, I read the paper then read the comments. It’s like 90% of commentators don’t know how scientific studies work. People always seem to think everything is black and white, when that is never the case.
Yes, you're entirely right; these types of studies are absolutely scientifically useful and their importance should not be downplayed. But to be fair, this sub, or Reddit in general, isn't necessarily the place for studies in which the data strongly supports the common-sense expectation, especially in the social sciences. Reddit, at its core, is a social media platform based around entertainment and news. This sort of study isn't particularly entertaining or newsworthy, as it merely confirms naive expectations in a non-controversial way regarding a topic that isn't really at the forefront of the public consciousness.
In addition to that, you actually have a proper scientific study to point to during debates, instead of relying on "common sense" type arguments.
What's an example of something that was commonly accepted as obviously true, but only turned out to be false when tested?
Smoking was healthy, or at worst neutral. Beating kids doesn't cause any long-term harm to them and is a good disciplinary tool. Women are not as intelligent as men.
Penis size vs gun ownership: [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38819006/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38819006/)
The Earth is round. The sun is the center of the solar system. Disease is caused by microscopic organisms. It used to be "obvious" that the earth was flat, the center of the universe, and that disease was caused by angry spirits.
Just to be clear, even the classical world knew the Earth wasn't flat. Any ocean-faring civilisation would figure that out pretty quickly just based on the horizon. Flat-earthers are actually a fairly modern phenomenon, like 18th-century+.
Usually I'd agree but this is borderline "We found ppl who like animals more like animals more"
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Treating something as disposable once it can't work for you, is totally normal. No idea why someone would think it's abusive. /s
How, exactly, did men's empathy find such a thing? Is my empathy alone capable of finding things out, or is it only the collective empathy of men which is capable of investigation and finding?
Thank you. What a strangely worded title.
You give OP far too much credit. *Terribly worded & nonsensical. Yeah you can kinda interpret it. But reading as written yields nothing meaningful
My male empathy has found a safe house in your comment!
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Increasingly, the comments around this subreddit seem to include a lot of people going "uh, *yeah obviously*, why did you do a study for that?" And I just... I need you all to stop. Please. Studies on things that are "obvious" are still valuable. Having more information, clearer numbers, or even just updating things we "know" as time moves on and society changes, that's all useful. Also, often (though not in this particular case) these studies come from students or newer researches publishing something for the first time. Small steps toward adding to the sum total of human knowledge.
And you know how most papers reference at least like 20 others during their research? Well you never know what crossover relevance stuff will have for other things in the future.
And it's quite sad to see that on a science subreddit. Yes, this sub is very deep in "popular science" territory at this point, but that's bound to happen given the "eternal September" state of reddit. I like to explain it a different way. Yes it's "obvious", but the reason why it actually happens may be obvious, and understanding the mechanics of it is the other half. For example, it's obvious that when you drop an apple, it falls to the ground. But for a long time, it wasn't understood why, so when more research was done turns out that gravity is actually incredibly complicated for how it interacts with other physics.
I totally agree, except this isn’t a study.
Studies on things that are obvious are indeed valuable, but at this point I'd argue we have ample evidence that people feel differently about anything – people, animals, plants, toys – that they perceive as part of their family vs. what they plan to eat. Honestly, try to imagine the counter-intuitive result of this study, that all humans, regardless of experience, have the same level of empathy for animals, or that humans who have the least experience with animals in their family are more empathic to them than humans who have spent years taking care of an animal. That would be madness. It would strike you as so impossible, so counter to your lived experience that you would reject it outright. People who have lived with a dog have more empathy for them than people who have never lived with a dog? Yes. Also true of dolls. The degree that people empathize with dogs depends on the length and intensity of their relationship? Yes. People who are willing to spend their money taking care of an animal for no advantage other than emotional support feel emotionally connected to the animals they bought for that purpose? Shockingly, yes. Just because there's a place for studies that are testing assumptions doesn't mean that we have to automatically accept that this isn't a bit silly.
[удалено]
[удалено]
What's the correct amount of empathy?
Good question, sadly the answer is philosophical in nature and not an objective truth.
Philosophically and broadly-speaking, I'd say: Low enough to do what must be done, and high enough to do it kindly. (For example, a doctor debriding a wound isn't going to be any good at his job if he's crippled with guilt for causing pain, nor if he relishes it and deliberately causes more.)
Though even that hinges upon a definition of "must" which is largely philosophical.
In other words the Golden Mean as per Virtue Ethics: The desirable middle between two extremes, one in excess and the other in deficiency.
Both our posts above seem to presume a single optimum level...when in reality there may be multiple levels depending to what degree one has reduced their relationship with animals to a physical utility (farming). >not an objective truth. It might be an objective truth if defined by optimization of yet another outcome. Below it seems the proper empathy level for farmers is defined in some sense by the productivity of their farms.
>The team analysed 91 responses from three groups of adult men – farmers, pet owners and non-pet owners. >Dr Oliva said animal empathy levels differed significantly between groups, with those in the pet ownership experience group demonstrating higher AE levels than the other two groups. >She said all three groups displayed evidence that interactions with animals in adulthood were most influential in shaping their beliefs about how animals think and feel. >“However, our results support the idea that not all experiences are worth the same, with the adult responsibility and sacrifice involved in caring for animals - without the expectation of financial gain -appearing to be most influential to the development of animal empathy,” said Dr Oliva. Paper: [Support for the ‘Pets as Ambassadors’ hypothesis in men: Higher animal empathy in Australian pet-owners vs non-owners and farmers](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/animal-welfare/article/support-for-the-pets-as-ambassadors-hypothesis-in-men-higher-animal-empathy-in-australian-petowners-vs-nonowners-and-farmers/E82803F3F7D0DAF98F2A3A43BA03DA05)
Did they study the different empathy levels of the farmer with his animal stock versus their actual pets. Farmers often have pets, some of them even take on a farm animal like a chicken or such. And they treat them with as much empathy as anyone would.
No but that is a good follow-up study idea.
Of course farmers aren't out there petting the cows and naming them and tucking them in at night. They're a product to them. Were they expecting that farmers would be crying everytime a cow dies like when the family dog dies? This study is a nothing burger
That's actually brought up in the study! >Experience and knowledge gained through working with animals in the agricultural industry may help to promote empathy in farmers, as it is through this experience that farmers learn about animal behavior and cognition, supporting the so-called “contact hypothesis” (Allport [Reference Allport1954](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/animal-welfare/article/support-for-the-pets-as-ambassadors-hypothesis-in-men-higher-animal-empathy-in-australian-petowners-vs-nonowners-and-farmers/E82803F3F7D0DAF98F2A3A43BA03DA05#r1)). However, it may also act as a barrier to developing empathy, given that the animals they would develop empathy for would inevitably be exposed to farming practices that may cause them sufferance and death. To protect themselves from this pain they may therefore discredit the internal experience of the animals so as to be able to do their jobs emotionally unharmed, i.e. by morally disengaging to avoid feelings of cognitive dissonance (Gradidge et al. [Reference Gradidge, Zawisza, Harvey and McDermott2021](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/animal-welfare/article/support-for-the-pets-as-ambassadors-hypothesis-in-men-higher-animal-empathy-in-australian-petowners-vs-nonowners-and-farmers/E82803F3F7D0DAF98F2A3A43BA03DA05#r14)). This has been demonstrated in veterinary students with Colombo *et al.* ([Reference Colombo, Pelosi and Prato-Previde2016](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/animal-welfare/article/support-for-the-pets-as-ambassadors-hypothesis-in-men-higher-animal-empathy-in-australian-petowners-vs-nonowners-and-farmers/E82803F3F7D0DAF98F2A3A43BA03DA05#r7)) demonstrating that AE declines over time in this population, which may be a protective mechanism enabling them to remain on a career path with the potential to be highly emotionally challenging. It also references other studies about how the collective tradition around farm animal welfare emphasizes a more "brutal" and "Unsentimental" treatment of the animals, and so farmers pick up on the behaviors and mindsets of the people who teach them and start withdrawing empathy in response.
It's useful. I now can add this to my pile of evidence that dogs are probably a good thing for kids to have. Empathy is good.
But the study specifically deals with having pets in adulthood not adolescence, so that's a weird takeaway here.
That doesn't mean you can't extrapolate things for 'personal use.' Do you think you can't even have an opinion without multiple blind studies that deal directly with it?
You can extrapolate, but then you wouldn't use the word "evidence" to describe a study that doesn't support your extrapolation.
91 people doesn't seem like a big enough sample size...
> the adult responsibility and sacrifice involved in caring for animals - without the expectation of financial gain -appearing to be most influential to the development of animal empathy I read somewhere that most psychopaths/sociopaths love dogs but hate cats, because dogs always revere their owners (which is what those people crave from a subordinate) whereas cats are indifferent to them.
People have speculated this about psychopaths, sociopaths and narcissists, using those interchangeably despite not being the same. It comes up on the Internet a lot but I'm not aware of any data whatsoever to back it up. Would love to see it if it exists.
I keep hearing that from people who have 15 cats.
That's interesting and makes sense topically. But I just wanted to say, cats aren't indifferent. They just don't like most people because people approach them incorrectly. People also get put off by the bite because there is a specific bite they do to acknowledge you as a group member. Most people take it as aggression, so you are petting the cat and everything is fine and then bite. What the hell cat? No. That's a group mate sign. Some bite harder so you have to watch it but that's not aggression. Anyways, not relevant that part but just be aware if you wanna be friends with cats.
Me when my cat is nibbling on my arm and poking holes in my thighs while I'm petting her in my lap: "I love you, I would die for you, my sweet little fuzzy wuzzy cutie pie"
Yeah I know - I've had cats my whole life. I love cats. I know they've got personality and can be affectionate and stuff... but the idea is that since they don't do it automatically (like dogs do), pyschos don't like 'em.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
What happened to all those deleted replies?
They were deleted.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
So your telling me, people who own animals, like animals?
A lot of people are saying things like farmers don't name the product etc. but living in farm land I can tell you that lack of empathy for animals goes far beyond their own livestock. Dog misbehaves? Take it behind the barn and put it down and bury it. Among other things most people wouldn't think of doing in a million years.
the vast majority of farmers i know would put you down behind the barn if you touched their dogs.
I had completely the opposite experience growing up on a farm, near other farms.
Yep, I don't know a single person who'd do this, and if I heard that someone I knew would, the ones I'd suspect first are all city people. (I'm more city than country myself, so that's not a rural dig at city people. It's a dig at *those specific* people.)
Christy Noam is the current news example of rural people with no regard for animal life. They certainly exist, and I grew up with a lot of them in a small town (1800 people). I'm my personal experience (which is not valid science I know but I feel it's useful) boys grew up to be unsympathetic towards animal life because it was "manly". I had an incredibly warped view of life that I had to correct once I went to the city for college. Some examples: torturing gophers they snared, killing neighbourhood cats, abusing their own animals, swerving into the ditch to hit a deer with their big truck just to wake up sleeping passengers, and a classmate of mine even admitted to running over my neighbour's dog on purpose but that he "felt bad afterwards". These actions were by different people I grew up with who were a mixture of town and farm kids, so either I grew up in a serial killer factory or there really is a deep rooted issue of empathy in certain rural populations. I personally killed a fox with a snowmobile (very illegal) about 15 years ago. At the time it seemed normal and fun, but I regret it everyday now. That poor fox died scared and confused, but even if I had failed to kill it in that moment it would have died anyway because just chasing animals with vehicles kills them (to any kids reading, do not chase animals with vehicles, they will die whether or not you actually hit them and you will feel terrible about it). Everytime I look back I realized just how fucked up everyone's perception on animals was, including mine. Many of those guys have a healthier view on life now from what I've seen, but I imagine some of them never did grow out of it.
Yeah as an example of that, im pretty comfortable saying most cats and dogs taken out to the countryside and abandoned were from people in the city. I personally think that crueller than taking ol' yeller behind the barn, those animals are going to suffer and starve. Really though, there are examples of poor animal care/abuse wherever you want to look.
>Really though, there are examples of poor animal care/abuse wherever you want to look. Yeah, there's a reason both humane societies and livestock rescues exist.
It’s fairly common for the livestock to have names where I’m from. Perhaps it’s because these are dairy cows and so it’s not expected that you raise them for purely slaughter, but they all have names. Now can farmers identify each cow without reading that ear tag? I cannot say. I also had an acquaintance who was into chicken farming. His dog got out and killed some chickens. He took killed the dog and made his son (who got the dog as a birthday gift the year prior) bury it. One of the reasons that relationship soured… Now those are nice anecdotes, but that’s to say the study findings don’t entirely surprise me.
I'm not going to argue that people like that don't exist in rural areas, but they are very few and far in between. The ratio is probably very close to how many urban and suburban people would abuse their pets in the same way.
[удалено]
I don't know if that's true. I love animals but am against pet ownership. Meanwhile I see plenty of pet owners who treat their animals like crap.
Why are you against pet ownership?
Cats are the second most destructive invasive species in the world. They put incredible strain on native small mammal and bird populations.
Stray cats are surely a bigger offender than house cats though?
As well as pet cats whose owners let them roam outdoors.
Still shouldn't let your cats roam the neighborhood so they can add to this terrible problem. 65 species are extinct in North America alone solely from domesticated and feral cats. They kill BILLIONS every year.
Just because the horse has already left the barn doesn't mean you let the mule out with it.
Where do you think stray cats come from? They aren't wild animals. They were bred to be pets.
People not neutering/spaying their cats and letting them roam around.
Certainly, and I'm sure there are many responsible cat owners. But the stray and feral domesticated cat population would not exist if people never kept cats as pets.
As a farmer, you don’t name livestock.
My buddy’s parents are dairy farmers You have to be a little heartless to maximize efficiency in a dairy farm.
Every farm is different, I grew up on a small farm and we named a bunch of them. Can make it harder, for sure, but I dont think its healthy to try and shut off all emotion towards an animal, even if you are raising it for eating eventually.
Grandpa had no trouble naming all the pigs (to be killed every Christmas!) after his grandkids. The practice stopped only after my aunt threw a massive fit. I suspect there is a big difference between small and big (100+ animals) in here.
We lived on my grandfather’s hobby farm for my entire childhood. We slaughtered a cow at least every second year, they all had names.
Yup, was awkward a few times when we had people over for dinner mum would tell them the name of the cow/pig, etc. Overall though, much prefer that style of farming than a more mechanical process.
i am incredibly empathatic to animals and dont own a pet
That is the main reason I don't own a pet.
I imagine this is the same for people who have children as well.
Yeah thats generally how people who like animals for pets feel over folks who use them for a source of income or dont care
On a scale of 1 (pet lover) to Kristi Noem where to you fall?
A guy who owns an orchard probably cares more about trees than a lumberjack.
Well I hope *somebody* cares about the lumberjack.
I may be in the minority, but I hate having pets (dogs, cats, birds, reptiles, whatever) and have massive empathy for animals in general. I don’t want them near me but I want them respected.
New study also shows that non-pet owners can get equally wet when entering a body of water as pet owners. Water seems to be wet
Farmers see animals a products or as farm implements.
Also the headline is unintelligible.
I have had farmers assure me how much they cared for and loved their animals. But then they killed and ate them. A poor member of my family spends thousands he doesn't really have for medical treatments to increase the comfort of his elderly dog. Different definitions of love.
You’re comparing livestock to pets.
I genuinely cannot understand people who enjoy hunting. I just can't get my head into the space where causing pain to another living creature is "fun"
People who care about animals more likely to own animals....k
I used to spend a lot of time around horses. Nothing pissed me off like the righteous worrying of a “dog mom” girl around horses who were doing a job.
"Empathy toward animals found to be higher in men who view animals as companions versus men who view animals as assets" seems like kind of a no-brainer?