I wonder what Mr. Ramachandran would say about the “empathic mirroring capabilities” of the psychopath. When the perpetrator of a crime has his victim bound and terrified, he is obviously deriving pleasure from the pain he is inflicting, while the victim is experiencing the opposite. Here there seems to be a crack in the mirror, so to speak. Is this a total absence of mirror neurons, or a breakdown that could somehow be mended by strengthening mirror activity?

I have never heard of a cure for psychopathic behavior. Could this neurobiological research lead to ways to treat the Jeffrey Daumers of society? Inquiring minds would like to know, Mr. Ramachandran.

I saw a letter or two about Aspergers. We can all go home now.

Gordy Slack's alluring article, with a title to draw in even the most improbable reader (who doesn't want a little on-line empathy?) made my day. His ability to simplify the complexity of the angular gyrus, to discuss both sides of the mirror-neuron belief system, and the humor with which he renders the material accessible is astonishing and enjoyable. I look forward to the book!

Apes are one phyla-humans different. To use research conducted on animals-when humans are more evolved and-set apart from the animal kingdom by way of "free choice". The mirror-neuron theory by theory-mean that we should act the same becasue we read each others expressions, tone of voice....Perhaps unconsciously we may mimic anothers facial expression in empathy-a sort of nonverbal language.The mirror neuron theory would also signify that we would react the same way to similiar situations. But no 2 situations are the same in life-so more detailed factors inclusive to our individual selves discern that.I also would like to know the relationship of the 2 apes to each other (in the study).Did the ape mimic other apes as well-or just this one? Perhaps relationship value needs to be taken into account too-as far as how much empathy or -mirror neuron firing there actually is.

I agree with the psych on this one. I don't think you can pinpoint the brains region for evolution or even where a thought originates. I don't believe thoughts are areas of gray matter than can be separated from one another. I think thought patterns are waves-waves of energy/frequency.Becasue humans have freechoice-differing from animals-the study makes it sound as if we don't exercize that fact, that it's due to mirror neurons.But we do use that freechoice daily to empathize with those we CHOOSE to connect with.

You write: "...the problem of altruism has vexed biologists since Darwin. Why do people sacrifice their own self-interest, sometimes even their lives, in order to help others? Genes for such behavior should be selected against quickly and definitively."

I knew a researcher who studied altruism in the animal kingdom. The emergence of altruism in some animal populations is explainable, and has been successfully modeled by equations and computer simulations.

Basically, when you live among relatives, then under some conditions that arise in nature, helping them to succeed even at your own expense increases the likelihood of propagating genes you possess.

I'm glad scientists have figured out how something happens on a physiological level. But this is like finding out how we breathe. Anyone with half a brain knows that we can experience emotions when we see others experiencing them. I mean isn't this what theatre, cinema and TV are about? And why does this study only talk about feeling someone's pain, we also experience anger, joy, frustration, sexual arousal and many other feelings when we see other people experiencing them.

Pixelfly says, "no one's saying the author is trying to explain why we experience empathy."

Yes they are. Read the sixth and seventh words in the one-paragraph precis of the article at the top of the page you're looking at now.

It says, "New proof of 'mirror neurons' explains why....."

If it said "how, in electro-chemical terms," that would be just fine. But it doesn't. And the article doesn't. It purports to explain "why."

I'm with the post or two ago that says "Doh!" This is not news--except in the realm of electro-chemistry. Cool. But don't pretend like this demotes the validity of movies, Shakespeare, poetry, drama, or just plain emotive commonsense. It is not new, and it is dangerous to conclude that unless we can "explain" something biochechemically, we haven't explained it at all.

I think that it would be more interesting to try and understand why certain human beings don't have empathy towards others. I think the psychologist would find it difficult not to admit that the firing or neurons, whether one or a thousand firings at a time do so as a chemical response to something either physical or emotional.

As a speculation as to why the author of this piece did not offer help to the crying young woman on the train: perhaps he/she felt that his compassion would have been rejected by a total stranger or perhaps his language skills in the crying woman's native tongue were deficit or any number of reasons why an empathetic person doesn't stop to lend assistance. The point is is that the young woman's feelings were transmitted and she obviously wasn't transmitting what she needed to help her to feel better at the moment.

Thanks for the inspiration. But first, what religions? I certainly didn't make a religious reference in my initial post, simply was groping for a way to say what you have now helped me come to, which is this: With this sort of research and "eureka" moments which pronounce something so because it seems like it might, empirically, make sense, what we are reduced to is a glob of cells, chemicals, mirror neurons, etc., somehow pooling together in such a way as to feel the compulsion to explain their own existence through physiology and chemistry, none of which would exist without those globs of brain stuff deciding to look inward that way. The result, if we are to accept it whole, is that some collections of cosmic crud are smarter than those we "think" of as "us", and we need to chemically fall back in awe of the discovery of our being by the being of some other cosmic accident floating around in the ether aimlessly, having accidentally fallen together in such a way as to be able to understand itself and how it "thinks" without any regard for the humanness -- which is the real mystery, the real discovery, and the enduring puzzle.

Again, what religion or religions were you referring to? You by any chance one of those neoatheists who feels threatened by mystery and reflexively sees that in others as "religion", something that poses a threat to the "progress" of "human" "thought"?

Just curious, but also grateful that you somehow, without me mirroring anything I am aware of (or care to be), triggered a stream of consciousness in the neurochemical mishap which is "me", which expresses, to my satisfaction, what is so utterly orthodox and religious in the Slack pontification.

See?