Familiarity breeds empathy

The more time we spend with people from another nationality the more empathy we have for them, University of Queensland research has found.
UQ’s School of Psychology and Queensland Brain Institute Associate Professor Ross Cunnington examined whether people’s brains responded to people of other races differently following an increase in contact with that race.
“Research over the past decade has shown the brain has a very strong racial bias in response to seeing others in pain or suffering,” Dr Cunnington said.
“As a result, we have much stronger biologically-driven empathy towards people of our own race.
“However, our study has shown that the level of empathy in the brain increases the more a person spends time with other races.”
 Dr Cunnington said empathy depended partly on cerebral processes that led people to automatically mirror or share the emotions of others.


http://www.uq.edu.au/news/article/2015/05/familiarity-breeds-empathy


Which is a perfect way to deduce which posters on here have or have not spent time with people from different ethnic groups.

hmmm not sure that is true, once you know more about something it can lead you to dislike what you find out so I think this one could be either way.

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:hmmm not sure that is true, once you know more about something it can lead you to dislike what you find out so I think this one could be either way.

It is easily true, just look at places like London that have had immigration for years, where there is social cohesion.

Nemesis wrote:

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:hmmm not sure that is true, once you know more about something it can lead you to dislike what you find out so I think this one could be either way.

It is easily true, just look at places like London that have had immigration for years, where there is social cohesion.

where was it in london where they tried to impose sharia law , i forget now.. don't think that went to well.

or look at places like Leicester where you get reports that some people are scared to walk out at night especially young women...

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

Nemesis wrote:


It is easily true, just look at places like London that have had immigration for years, where there is social cohesion.

where was it in london where they tried to impose sharia law , i forget now.. don't think that went to well.

or look at places like Leicester where you get reports that some people are scared to walk out at night especially young women...

oops i forgot all the mixed reports of the grooming gangs guess that didn't bring much togetherness either x

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

Nemesis wrote:


It is easily true, just look at places like London that have had immigration for years, where there is social cohesion.

where was it in london where they tried to impose sharia law , i forget now.. don't think that went to well.

or look at places like Leicester where you get reports that some people are scared to walk out at night especially young women...

Oh you mean the notorious 3 men jailed for putting up posters, and making some videos and threatening people.
If you call that imposing sharia law, then you more of an idiot that I thought you were

Nemesis wrote:

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

where was it in london where they tried to impose sharia law , i forget now.. don't think that went to well.

or look at places like Leicester where you get reports that some people are scared to walk out at night especially young women...

Oh you mean the notorious 3 men jailed for putting up posters, and making some videos and threatening people.
If you call that imposing sharia law, then you more of an idiot that I thought you were

did the posters say it was a sharia law area... is it an example of cohesion...this is what happens when you play with generalities...

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

where was it in london where they tried to impose sharia law , i forget now.. don't think that went to well.

or look at places like Leicester where you get reports that some people are scared to walk out at night especially young women...

oops i forgot all the mixed reports of the grooming gangs guess that didn't bring much togetherness either x

What grooming gangs in London?
Again why is it there is social cohesion in London, where it certainly is a multicultural city?
You see all you are doing is giving me reasons why you do not want to get on with people,l which is odd being as you are a Christian after all.
Seems you are in conflict with your faith again

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

Nemesis wrote:


Oh you mean the notorious 3 men jailed for putting up posters, and making some videos and threatening people.
If you call that imposing sharia law, then you more of an idiot that I thought you were

did the posters say it was a sharia law area... is it an example of cohesion...this is what happens when you play with generalities...

So ou are saying a poster thus now makes an area sharia controlled?


   

Yep you are an idiot

Nemesis wrote:

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

did the posters say it was a sharia law area... is it an example of cohesion...this is what happens when you play with generalities...

So ou are saying a poster thus now makes an area sharia controlled?


   

Yep you are an idiot

i am quite clearly saying that there were posters put up claiming it to be a sharia law area and that is not an example of cohesion more coercion.

do yu think the grooming gangs promote cohesion or was that too difficult a question.

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

Nemesis wrote:


So ou are saying a poster thus now makes an area sharia controlled?


   

Yep you are an idiot

i am quite clearly saying that there were posters put up claiming it to be a sharia law area and that is not an example of cohesion more coercion.

do yu think the grooming gangs promote cohesion or was that too difficult a question.

I will try to dumb this down to your level to understand.
Nobody denies there is some that do not integrate, whether British or non-British, by the vast majority do and London is a prime example where it has certainly worked.
I think all child sexual abuse is wrong and being that 95% of those who commit these crimes are white, I find very disturbing so why are you centering on 3% of all child sex abuse?

Now does that help you understand and why there is little support for UKIP in London?

Nemesis wrote:

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

i am quite clearly saying that there were posters put up claiming it to be a sharia law area and that is not an example of cohesion more coercion.

do yu think the grooming gangs promote cohesion or was that too difficult a question.

I will try to dumb this down to your level to understand.
Nobody denies there is some that do not integrate, whether British or non-British, by the vast majority do and London is a prime example where it has certainly worked.
I think all child sexual abuse is wrong and being that 95% of those who commit these crimes are white, I find very disturbing so why are you centering on 3% of all child sex abuse?

Now does that help you understand and why there is little support for UKIP in London?

thank you for admitting you are dumb and your opening post was equally dumb, it was totally unnecessary though as most people in this forum already know.

so we can take it as read that familiarity does not breed empathy..

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

Nemesis wrote:


I will try to dumb this down to your level to understand.
Nobody denies there is some that do not integrate, whether British or non-British, by the vast majority do and London is a prime example where it has certainly worked.
I think all child sexual abuse is wrong and being that 95% of those who commit these crimes are white, I find very disturbing so why are you centering on 3% of all child sex abuse?

Now does that help you understand and why there is little support for UKIP in London?

thank you for admitting you are dumb and your opening post was equally dumb, it was totally unnecessary though as most people in this forum already know.

so we can take it as read that familiarity does not breed empathy..

Its not up to you decide on threads, if it were we would ask you to take down some of yourself
So we can take it that with this evidence and mine shown familiarity does breed empathy, you are just a mindless racist twat, hence why you are too ignorant to understand.

Laters dummy

Nemesis wrote:

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

thank you for admitting you are dumb and your opening post was equally dumb, it was totally unnecessary though as most people in this forum already know.

so we can take it as read that familiarity does not breed empathy..

Its not up to you decide on threads, if it were we would ask you to take down some of yourself
So we can take it that with this evidence and mine shown familiarity does breed empathy, you are just a mindless racist twat, hence why you are too ignorant to understand.

Laters dummy

please leave yur threads up it gives people a giggle...

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

Nemesis wrote:

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

i am quite clearly saying that there were posters put up claiming it to be a sharia law area and that is not an example of cohesion more coercion.

do yu think the grooming gangs promote cohesion or was that too difficult a question.

I will try to dumb this down to your level to understand.
Nobody denies there is some that do not integrate, whether British or non-British, by the vast majority do and London is a prime example where it has certainly worked.
I think all child sexual abuse is wrong and being that 95% of those who commit these crimes are white, I find very disturbing so why are you centering on 3% of all child sex abuse?

Now does that help you understand and why there is little support for UKIP in London?

thank you for admitting you are dumb and your opening post was equally dumb, it was totally unnecessary though as most people in this forum already know.

so we can take it as read that familiarity does not breed empathy..

In cases of people like you, familiarity does breed contempt -- but Nemesis' premise is correct and backed up with research from all over the world. You're just taking a few isolated incidents and trying to make it out that London's controlled by Sharia and every girl is being victimised.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

thank you for admitting you are dumb and your opening post was equally dumb, it was totally unnecessary though as most people in this forum already know.

so we can take it as read that familiarity does not breed empathy..

In cases of people like you, familiarity does breed contempt -- but Nemesis' premise is correct and backed up with research from all over the world. You're just taking a few isolated incidents and trying to make it out that London's controlled by Sharia and every girl is being victimised.

You cannot reason with brainless racists, I have tried to reason for years, but he is utterly brainwashed

Ben_Reilly wrote:

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

thank you for admitting you are dumb and your opening post was equally dumb, it was totally unnecessary though as most people in this forum already know.

so we can take it as read that familiarity does not breed empathy..

In cases of people like you, familiarity does breed contempt -- but Nemesis' premise is correct and backed up with research from all over the world. You're just taking a few isolated incidents and trying to make it out that London's controlled by Sharia and every girl is being victimised.

and there is no research to the contrary??

the cases of child grooming have been going on for quite sometime, many who spoke out about it were ridiculed and labelled racist, so shall we assume being familiar with the sexual habits of some does only breed contempt.

parts of this country some people feel they are not safe to walk the streets because of people they have found out more about.

it is not just isolated incidents, it is getting to know what some people are actually capable of.

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

In cases of people like you, familiarity does breed contempt -- but Nemesis' premise is correct and backed up with research from all over the world. You're just taking a few isolated incidents and trying to make it out that London's controlled by Sharia and every girl is being victimised.

and there is no research to the contrary??

the cases of child grooming have been going on for quite sometime, many who spoke out about it were ridiculed and labelled racist, so shall we assume being familiar with the sexual habits of some does only breed contempt.

parts of this country some people feel they are not safe to walk the streets because of people they have found out more about.

it is not just isolated incidents, it is getting to know what some people are actually capable of.

You find criminals in all ethnic groups and to claim this off where the vast majority of people who are not criminals cannot get along shows how short sighted your answer is. It does not matter what the ethnicity of the criminal is, we all are appalled. You again make a racist argument, which has no validity, because if we use your reasoning you should thus show the same level of distrust for your own ethnicity and not get along.

Do you

Nemesis wrote:

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

and there is no research to the contrary??

the cases of child grooming have been going on for quite sometime, many who spoke out about it were ridiculed and labelled racist, so shall we assume being familiar with the sexual habits of some does only breed contempt.

parts of this country some people feel they are not safe to walk the streets because of people they have found out more about.

it is not just isolated incidents, it is getting to know what some people are actually capable of.

You find criminals in all ethnic groups and to claim this off where the vast majority of people who are not criminals cannot get along shows how short sighted your answer is. It does not matter what the ethnicity of the criminal is, we all are appalled. You again make a racist argument, which has no validity, because if we use your reasoning you should thus show the same level of distrust for your own ethnicity and not get along.

Do you

yes you do find criminals in all ethnic groups but it still does not mean the more you know the criminals the less you care about it, which is what the OP was saying.

if people are diametrically opposed all the knowing about each other in the world will not make a difference and sometimes it takes time to realise you have been invaded.

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

Nemesis wrote:


You find criminals in all ethnic groups and to claim this off where the vast majority of people who are not criminals cannot get along shows how short sighted your answer is. It does not matter what the ethnicity of the criminal is, we all are appalled. You again make a racist argument, which has no validity, because if we use your reasoning you should thus show the same level of distrust for your own ethnicity and not get along.

Do you

yes you do find criminals in all ethnic groups but it still does not mean the more you know the criminals the less you care about it, which is what the OP was saying.

if people are diametrically opposed all the knowing about each other in the world will not make a difference and sometimes it takes time to realise you have been invaded.

Invaded?

Oh for pity sake.

Sorry but when you come out with such crap like that it is not worth even bothering to continue.

Nemesis wrote:

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

yes you do find criminals in all ethnic groups but it still does not mean the more you know the criminals the less you care about it, which is what the OP was saying.

if people are diametrically opposed all the knowing about each other in the world will not make a difference and sometimes it takes time to realise you have been invaded.

Invaded?

Oh for pity sake.

Sorry but when you come out with such crap like that it is not worth even bothering to continue.

you assume i meant the Muslims, i was thinking of the native americans, they saw white men as traders and visitors , i'm sure time helped them empathise with the white man...

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

Nemesis wrote:


Invaded?

Oh for pity sake.

Sorry but when you come out with such crap like that it is not worth even bothering to continue.

you assume i meant the Muslims, i was thinking of the native americans, they saw white men as traders and visitors , i'm sure time helped them empathise with the white man...

Never claimed anything in regards to Muslims.

What the colonists did to the Indians was wrong on every level and still is wrong.
That though is not showing the full picture where there is integration, of which after this we saw mass immigration in America where you had the same fear arguments made and you now have the most advance nation in the world. So nobody is denying where the Indians were mistreated and pushed off their lands. That is not the same as immigration, they were wars, which is a vast difference.

Nemesis wrote:

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

you assume i meant the Muslims, i was thinking of the native americans, they saw white men as traders and visitors , i'm sure time helped them empathise with the white man...

Never claimed anything in regards to Muslims.

What the colonists did to the Indians was wrong on every level and still is wrong.
That though is not showing the full picture where there is integration, of which after this we saw mass immigration in America where you had the same fear arguments made and you now have the most advance nation in the world. So nobody is denying where the Indians were mistreated and pushed off their lands. That is not the same as immigration, they were wars, which is a vast difference.

yes yu did you assumed i meant the Muslims...

what about when the british first appeared in strength in the americas, did time make the yanks more empathic towards us.

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

Nemesis wrote:


Never claimed anything in regards to Muslims.

What the colonists did to the Indians was wrong on every level and still is wrong.
That though is not showing the full picture where there is integration, of which after this we saw mass immigration in America where you had the same fear arguments made and you now have the most advance nation in the world. So nobody is denying where the Indians were mistreated and pushed off their lands. That is not the same as immigration, they were wars, which is a vast difference.

yes yu did you assumed i meant the Muslims...

what about when the british first appeared in strength in the americas, did time make the yanks more empathic towards us.

Your history is certainly shot to shit, as it was the Spanish in the Americas that came in strength first.
Well considering may Americans identify both by being American and their ethnicity, I would say you have not the first clue what you are talking about.

Nemesis wrote:

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

yes yu did you assumed i meant the Muslims...

what about when the british first appeared in strength in the americas, did time make the yanks more empathic towards us.

Your history is certainly shot to shit, as it was the Spanish in the Americas that came in strength first.
Well considering may Americans identify both by being American and their ethnicity, I would say you have not the first clue what you are talking about.

did I mention who came first in strength...

so the americans empathised so much as they got to know the British that a war was fought.

perhaps there is hope for Britain yet.

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

Nemesis wrote:



Your history is certainly shot to shit, as it was the Spanish in the Americas that came in strength first.
Well considering may Americans identify both by being American and their ethnicity, I would say you have not the first clue what you are talking about.

did I mention who came first in strength...

so the americans empathised so much as they got to know the British that a war was fought.

perhaps there is hope for Britain yet.

Yes the Spanish came first in strength to the Americas.

The fact is the colonies were made up of different European peoples, Spanish, English, French, German etc. They wanted to have self determination, a multicultural society going to war to have this, sort of backs my whole entire point as they threw off the control from Britain, but certainly did not kill all the English colonists now did they when they won?

Nemesis wrote:

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

did I mention who came first in strength...

so the americans empathised so much as they got to know the British that a war was fought.

perhaps there is hope for Britain yet.

Yes the Spanish came first in strength to the Americas.

The fact is the colonies were made up of different European peoples, Spanish, English, French, German etc. They wanted to have self determination, a multicultural society going to war to have this, sort of backs my whole entire point as they through off the control from Britain, but certainly did not kill all the English colonists now did they when they won?

that was not my argument or the topic, the topic was did time help them empathise, not with the white man and the indians and not with the americans and the British.

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

Nemesis wrote:


Yes the Spanish came first in strength to the Americas.

The fact is the colonies were made up of different European peoples, Spanish, English, French, German etc. They wanted to have self determination, a multicultural society going to war to have this, sort of backs my whole entire point as they through off the control from Britain, but certainly did not kill all the English colonists now did they when they won?

that was not my argument or the topic, the topic was did time help them empathise, not with the white man and the indians and not with the americans and the British.

That was answered.
Did they after defeating the British kill off the British colonists?
Did they deny further British colonists after?

Nemesis wrote:

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

that was not my argument or the topic, the topic was did time help them empathise, not with the white man and the indians and not with the americans and the British.

That was answered.
Did they after defeating the British kill off the British colonists?
Did they deny further British colonists after?

after killing the british soldiers did they then say its ok to stop now, so its not about time causing empathy it is about conquering causing empathy, why didn't you say that in the first place.

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

Nemesis wrote:


That was answered.
Did they after defeating the British kill off the British colonists?
Did they deny further British colonists after?

after killing the british soldiers did they then say its ok to stop now, so its not about time causing empathy it is about conquering causing empathy, why didn't you say that in the first place.

Sorry but can you actually write a comprehensible question, as none of the above makes any sense?
The fact is the colonists did not kill of the British colonists or stop them coming, so that answers your question as it did the first time I posted.

Nemesis wrote:

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

after killing the british soldiers did they then say its ok to stop now, so its not about time causing empathy it is about conquering causing empathy, why didn't you say that in the first place.

Sorry but can you actually write a comprehensible question, as none of the above makes any sense?
The fact is the colonists did not kill of the British colonists or stop them coming, so that answers your question as it did the first time I posted.

the British soldiers were killed , they americans had an army and therefore nothing to fear from a few colonists so in reality getting to know them did not cause the empathy not fearing them did.

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

Nemesis wrote:


Sorry but can you actually write a comprehensible question, as none of the above makes any sense?
The fact is the colonists did not kill of the British colonists or stop them coming, so that answers your question as it did the first time I posted.

the British soldiers were killed , they americans had an army and therefore nothing to fear from a few colonists so in reality getting to know them did not cause the empathy not fearing them did.

Not all the British and German soldiers were killed, some were captured. There were also colonists that sided with the British, so we have mixed views here but it was the multicultural views that won the day and then brought about bringing peace after, and this was all about having self determination for themselves. It had very little to do with any fear, but self determination for themselves.
Hence your posts are just plain absurd

Nemesis wrote:

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

the British soldiers were killed , they americans had an army and therefore nothing to fear from a few colonists so in reality getting to know them did not cause the empathy not fearing them did.

Not all the British and German soldiers were killed, some were captured. There were also colonists that sided with the British, so we have mixed views here but it was the multicultural views that won the day and then brought about bringing peace after, and this was all about having self determination for themselves. It had very little to do with any fear, but self determination for themselves.
Hence your posts are just plain absurd

It is not absurd at all, if the British army had remained in tact would the too groups have empathised at got on, probably but not through empathy but through control and fear..

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

Nemesis wrote:


Not all the British and German soldiers were killed, some were captured. There were also colonists that sided with the British, so we have mixed views here but it was the multicultural views that won the day and then brought about bringing peace after, and this was all about having self determination for themselves. It had very little to do with any fear, but self determination for themselves.
Hence your posts are just plain absurd

It is not absurd at all, if the British army had remained in tact would the too groups have empathised at got on, probably but not through empathy but through control and fear..

The British army was defeated, so there is your answer. If they remained in tact the war would have continued to one side won, so your point is utterly daft

Nemesis wrote:

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

It is not absurd at all, if the British army had remained in tact would the too groups have empathised at got on, probably but not through empathy but through control and fear..

The British army was defeated, so there is your answer. If they remained in tact the war would have continued to one side won, so your point is utterly daft

my point is empathy did not cause the two nations to become friendly..

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

Nemesis wrote:


The British army was defeated, so there is your answer. If they remained in tact the war would have continued to one side won, so your point is utterly daft

my point is empathy did not cause the two nations to become friendly..

Nations????


They were one nation.

Oh my

Nemesis wrote:

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

my point is empathy did not cause the two nations to become friendly..

Nations????


They were one nation.

Oh my

two peoples does that make it any clearer...

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

Nemesis wrote:


Nations????


They were one nation.

Oh my

two peoples does that make it any clearer...

Still getting your history wrong.