Nature, Compassion and Strange Conclusions

Jonah Lehrer over at The Frontal Cortex discusses a recent study that suggests exposure to wildlife increases compassion. He then makes a rather pointed comment about the study's conclusion:

The question, of course, is why a mere glimpse of nature could lead to behavioral changes. The authors concoct a variety of clever hypotheses, including the possibility that nature "helps connect people to their authentic selves"[and the] primal traits of hunter-gather society, in which we depended on each other for survival. I'm not entirely convinced, as I generally avoid explanations that cobble together existentialism and untestable evolutionary psychology.

I share Johan’s conclusion.

To me, it seems nature itself would invoke a sense of perspective,¹ particularly its more contemplative aspects. Wildlife might trigger empathy and “theory-of-mind” responses (that is, imagining what that animal’s current experience would be like). (It’s unclear how much wildlife was part of the experiment.)

It would be reasonable to think the engagement of perspective, empathy and “theory-of-mind” responses would prime a person to have greater sensitivity to social emotions. One of the most prominent social emotions is compassion. So when a participant in the study goes from nature to the opportunity to show compassion, is it any wonder he shows more compassion than somehow who was first exposed to an urban setting?

The conclusion I sketch out could be more grounded, more in touch with the biology of the brain, than speculative notions such as the authentic self. One of the main values of neurosciences is its groundedness.

---

1. In the way Damasio would use it, as one of the attribute of consciousness - perspective, ownership and agency. ↩