Summary

The text discusses the phenomenon of psychic numbing, where individuals become desensitized to the suffering of large numbers of people, leading to a decline in compassion and help towards those in need, particularly in the context of poverty and economic crises.

Abstract

The author reflects on personal experiences in Nicaragua and the U.S. to illustrate how societal desensitization to human suffering occurs, particularly in impoverished or economically distressed conditions. This desensitization is explained through the concept of psychic numbing, a psychological defense mechanism that diminishes empathy as the number of victims increases. Professor Paul Slovic's research on pseudoinefficacy reveals that people are less likely to help when they feel their contribution is insignificant in the face of a larger crisis. The text suggests that while our natural tendency is to employ fast, emotional thinking, we must engage in slow, critical thinking to overcome this sense of inefficacy and continue to help individuals, even if we cannot solve the entire problem.

Opinions

The author initially judged Nicaraguan society for its apparent indifference to suffering children but later understood that poverty was the root cause of this apathy.
People in Nicaragua and the U.S. became apathetic towards the homeless and those in need due to the overwhelming scale of poverty and economic crises.
The author believes that society has not turned evil but is instead reacting normally to overwhelming circumstances, which leads to psychic numbing.
Professor Slovic's research indicates that individuals are more willing to help identifiable victims than unidentified or statistical victims, demonstrating the "identifiable victim effect."
The text suggests that to combat indifference, we must focus on helping individuals within large groups and retrain our brains to engage in critical thinking rather than relying solely on emotional responses.

Why Have We Stopped Caring For Other Fellow Humans?

Has society turned evil?

In 2005, I moved to Nicaragua for five months. I constantly saw children in the markets, begging for food. Many were even willing to work and earn the food; however, most people ignored them and went on with their lives as usual.

I was devastated. I didn’t understand how they could ignore defenseless children with torn clothes and bare feet. “What is wrong with these people?” I wondered.

Eventually, I realized that people had become desensitized. Nicaragua is an impoverished country. The majority of people are unemployed, and those who have jobs earn so little money that sometimes it is not even enough to feed themselves, let alone help someone else.

Since most cannot afford to help those in greater need, they harden their hearts instead. They pretend to be blind and deaf because they will lose their sanity otherwise.

People look happy and say they are doing good if you ask them. But that is how they cope with all their problems. They go around pretending that everything is fine and that they are happy. But that is just a facade that they put up to survive every day.

The 2007–2008 financial crisis in the United States left many people in my town homeless. After that period, I began to see street vendors everywhere, and it felt as though I was suddenly somewhere else.

We had a few homeless mostly concentrated in the downtown area before that time. Now they are all over. People used to help them and even bought goods they sometimes sold. But after the financial crisis, things have changed. Most people have become apathetic towards them.

What has the world come to? I often asked myself. As the kindness of the people disappeared, and society grew ever colder, I found myself in a totally unfamiliar place. And it appeared to me that society was deteriorating.

What I didn't know is that there is something called psychic numbing. The arithmetic of compassion defines psychic numbing as “ a psychological phenomenon that causes us to feel indifferent to the suffering of large numbers of people.”

Paul Slovic, a professor of psychology at the University of Oregon, conducted a study about this phenomenon. He found out that we are willing to help identified individuals, but as the number of victims increases, our compassion declines, and we become desensitized. That is due to what he calls pseudoinefficacy, a false sense of powerlessness.

Pseudoinefficacy refers to the idea that people are less willing to help one person when they are made aware of the broader scope of people in need that they are not helping.

To better understand this problem, we have to look at how our brain works. We have two ways of thinking, fast and slow thinking. Fast thinking is automatic and is driven by emotions, while slow thinking requires critical thinking and concentration. Most of the time, we use fast thinking.

When we are presented with a single individual that needs help, our fast-thinking is immediately at work and driven by emotion; we respond immediately and take action. That is because we feel good when we help others; it is called the “warm glow” of generosity.

However, when presented with many victims, we become quickly overwhelmed because we cannot help them all. Therefore, instead of focusing on the one we can help our fast thinking tells us that the problem is too big for us to solve, and we become indifferent.

Professor Slovic, in his Judgment and Decision Making journal, wrote:

Most people are caring and will exert great effort to rescue individual victims whose needy plight comes to their attention. These same good people, however, often become numbly indifferent to the plight of individuals who are “one of many” in a much greater problem.

I saw this take place right before me in the aftermath of the 2007–2008 economic crisis. People suddenly stopped feeling compassion towards the homeless because the number has become overwhelming since.

“A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic.” Joseph Stalin.

Professor Slovic conducted various experiments where participants were presented with different scenarios. When individuals were given the option to help one individual, the donations went up. However, when the number of victims increased, donations decreased. He was terrified of the results of his research.

Numerous experiments have demonstrated the “identifiable victim effect” which is also so evident outside the laboratory. People are much more willing to aid identified individuals than unidentified or statistical victims. Professor Paul Slovic.

What hope is there for us? What can we do to overcome our sense of powerlessness before large tragedies? How can we train our brains to think critically about these issues?

Based on his research, Professor Slovic recommends focusing on individuals among large groups and retrain our brains and process the information carefully. Even if we can only help one person, that person stills needs our help.

The way that we behave before large tragedies is normal. We have not become evil as a society; we are simply reacting based on fast thinking. We have to use our slow thinking more often so that we are not tricked into believing that our ability to help others becomes ineffective simply because we can’t help them all.