Is it?
In the second scenario, I empathize with the painful experience, not just with the outcome (depression). Even if both fictional characters are described as having the same state now, how they got there matters to us. We feel empathy for what they went through.
I don't think there's anything wrong to have different emotions towards a person who has just been robbed, compared to someone who hasn't been (but doesn't have more money in the bank account).
We have codified this in our laws. We give different punishments for the same crime depending on the criminal's path and emotional state. We literally judge people based on what they went through. Why is it wrong or unfair to feel differently towards the two fictional characters in this case?
> We feel empathy for what they went through.
(which I mostly agree with) —then yes, the relatively higher portion of empathy should go for the character in the latter scenario (which matches the results of the study).
That said, if we generalize the study and apply it to the setting it's concerned with (medical practitioners empathizing with patients)—it's not a matter of relative measures between multiple patients; it's a question of whether the empathy a patient may (or may not) inspire is sufficient to cross some threshold for a medical practitioner.
If the fact that the cause is of biological origin is sufficient to drop the empathy response beneath that threshold —then it's problematic (the paper points out supporting research for just how problematic it is). After all, the person who has suffered a lifetime of depression does deserve empathy from a doctor/therapist, even if not as much (I guess) for somebody who suffers additional afflictions on top.
Actually that makes me wonder how much dealing with many patients who are very badly off (and deserving much empathy) moves the threshold for the doctor, so that maybe they can't empathize so much for patients with situations which are legitimately bad—but not as bad as what they've seen a lot of...
If you take a look at the original research (linked to from the posted article), then you can skip to the discussion section to see the authors wording of what you are taking about. They are saying the same thing as you, essentially, in a more specific and sophisticated way (page 4 of 5)
That's a good suggestion I hadn't thought of. Really not sure aside from that—I've got some vague ideas about certain 'empathy trainings' that could be done, but I'd be concerned about throwing a random factor into how the rest of their work is done...
Is there something that can be "done about it"? Well someone will probably build an app for it because that's just how people in tech like to solve problems but these kinds of bias just seem to be a naturally built in part of the operating system as I see it.
The part of the “operating system” that they are talking about is a part that isn’t firmware, but rather software (or FPGA, more accurately metaphorically speaking) - meaning thought process, not instinct or gut feeling.
It seems clear to me that it's not right since in both cases the causes are outside the control of the afflicted person—even more so in the case of a brain structure anomaly; and a common ethical heuristic is to not blame someone in such a situation—but practically speaking, because people can't relate to the brain structure issue, they won't empathize as much.
Another ambiguity here is what's meant by 'empathy'. If you take it to mean 'relate to' (which is one meaning of course), then it's vacuous to say people have more empathy for those they can relate too. But there's another usage referring essentially to a cognitive mode wherein the empathetic person acts with understanding toward someone they're engaging with. It's surely easier to enter that mode when it's something you can personally relate to—but that isn't necessary: we can become empathetic in this way just through an abstract understanding of someone's situation.