Consider this question:
This touches on a very controversial topic in Cog Sci, the idea of mirror neurons.
Many pop-science books and magazines sensationalize mirror neurons, due to their parsimonious explanation of complex phenomenon (such as autism). This makes them accessible to non-academics, who are often not aware that the debate has not been settled.
In particular, there are still fundamental questions about the function and scope of mirror neurons, in addition to whether they exist at all in humans (see Hickok, 2009 for a review).
As I see it, there are two possible responses:
1) Answer the question by highlighting this debate and suggest that the OP's question is currently unanswerable.
2) Answer the question by taking the OP's assumptions for granted (i.e., that mirror neurons exist).
Both answers are biased. Though I feel the first gives a better expose on the broader issue, it does not answer the OP's question. The second answers the OP's question, but ignores the controversy (or at the least, seems to side with the mirror neuron camp).
The best possible answer might be able to provide the opinion of both camps, though I feel I'm often ill-equipped to answer questions unbiasedly from a position that I do not support.
Is there a better solution?
Hickok, G. (2009). Eight Problems for the Mirror Neuron Theory of Action Understanding in Monkeys and Humans. J Cogn Neurosci, 21, 1229-1243.