I highly recommend Harold Bloom's book Against Empathy, whose audiobook I listened to some time ago. It goes through some varying definitions of "empathy" and comes out in strong favor of a certain type of empathy that the author calls (I think) "cognitive empathy." A pretty good starting point, I think, for trying to get a handle on what people mean when they talk about empathy.
For CW issues, I think "empathy" in practice just means "favoritism for people I like, stated in a way that sounds noble," no more and no less. Most people don't even know that that's what they mean when they say it, but I've noticed that it fits better than any of the more common meanings of "empathy" in basically every situation in which one encounters it.
Lol it comes with practice
Honestly, at one point in your life it'll become evident that when you say ""I understand why you're upset, I'd be upset too." isn't about whether you do or do not actually believe what you are saying - but more about that you said it.
And I encourage all my brethren of this subreddit to read or skim Against Empathy: The Case for Rational Compassion by Dr. Paul Bloom
Sympathy rather than empathy. As you note, empathy can quickly become manipulation. The point is not that you should feel certain ways (then you end up manipulating yourself), it’s that we should act well. Act in the best interests of others, so caring things. Don’t worry about what you are feeling. If you’re into reading, try the book Against Empathy. https://www.amazon.com/Against-Empathy-Case-Rational-Compassion/dp/0062339338
>if he wanted to he could have killed them
That's exactly why he shoot him.
You are assuming that the robber wouldn't shoot if you give them money, but reality is not always like you wish. You also are assuming that by shooting just once, the robber wouldn't shoot back. That's not how it works. You can get shot and still be able to move. Indeed that's what happened. Just because he was on the ground, it doesn't mean he's not life threatening anymore. The robber fears for his life and as a consequence would kill someone else when he got shot in order to avoid other possible shots. It happens many times in inexperienced people.
Now you could argue, why didn't he shoot him directly into his head so that he didn't need to shoot several times? It is really hard to aim exactly in the head in that situation, and out of fear with that exact life-threatening situation was really hard. If you were the green shirt guy, you probably would have died because of your empathy. Empathy is not always good.
It's not about valuing material over human life, it's about valuing your own life more than a random stranger that is threatening to kill you. Don't tell "psychopathic" to someone, just because you're over empathic. I suggest you to read a book that clearly doesn't condamn empathy as it's very useful but highlights the problems of it and when it's dangerous. Against Empathy I didn't read it yet but plan to read it.
Fuck no.
I would always prefer a bad boss and good work.
"Good boss" + "bad work" = even worse work because you feel sorry for your boss's problems.Against Empathy.
>I do see both animals struggling, but one is attempting to kill the other.
Yes, it's almost like that's how things in nature survive.
​
>It’s not hypocrisy to help the animal that is being killed, it’s empathy.
No, it's definitionally hypocrisy. You have selective empathy. You are saying "there is no evidence the shark is starving". Tell me, what are the signs a shark is starving? You have literally no information except, and you cannot deny this, you *feel bad* for the turtle.
If the shark is hunting, that means, wait for it - it needs to eat.
Again your entire foundation for your decision is *your feelings*. That's an *awful* way to make a decision about what lives and what dies. You are saying that I am elevating humans to some sort of divine status, meanwhile here you are choosing who lives and who dies, like some emperor giving the thumbs up or down based on the noise of the crowd.
You need to read Paul Bloom's Against Empathy. And no, it's not about being an unfeeling robot. It's about not letting your emotions get in the way of doing the right thing. It's about having the courage to feel bad, knowing that you did the right thing.
I look at this turtle, and all I want to do is scoop it up into the boat. But I wouldn't. And I would feel like an asshole. But it is not my place to deny a living creature of the wild a meal that is hard won. I am not a god and I am not making the decision of who wins a natural contest between wild animals.
Paul Bloom's Against Empathy might help you. Other than that... maybe browse liveleak? Or other extremist sites to help desensitize you to whatever it is that gets the waterworks flowing?
there have been multiple researches regarding that.
one notable book is this one: https://www.amazon.com/Against-Empathy-Case-Rational-Compassion/dp/0062339338
it shows how being "nice", tolerant and empathetic can actually be a dangerous thing sometimes.
"Far from helping us to improve the lives of others, empathy is a capricious and irrational emotion that appeals to our narrow prejudices. It muddles our judgment and, ironically, often leads to cruelty. We are at our best when we are smart enough not to rely on it, but to draw instead upon a more distanced compassion." https://www.amazon.com/Against-Empathy-Case-Rational-Compassion/dp/0062339338
P.S. I'm an adult with enough awareness to know that Boulder is nothing without its university.
> Empati og Rationalisme
Der er dem, som argumenterer for, at de to ting på mange måder er modsætninger, og at der er for megen empati og for lidt fornuft. Tjek Paul Blooms Against Empathy.
>If someone ignores plausible ethical theories by discouraging consideration of empathy, then, regardless of how "moralistic" their language might be, they have effectively ignored one of our best ways to reach insight into morality (empathy). I'd be comfortable saying that a person who does that has ignored morality.
There are good reasons to think empathy biases us in problematic ways. We don't need empathy to be moral, many normative theories don't depend on it. This is an interesting book on the topic.
> At the same time, the author is failing to recognize the intentions behind the rules of the company. Hypocrisy at its finest.
Actually I think he understands it very well: as a thinly-veiled Identity-Political grab for power. It has nothing to do with actual fairness; it's simply "I can't compete so I'll change the rules". The problem is that he doesn't understand the implications of that fact: namely that speaking truth to power isn't good for one's career. If people have abandoned principle in pursuit of power then they aren't going to care when you point out their logical inconsistencies.
>but it strikes me as dehumanizing people.
Again, I disagree with this. It's not dehumanizing people, it's professionalizing them. It's a workplace, not a day care. Also, he made that comment specifically in the context of diversity initiatives. Empathy has many well-known failure modes, and is hazardous when employed for moral reasoning. In fact, a well-known philosopher recently wrote an entire book on the subject.
>Prioritize intention: This strikes me as an excuse for people who are inept at communicating without offending other people.
It's also for people who are clinically sensitive or otherwise emotionally unstable. It's essentially urging people to give others the benefit of the doubt, which how can you argue with that? It's certainly preferable to running to HR every time you misinterpret someone else's [but of course it's always a white male's] 'microaggressions'.
Stimme völlig zu. Ich bin da auch etwas zwiegespalten.
Auf der einen Seite respektiere ich einen unaufgeregten und sachorientierten Politikstil sehr, und denke dass das der Gesamtkultur zuträglicher ist als die reality TV-Spektakel, die wir in manch anderen Ländern sehen, in denen eine vergiftete politische Kultur und Identitätsstiftung die Bevölkerung zutiefst spaltet.
Auf der anderen Seite besorgt mich, dass die Entscheidungsfindung, also der politische Prozess selbst, bei Merkel stets völlig intransparent stattfindet. Wenn sie ihre stoische und analytische Denkmethodik öffentlich besser nachvollziehbar machen würde, fände ich das vermutlich kulturell und in puncto allgemeiner Bildung sogar sehr hilfreich.
Durch dieses scheinbar leidenschaftslose (was nicht immer schlecht sein muss) und für viele Bürger nur schwer nachvollziehbare, und damit etwas "elitär/abgehoben" wirkende Auftreten verhilft Merkel womöglich populistischen Schreihälsen in den Augen einiger zu mehr Legitimität.
The empathy/compassion distinction is the topic of a recent Econtalk on Against Empathy. Given the book's title, I'd guess many could correctly predict the Amazon star distribution.
She's got something of a point; many women HAVE for sometime now been expressing thoughts to the effect of "Chicks aren't allowed to try out for the SEALs, because The Patriarchy is alive, well, and trying to rob us of a shot at becoming Medal Of Honor winners. Less sinister explanations(Such as the fact that several nations have already experimented with putting women into combat, only to discover that men on average will try to help their female colleagues when wounded, to the detriment of the mission)aren't far more probable". This isn't anything new though; a Hollywood film-GI Jane-which espouses this very worldview was released back in the 90s, and raked in a shitload of dough at the box office. The more light-hearted Goldie Hawn vehicle Private Benjamin even tapped into similar themes a over a decade prior to GI Jane's release
​
Let's also resist the urge to get self-righteous here, fellas. Many prominent MRAs have, for some time now, been foregoing the pursuit of concrete, tangible goals in favor of vague and specious missions such as "Closing The Empathy Gap", "Getting women to recognize all the ways in which they benefit from Gynocentrism", and even trying to get the public to blindly celebrate Men's Day in the same way so many folks accept the existence of Women's Day without so much as a whimper, rather than asking "Why the hell do we have a Women's Day or a Men's day at all? Wouldn't life be a lot better if we abolished both, and started making a conscious effort to dropkick all forms of identity politics into the dumpster where they belong?"
​
Just as many women have been trying to get onto The SWAT Team and into The Green Berets in the name of achieving equality, without ever asking "Would the likely results of such a thing coming to fruition yield more harm than good, not just to women but to everyone?", a disconcerting number of self-identified Red Pill men now think it's wise for us to create a society in which men are pitied as often and frequently as women often are, rather than calling on our fellow citizens to show us the same respect we've been told to show towards women. Worse yet, many of these same GRPM's are down with the idea of celebrating men just for being male, much in the same way women are often celebrated just for being female. Rarely if ever do MRAs ask out loud "Why the hell are we yapping on endlessly about this supposed Empathy Gap, when the definition of empathy itself remains elusive( https://spsp.org/news-center/character-context-blog/empathy-word-too-many-meanings ), and the practice itself may not even be especially healthy or humane https://www.amazon.com/Against-Empathy-Case-Rational-Compassion/dp/0062339338 "
​
It's dishonest for us to finger wag at the ladies too much, when we're fucking up in similar ways
>It seems empathy, sympathy, compassion may be all be conflated when talking about this subject, I have never seen anyone distinguish and articulate that distinction clearly.
He did: https://www.amazon.com/Against-Empathy-Case-Rational-Compassion/dp/0062339338
>it feels like they are going out of their way to kill empathy in the world.
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/latenightlive/is-empathy-always-good/8319744
>But in reality we are more empathic to those that we relate to in some way, family, friends, community and country thus leaving us with little empathy for those outside our own circles. Paul Bloom has taken a stance against empathy.
https://www.amazon.com/Against-Empathy-Case-Rational-Compassion/dp/0062339338
It takes more than just 1 opinion article by a neuroscientist to make a sound judgment on something; it takes more like 50 research publications on different aspects of the same topic.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2827455/
http://www.cogprints.org/619/1/Emot_Decis.html
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/media/library/decisionbrain
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irrationality
https://www.amazon.com/Against-Empathy-Case-Rational-Compassion/dp/0062339338
You are going down this path of seemingly psychoanalyzing me. I find it unconvincing, and mostly completely off the mark.
Neutral in regards to politics does not mean we must be neutral on all things. We can be aggressively biased in favor of the use of data and scientific methods. We can be aggressively biased against emotional knee jerk reactions. But even with these biases we could still be neutral in regards to politics.
This is the problem with trying to psychoanalyze someone you don't know. My story-telling abilities are more related to making up fantasy worlds. The story about politics I learned from others:
In 2008 I was a big Ron Paul fan. I helped set up signs, canvas neighborhoods, and stand guard in freezing weather to protect the local Ron Paul blimp we flew in the sky. I scheduled and ran two political debates at my highschool in those years. I helped canvas and hand out fliers for a local libertarian candidate two years in a row. I went to multiple summer seminars that were focused around politics and policy issues. I went to college thinking political advocacy was what I wanted to do with my life. I spent a summer on K street in DC working for a think tank.
Telling me that I get high off of being not biased is like telling an alcoholic that they are just getting high off of going to AA meetings.
I'm pretty sure I know exactly how intoxicating and good it feels to be high on your own politics, and rationalism never feels that good. Rationalism is staying sober when everyone else is getting shitfaced around you. Its tough. You know you are making the right decision because you can see all the shitty decisions everyone around you is making. But they are also clearly having way more fun than you are.
To me you sound like that drunken friend swaying back in forth in front of you at a party. I warned them that they are going to feel like shit tomorrow, and their response is "man you are just so drunk on your own bullshit, you don't know what its like!"
You've mistaken me for the moral crusader who has never had a sip. Instead I'm the recovering alcoholic who couldn't control their booze and hit rock bottom. I don't begrudge you your drink, if you can control it go ahead and drink. But some people can't control it, and some people don't want to find out.
To finally end this metaphor: you just found out a new Church is opening that says "no alcohol" on the front and you've walked in tipsy trying to tell them all about the great new bar downtown. We understand your heart is in the right place, but its still going to be a 'hard pass' for us on the offer.
Read: https://www.amazon.com/Against-Empathy-Case-Rational-Compassion/dp/0062339338
Against Empathy by Paul Bloom
> empathy
Read this some time, it is a very thorough understanding of why empathy does more harm than good.
Bit late to this discussion but you might like the book Against Empathy by Paul Bloom: https://www.amazon.com/Against-Empathy-Case-Rational-Compassion/dp/0062339338
I heard about it on a Sam Harris Podcast which was fascinating. Basically the argument is that what most people mean by empathy is instead compassion and that actually empathy often leads to bad emotional decisions and burnout in the workplace.
Here's the podcast if you're interested: https://soundcloud.com/samharrisorg/the-virtues-of-cold-blood-a-conversation-with-paul-bloom
Matthieu Ricard also talks about this from a Buddhist perspective in a great TED talk if you can find it.
> Loving all doesn't mean that one doesn't have certain unique obligations to bear certain relations to me. Ever heard of "Think global, act local"? Loving those close to me who depend on me is part of my work of making the whole world a better place.
that is simply and only because of society today.
tell me this, if there is no orphanage or child services. and a dying child shows up on your door would you let him sit there and die? ofc not. you would bring him in and help him and feed him and give him clothes, and now what? there is nowhere for him to go, no one else will take him. the only moral choice is to literally take him in as a child, as every other alternative is completely immoral.
as you see, you are morally obligated to this child just as you are your children. you see your children as someone who require your care more than anyone because there is not anyone else required to care for them. if the state and just everyone in life loved and cared for all kids you would not be obligated to care for them. if you pushed your kid out the door they would have countless positive alternatives then you obligation would be mitigated.
also, you brushed off of jesus so fast, explain please, jesus has unique obligations to his child had he had one? what to house him? you think jesus would not house anyone who needed or asked? or feed or anything?
anyways,
modern moral philosophy was an article where the jist is that moral philosophy has to be merged with psychology, to be useful. and that basically all of the old philosophy on morality from post socratic philosophers lacks much of what we understand today.
William Macaskill philosopher who gives away i think everything after 30k he makes each year.
http://www.bigissue.com/features/5638/william-macaskill-we-should-buy-clothes-made-in-sweatshops
"Practical ethics" by Peter singer is a fantastic book and one of the foundational books on Effective altruism.
Paul bloom (Professor of psychology) has a really good new book
https://www.amazon.com/Against-Empathy-Case-Rational-Compassion/dp/0062339338
sam harris's moral landscape is also really good.
There is a difference between empathy and rational compassion.
“But empathy is surprisingly bad at making us good. It's a spotlight focusing on certain people in the here and now. This makes us care more about them, but it leaves us insensitive to the long-term consequences of our acts and blind as well to the suffering of those we do not or cannot empathize with. Empathy is biased, pushing us in the direction of parochialism and racism. It is innumerate, favoring the one over the many. It can spark violence; our empathy for those close to us is a powerful force for war and atrocity toward others. It exhausts the spirit and can diminish the force of kindness and love.”
> Or why not link his actual research?
It's a book.
So many strawman arguments:
"I had a miscarriage" -- "At least you can get pregnant"
"I have a marriage that is falling apart" -- "At least you have a marriage."
"John is getting kicked out of school." -- "At least Sarah is an A-student."
Who the fuck repsonds to someone like that? I've met some pretty unempathetic people in my day and literally none of them would respond to any of those situations in that way.
This lady needs to read Yale psychologist Paul Bloom's "Against Empathy: The case for rational compassion"
In short, he argues that empathy is the act of understanding where someone is coming from by shouldering someone elses suffering which will only drag your own psyche down. Compassion is understanding where someone is coming from through listening and not shouldering their suffering so that you are strong enough to support them and guide them out of the nightmare.
And for what it's worth, in the past Paul Bloom has published with Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker whose new book is Bill Gates' new favorite book
Haidt has also published with Pinker.