Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Selective Empathy Can Chip Away at Civil Society

kqed.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 80 posts

Re: Selective Empathy Can Chip Away at Civil Society

#71

Post by YeGoblynQueenne »

>> By 2009, on all the standard measures, Konrath found, young people on average measure 40 percent less empathetic than my own generation — 40 percent!

I apologise in advance to folks in the humanities for my skepticism, but when you're quantifying something like "empathy" which is not well defined and canot be measured directly, then a quantitative difference on its own doesn't mean much. That 40% shift may be because the questionnaire itself changed over time, or because it didn't change enough with the times, or any other factor that is has nothing to do with the actual "empathy" of the subjects.

Edit: I was once given a personality test by a psychologist [for reasons I'm not at liberty to disclose, like]. One of the questions was along the lines of "a holy man can heal a patient by laying on hands: true or false?". At the time, I had no idea what that even meant. "Laying on hands"? What, like a D&D Paladin? Years later I learned that some evangelical sects in the US practice this as some kind of prayer or ritual. The personality test I took was most likely drafted originally in the US and there were many more questions that I found very confusing, like that one. So, if I had no idea what many of the questions meant, what exactly was that questionnaire supposed to be measuring? Yet I believe it was some standardised psychological test given to people around the globe.

Re: Selective Empathy Can Chip Away at Civil Society

#72

Post by nilskidoo »

johnchristopher wrote: post #54
nilskidoo wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And we should all pretend that the internet resolves conflicts at any level? I think the widescale lack of communicating without empathizing pheromones is quite obviously making a shitstorm of the whole wide world. But keep culting with your bad self.

> And we should all pretend that the internet resolves conflicts at any level? A lot of people believe so and unfortunately some policy-makers as well. I thought the book https://www.amazon.com/Net-Delusion-Dark-Internet-Freedom/dp... made a good argument against cyber-utopianism.

As does Yasha Levine's Surveillance Valley. https://surveillancevalley.com/

And I realize anti-establishment innuendo is taboo here, but if yc is focused on bringing forth more products and services to the world, then doing so without understanding what things the world may honestly want or need, without some pretext of empathy for the source of those wants and needs, is as reprehensible as it is ineffective. When nobody today is satisfied, to the extent the richest man Bezos feels the need to upgrade his life partner, then we are not doing ourselves any justice in thinking technology can either save or replace dying virtue.

Re: Selective Empathy Can Chip Away at Civil Society

#73

Post by nilskidoo »

wolfgke wrote: post #67
nilskidoo wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And we should all pretend that the internet resolves conflicts at any level? I think the widescale lack of communicating without empathizing pheromones is quite obviously making a shitstorm of the whole wide world. But keep culting with your bad self.

> I think the widescale lack of communicating without empathizing pheromones is quite obviously making a shitstorm of the whole wide world. I rather believe that deep empathy for your own groups is the cause of many shitstorms. To quote from the article: "For example, we often think of terrorists as shockingly blind to the suffering of innocents. But Breithaupt and other researchers think of them as classic examples…

But the inability to infringe on the rights of others is not itself an infringement of any actual right. That is an impossible lesson to be learned by us here in the west.

Re: Selective Empathy Can Chip Away at Civil Society

#74

Post by Udik »

rayiner wrote: post #48
Udik wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What is important is maintaining the institutions that have been wildly successful in mediating conflict between diverse groups As another commenter remarked as well, there is no point in maintaining mediating institutions if you're not ready to accept the fact that a mediation is a fair resolution between opposing perspectives and needs. In other words, if you have no empathy for the others, any mediation is unfai…

Accepting the results of mediating instructions doesn’t require empathy, it requires a deference to rules-based process and a commitment to be bound. To use the US as an example, our social empathy has never been higher, whereas our commitment to mediating institutions is at historic lows. (Especially to the highly empathetic left, our mediating institutions have become mere means to ends.)

> our social empathy has never been higher

Ha. Well, that's the opposite of what I think the article is trying to say: social empathy is at its highest for those who are on your side, those you agree with, for your friends. But it's zero for your enemies: depending on which side you're on, think of your empathy towards Trump, or Clinton, or Weinstein, or the "social justice warriors". So it's "selective empathy". The selective empathy might be at its highest, but empathy in general seems to have declined. Maybe to the point you don't even think anymore it should be included in a measure of "empathy".

> a deference to rules-based process and a commitment to be bound

Sorry if I stress that again, but why would you commit to be bound if these institutions are meant to mediate between you and somebody you have no empathy for, somebody who is absolutely wrong, somebody you hate?

To give you an extreme example of what I mean, would you accept to be bound by the decisions of an institution that is dedicated to finding a middle ground between you and child rapists? Or would you say that since any middle ground with child rapists is unacceptable, the institution's itself unacceptable?

Re: Selective Empathy Can Chip Away at Civil Society

#75

Post by TimTheTinker »

chongli wrote: post #69
TimTheTinker wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Empathy is a concern for some fellow human beings, not all. > Empathy is an evolutionary tool for promoting group cohesiveness. Empathy is an emotional attitude we can choose to extend to others. The fact that some people don't feel empathy towards everyone else doesn't mean that's morally right. Evolution has nothing to do with our moral choices, and it's no excuse either. Extending kindness and dignity to others…

Empathy is an emotional attitude we can choose to extend to others. The fact that some people don't feel empathy towards everyone else doesn't mean that's morally right. You're entering dangerous territory here. It's not a well-accepted fact that empathy is something you can choose to extend to everyone. On the contrary, there's ample evidence to suggest that we cannot extend it to everyone [1]. To then ascribe moral…

Compassion fatigue notwithstanding, it absolutely is possible to believe that all human beings are worthy of dignity, respect, and empathy.

To have decided ahead of time that everyone is worthy of empathy is most of the battle. Yes, we all have limited emotional resources. Millions of murdered people doesn’t move us like it ought to. But love and empathy are like muscles — practicing them improves our capacity to do so.

It also helps to be emotionally healthy and in healthy, loving relationships. (And if I may say so, knowing and being loved/forgiven by God provides a wellspring of emotional life that nothing else can; I’m a Christian.)

Re: Selective Empathy Can Chip Away at Civil Society

#76

Post by speedplane »

nostrademons wrote: post #13
speedplane wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Tribal instincts are super strong, that's been proven over and over again Tribal instincts aren't as strong as you think. Every civil and egalitarian right that people have gained since the enlightenment are the result of overcoming tribal instincts. The definition of a "tribe" is more often than not mostly a social construct. If society can set it up, it can tear it down.

The definition of tribes is a social construct. The existence of tribes is not. Reformers who seek to abolish tribalism usually find that they've simply redrawn the boundary lines and replaced one set of tribes with another. The dogmatism of the Church gets replaced by the patriotism of the State. Racism gets replaced by classism. Discrimination on appearance gets replaced by discrimination on education. Sometimes ju…

> Reformers who seek to abolish tribalism usually find that they've simply redrawn the boundary lines and replaced one set of tribes with another. The dogmatism of the Church gets replaced by the patriotism of the State. Racism gets replaced by classism. Discrimination on appearance gets replaced by discrimination on education.

These are pretty poor examples, one type of tribalism did not "replace" the other. One was knocked down, and then the next one was attacked. In the middle ages, when the Church was strong, you could be sure that classism and racism were also alive and well. When the power of the Church fell, classism and racism did not increase or replace the Church, they were just the next hurdle to tackle.

Boundaries can and do change. They can become more equitable or less equitable. Of course, it's impossible to make everyone perfectly equal, but that isn't the goal. The goal is to diminish the influence of socially constructed non-intrinsic sources of judgment.

Given how much progress there has been over the last 500 years, I find it strange that many take such a fatalistic point of view.

Re: Selective Empathy Can Chip Away at Civil Society

#77

Post by speedplane »

0815test wrote: post #23
nostrademons wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The definition of tribes is a social construct. The existence of tribes is not. Reformers who seek to abolish tribalism usually find that they've simply redrawn the boundary lines and replaced one set of tribes with another. The dogmatism of the Church gets replaced by the patriotism of the State. Racism gets replaced by classism. Discrimination on appearance gets replaced by discrimination on education. Sometimes ju…

> Reformers who seek to abolish tribalism usually find that they've simply redrawn the boundary lines and replaced one set of tribes with another. Yup: Also known as, "I can tolerate anyone except my outgroup" - https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anythin...

> Yup: Also known as, "I can tolerate anyone except my outgroup"

However, the definition of "outgroup" is almost entirely subject to society. It has changed dramatically in the last 500 years. If the definition of "outgroup" is so fluid, then the strict belief of tribalism doesn't have much merit.

Re: Selective Empathy Can Chip Away at Civil Society

#78

Post by speedplane »

Reelin wrote: post #14
speedplane wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Tribal politics affect every social interaction. You're broadening your definition of tribal instincts to encompass all of society. Sure, people make teams based on shared social values, but those aren't really tribes in the traditional sense, i.e., you look like me and/or reside near me, therefore I will team up with you. Under your broader definition, a "tribe" can be anything. It could even emerge based on share…

I think you are confusing tribal instincts (ie thought patterns and emotional drives) with tribal entities (ie the emergence and labeling of tribes themselves). A given instinct (ie predisposed thought pattern or behavioral tendency) potentially applies to everything we do. In particular, our tribal instincts don't suddenly stop affecting us just because we're interacting with something that doesn't resemble a tradit…

> A given instinct (ie predisposed thought pattern or behavioral tendency) potentially applies to everything we do

Behavioral tendencies can change remarkably quickly (i.e., a single generation), rendering the entire idea of "tribes" as you posit them obsolete. It's much more effective to measure and understand those behavioral tendencies directly, and the motivations behind them, than to create arbitrary "tribes" that try to encapsulate those buckets.

Re: Selective Empathy Can Chip Away at Civil Society

#79

Post by Reelin »

speedplane wrote: post #78
Reelin wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you are confusing tribal instincts (ie thought patterns and emotional drives) with tribal entities (ie the emergence and labeling of tribes themselves). A given instinct (ie predisposed thought pattern or behavioral tendency) potentially applies to everything we do. In particular, our tribal instincts don't suddenly stop affecting us just because we're interacting with something that doesn't resemble a tradit…

> A given instinct (ie predisposed thought pattern or behavioral tendency) potentially applies to everything we do Behavioral tendencies can change remarkably quickly (i.e., a single generation), rendering the entire idea of "tribes" as you posit them obsolete. It's much more effective to measure and understand those behavioral tendencies directly, and the motivations behind them, than to create arbitrary "tribes" th…

> It's much more effective to measure and understand those behavioral tendencies directly, and the motivations behind them

I never suggested otherwise? The term "tribal instincts" was meant to refer to precisely that.

> Behavioral tendencies can change remarkably quickly (i.e., a single generation)

I think you have some fairly fundamental misconceptions about how deeply tribal instincts are rooted - not just in humanity, but primates and a great many other animals. They appear to be tied to evolution in a fairly direct manner. Fractals by Peter Watts is fictional but highly illustrative (https://rifters.com/real/shorts/PeterWatts_Fractals.pdf).

Re: Selective Empathy Can Chip Away at Civil Society

#80

Post by speedplane »

Reelin wrote: post #79
speedplane wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A given instinct (ie predisposed thought pattern or behavioral tendency) potentially applies to everything we do Behavioral tendencies can change remarkably quickly (i.e., a single generation), rendering the entire idea of "tribes" as you posit them obsolete. It's much more effective to measure and understand those behavioral tendencies directly, and the motivations behind them, than to create arbitrary "tribes" th…

> It's much more effective to measure and understand those behavioral tendencies directly, and the motivations behind them I never suggested otherwise? The term "tribal instincts" was meant to refer to precisely that. > Behavioral tendencies can change remarkably quickly (i.e., a single generation) I think you have some fairly fundamental misconceptions about how deeply tribal instincts are rooted - not just in human…

>> It's much more effective to measure and understand those behavioral tendencies directly

> I never suggested otherwise? The term "tribal instincts" was meant to refer to precisely that.

You have a very broad definition of a "tribe", but at the very least, I would assume that it means defining a group of people with similar interests, no? My point is that it makes more sense to define and study the interests, rather than the groups.

People have lots of different interests, some overlap with others, some do not. Analyzing the underlying interests is much more important than defining groups of people who have "similar" interests.

> I think you have some fairly fundamental misconceptions about how deeply tribal instincts are rooted - not just in humanity, but primates and a great many other animals. They appear to be tied to evolution in a fairly direct manner.

I think you have a fundamental misconception on how people are different from other animals. People can change social structures and belief systems far more quickly than any other animal can. Most animal's social structure is dictated by evolution and instincts, which take thousands of years to modify. Humans are not limited to that, and can make huge fundamental changes in 20 years without any change in genetics.

Post reply on HN