This isn't surprising. If you don't much care about other people, then politics just won't seem worth it. Even if your side wins completely, your personal gains will be pretty small. And conflict isn't fun. Just read the flurry of articles that will be coming out this week about politics and Thanksgiving dinner. The easy, comfortable position is "why can't we all just get along?" And that's the one you'll take if you're only concerned about your own welfare, and not that of the millions of other people who are affected by political decisions.
Empathic concern does not reduce partisan animosity: study
81–90 of 142 posts
Re: Empathic concern does not reduce partisan animosity: study
#82Earlier quoted context omitted.
Listened to the podcast and its good. I've always been empathetic to shooters because I understand determinism and realize the shooter didn't have any free will in how his/her life turned out. The universe just happened to make it be. Anyway more food for thought to the topic.
Based on what you're saying, it's immoral to send the shooter to prison or punish him in any way since he had no control over his actions and therefore was not guilty of assault or murder. Bet that theory goes right out the window when it's someone you know lying dead in a pool of blood. Does this apply to all actions? In that case mortality simply doesn't exist and there cannot be good or bad things. How far do you…
> Based on what you're saying, it's immoral to send the shooter to prison or punish him in any way since he had no control over his actions and therefore was not guilty of assault or murder.
No, it's not; determinism applies to the punisher as much as the punished, so if the fact of determinism negates any moral culpability for the act being punished, then it likewise does so for the punishment.
Re: Empathic concern does not reduce partisan animosity: study
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
This seems like a poor prompt to generalize from. The premise isn't about some random speaker from the other side. It's about a controversial celebrity known for mocking, inflammatory statements, who practically calls their opponents subhuman. Sounds like an asshole. Maybe highly empathetic people don't like assholes. This headline certainly doesn't seem to be a warranted takeaway.
Highly empathetic people should be the ones most able to empathize with people who are deeply unpleasant. Else they wouldn't be highly empathetic. > Maybe highly empathetic people don't like assholes. Nobody likes assholes...
Empathy allows people to better understand the asshole which will cause them to hate the asshole even more.
Re: Empathic concern does not reduce partisan animosity: study
#84Earlier quoted context omitted.
Highly empathetic people should be the ones most able to empathize with people who are deeply unpleasant. Else they wouldn't be highly empathetic. > Maybe highly empathetic people don't like assholes. Nobody likes assholes...
Empathy allows people to better understand the asshole which will cause them to hate the asshole even more.
Perceptiveness is not empathy, or else we wouldn't need another word for it. Hatred and empathy are not on the same ends of the emotional spectrum. The ability to perceive others emotions and simultaneously carry toward them feelings of anger, hatred, or malicious intent is not empathy. It's called something else.
Re: Empathic concern does not reduce partisan animosity: study
#85Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure it is. Nothing about the definition of empathy suggests that it isn't selective. We are generally empathetic but still eat animals. Some cultures still eat dog - you don't think they can love their children?
I think that taking unironic pleasure at the misfortune of others, or wishing others harm, and the capacity to do so, is the literal opposite of empathy. > Some cultures still eat dog - you don't think they can love their children? This is a non-sequitur.
I think it's pretty popular to hate Nazis right now, does that make one an umepathetic individual?
Re: Empathic concern does not reduce partisan animosity: study
#86Paul Bloom: Why Empathy Is Not the Best Way to Care
Re: Empathic concern does not reduce partisan animosity: study
#87> These high-empathy students were also more likely to be amused by reports that students protesting the speech had injured a bystander sympathetic to the speaker. > one gauges people’s level of “empathic concern” by asking them how strongly they agree or disagree with a series of seven statements such as “I often have tender, concerned feelings for people less fortunate than me.” It seems like a problematic way to m…
I think that you're on to something. If they're confusing empathy for virtue signaling, the results are going to seem counterintuitive.
Re: Empathic concern does not reduce partisan animosity: study
#88Excellent.
I had a difficult time when I moved from hands-on work to true consulting, which is trying to help others. In a way, a consultant is a "rented smart friend". We put your interests first, we know stuff you don't, we try to watch out for you for things you wouldn't think about.
Why did I have a hard time? Because I had the wrong model of empathy and caring. Like most of us, my initial model for "how not to be a dick" came from my family. The lessons I learned there lasted a lifetime. They were about empathy, sharing, caring, listening, and so forth. As I got older, I involved myself in larger and larger social groups.
What nobody told me as I grew up, was at the same time I was learning all of these great lessons about being a good person, I was also learning in-group, out-group behavior. Nobody ever looks at that directly. Instead it's always in the context of some greater good. Sure, the SWAT team accidentally set fire and burned down that person's house, but they were doing meth, and the babies needed to be saved. Sure, our family loves others and is kind to others, but we keep the doors locked and we don't make eye contact with people on the street asking for money (or whatever might the case). The idea of being a good person was taught inextricably with the idea of being a social person. Social people have hierarchies and other folks they are wary of. You can't be a human without having in-group, out-group behavior. It's part of the basic package.
So when I got consulting, I tended to view things the same way. You are my friend, we are doing this one thing (say coding). Those folks over there, the marketing dudes? You gotta be careful around them.
I was teaching empathy and caring the same way I was taught. There is really no other way to do it. Not unless you want a society that involves direct violence to organize.
As I saw more and more teams and how organizations actually worked, to make my consulting effective, to be part of the solution instead of just another part of the problem, I had to replace that internal mental model with the doctor model. I am a doctor, I am still a smart rented friend, but I have a lot of patients. In general they are all good and bad in various ways. I have no desire to sort all of that out. Instead, I'll help you as best as I can, and then I won't worry about you again. We are no longer in a tight social group, but neither are you in the out-group. I have learned clinical empathy.
So when I see people argue politics online, or org structure in a big company, I have to back out of being part of their social group and think about being a doctor. Heck, I might agree with you and still tell you that the things you are doing will not help you reach your goals. Or I might find you morally abhorrent and encourage you that this education you're picking up after work will eventually help out in your career a great deal.
What I can't do is sort the world out into some higher-level categories and then pronounce judgment on which people are in which categories and which I agree with and which I don't. Not and do a good job. I can have personal opinions, sure. I keep them to myself. That's part of being a professional.
That's not being cold, that's actually trying to help as many people as possible. To do this any other way is the exclude from helping a huge number of people simply because of my social preferences. I don't feel I have the right to hurt that many people based on my broken-ass brain, which tends to be inconsistent and change-up which groups are I like and which groups I don't like depending on what I had for breakfast.
Re: Empathic concern does not reduce partisan animosity: study
#89> These high-empathy students were also more likely to be amused by reports that students protesting the speech had injured a bystander sympathetic to the speaker. > one gauges people’s level of “empathic concern” by asking them how strongly they agree or disagree with a series of seven statements such as “I often have tender, concerned feelings for people less fortunate than me.” It seems like a problematic way to m…
I'm not sure how a field of science can work without any established basics. Shouldn't there be a standard, thoroughly tested, agreed upon definition of "empathy" so one can build on top of that?
Re: Empathic concern does not reduce partisan animosity: study
#90I wonder if some of this could be due to people feeling that what people believe is not as relevant of what they do. E.g. it seems like a lot of Republicans genuinely believe in family values and integrity, but whenever Trump violates them there is some excuse for why they don't stop supporting him.
This has puzzled me as well. I lean right of center, and know some really super people who also lean conservative. I haven't been able to reconcile their values, their support of Trump, and Trump's behavior.
In group belonging is a powerful motivator