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

Empathic concern does not reduce partisan animosity: study

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 142 posts

Re: Empathic concern does not reduce partisan animosity: study

#111

Post by zchrykng »

Nasrudith wrote: post #106

I know that I am not typical in my thinking but seems almost obvious. I would have expected partisan animosity to increase with empathy because of the stakes and the views "against" being viewed as actively harmful and damaging enmasse. And extreme viewpoints can have very divergent viewpoints. And that is before the "literal head of ISIS". Sometimes extreme situations results in weirdness like "killing everyone else…

> Sometimes the other side is objectively wrong both morally and effectiveness.

The thing is that both sides feel that about the other.

Re: Empathic concern does not reduce partisan animosity: study

#112

Post by jessaustin »

Retric wrote: post #98
smallnamespace wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's pretty popular to hate Nazis right now, does that make one an umepathetic individual?

Hate and empathy are unrelated. To paraphrase it’s possible to hate the game not the player. The WWI Christmas truce in 1914 shows this dynamic very clearly. It’s likely these people had great empathy for each other as they where in similar situations even sleeping in the same trenches as the front moved around. Yet, eventually they went back to killing each other. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_truce

Those war victims didn't necessarily hate each other. They killed because they had to. Those who were subtle in their reluctance to kill were more likely to be killed in battle. Those who weren't subtle were court-martialed and executed.

Re: Empathic concern does not reduce partisan animosity: study

#113

Post by automatoney »

specialist wrote: post #104
baked_ziti wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> According to the study, it seems that people with high empathy are more often people with high empathy towards their in-group...and a lack of empathy for the out-group. I'd argue that it isn't really empathy at all...just a more emotional form of tribalism. Yes this, especially considering literally everybody is this way . Care and concern for some people and none for others is par for the course. At that point it'…

I must be an outlier then. I get pretty worked up about perceived injustices. I cringe when I see people get hurt. The people I've volunteered alongside over the years also seem to care enough about the welfare of strangers to actively participate. Sure, I've also know plenty of people who don't care about others. eg solution to climate crisis is to cull humanity by 99%, people in jail deserve it, political opponents…

Could it be the case that your in-group includes strangers and those who have been wronged, but does not include some other group of people? Maybe 'people who don't care about others'? Or maybe it's the people who perpetuate the injustices? I'm not saying that you have to have empathy for these groups, but maybe your outgroup doesn't look like what you may expect.

Re: Empathic concern does not reduce partisan animosity: study

#114

Post by jeffdavis »

Political polarization is weird, if you think about it. It makes sense given the social dynamics, but makes zero sense from a logical standpoint.

Maybe it would be interesting to make a kind of polarization "test". You could ask someone a bunch of questions, and calculate how polarized they are. If statistically improbable, it would inform them that, logically, their opinions are not really their own, and they should consider them more deeply and objectively.

Obviously you'd need to make the test carefully and try not to bias it, or it would be worthless. But you could use some objective criteria to make it pretty good.

There are certainly some challenges. People who live in cities their whole life are bound to have different opinions that those who live in small towns their whole life. But you could address that by looking at how people change their opinions after moving to a city from a small town or vice versa.

Re: Empathic concern does not reduce partisan animosity: study

#115

Post by xamuel »

jeffdavis wrote: post #114

Political polarization is weird, if you think about it. It makes sense given the social dynamics, but makes zero sense from a logical standpoint. Maybe it would be interesting to make a kind of polarization "test". You could ask someone a bunch of questions, and calculate how polarized they are. If statistically improbable, it would inform them that, logically, their opinions are not really their own, and they should…

The list of people whose opinions are "really their own" is pretty much limited to feral children and certain philosophers/scientists

Re: Empathic concern does not reduce partisan animosity: study

#116

Post by Dumblydorr »

xamuel wrote: post #115
jeffdavis wrote: post #114

Political polarization is weird, if you think about it. It makes sense given the social dynamics, but makes zero sense from a logical standpoint. Maybe it would be interesting to make a kind of polarization "test". You could ask someone a bunch of questions, and calculate how polarized they are. If statistically improbable, it would inform them that, logically, their opinions are not really their own, and they should…

The list of people whose opinions are "really their own" is pretty much limited to feral children and certain philosophers/scientists

Which philosopher scientists did you have in mind? I think Newton and Einstein were fairly independent, though undeniably they needed to stand on the shoulders of giants to make their independent discoveries. Maybe that is a contradiction....

Re: Empathic concern does not reduce partisan animosity: study

#117

Post by umvi »

timwaagh wrote: post #105
rdtsc wrote: post #39

> 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…

Relying on self reported things is a big problem with a lot of psychological research. It is very hard to do it otherwise because sympathetic feelings are an inner world experience. Only if we found something measurable that coincided with these feelings in almost all instances could we improve upon it.

It's almost like you need unaffiliated third parties to rank people on their good qualities.

"Are you humble?"

"Oh yes, definitely, I'm one of the most humble people I know"

"Are you a good person?"

"Oh yes, one of the best"

vs.

"How humble would you say your co-worker is?"

"Hmm, in my opinion probably average humility. I've never seen them do anything that made me think they were especially humble."

"Would you say your co-worker is a good person?"

"Hard to tell. They don't particularly stand out as being especially good."

Re: Empathic concern does not reduce partisan animosity: study

#118

Post by Dumblydorr »

baked_ziti wrote: post #62
pas wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Naturally this empathy only self-reinforces itself, if it selectively ignores those who agitate against it. Eg if someone advocates against free-speech, maybe protecting them won't preserve this basic empathy. And it seems this instability is real, as we have a hard time defining the minimums of free speech.

> we have a hard time defining the minimums of free speech. In what sense? Legally, for example, we don't.

What about shouting fire in a crowded theater? I've had lengthy debates about whether that should be allowed or not, and if we still "have" free speech if we disallow it.

Re: Empathic concern does not reduce partisan animosity: study

#119

Post by whatshisface »

umvi wrote: post #117
timwaagh wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Relying on self reported things is a big problem with a lot of psychological research. It is very hard to do it otherwise because sympathetic feelings are an inner world experience. Only if we found something measurable that coincided with these feelings in almost all instances could we improve upon it.

It's almost like you need unaffiliated third parties to rank people on their good qualities. "Are you humble?" "Oh yes, definitely, I'm one of the most humble people I know" "Are you a good person?" "Oh yes, one of the best" vs. "How humble would you say your co-worker is?" "Hmm, in my opinion probably average humility. I've never seen them do anything that made me think they were especially humble." "Would you say y…

That's subject to a lot of well-known social biases, for example the fact that more attractive people are perceived to be smarter and better-intentioned.

Re: Empathic concern does not reduce partisan animosity: study

#120

Post by specialist »

automatoney wrote: post #113
specialist wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I must be an outlier then. I get pretty worked up about perceived injustices. I cringe when I see people get hurt. The people I've volunteered alongside over the years also seem to care enough about the welfare of strangers to actively participate. Sure, I've also know plenty of people who don't care about others. eg solution to climate crisis is to cull humanity by 99%, people in jail deserve it, political opponents…

Could it be the case that your in-group includes strangers and those who have been wronged, but does not include some other group of people? Maybe 'people who don't care about others'? Or maybe it's the people who perpetuate the injustices? I'm not saying that you have to have empathy for these groups, but maybe your outgroup doesn't look like what you may expect.

Sorry, I've lost the narrative. In group? Out group? Like when I can't remember which fork is for me and which is for salad.

Why the downvotes? I really want to know.

Because obviously correct statement about the bell curve distribution of a personality trait is somehow whackadoodle?

Or is it because those who volunteer are just virtual signaling SJWs who's only motivation is to mock misanthropes?

Post reply on HN