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

Empathy for Dummies

quarter--mile.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 101 posts

Re: Empathy for Dummies

#71

Post by hackable_sand »

mariusor wrote: post #47
chrisweekly wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Er, no. Respectfully, "neurodivergent" describes a characteristic, but "being a dick" (or "more empathetic") describes behavior.

Let's not split hairs now, but oftentimes disorders that are grouped together under the pop nomenclature of "neuro-divergence" are characterized by very direct speech which makes no affordances for the way the words would be interpreted by the dialogue partner. This is many times perceived by less empathetic people as "being a dick".

No. Direct speech and "being a dick" is a fairly obvious distinction to neurotypicals.

Re: Empathy for Dummies

#72

Post by balamatom »

ajuc wrote: post #32

> Empathy is when you try your best to build an accurate model of someone else’s world in order to better understand them. That's cognitive empathy. What most people ask you for is emotional empathy = experiencing (as opposed to modeling) the emotions of others. It's not even that important to experience actual emotions of others. Even empathetic people are often mistaken about what emotions other people feel. Somebo…

>What most people ask you for is emotional empathy = experiencing (as opposed to modeling) the emotions of others.

And that, kids, is called structural violence.

Nothing in the invisible magical social contract you sign at birth gives anyone the right to require you to experience an inner state of their choice.

Re: Empathy for Dummies

#73

Post by palmotea »

balamatom wrote: post #69
nilirl wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's setting up a straw man. By framing an argument against semantics or social obedience, you're ignoring self-implicating behavior; you're intentionally ignoring people's needs. Why not ask "What am I doing wrong?" instead of "Hmm ... what is the nature of empathy? How may a linguist view the word? What is it's function? Ah! Is there an interesting generalization I can find here? Wow, let us dig deeper, this is n…

>Why not ask "What am I doing wrong?" Because that's the first step to getting your needs ignored. And in conversations where "empathy" is brought up you're usually exactly one step from getting your needs ignored. If you're doing something wrong, and I decide to do something about it, minimum decency dictates I make sure you understand what it is. Bringing into it some vague abstract notion that everyone with half a…

> Because that's the first step to getting your needs ignored. And in conversations where "empathy" is brought up you're usually exactly one step from getting your needs ignored.

When someone's being asked to have more empathy, they're probably in the middle of ignoring someone else's needs right then.

Re: Empathy for Dummies

#74

Post by nilirl »

yesfitz wrote: post #62
nilirl wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'be more empathetic' is not a veiled request, it is openly declared. The author subverts the ask for behavior change by a) calling it veiled and b) not treating it as the main argument against which they're trying to make a point. Like the author, you're constructing a similar straw man argument: selecting a specific use of the word and making that the main point to argue against. 'be more empathetic' is an argument…

Can you tell me which specific use of the word "empathy" I am arguing against? Because I don't think I'm arguing against any definition at all. I think I'm arguing that telling someone to behave a way that they don't understand is unhelpful. That could be "empathetic", "thankful", or "gropulent". ** Taking the author at their word, they don't understand the request. When they ask for clarification, they don't receive…

I was referring to this:

> who can't explain how they use gropulence to support the claims that they make about others, and they sound an awful lot like psychics, who we all know are frauds

You invoked usage that connotes vapid meaning.

I see your argument: How can someone do something if they don't know what to do?

Explicit instruction is useful to a novice; say a toddler or someone new to a domain. But most adults don't spend the day explicitly telling each other how to behave socially.

A case can be made for individuals who display some difficulty learning this vicariously, but considering that should affect i.e "you didn't tell me how to be nice, so how could I be nice?" is not a reasonable excuse for most adults.

Re: Empathy for Dummies

#75

Post by yesfitz »

Gregaros wrote: post #56
yesfitz wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is behind the request?

Impossible to say what was behind any specific request, but what is generally meant by “Have a little emapathy” and its kin is : “Stop criticizingjudging/etc. or communicating with the individual being discussed that sharply, because we feel the individual has good reasons/a good excuse/a good justification for sympathy and/or some leniency here.”

I think the author understands that "have a little empathy" is a request to modify their behavior, but expresses their frustration that the request is unclear and (in the author's experience) the requestors won't clarify the request.

Contrast this with the conversation we're having now where I requested clarification on your initial comment, and you thoughtfully provided it.

But to your point, there's an innate "getting it" where your level/expression of empathy is roughly in-line with people you interact with, and if you don't have that, you need to do work to "get it", which is what the author did.

We can compare empathy to other practices that can benefit from innate understanding. Some people "get" poetry, math, music, long-distance running, etc. and we can all work to "get" them, but in my experience, it's never quite the same.

Re: Empathy for Dummies

#76

Post by nilirl »

balamatom wrote: post #69
nilirl wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's setting up a straw man. By framing an argument against semantics or social obedience, you're ignoring self-implicating behavior; you're intentionally ignoring people's needs. Why not ask "What am I doing wrong?" instead of "Hmm ... what is the nature of empathy? How may a linguist view the word? What is it's function? Ah! Is there an interesting generalization I can find here? Wow, let us dig deeper, this is n…

>Why not ask "What am I doing wrong?" Because that's the first step to getting your needs ignored. And in conversations where "empathy" is brought up you're usually exactly one step from getting your needs ignored. If you're doing something wrong, and I decide to do something about it, minimum decency dictates I make sure you understand what it is. Bringing into it some vague abstract notion that everyone with half a…

Ah, I see, so when someone yells at me "Please don't stab me", it's actually, I, who is at risk of being stabbed.

Re: Empathy for Dummies

#77

Post by bitlax »

bitlax wrote: post #68
balamatom wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To demonstrate that you are in fact unable to deep dive into the mind of the local fentanyl dealer, who is probably a much more fascinating human being than the role you have attributed him in your thought experiment (or in your society) would ever permit you to comprehend.

So the point WAS to just make stuff up to excuse bad behavior!

"I'm sorry ma'am. Your son is dead, but the drug dealer is FASCINATING. No you won't be able to tell."

Re: Empathy for Dummies

#78

Post by apwell23 »

palmotea wrote: post #70
hackable_sand wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. That's just paranoia. That makes you the snake.

>>> You do, but usually it's better to be more on the charitable side by default and only be uncharitable when someone has behaved in a way that proves that to be necessary. >> its usually too late by then. you always need to be one step ahead. > No. That's just paranoia. That makes you the snake. Yeah. Also "and only be uncharitable when someone has behaved in a way that proves that to be necessary," does not mean t…

maybe i am just scarred from what happened to me

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45452724

i am usually too naive but i am going to protect myself.

Re: Empathy for Dummies

#79

Post by yesfitz »

nilirl wrote: post #74
yesfitz wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you tell me which specific use of the word "empathy" I am arguing against? Because I don't think I'm arguing against any definition at all. I think I'm arguing that telling someone to behave a way that they don't understand is unhelpful. That could be "empathetic", "thankful", or "gropulent". ** Taking the author at their word, they don't understand the request. When they ask for clarification, they don't receive…

I was referring to this: > who can't explain how they use gropulence to support the claims that they make about others, and they sound an awful lot like psychics, who we all know are frauds You invoked usage that connotes vapid meaning. I see your argument: How can someone do something if they don't know what to do? Explicit instruction is useful to a novice; say a toddler or someone new to a domain. But most adults…

Ah, thank you.

My sentence about "gropules" was a dig at "empaths". You may not have run into them, but they're tarot and crystal adjacent. It's a teeny tiny minority of people who talk about "empathy", but they do use it vapidly, and could lead to people with an underdeveloped sense of empathy to dismiss the whole concept as something akin to new-age nonsense. I've met enough to last me a while though.

However, you're right about my argument, and our disagreement lies in the affected population.

"17% of children aged 3–17 years were diagnosed with a developmental disability, as reported by parents, during a study period of 2009–2017. These included ASD, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), blindness, and cerebral palsy, among others."[1]

Now, that's children, and with the correct support, people with those disabilities can be taught empathy along with other social skills.

But what about those without support, those who should have been diagnosed and supported but weren't, and those who didn't meet the criteria to be diagnosed with an official disability/disorder but still struggle?

I may be an outlier, but I would estimate that about 1 in 5 people that I meet have some trouble with empathy (i.e. semi-frequently misunderstanding the feelings and/or motivations of others).

Ultimately, I agree, ignorance is no excuse for bad behavior, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't act empathetically to those who have trouble doing so. If anything, the author's piece is a fantastic path to developing a sense of empathy for the 1: https://www.cdc.gov/autism/data-research/index.html

Re: Empathy for Dummies

#80

Post by [deleted] »

rented_mule wrote: post #67
dogleash wrote: post #18

"Empathy" is one of those words that's used as a proxy for a lot of related ideas, but splitting those hairs can be interpreted by some as disagreement with those ideas themselves. I've witnessed people extol the virtues of empathy to me, while on other occasions they talk about people they dislike with venom and disdain. A level of disdain that I have never held in my heart against anyone, but they throw it around c…

Isn't it possible for someone to spot a growth opportunity for someone else without they themselves being perfect, or maybe even good, at that thing? I've certainly benefited from useful ideas in my core area of expertise from people who were nowhere close to being experts in that same topic.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN