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

81–90 of 101 posts

Re: Empathy for Dummies

#81

Post by mariusor »

hackable_sand wrote: post #71
mariusor wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not in my experience. And that's not necessarily saying much, but at least I had the courtesy of adding some qualifiers to my previous comment in order to avoid sweeping generalizations.

Re: Empathy for Dummies

#82

Post by chrisweekly »

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".

I understand, and I agree with "oftentimes X is characterized as Y... often perceived as Z".

But I'm not splitting hairs; it's a fundamental error to conflate the behavior w/ the characteristic. Someone who is neurodivergent -- just like someone who's neurotypical -- can behave in any number of ways. If they are "being a dick", the fact that they're neurodivergent _might_ help explain why (eg because they might struggle to understand others' points of view). But IMHO it's unhelpful and maybe harmful to lump them together.

Re: Empathy for Dummies

#85

Post by psunavy03 »

Rendello wrote: post #50
Gregaros wrote: post #4

* On many occasions, I have been told to “be more empathetic.” When I ask why, I typically get this reaction: This is a ridiculous question. I am not going to answer it because it is so ridiculous. Empathy is the right thing to do! You should feel bad for that person. We’re humans, after all. These explanations never really helped. * Even after reading this, I am not sure the author really gets what is behind the req…

From FBI negotiator Chris Voss' book, Never Split the Difference: > There is nothing more frustrating or disruptive to any negotiation than to get the feeling you are talking to someone who isn't listening. Playing dumb is a valid negotiating technique, and “I don't understand” is a legitimate response. But ignoring the other party's position only builds up frustration and makes them less likely to do what you want.…

This is also the driver behind so much of the toxicity of modern politics. All the snark, condescension, and contempt just sets up a feedback loop that drives people even further away from each other.

Re: Empathy for Dummies

#86

Post by balamatom »

bitlax wrote: post #77
bitlax wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

Well, considering her son ended up on fentanyl, probably not very able to tell some things, yeah.

"I'm sorry kid, I know you probably have aspirations and all that shit, but due to a host of technical reasons we don't care about any of that. Here's this fentanyl instead, either shoot it or go sell it to the next loser. And say hi to your mom from me - she's an absolutely remarkable woman."

Re: Empathy for Dummies

#87

Post by balamatom »

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!

Same as the point of "hey you! why are you not more empathetic! no i don't have to explain what that is!"

Re: Empathy for Dummies

#88

Post by balamatom »

nilirl wrote: post #76
balamatom wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

Please don't be like that. I don't condone you trying to stab anyone, but if you do anyway - I think it's quite obvious how that'll put you at a higher risk of getting stabbed yourself. Empathy!

Re: Empathy for Dummies

#89

Post by balamatom »

palmotea wrote: post #73
balamatom wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 .

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

Yes, correct. That's exactly how abusers expect us to think things work.

The difference is whether the person asking you to be more X cares if you have agreed-upon criteria of what that even looks like.

Given how many people ostensibly driven by positive motivations seem to be rubbed the wrong way by "empathy", well...

Re: Empathy for Dummies

#90

Post by balamatom »

nilirl wrote: post #39
balamatom wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a tautology and already answered in TFA. You're prompting the request because you are not being sufficiently obedient.

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…

>"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"

The funny part is that if you care about a semantic argument I know you will care about how you treat other people, too.

It's the person who strongly insists to not discuss what words mean, who 9 times out of 10 turns out to be dangerous.

Post reply on HN