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

91–100 of 101 posts

Re: Empathy for Dummies

#91

Post by bitlax »

balamatom wrote: post #86
bitlax wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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."

There goes that empathy. Glad you do in fact realize that dealing fentanyl is wrong. Not something fantastic people do.

Edit: After your edit you seem to have found a rationale for rounding up and executing drug dealers "because reasons" so I think we're all done here.

Re: Empathy for Dummies

#93

Post by bitlax »

bitlax wrote: post #91
balamatom wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

There goes that empathy. Glad you do in fact realize that dealing fentanyl is wrong. Not something fantastic people do. Edit: After your edit you seem to have found a rationale for rounding up and executing drug dealers "because reasons" so I think we're all done here.

On re-read I may have been caught by Poe's Law here, in which case Thank God. I need sarcasm tags.

Re: Empathy for Dummies

#94

Post by mallowdram »

balamatom wrote: post #64
mallowdram wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Worse than that, it doesn't exist, yet it's a scientific theory based in empirical evidence. Which is how only a new language and level of explanation solves that paradox.

Hey, you're fun! :-)

we gotta slay some dragon, otherwise we're just a pack of lazy apes

Re: Empathy for Dummies

#95

Post by Gregaros »

yesfitz wrote: post #75
Gregaros wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 "gett…

I _don’t_ think that empathy has anything to do with it though.

Behaviour modification yes, but that is “stop talking so critically”. Or “don’t be so harsh” or “give this person special treatment”. WHEN to do that might be key here—perhaps the colleague’s husband has cancer, or their child missed school 3 days this week with the flu, or their project wasn’t productionalized/their new to the role/etc—and so a blanket “don’t talk so harshly” isn’t called for—instead what is really desired is social calibration.

But instead it seems everyone is getting caught up on the literal interpretation of this figure of speech instead.

Re: Empathy for Dummies

#96

Post by agumonkey »

drakonka wrote: post #10

I always thought of empathy as being able to really relate, emotionally, to what another person is feeling/going through. As a kid I'd sometimes see people crying together on TV when something bad happens to one of them and wonder if that really happens in real life. Even though it wasn't something that came naturally to me in the past, I still tried to be a decent person and adjust my behavior where relevant, and tr…

Yeah I used to understand empathy as a milder understanding. Being careful, but not necessarily feeling fully others emotions. That said along years my brain changed and at one point I became emotionally responsive to others. Maybe that comes when you reach parenting age.

Re: Empathy for Dummies

#97

Post by balamatom »

bitlax wrote: post #93
bitlax wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There goes that empathy. Glad you do in fact realize that dealing fentanyl is wrong. Not something fantastic people do. Edit: After your edit you seem to have found a rationale for rounding up and executing drug dealers "because reasons" so I think we're all done here.

On re-read I may have been caught by Poe's Law here, in which case Thank God. I need sarcasm tags.

No, there's no Poe's Law involved; it's just that you're unlikely to permit yourself to empathize with anything else besides your ingroup. (Exactly as unlikely as you're meant to be; congratulations - there is some safety in numbers).

That's all rather revealing as to what this so called "empathy" actually is, and why of all possible ethical values this is the one which epitomes of uncaring choose to pay lip service to.

Circling back to your original strawmonster - no, I don't believe any particular disaffected youth has had any voice in whether society should go through an opioid epidemic. As to the actual people responsible, I'm sure you'd perceive them as having vivid, rich inner lives, not unlike your own.

Re: Empathy for Dummies

#98

Post by [deleted] »

balamatom wrote: post #72
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 .

[deleted]

Re: Empathy for Dummies

#99

Post by bitlax »

balamatom wrote: post #97
bitlax wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On re-read I may have been caught by Poe's Law here, in which case Thank God. I need sarcasm tags.

No, there's no Poe's Law involved; it's just that you're unlikely to permit yourself to empathize with anything else besides your ingroup. (Exactly as unlikely as you're meant to be; congratulations - there is some safety in numbers). That's all rather revealing as to what this so called "empathy" actually is, and why of all possible ethical values this is the one which epitomes of uncaring choose to pay lip service…

> you're unlikely to permit yourself to empathize with anything else besides your ingroup.

But in your example you described an attitude of depraved indifference, which is exactly how I described the motivations of many drug dealers, including ones I know and that you do not.

Re: Empathy for Dummies

#100

Post by balamatom »

bitlax wrote: post #99
balamatom wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, there's no Poe's Law involved; it's just that you're unlikely to permit yourself to empathize with anything else besides your ingroup. (Exactly as unlikely as you're meant to be; congratulations - there is some safety in numbers). That's all rather revealing as to what this so called "empathy" actually is, and why of all possible ethical values this is the one which epitomes of uncaring choose to pay lip service…

> you're unlikely to permit yourself to empathize with anything else besides your ingroup. But in your example you described an attitude of depraved indifference, which is exactly how I described the motivations of many drug dealers, including ones I know and that you do not.

Phone, please.

>But in your example you described an attitude of depraved indifference, which is exactly how I described the motivations of many drug dealers, including ones I know and that you do not.

You're pointing at a contradiction in "unlikely" or in "ingroup"?

>attitude of depraved indifference

We stock two flavors of indifference in the indifference truck, we got callous and then we got depraved. Callous is sans empathy, weighs one `compartmentalize()` call. Depraved is the one with the extra sprinkle of empathy, more precisely a dash of empathy with the victim in the very moment the indifferent person is screwing them over with their sheer indifference. So, not very indifferent anymore, but what some people go for anyway. Empathy is very poignant after all. Plus, observers are none the wiser. Now, how much flavor you prefer, that's kind of career-deciding innit

Post reply on HN