Empathic concern does not reduce partisan animosity: study • Hacker News Board

Re: Empathic concern does not reduce partisan animosity: study

#131

Post by mnm1 » Tue, Nov 19, 2019, 6:31 PM UTC

sysbin wrote: post #129

mnm1 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> How far do you take this delusion is what I'm curious about? The delusion is assuming people have control over their actions. Yes it's wrong that we punish people that didn't have control over the life they were born into and what happens without any control because the universe made it so. Yes of course it applies to all actions humans are forced to do in life.

So if someone murdered your whole family, you'd have no issues with it because it was predetermined. Got it.

Re: Empathic concern does not reduce partisan animosity: study

#132

Post by timwaagh » Tue, Nov 19, 2019, 6:36 PM UTC

bsdetector wrote: post #127

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.

Self-reporting can be a fine measure. For example, these participants who were amused by people they disagree with being beaten up self-reported low empathy. They just didn't know that's what they were doing, which is why they were honest about it. You can measure things better that are unpopular. On a U.S. college campus, you can measure lack of empathy but not empathy, whereas in ancient Sparta you could measure em…

As campuses all have different cultures, wouldn't it depend on the exact campus you sample from? There might be some where Spartan cultural values still prevail. Maybe on a military college or colleges dedicated to some minority. Or one of those hypercompetitive business schools.

Re: Empathic concern does not reduce partisan animosity: study

#133

Post by mnm1 » Tue, Nov 19, 2019, 6:38 PM UTC

garmaine wrote: post #91

mnm1 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they are against the government defining marriage, then why do they want to define marriage as being between a man and a woman? For example, the California proposition 8 ballot measure read: "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." [1] So please explain how this is not defining marriage and how it is supportive of gay marriage rather than in opposition to it. [1] https://en.m…

Prop 8 was a ballot initiative, started by and primarily funded by religious groups. It's not a "republican" thing. It was supported by some prominent republicans because of the word "marriage," and for political reasons[0]. Note that to religious conservative thinkers the word "marriage" has deep religious meaning, and to regulate marriage is to encroach on the separation of church and state. This is why many republ…

I'm curious, which fanatical Christian religious groups in California that are not Republican supported prop 8?

Also pretending like the core issues of the party are small auxiliary issues that the party doesn't believe in is ridiculous considering their work on passing laws and enforcing them in the courts. If abortion or other issues were not big issues, why does the party constantly pass laws and enforce laws against them? Actions speak for themselves. No amount of propaganda changes that. It'd be like pretending that healthcare is not an issue for the democrats right now. It's absurd.

Re: Empathic concern does not reduce partisan animosity: study

#134

Post by scottlocklin » Tue, Nov 19, 2019, 6:51 PM UTC

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…

It's not even remotely a way of measuring empathy; it's a way of measuring center-left political sentiment in America. Basically, this study reproduces Jon Haidt's work while obfuscating words like "empathy" with actual, measurable personality traits commonly known as empathy.

Re: Empathic concern does not reduce partisan animosity: study

#135

Post by scottlocklin » Tue, Nov 19, 2019, 6:55 PM UTC

DFHippie wrote: post #92

_Codemonkeyism wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I don't think the problem is the definition of empathy but the measurement of it.

Pretty sure behavior which includes laughing at someone who got the crap beat out of them means, "low on empathy." No matter what their self-talk might involve.

It's not like evil people walk around with self conception that includes "gee I think I'll do some evil today."

Re: Empathic concern does not reduce partisan animosity: study

#136

Post by sysbin » Tue, Nov 19, 2019, 7:45 PM UTC

mnm1 wrote: post #131

sysbin wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How far do you take this delusion is what I'm curious about? The delusion is assuming people have control over their actions. Yes it's wrong that we punish people that didn't have control over the life they were born into and what happens without any control because the universe made it so. Yes of course it applies to all actions humans are forced to do in life.

So if someone murdered your whole family, you'd have no issues with it because it was predetermined. Got it.

The blame would be at whatever created the universe. Since everything is chained backwards to that moment. You seem to not understand how things happen in reality if you're asking this question.

Re: Empathic concern does not reduce partisan animosity: study

#137

Post by baked_ziti » Tue, Nov 19, 2019, 8:57 PM UTC

6gvONxR4sf7o wrote: post #110

baked_ziti wrote: post #65

Earlier 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...

Maybe highly empathetic people are the ones who feel for the people on the receiving end of the meanness most, so dislike the assholes most. The point is it could be many things, not just politics, so the external validity is questionable.

That's not being highly empathetic, that's being exactly like every other person.

Also, unironically taking joy in someone else's misfortune is pretty mean.

Re: Empathic concern does not reduce partisan animosity: study

#138

Post by baked_ziti » Tue, Nov 19, 2019, 9:04 PM UTC

SuoDuanDao wrote: post #125

baked_ziti wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You're speaking about the 'sphere of compassion', I'd say there are two factors at play. There's 'how large' the in-group is (where we could say someone who cares for all animals is more compassionate than someone who cares for all human beings) and 'how intensely' people feel compassion for their in-group (which is harder to quantify, but still a real phenomenon). edit: Compassion for one's in-group can be very real…

I actually don't believe it's possible to, in any meaningful way, perceive and vicariously experience the emotions of others and to continue to carry any deep hostility, or to do so and not feel some degree of compassion.

Sociopaths score low in empathy but are excellent at perceiving others' emotions.

Re: Empathic concern does not reduce partisan animosity: study

#139

Post by baked_ziti » Tue, Nov 19, 2019, 9:24 PM UTC

vict00ms wrote: post #97

baked_ziti wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It sounds to me like your idea of empathy is more akin to compassion.

Yes, they go together. Sociopaths are low in empathy but excellent at perceiving the emotional state of others.

Re: Empathic concern does not reduce partisan animosity: study

#140

Post by kempbellt » Wed, Nov 20, 2019, 1:13 AM UTC

mnm1 wrote: post #131

sysbin wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How far do you take this delusion is what I'm curious about? The delusion is assuming people have control over their actions. Yes it's wrong that we punish people that didn't have control over the life they were born into and what happens without any control because the universe made it so. Yes of course it applies to all actions humans are forced to do in life.

So if someone murdered your whole family, you'd have no issues with it because it was predetermined. Got it.

Determinism doesn't preclude the notion that I would be determinedly upset if that happened. In fact, the opposite is true. I would be very upset, because I like my family (most of the time).

This is where the phrases "don't poke the bear" and "don't grab a snake by its tail" come from. People have determined that it is likely to lead to a not-so-fun outcome.

Determinism, essentially, is empathy with nature. It is understanding that living creatures have needs, and when those needs are not met, bad things happen.

To use a light-hearted example. A parent might notice a deterministic pattern, whereby their child begins to cry when it is hungry. Feeding the child to prevent the crying is empathizing with that child.

"Empathizing with the shooter" is a matter of learning what lead the shooter to become a shooter so that you can try and prevent it from happening again. It doesn't mean that the shooting doesn't bother you, or that if someone is about to attack your family that you write it off as "predetermined".

Edit: A better example might be empathizing with an asteroid that is about to destroy the planet. Is being angry that it is on its current path helpful? Not really. Would you be upset if it crashed into Earth? Probably (albeit briefly).

Determinism = Understanding that the asteroid obeys the laws of physics, and looking out for situations that cause an asteroid to begin flying at the Earth so that it's damage can be mitigated, or prevented.