Selective Empathy Can Chip Away at Civil Society • Hacker News Board

Re: Selective Empathy Can Chip Away at Civil Society

#21

Post by Proven » Sat, Apr 20, 2019, 12:20 PM UTC

It's not selective empathy that chips at "the society" (actually at individuals - the article makes the same generalist assumption - by "averaging" empathy they average the same way that Bundy's followers did), but the State.

Why should I cultivate empathy or make an effort to show it when the State entirely monopolized it?

Sure, I have empathy for family and friends but beyond that I know that its all driven by statist "policies" that run on stolen taxpayer money, so screw the State and screw virtue signaling. Stop stealing and telling me what to do, and then when it's up to me I may start paying more attention.

By the way note that the so called empathy displayed on FB is merely virtue signaling - all it takes is a Like, there's no effort or anything else beyond that empty gesture. If anything happens after that (very unlikely), it comes at practically no cost to the signaller, whether it's in effort, money or time.

Re: Selective Empathy Can Chip Away at Civil Society

#22

Post by Mirioron » Sat, Apr 20, 2019, 12:33 PM UTC

nostrademons wrote: post #13

speedplane wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Tribal instincts are super strong, that's been proven over and over again Tribal instincts aren't as strong as you think. Every civil and egalitarian right that people have gained since the enlightenment are the result of overcoming tribal instincts. The definition of a "tribe" is more often than not mostly a social construct. If society can set it up, it can tear it down.

The definition of tribes is a social construct. The existence of tribes is not. Reformers who seek to abolish tribalism usually find that they've simply redrawn the boundary lines and replaced one set of tribes with another. The dogmatism of the Church gets replaced by the patriotism of the State. Racism gets replaced by classism. Discrimination on appearance gets replaced by discrimination on education. Sometimes ju…

>Reformers who seek to abolish tribalism usually find that they've simply redrawn the boundary lines and replaced one set of tribes with another.

I completely agree with this. It seems as though that many(all?) people have some group that's the Other and it's acceptable to attack them in various ways. For example, it used to be socially acceptable to attack nerds, but it isn't anymore, however, people have simply picked new groups that are acceptable targets that are more specific, such as anti-PC people. What seems to have improved though, is that we seem to condone extreme measures less and less. Nerds used to be physically bullied, but that seems to be less acceptable nowadays.

While I think that the ideas of inclusiveness aren't going to work, because there's always going to be some Other that's acceptable to be demonized (eg incels right now) by the in-group, I hope that the demonization becomes less and less extreme over time.

Re: Selective Empathy Can Chip Away at Civil Society

#23

Post by 0815test » Sat, Apr 20, 2019, 12:58 PM UTC

nostrademons wrote: post #13

speedplane wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Tribal instincts are super strong, that's been proven over and over again Tribal instincts aren't as strong as you think. Every civil and egalitarian right that people have gained since the enlightenment are the result of overcoming tribal instincts. The definition of a "tribe" is more often than not mostly a social construct. If society can set it up, it can tear it down.

The definition of tribes is a social construct. The existence of tribes is not. Reformers who seek to abolish tribalism usually find that they've simply redrawn the boundary lines and replaced one set of tribes with another. The dogmatism of the Church gets replaced by the patriotism of the State. Racism gets replaced by classism. Discrimination on appearance gets replaced by discrimination on education. Sometimes ju…

> Reformers who seek to abolish tribalism usually find that they've simply redrawn the boundary lines and replaced one set of tribes with another.

Yup: Also known as, "I can tolerate anyone except my outgroup" - https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anythin...

Re: Selective Empathy Can Chip Away at Civil Society

#24

Post by thinkingemote » Sat, Apr 20, 2019, 1:11 PM UTC

I'm not sure about the statement that people have less empathy these days. I'm also skeptical when people say this or that group has low empathy.

Rather I think all humans have a store of active empathy which they can spend or allocate in different ways. most common is empathy to family and close friends and then to the neighborhood. Active empathy is where empathising does something.

That some groups of people seem to show lack of empathy could be a sign that the observer should empathize more with that group to locate where and how their active empathy is.

Empathy is neutral too. The worst "monsters" of nazi regimes were often fuelled by empathy.

Re: Selective Empathy Can Chip Away at Civil Society

#25

Post by TimTheTinker » Sat, Apr 20, 2019, 1:22 PM UTC

soniman wrote: post #17

Ammon Bundy is the example they use? Ammon Bundy supports migrants because he's a rancher and wants cheap labor on his ranch. He wants taxpayers to bear the cost so he can privately profit. That's why people are suspicious about "empathy," it's usually a way of manipulating your emotions so that other people can profit.

Wow, skeptical comments like this strongly reinforce the article's point. To question whether empathy is helpful and suspect the motives of those who are promoting it? Ammon Bundy is a fellow human being with struggles of his own - isn't that enough? It doesn't mean you have to agree with his choices (you can even call them morally wrong).

Empathy is merely a concern for fellow human beings, not emotional manipulation, despite the fact that some people attempt to manipulate others.

Re: Selective Empathy Can Chip Away at Civil Society

#26

Post by tcbawo » Sat, Apr 20, 2019, 1:24 PM UTC

speedplane wrote: post #8

b0rsuk wrote: post #4

Tribal instincts are super strong, that's been proven over and over again [citation needed]. I'm afraid long-term empathy for the sake of Other can't work. It only seems to work when people still remember major disasters and wars. It's inevitable these fade away, isn't it? (except for very, very long term, when evolution and/or genetic engineering might change this) In my country anti-Muslim sentiment is strong, made…

> Tribal instincts are super strong, that's been proven over and over again Tribal instincts aren't as strong as you think. Every civil and egalitarian right that people have gained since the enlightenment are the result of overcoming tribal instincts. The definition of a "tribe" is more often than not mostly a social construct. If society can set it up, it can tear it down.

In America, I imagine this is why people promote Nationalism -- to build a sense of the American Tribe. This seemed to work especially well while we had the Soviet bogeyman. Today, attempts to describe others as 'not real Americans' is fracturing tribal unity.

Re: Selective Empathy Can Chip Away at Civil Society

#27

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Apr 20, 2019, 1:25 PM UTC

muah-dihb wrote: post #11

This is actually a key mechanism for what's wrong, socially, with pretty much everything these days. It fits right in with the concept of The Long Tail. We get to selectively apply our preferences now, for our unique musical tastes to hear any artist, and thus only those we like; an infinite choice of movies, and thus never the fixed schedules of centralized broadcasts; we can binge on an entire series in a weekend,…

[deleted]

Re: Selective Empathy Can Chip Away at Civil Society

#28

Post by TimTheTinker » Sat, Apr 20, 2019, 1:29 PM UTC

b0rsuk wrote: post #4

Tribal instincts are super strong, that's been proven over and over again [citation needed]. I'm afraid long-term empathy for the sake of Other can't work. It only seems to work when people still remember major disasters and wars. It's inevitable these fade away, isn't it? (except for very, very long term, when evolution and/or genetic engineering might change this) In my country anti-Muslim sentiment is strong, made…

> Tribal instincts are super strong

> I'm not a fan of any religion myself, as for Islam my main beef is it doesn't distinguish between the religion and the secular state. It can therefore be called a form of totalitarianism.

I think one major shortfall of modern discourse is that we've largely lost the ability to debate ideas (including religious claims) without incorporating tribalism and a "those people are bad" mentality. It's entirely possible to have empathy for people who believe something else and yet strongly disagree with their beliefs (and politely tell them so).

Re: Selective Empathy Can Chip Away at Civil Society

#29

Post by doktrin » Sat, Apr 20, 2019, 1:41 PM UTC

patrickg_zill wrote: post #20

After abusing the great majority of people in the US for the last 50 years both economically and socially, the elite are now surprised by the fact that some of the people have noticed.

If you're implying that abuse by elites is some new phenomenon within the last 50 years I completely disagree. In fact social inequality has probably been more favorable and egalitarian during the last 50 years than basically any other time in human history, and US history. There's always room for improvement, but it's worth remembering how far we've actually come.

Re: Selective Empathy Can Chip Away at Civil Society

#30

Post by 0815test » Sat, Apr 20, 2019, 1:42 PM UTC

tcbawo wrote: post #26

speedplane wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Tribal instincts are super strong, that's been proven over and over again Tribal instincts aren't as strong as you think. Every civil and egalitarian right that people have gained since the enlightenment are the result of overcoming tribal instincts. The definition of a "tribe" is more often than not mostly a social construct. If society can set it up, it can tear it down.

In America, I imagine this is why people promote Nationalism -- to build a sense of the American Tribe. This seemed to work especially well while we had the Soviet bogeyman. Today, attempts to describe others as 'not real Americans' is fracturing tribal unity.

A lot of our modern focus on race also dates back to such well-meaning attempts, ironically enough. There was a very real focus in the Progressive era to try and get people to see themselves as "white", in preference to their more meaningful ethnic origin - this is something that impacted people from Germany and other parts of central Europe quite a bit, because of how wide-spread anti-German sentiment and discrimination was in the run-up to WWI. Of course racial self-identification is considered especially divisive today, but it used to not always be viewed as such.