5 ms·

People just need to empathize in general. There's so much polarizing armchair bullshit once anything goes wrong for someone else, it's crazy. Modern interconne

People just need to empathize in general. There's so much polarizing armchair bullshit once anything goes wrong for someone else, it's crazy. Modern interconnectivity is seemingly creating networks of assholes to an extent that wouldn't exist in the past because you just didn't really know everyone's business all the time.

wolfgke 10y ago
> People just need to empathize in general. There's so much polarizing armchair bullshit once anything goes wrong for someone else, it's crazy. We don't need more empathizing, but we need science to find objective facts instead of opinions.
- zepto 10y ago
  Empathizing means understanding other people's point of view. Why wouldn't we need more of that?
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - wolfgke 10y ago
    In my experience often understanding how stupid the points of other people are makes me hate them much more than if I simply would not understand them. Is this what you evangelize?
    - projektir 10y ago
      Are you sure you're actually truly understanding people in that case? I've only seen that kind of reaction from a very shallow application.
    - zepto 10y ago
      Generally understanding other people's points of view makes them seem less stupid, not more so. You might be confusing people's opinions with their points of view.
      - wolfgke 10y ago
        No, I am pretty confident in what I wrote. Not understanding someone means that I can ignore him/her, because I have to admit that I don't know enough to connect the dots. Once I understand him/her, two things can happen: 1. I can see that there exists also some completely different, but also very rational, point of view from which one can see the whole facts and get a much better impression of him/her. I might still disagree, but now I have a better impression. 2. I can see how stupid the conclusions really are from which the other persons are. While before I could be ignorant (I knew neither enough that that this makes a good nor a bad impression on me), once I understood I can not anymore. In this case the impression can also become much worse. So understanding (empathizing) is a very two-sided sword.
        zepto 10y ago
        Empathizing doesn't mean understanding someone's argument and deciding that it is really stupid. That is pretty much the opposite of empathy. Empathizing means understanding the person well enough to see how they came to be someone who reached that conclusion, even if it is illogical from your point of view.
    - awesomerobot 10y ago
      You don't need to understand their stupid points, you need to understand why they feel a certain way about them. As this election cycle clearly shows, emotion isn't dictated by fact. Empathy isn't "liking/hating" someone, it's being able to relate to their emotional state. I don't agree with someone who supports Donald Trump as president... but I can understand being afraid and desperate to a point of irrationality.

wolfgke 10y ago

> People just need to empathize in general. There's so much polarizing armchair bullshit once anything goes wrong for someone else, it's crazy. We don't need more empathizing, but we need science to find objective facts instead of opinions.

zepto 10y ago
Empathizing means understanding other people's point of view. Why wouldn't we need more of that?
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- wolfgke 10y ago
  In my experience often understanding how stupid the points of other people are makes me hate them much more than if I simply would not understand them. Is this what you evangelize?
  - projektir 10y ago
    Are you sure you're actually truly understanding people in that case? I've only seen that kind of reaction from a very shallow application.
  - zepto 10y ago
    Generally understanding other people's points of view makes them seem less stupid, not more so. You might be confusing people's opinions with their points of view.
    - wolfgke 10y ago
      No, I am pretty confident in what I wrote. Not understanding someone means that I can ignore him/her, because I have to admit that I don't know enough to connect the dots. Once I understand him/her, two things can happen: 1. I can see that there exists also some completely different, but also very rational, point of view from which one can see the whole facts and get a much better impression of him/her. I might still disagree, but now I have a better impression. 2. I can see how stupid the conclusions really are from which the other persons are. While before I could be ignorant (I knew neither enough that that this makes a good nor a bad impression on me), once I understood I can not anymore. In this case the impression can also become much worse. So understanding (empathizing) is a very two-sided sword.
      - zepto 10y ago
        Empathizing doesn't mean understanding someone's argument and deciding that it is really stupid. That is pretty much the opposite of empathy. Empathizing means understanding the person well enough to see how they came to be someone who reached that conclusion, even if it is illogical from your point of view.
  - awesomerobot 10y ago
    You don't need to understand their stupid points, you need to understand why they feel a certain way about them. As this election cycle clearly shows, emotion isn't dictated by fact. Empathy isn't "liking/hating" someone, it's being able to relate to their emotional state. I don't agree with someone who supports Donald Trump as president... but I can understand being afraid and desperate to a point of irrationality.