3 ms·
Yep, forgot about that one. I totally understand your point. And it is, in my opinion, a very reasonable position to take. I believe I'm the same way, for be
by turc1656 9y ago
Yep, forgot about that one.
I totally understand your point. And it is, in my opinion, a very reasonable position to take. I believe I'm the same way, for better or worse. I can't recall with certainty but I believe there is a psychological term for what you describe. Basically, it boils down to your brain compartmentalizing what you can and cannot have an effect on. That which you cannot affect you tend to care far less about and reduce/eliminate empathy and other emotional connection because it can be draining and isn't productive in any positive way (usually). That which you can affect or which has a significant impact on you personally is a totally different story. Wish I could remember the term for it.
- KGIII 9y agoAs I was typing it, I was thinking there would be a psychological name for it. It seems like something they've likely classified and tried to measure. If you'll permit me a vulgarity, my give a damn button is broken. For PR, I sent off two donations. It's the same as I did for both Florida and Texas. I don't view it as buying karma, or anything. I view it as being more that I'm actually obligated to do. We don't care need to to overly care, do anything, or devote energy. Being obligated to outrage is a silly social trend. It's unfortunate and it's surely painful for those most closely impacted, but we are continually bombarded with news of tragedy. Selfish or not, I'm pretty sure it's more healthy to just accept it and acknowledge it. I'm absolutely not saying it wasn't tragic, I'm just saying I am unwilling to get emotionally invested in it. I suspect that makes sense, I'm mostly just trying to explain it in more detail because I don't know of a more precise term for it. If this happened in my area, I'd be much more emotionally invested.