5 ms·

> "That’s one reason why efforts to encourage empathy for people with depression, anxiety, or other mental disorders often focus on the biological basis of the

by lsh 8y ago

> "That’s one reason why efforts to encourage empathy for people with depression, anxiety, or other mental disorders often focus on the biological basis of the conditions." There is a deeply insightful book called "Against Empathy : The Case for Rational Compassion" by a Paul Bloom. I hadn't thought too much about it until I read the above quote assuming empathy to be a Good Thing and that researchers and doctors et al should strive for greater levels of it. I think practitioners should at the very least make the distinction between empathy and compassion. We need more compassionate doctors, not empathetic ones. And disambiguating language opens up all sorts of incredible and sophisticated interactions.

fossuser 8y ago
I found the premise of that book to largely just be disputing definitions [1] with a very particular definition of empathy that isn’t actually how people use the word. Something about it bothered me - I think that it felt like a straw man arguing a position nobody really has just to be very pedantic about his specific usage of the word empathy. [1] https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/7X2j8HAkWdmMoS8PE/disputing-definitions https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/7X2j8HAkWdmMoS8PE/disputing-...
- lsh 8y ago
  yes, I've heard that argument but couldn't empathise with it ;) The book spoke to me directly and I have the opposite opinion. Definitely an interesting read but also polarising.
- da_chicken 8y ago
  It revolves around semantics and straw men? It sounds like someone took an Internet argument and published it as a book.
- westoncb 8y ago
  I was just reading some reviews and overviews of the book and walked away with the same impression. The most interesting definition (partly just IMO, but also because it's the one whose derivative of 'being talked about' is also large right now), which is also an important concept in certain Eastern philosophies for instance, has to do with a cognitive mode perhaps best characterized by 'openness'—but since that term is fraught, let me try something from scratch. There is something in our brains that works in a very sphincter-like way—similar to the pupil, for example. Rather than letting in more or less light, however, it determines how much you will be affected by present percepts. If it is closed, you can see all sorts of horrendous or magnificent stuff and have little to no reaction; if wide open, you may genuinely weep while hearing a beautiful song or something. (I don't want make strong claims on this next point, but I think it's useful to say something on the matter: what determines the openness here has a number of factors, but how safe you feel at the moment [e.g. anxiety can block it] and how 'internally pre-occupied' you are, are probably two big ones.) The empathetic 'cognitive mode' I was describing earlier is essentially just being in the 'open' state. It allows you to be affected by someone else's present suffering in a very direct/immediate way, without contemplation—which is why the author's alternative of 'rational compassion' is so controversial: the claim of modern proponents of the sort of empathy I've been describing stresses the importance of this direct connection and immediacy, claiming that being in this cognitive mode is the only way to genuinely act in the interest of another person—whereas when you approach altruism purely rationally, other motivations will typically be involved. But, the picture I got is that the book doesn't actually talk about that sort of empathy at all.
- throwaway20148 8y ago
  In a world where interactions are often interpreted through intersectional theory, pedantic definitions are more important than ever.
- dkarl 8y ago
  I don't see it as disputing definitions at all. Paul Bloom is clear what he means by "empathy" and doesn't carelessly apply his argument when the word "empathy" means something else. In fact at the same time he argues that empathy by his meaning isn't good practice for doctors he says the "empathy training" for doctors that he is aware of is a good thing, precisely because the word is used in a different way. He defines certain terms in certain ways for the sake of making his argument while acknowledging that the same words are commonly used in ways that his argument doesn't apply to.

by lsh 8y ago

fossuser 8y ago

I found the premise of that book to largely just be disputing definitions [1] with a very particular definition of empathy that isn’t actually how people use the word. Something about it bothered me - I think that it felt like a straw man arguing a position nobody really has just to be very pedantic about his specific usage of the word empathy. [1] https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/7X2j8HAkWdmMoS8PE/disputing-definitions https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/7X2j8HAkWdmMoS8PE/disputing-...

lsh 8y ago
yes, I've heard that argument but couldn't empathise with it ;) The book spoke to me directly and I have the opposite opinion. Definitely an interesting read but also polarising.
da_chicken 8y ago
It revolves around semantics and straw men? It sounds like someone took an Internet argument and published it as a book.
westoncb 8y ago
I was just reading some reviews and overviews of the book and walked away with the same impression. The most interesting definition (partly just IMO, but also because it's the one whose derivative of 'being talked about' is also large right now), which is also an important concept in certain Eastern philosophies for instance, has to do with a cognitive mode perhaps best characterized by 'openness'—but since that term is fraught, let me try something from scratch. There is something in our brains that works in a very sphincter-like way—similar to the pupil, for example. Rather than letting in more or less light, however, it determines how much you will be affected by present percepts. If it is closed, you can see all sorts of horrendous or magnificent stuff and have little to no reaction; if wide open, you may genuinely weep while hearing a beautiful song or something. (I don't want make strong claims on this next point, but I think it's useful to say something on the matter: what determines the openness here has a number of factors, but how safe you feel at the moment [e.g. anxiety can block it] and how 'internally pre-occupied' you are, are probably two big ones.) The empathetic 'cognitive mode' I was describing earlier is essentially just being in the 'open' state. It allows you to be affected by someone else's present suffering in a very direct/immediate way, without contemplation—which is why the author's alternative of 'rational compassion' is so controversial: the claim of modern proponents of the sort of empathy I've been describing stresses the importance of this direct connection and immediacy, claiming that being in this cognitive mode is the only way to genuinely act in the interest of another person—whereas when you approach altruism purely rationally, other motivations will typically be involved. But, the picture I got is that the book doesn't actually talk about that sort of empathy at all.
throwaway20148 8y ago
In a world where interactions are often interpreted through intersectional theory, pedantic definitions are more important than ever.
dkarl 8y ago
I don't see it as disputing definitions at all. Paul Bloom is clear what he means by "empathy" and doesn't carelessly apply his argument when the word "empathy" means something else. In fact at the same time he argues that empathy by his meaning isn't good practice for doctors he says the "empathy training" for doctors that he is aware of is a good thing, precisely because the word is used in a different way. He defines certain terms in certain ways for the sake of making his argument while acknowledging that the same words are commonly used in ways that his argument doesn't apply to.