9 ms·

Empathy and Failures of Democracies

55 points by mebassett 8y ago

thucydidesofusa 8y ago
If art is important to building empathy, our problems might stem from art's recent pivot to shock over beauty and virtue signaling over the cultivation of virtue.
- pm90 8y ago
  Could you expand on that? We do have a bunch of art influenced by politics (TShirts, Graffitis e.g. the Obama Hope poster, Beto Campaign Tees etc.)
  - mebassett 8y ago
    I cannot speak for the parent, but I have some ideas on the matter. if one takes art to mean a narrow group of things with a narrative (specifically film, tv, novels, and radio and news stories, thus specifically excluding things like tshirts and the obama hope poster) then you can start finding examples of works designed to produce shock and contrast them with earlier works intended to invoke beauty. Star Wars is a silly, but relevant, example. the creators of the last jedi specifically wanted to "subvert audience expectations", which sounds likes "shock" to me. Whereas the first original 70s star wars just wanted to tell a good, entertaining story. To be clear, I don't buy any of the misogynistic criticisms of the last star wars film. but I did think it was a poor story. my instincts say that such a change in "art" matters, but I don't really have good evidence to show how it does. much less that the arrow of causality points the way I think it does.
- watwut 8y ago
  When was art about cutivation of virtue? Also, shocking art is quite old ...
  - bobthechef 8y ago
    I don't know what is meant by the OP, but FWIW, art has traditionally been about beauty and transcendence and elevating the minds of men. That can have the effect of inspiring virtue, I'd say, and can help influence certain sensibilities. Art today is often nihilistic and destructive, obsessed with subverting a world it cannot stand.
    - ineedasername 8y ago
      I really don't know what you mean by saying art today is nihilistic and destructive. Especially in the realm of pop culture it seems art is obsessed with finding meaning and purpose. The most obvious example that comes to mind is the incredible rise of popularity in super hero movies over the last decade and more. The overarching narrative is literally one where people (the heroes) are finding meaning by fighting to save the world. Then there's music: just looking at the top 3 entries on Billboard, they're all about trying to find love. Maybe there's nihilism & destruction etc. in some art, but by far it does not appear to be a dominant theme.
    - watwut 8y ago
      > I don't know what is meant by the OP, but FWIW, art has traditionally been about beauty and transcendence and elevating the minds of men. That can have the effect of inspiring virtue, I'd say, and can help influence certain sensibilities. I would not be so sure. Plenty of art was not like that - purely practical portraits, paintings depicting wars, beheadings, fires and other historical events. Medieval nun with dick tree and running dog eating penis (google it), medieval texts that are about disgusting behavior. Plenty of old tales are basically about violence with no influence on sensibilities nor much virtues. Even in Homer Odyssey is quite debatable about how much it is virtue inspiring and what kind of virtue. > Art today is often nihilistic and destructive, obsessed with subverting a world it cannot stand. Classical books are often depicting destructive and nihilistic characters and caused controversies in their own time for being too close to home.
- ineedasername 8y ago
  I won't infer your own political views. I simply want to point out that the phrase "virtue signaling" has been appropriated by conservative factions as some sort of insult. It is used to imply that their liberal counterparts are in some way fraudulent or faking their stated concern for other people or groups of people. This sort of blanket painting of opposing viewpoints as disingenuous lies is exactly the type of thinking the posted article was speaking against.
  - matte_black 8y ago
    Some sort of insult? Which type? An insult that has no basis in reality, or an insult that cuts a bit too close against the truth and makes people feel exposed?
    - ineedasername 8y ago
      You appear to be arguing that push back on the insult as untrue is in fact support for believing the insult is true. In essence this amounts to saying that disagreeing with you is proof that you are correct. That is very poor logic. It's easy to see lies in people who disagree with you. To do so confirms your own world view without making you question it. It's much harder to look upon other views and say, "Some very intelligent people honestly believe something very different than me... some very intelligent people also believe as I do. What should I make of this?". I don't have an easy answer to that last question, but I'm also not looking for easy, convenient answers that require large portions of the population to be crazy, stupid, evil, etc.
      - matte_black 8y ago
        Instead of "trying to understand the other side", most people would be better served by playing devil's advocate against their own side. Would you know how to identify a virtue signaler if you found one?
        ineedasername 8y ago
        I'd say a virtue signaler is someone who acts as though they're virtuous when they're not. So identifying one would entail things like examining the differences between what they say and what they do. But not all hypocrisy is cynical. There are people who honestly espouse high ideals, even while falling short of them. So I think there are distinctions to be made there as well.
- ineedasername 8y ago
  Nearly every art movement was in some way shocking to people. Mannerism was somewhat shocking in its exagerations compared to previous renaisance styles. The decadence of the Baroque style similarly discomforted mannerist sensibilities. You can continue to trace this back and forth pattern through the centuries. Rock & Roll is a classic example of art that shocked. And the political overtones of much music in the 60's isn't much different in this respect than today's art that also contains political overtones.
- Buldak 8y ago
  Can you provide some examples?
- Nasrudith 8y ago
  I have seen the virtues promoted by past art for the purpose. The virtues weren't that great and ammounted to propaganda for the status quo. In fact the "virtues" were often evil in themselves. Roman gladiatorial games are thought of as decadence but the Romans thought they were a measure against it. The Soviet Union had that sort of "virtue cultivating" art and it sure as hell didn't promote either their "virtures" or actual virtue.
colemannugent 8y ago
>Whether its American Conservatives or UK Remainers, much of the political spectrum has an inability to consider the other side's opinion I would caution the author against merely dismissing this behavior as a defect in their thinking. I suspect that some or most of the lack of empathy is intentional. Aside: In my view, most people who espouse political views merely parrot bits and pieces of arguments that they have seen elsewhere, so I ignore these "non-thinkers" as I don't believe that they contribute much to the empathy or lack thereof in today's politics. Back to my point: I think that apathy is often a strategic advantage, especially in politics. The ideological leaders of the groups know this and choose to employ narratives that paint their opponents as evil monsters rather than misled humans, as it makes their jobs significantly easier. For example, being the political party who sets aside the traditions of the government to, for example, fast-track the nomination of a high-value judge by changing the rules, confers a great advantage to whoever is willing to cross the line first. In today's democracies the winner of an election is mainly determined by who can stir up the most support from their large preexisting base of supporters. In this system the most attention grabbing rhetoric wins, and empathy just doesn't seem to get the kind of attention that vitriol does. As for dealing with apathy in politics, I am skeptical of the idea that there is much to do other than remove the advantage that apathy provides, which itself seems very difficult. Promoting empathetic arts seems noble, but I doubt that it would even slow the current trend we see playing out on social media.
bobthechef 8y ago
Empathy, no. Being charitable in your appraisal of your opponent, yes. Meaning, don't assume off the bat that your opponent is malicious unless you have good reason to believe that. Also, acquaint yourself with the views of your opponent before dismissing them as stupid. Charity, not empathy, is the proper attitude. Empathy prioritizes feelings over truth and reason. This is dangerous, foolish, and wrong. Truths may be painful, and where appropriate, we should be charitable toward those in error and find the truth painful, but we should never sacrifice truth or prefer feelings over truth and reasoned arguments. We are also foolish to expect everyone competent and capable of reasoned argument. That is why we have authorities. Really, the authorities are at fault here because they have given the masses license to behave aggressively and boorishly when they should be discussing instead of peddling their latest tendentious sophistry and bullshit.
- lemmsjid 8y ago
  I think it’s easy to conflate empathy with forgiveness. Empathy is about understanding someone’s viewpoint to the degree that you feel a reflection of their emotions. This requires a mixture of reason and emotionality: reason to bridge the gap in world views. It does not preclude truth or judgement. One can empathize with a murderer by understanding their background and motivations, but still want them to be locked up. I think it is important to empathize with criminals for the express reason that you want to find out how to prevent further criminal acts. I quite agree with the article. I am quite unabashedly liberal, but I understand why conservatives exist (here I’m using the United States polarity) and even why they need to. The idea that one side or the other is an inherently destructive force is repellent. I’m using your comment as a springboard for these thoughts btw, I’m not disagreeing with you.
- commandlinefan 8y ago
  I often have to remind myself that I actually agree with liberals on a lot of things like abortion, gay marriage and immigration - I just find myself reflexively disagreeing with them because of the unfair way they portray their opponents.
- tjr225 8y ago
  Agreed. It is so easy to assume the worst from anyone - especially on the internet. It helps me, personally, to reread through someone's words and try to grasp what they are saying as strongly as possible before reacting.
james_s_tayler 8y ago
Art helps facilitate communication. You can communicate an entire, massive, powerful idea by just saying "1984." That's where the power lies. The thought experiment aspect is nice too but you can write any old book to push any old narrative if you think enough people will buy it. I think that's neither here nor there. This analysis is uni-dimensional. There is nothing special about Democracy, per se, or even about standard political issues. We are highly political creates and you'll notice the very same patterns of calling the other side stupid or assuming they have an agenda with regards to basically anything. Though credit where credit is due, I think the subtext is saying "wait, are we in trouble?". That's not an entirely silly notion IMHO. History has shown things can progress and then go back the other way. We might have left the tribes but tribalism never left us. We have upgraded ourselves a little bit, but there is a long way to go. There are many underlying problems with our cognition that paint a pretty bleak picture with regards to "can't we all just get along?", but all is not lost. Just as The Enlightenment moved people away from relying on Mysticism as a philosophy, there is an ongoing dialectic around these issues that has the chance to birth a new philosophy that can help elevate our thinking further. In general just being aware of all our cognitive pitfalls, I think, will go a long way and there is also language that goes along with new ideas to help us communicate using new tools. I'll list some books I've read/I'm reading on the journey to help me figure this out. Most of this paints a picture that says "we need to actively adopt a philosophy where we emphasize digging into the opponents side more, also, yes they likely are coming to faulty conclusions, but still give them the benefit of the doubt as it will strengthen your own thinking." History (last 14,000 years): Why Nations Fail The Origins of Political Order Sapiens Guns, Germs & Steel Psychology: Thinking Fast and Slow The Elephant In The Brain Predictably Irrational Poltics: The Righteous Mind The Political Mind Chimpanzee Politics In Defense of Troublemakers A General Theory of Bureaucracy Communications: Words That Work Shortcut Surfaces & Essences Metaphors We Live By On Controversy Tempo: Timing, Tactics and Strategy in Narrative-Driven Decision Making
- Fomite 8y ago
  I'd suggest 'Plagues and Peoples' over 'Guns, Germs and Steel'
Proven 8y ago
Democracy failed and that was recognized by FA Hayek and other libertarians. State destroys empathy because it tries to replace it with its coercion-based rules and institutions, that's why there's less of it.
skookumchuck 8y ago
"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…" -- Winston Churchill
skookumchuck 8y ago
> Whether its American Conservatives or UK Remainers American liberals do exactly the same thing.
- commandlinefan 8y ago
  UK remainders are basically american liberals - I think the author put some work into showing both sides of the political spectrum to avoid accusations of bias.
peisistratos 8y ago
> pre-war German and Japanese In the November 1932 elections in Germany, the socialist and communists got 221 Reichstag seats to the Nazis 196. 10 of the KPD's seats gained since the July 1932 election were from the socialists - the Nazis helped radicalize German left workers. On February 20, 1933 the CEOs and board members of Germany's Fortune 500 equivalents pledged millions of Marks to the Nazi party, five months later the Vatican signed the Reichskonkordat with Nazi Germany. Nothing like that is happening now because there is zero threat from America's working class against the system. It has been losing power with each year, and even college educated professionals have been losing power for decades, something chronicled thirty years ago in "Fear of Falling". There is also no external threat of any historical significance. Fortune 500 boards have no desire to bankroll the efforts of people like Andrew Torba (Y-combinator funded Torba, who did gab.ai, and Paul Graham talks about the genetic intelligence superiority of certain races, but this is not big capital). Trump has been talking about pulling troops home, not about more Lebensraum.
- B1FF_PSUVM 8y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear_of_Falling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear_of_Falling -> "Fear of Falling: The Inner Life of the Middle Class, a book by Barbara Ehrenreich" (sheesh, nowadays books come under the heading "Other", while music and video get their own headers?) Thanks for the ref, and nice handle btw - these days very few people are allowed to understand that a monarch may be a better deal for them than a senate ...
int_19h 8y ago
I would also note that empathy has shown to be weaponizable - i.e. you can use empathy to some people to justify oppression of others and dehumanize them. My observations in American politics today is that this is largely what the political debate has devolved into - you find some cause that sufficiently many people empathize with, you dress it up, and you use that to drive your agenda. I think it's no surprise that the causes that tend to be among the most partisan (and the most reliable when it comes to turning out supporters and votes) are basically moral panics, like abortion on the right, or guns on the left.
- trampolinecout 8y ago
  Free App https://www.inboxdollars.com/r/1204600585/76 https://www.inboxdollars.com/r/1204600585/76
- DSingularity 8y ago
  Good point. I guess the Palestinians fall under that category.
fallingfrog 8y ago
Hah! Well let’s do an experiment. I’m going to give what I think is the point of view of your typical right winger and your typical centrist democrat, and then hopefully someone can educate me as to where I’m wrong. To be clear I’m going to go for the basic profile here. Nuance is for cowards. Conservatives: I was born in 1948. When I was a young adult, everyone was ok and everything made sense. There was an order to things, everyone had a place. Our great enemy was communism; we had capitalism and were free, while our enemies were communists and lived under dictatorship. I was afraid of communism because communists almost blew up the world, plus we fought them in Vietnam. Communists are bad people and therefore their ideas are bad ideas. I suspect that all liberals are either explicitly communist or are being misled by communist appeals to emotionalism. What we need is a strong rational person who will take charge and root out the people who are getting out of place and ruining things for everyone else. Centrist liberal: I was born in 1972. When I was a young adult, politics were civil and everyone was polite. I never really paid attention to politics because I thought it was boring. I like my job and I think my boss is a great guy. My favorite political figure was Martin Luther king, because he said that everyone should be nice and get along. I’m not racist, because I like Martin Luther king. I don’t understand why everyone seems so angry these days. Technology is so amazing these days, it’s just going faster and faster. I love buying new fancy things. I think that if we could just elect more democrats to congress, then everyone will be nice again and stop being so nasty to each other. How’s my empathy? Am I close? I would love it if someone would give a similar treatment to the anarchist/socialist point of view, just so I can see what kinds of silly things people believe about me. Turnabout is fair play. Let me have it.
- jeffdavis 8y ago
  I think the main flaw is thinking that there is some "typical" person from each group. But you are close enough to write a few tertiary characters for an Oscar-winning picture. (Though not a main character; those usually develop throughout the movie and don't fit a static description.)
- jeffdavis 8y ago
  A bit off topic, but I am confused how anarchism and socialism can work together. Can you explain?
mensetmanusman 8y ago
People forget that it is a feature of democracy that we disagree loudly. Life would be boring otherwise :)
tunesmith 8y ago
I wonder if anyone else relates to this. I feel like up until the last few years, my understanding of "empathy" was always very different than how it is often used now. Empathy was literally putting yourself in another person's shoes, understanding their emotional perspective. But the key there is that it was one person. Like, a friend, or a therapist to a client, etc. A relationship free of agenda. Now I often see it as almost a corporate kind of buzzword, like with UI/UX people having "empathy" for their users (in order to understand "their" needs and make more money from them). Or people having "empathy" for populations for political reasons as a way to build political support for something. It seems more related to the language of branding and marketing now.
- adityab 8y ago
  Yes, you're not alone. Oddly enough, it's been repurposed to mean something akin to value alignment or strategic cooperation. It used to mean thoughtful kindness, and this change seems to have suddenly happened in the last five years. It's usage now makes me vaguely uncomfortable because it feels borderline sociopathic or manipulative.
  - tunesmith 8y ago
    Yeah, exactly. Which is particularly maddening because sociopathy is about the absence of empathy.

55 points by mebassett 8y ago

If art is important to building empathy, our problems might stem from art's recent pivot to shock over beauty and virtue signaling over the cultivation of virtue.

pm90 8y ago
Could you expand on that? We do have a bunch of art influenced by politics (TShirts, Graffitis e.g. the Obama Hope poster, Beto Campaign Tees etc.)
- mebassett 8y ago
  I cannot speak for the parent, but I have some ideas on the matter. if one takes art to mean a narrow group of things with a narrative (specifically film, tv, novels, and radio and news stories, thus specifically excluding things like tshirts and the obama hope poster) then you can start finding examples of works designed to produce shock and contrast them with earlier works intended to invoke beauty. Star Wars is a silly, but relevant, example. the creators of the last jedi specifically wanted to "subvert audience expectations", which sounds likes "shock" to me. Whereas the first original 70s star wars just wanted to tell a good, entertaining story. To be clear, I don't buy any of the misogynistic criticisms of the last star wars film. but I did think it was a poor story. my instincts say that such a change in "art" matters, but I don't really have good evidence to show how it does. much less that the arrow of causality points the way I think it does.
watwut 8y ago
When was art about cutivation of virtue? Also, shocking art is quite old ...
- bobthechef 8y ago
  I don't know what is meant by the OP, but FWIW, art has traditionally been about beauty and transcendence and elevating the minds of men. That can have the effect of inspiring virtue, I'd say, and can help influence certain sensibilities. Art today is often nihilistic and destructive, obsessed with subverting a world it cannot stand.
  - ineedasername 8y ago
    I really don't know what you mean by saying art today is nihilistic and destructive. Especially in the realm of pop culture it seems art is obsessed with finding meaning and purpose. The most obvious example that comes to mind is the incredible rise of popularity in super hero movies over the last decade and more. The overarching narrative is literally one where people (the heroes) are finding meaning by fighting to save the world. Then there's music: just looking at the top 3 entries on Billboard, they're all about trying to find love. Maybe there's nihilism & destruction etc. in some art, but by far it does not appear to be a dominant theme.
  - watwut 8y ago
    > I don't know what is meant by the OP, but FWIW, art has traditionally been about beauty and transcendence and elevating the minds of men. That can have the effect of inspiring virtue, I'd say, and can help influence certain sensibilities. I would not be so sure. Plenty of art was not like that - purely practical portraits, paintings depicting wars, beheadings, fires and other historical events. Medieval nun with dick tree and running dog eating penis (google it), medieval texts that are about disgusting behavior. Plenty of old tales are basically about violence with no influence on sensibilities nor much virtues. Even in Homer Odyssey is quite debatable about how much it is virtue inspiring and what kind of virtue. > Art today is often nihilistic and destructive, obsessed with subverting a world it cannot stand. Classical books are often depicting destructive and nihilistic characters and caused controversies in their own time for being too close to home.
ineedasername 8y ago
I won't infer your own political views. I simply want to point out that the phrase "virtue signaling" has been appropriated by conservative factions as some sort of insult. It is used to imply that their liberal counterparts are in some way fraudulent or faking their stated concern for other people or groups of people. This sort of blanket painting of opposing viewpoints as disingenuous lies is exactly the type of thinking the posted article was speaking against.
- matte_black 8y ago
  Some sort of insult? Which type? An insult that has no basis in reality, or an insult that cuts a bit too close against the truth and makes people feel exposed?
  - ineedasername 8y ago
    You appear to be arguing that push back on the insult as untrue is in fact support for believing the insult is true. In essence this amounts to saying that disagreeing with you is proof that you are correct. That is very poor logic. It's easy to see lies in people who disagree with you. To do so confirms your own world view without making you question it. It's much harder to look upon other views and say, "Some very intelligent people honestly believe something very different than me... some very intelligent people also believe as I do. What should I make of this?". I don't have an easy answer to that last question, but I'm also not looking for easy, convenient answers that require large portions of the population to be crazy, stupid, evil, etc.
    - matte_black 8y ago
      Instead of "trying to understand the other side", most people would be better served by playing devil's advocate against their own side. Would you know how to identify a virtue signaler if you found one?
      - ineedasername 8y ago
        I'd say a virtue signaler is someone who acts as though they're virtuous when they're not. So identifying one would entail things like examining the differences between what they say and what they do. But not all hypocrisy is cynical. There are people who honestly espouse high ideals, even while falling short of them. So I think there are distinctions to be made there as well.
ineedasername 8y ago
Nearly every art movement was in some way shocking to people. Mannerism was somewhat shocking in its exagerations compared to previous renaisance styles. The decadence of the Baroque style similarly discomforted mannerist sensibilities. You can continue to trace this back and forth pattern through the centuries. Rock & Roll is a classic example of art that shocked. And the political overtones of much music in the 60's isn't much different in this respect than today's art that also contains political overtones.
Buldak 8y ago
Can you provide some examples?
Nasrudith 8y ago
I have seen the virtues promoted by past art for the purpose. The virtues weren't that great and ammounted to propaganda for the status quo. In fact the "virtues" were often evil in themselves. Roman gladiatorial games are thought of as decadence but the Romans thought they were a measure against it. The Soviet Union had that sort of "virtue cultivating" art and it sure as hell didn't promote either their "virtures" or actual virtue.

colemannugent 8y ago

>Whether its American Conservatives or UK Remainers, much of the political spectrum has an inability to consider the other side's opinion I would caution the author against merely dismissing this behavior as a defect in their thinking. I suspect that some or most of the lack of empathy is intentional. Aside: In my view, most people who espouse political views merely parrot bits and pieces of arguments that they have seen elsewhere, so I ignore these "non-thinkers" as I don't believe that they contribute much to the empathy or lack thereof in today's politics. Back to my point: I think that apathy is often a strategic advantage, especially in politics. The ideological leaders of the groups know this and choose to employ narratives that paint their opponents as evil monsters rather than misled humans, as it makes their jobs significantly easier. For example, being the political party who sets aside the traditions of the government to, for example, fast-track the nomination of a high-value judge by changing the rules, confers a great advantage to whoever is willing to cross the line first. In today's democracies the winner of an election is mainly determined by who can stir up the most support from their large preexisting base of supporters. In this system the most attention grabbing rhetoric wins, and empathy just doesn't seem to get the kind of attention that vitriol does. As for dealing with apathy in politics, I am skeptical of the idea that there is much to do other than remove the advantage that apathy provides, which itself seems very difficult. Promoting empathetic arts seems noble, but I doubt that it would even slow the current trend we see playing out on social media.

bobthechef 8y ago

Empathy, no. Being charitable in your appraisal of your opponent, yes. Meaning, don't assume off the bat that your opponent is malicious unless you have good reason to believe that. Also, acquaint yourself with the views of your opponent before dismissing them as stupid. Charity, not empathy, is the proper attitude. Empathy prioritizes feelings over truth and reason. This is dangerous, foolish, and wrong. Truths may be painful, and where appropriate, we should be charitable toward those in error and find the truth painful, but we should never sacrifice truth or prefer feelings over truth and reasoned arguments. We are also foolish to expect everyone competent and capable of reasoned argument. That is why we have authorities. Really, the authorities are at fault here because they have given the masses license to behave aggressively and boorishly when they should be discussing instead of peddling their latest tendentious sophistry and bullshit.

lemmsjid 8y ago
I think it’s easy to conflate empathy with forgiveness. Empathy is about understanding someone’s viewpoint to the degree that you feel a reflection of their emotions. This requires a mixture of reason and emotionality: reason to bridge the gap in world views. It does not preclude truth or judgement. One can empathize with a murderer by understanding their background and motivations, but still want them to be locked up. I think it is important to empathize with criminals for the express reason that you want to find out how to prevent further criminal acts. I quite agree with the article. I am quite unabashedly liberal, but I understand why conservatives exist (here I’m using the United States polarity) and even why they need to. The idea that one side or the other is an inherently destructive force is repellent. I’m using your comment as a springboard for these thoughts btw, I’m not disagreeing with you.
commandlinefan 8y ago
I often have to remind myself that I actually agree with liberals on a lot of things like abortion, gay marriage and immigration - I just find myself reflexively disagreeing with them because of the unfair way they portray their opponents.
tjr225 8y ago
Agreed. It is so easy to assume the worst from anyone - especially on the internet. It helps me, personally, to reread through someone's words and try to grasp what they are saying as strongly as possible before reacting.

james_s_tayler 8y ago

Art helps facilitate communication. You can communicate an entire, massive, powerful idea by just saying "1984." That's where the power lies. The thought experiment aspect is nice too but you can write any old book to push any old narrative if you think enough people will buy it. I think that's neither here nor there. This analysis is uni-dimensional. There is nothing special about Democracy, per se, or even about standard political issues. We are highly political creates and you'll notice the very same patterns of calling the other side stupid or assuming they have an agenda with regards to basically anything. Though credit where credit is due, I think the subtext is saying "wait, are we in trouble?". That's not an entirely silly notion IMHO. History has shown things can progress and then go back the other way. We might have left the tribes but tribalism never left us. We have upgraded ourselves a little bit, but there is a long way to go. There are many underlying problems with our cognition that paint a pretty bleak picture with regards to "can't we all just get along?", but all is not lost. Just as The Enlightenment moved people away from relying on Mysticism as a philosophy, there is an ongoing dialectic around these issues that has the chance to birth a new philosophy that can help elevate our thinking further. In general just being aware of all our cognitive pitfalls, I think, will go a long way and there is also language that goes along with new ideas to help us communicate using new tools. I'll list some books I've read/I'm reading on the journey to help me figure this out. Most of this paints a picture that says "we need to actively adopt a philosophy where we emphasize digging into the opponents side more, also, yes they likely are coming to faulty conclusions, but still give them the benefit of the doubt as it will strengthen your own thinking." History (last 14,000 years): Why Nations Fail The Origins of Political Order Sapiens Guns, Germs & Steel Psychology: Thinking Fast and Slow The Elephant In The Brain Predictably Irrational Poltics: The Righteous Mind The Political Mind Chimpanzee Politics In Defense of Troublemakers A General Theory of Bureaucracy Communications: Words That Work Shortcut Surfaces & Essences Metaphors We Live By On Controversy Tempo: Timing, Tactics and Strategy in Narrative-Driven Decision Making

Fomite 8y ago
I'd suggest 'Plagues and Peoples' over 'Guns, Germs and Steel'

Proven 8y ago

Democracy failed and that was recognized by FA Hayek and other libertarians. State destroys empathy because it tries to replace it with its coercion-based rules and institutions, that's why there's less of it.

skookumchuck 8y ago

"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…" -- Winston Churchill

skookumchuck 8y ago

> Whether its American Conservatives or UK Remainers American liberals do exactly the same thing.

commandlinefan 8y ago
UK remainders are basically american liberals - I think the author put some work into showing both sides of the political spectrum to avoid accusations of bias.

peisistratos 8y ago

> pre-war German and Japanese In the November 1932 elections in Germany, the socialist and communists got 221 Reichstag seats to the Nazis 196. 10 of the KPD's seats gained since the July 1932 election were from the socialists - the Nazis helped radicalize German left workers. On February 20, 1933 the CEOs and board members of Germany's Fortune 500 equivalents pledged millions of Marks to the Nazi party, five months later the Vatican signed the Reichskonkordat with Nazi Germany. Nothing like that is happening now because there is zero threat from America's working class against the system. It has been losing power with each year, and even college educated professionals have been losing power for decades, something chronicled thirty years ago in "Fear of Falling". There is also no external threat of any historical significance. Fortune 500 boards have no desire to bankroll the efforts of people like Andrew Torba (Y-combinator funded Torba, who did gab.ai, and Paul Graham talks about the genetic intelligence superiority of certain races, but this is not big capital). Trump has been talking about pulling troops home, not about more Lebensraum.

B1FF_PSUVM 8y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear_of_Falling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear_of_Falling -> "Fear of Falling: The Inner Life of the Middle Class, a book by Barbara Ehrenreich" (sheesh, nowadays books come under the heading "Other", while music and video get their own headers?) Thanks for the ref, and nice handle btw - these days very few people are allowed to understand that a monarch may be a better deal for them than a senate ...

int_19h 8y ago

I would also note that empathy has shown to be weaponizable - i.e. you can use empathy to some people to justify oppression of others and dehumanize them. My observations in American politics today is that this is largely what the political debate has devolved into - you find some cause that sufficiently many people empathize with, you dress it up, and you use that to drive your agenda. I think it's no surprise that the causes that tend to be among the most partisan (and the most reliable when it comes to turning out supporters and votes) are basically moral panics, like abortion on the right, or guns on the left.

trampolinecout 8y ago
Free App https://www.inboxdollars.com/r/1204600585/76 https://www.inboxdollars.com/r/1204600585/76
DSingularity 8y ago
Good point. I guess the Palestinians fall under that category.

fallingfrog 8y ago

Hah! Well let’s do an experiment. I’m going to give what I think is the point of view of your typical right winger and your typical centrist democrat, and then hopefully someone can educate me as to where I’m wrong. To be clear I’m going to go for the basic profile here. Nuance is for cowards. Conservatives: I was born in 1948. When I was a young adult, everyone was ok and everything made sense. There was an order to things, everyone had a place. Our great enemy was communism; we had capitalism and were free, while our enemies were communists and lived under dictatorship. I was afraid of communism because communists almost blew up the world, plus we fought them in Vietnam. Communists are bad people and therefore their ideas are bad ideas. I suspect that all liberals are either explicitly communist or are being misled by communist appeals to emotionalism. What we need is a strong rational person who will take charge and root out the people who are getting out of place and ruining things for everyone else. Centrist liberal: I was born in 1972. When I was a young adult, politics were civil and everyone was polite. I never really paid attention to politics because I thought it was boring. I like my job and I think my boss is a great guy. My favorite political figure was Martin Luther king, because he said that everyone should be nice and get along. I’m not racist, because I like Martin Luther king. I don’t understand why everyone seems so angry these days. Technology is so amazing these days, it’s just going faster and faster. I love buying new fancy things. I think that if we could just elect more democrats to congress, then everyone will be nice again and stop being so nasty to each other. How’s my empathy? Am I close? I would love it if someone would give a similar treatment to the anarchist/socialist point of view, just so I can see what kinds of silly things people believe about me. Turnabout is fair play. Let me have it.

jeffdavis 8y ago
I think the main flaw is thinking that there is some "typical" person from each group. But you are close enough to write a few tertiary characters for an Oscar-winning picture. (Though not a main character; those usually develop throughout the movie and don't fit a static description.)
jeffdavis 8y ago
A bit off topic, but I am confused how anarchism and socialism can work together. Can you explain?

mensetmanusman 8y ago

People forget that it is a feature of democracy that we disagree loudly. Life would be boring otherwise :)

tunesmith 8y ago

I wonder if anyone else relates to this. I feel like up until the last few years, my understanding of "empathy" was always very different than how it is often used now. Empathy was literally putting yourself in another person's shoes, understanding their emotional perspective. But the key there is that it was one person. Like, a friend, or a therapist to a client, etc. A relationship free of agenda. Now I often see it as almost a corporate kind of buzzword, like with UI/UX people having "empathy" for their users (in order to understand "their" needs and make more money from them). Or people having "empathy" for populations for political reasons as a way to build political support for something. It seems more related to the language of branding and marketing now.

adityab 8y ago
Yes, you're not alone. Oddly enough, it's been repurposed to mean something akin to value alignment or strategic cooperation. It used to mean thoughtful kindness, and this change seems to have suddenly happened in the last five years. It's usage now makes me vaguely uncomfortable because it feels borderline sociopathic or manipulative.
- tunesmith 8y ago
  Yeah, exactly. Which is particularly maddening because sociopathy is about the absence of empathy.