7 ms·

An experiment shows how to rebuild human compassion

62 points by dnetesn 7y ago

jwfodnpmhl 7y ago
No.
krtkush 7y ago
Off topic but this seems to be the best place to ask. Is nautilus worth subscribing to? Are their articles accurate and scientifically sound?
- r3bl 7y ago
  Note: this isn't about accuracy, but you may want to read this first: https://nwu.org/an-open-letter-from-freelancers-at-nautilus-magazine/ https://nwu.org/an-open-letter-from-freelancers-at-nautilus-... And a top comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14227337 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14227337
- bognition 7y ago
  A few years ago yes. (I subscribed in 2015) but then it came out that the publishers weren’t paying the authors and it turned into a big thing. https://undark.org/article/freelance-writers-nautilus-payment/ https://undark.org/article/freelance-writers-nautilus-paymen...
Proven 7y ago
> If you wanted to design a system to break empathy, you could scarcely do better than the society we’ve created. What society is that? I wish the author thought about the causes. I bet that society is modern welfare state, where empathy is outsourced to the government and hence unnecessary to practice. Furthermore, thanks to the shitty feedback mechanism, system is open to abuse by those who benefit from it, creating a negative feedback loop. I imagine this VR stuff will “work” if and when it becomes mandatory to watch in state-owned schools... Welfare State’s Clockwork Orange (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clockwork_Orange_(film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clockwork_Orange_(film))
wiofuhwi 7y ago
It is disturbing to read different comments seeing this as manipulative or a threat. Probably well written books, or movies were in similar boats when they were original. They're mechanisms through which to tell stories in more effective ways. If you're scared of what society has done to these people and unwilling to recognize it and reflect on it I don't know if I can call you a human being. I'd say you're not quite there yet, but keep striving and maybe one day you'll get there.
cheerlessbog 7y ago
Now how to build compassion for those online with different political outlook? So much derision and belittling to be found. Nobel Peace Prize to anyone that solves that.
sgeisler 7y ago
> Imagine telling someone they have the chance to spend an hour inside the world of a refugee. Who would agree, and who would avoid it? Chances are, people who don’t want to empathize wouldn’t want to enter an “empathy machine” at all. Isn't avoiding such unpleasant situations one of the main reasons why people try to make more money, move into nicer neighborhoods, etc.? I'm not sure there is such a big market for "entertainment" that makes you feel bad. Personally I see such devices as manipulative and a threat to rational thinking (like all dark patterns that prey on our instincts). Thus I'd try to avoid exposure to them.
- sametmax 7y ago
  People watch horror movies, practice violent or dangerous sports and have painful sexual practices for fun. I wouldn't be surprised if such a machine would become popular, not as way to build your empathy, but as entertainment. We are weird creatures.
  - bryanrasmussen 7y ago
    violent or dangerous sports reward you with adrenaline. I guess horror movies probably do to. I will leave it to the reader's imagination what sexual practices provide as a reward. What reward will this machine give the user?
    - sametmax 7y ago
      No idea. But I've seen videos of people bursting balloon and others commenting on them, encouraging it, like a crowd cheering in front of gladiators. So I'm pretty confident about the ability of humans to build niches out of anything.
  - maxxxxx 7y ago
    A lot of dangerous, stressful or painful experiences are fun as long as you know you are getting out Ok on the other side. People would probably enjoy it much less if there was a chance that they may get killed in that machine.
ltbarcly3 7y ago
I don't like how articles like this beg the question and assume that it's morally wrong for people to accrue wealth while simultaneously there exists homelessness nearby. I certainly don't think there is any kind of consensus on this ethical question, and I would even say that it's quite tricky and the answer isn't at all clear to me either. That's not to say it's certainly OK, morally, to have huge concentrations of wealth and homeless people existing on the same city block, but I can't imagine it's decided that it's certainly not OK, especially when the people living outside refuse the help available and refuse treatment for their addiction and/or mental illness, so 'helping' them would require stripping them of their rights and 'helping' them by force.
- danaris 7y ago
  Except that a significant percentage of the homeless in America are not chronically mentally ill and/or drug-addicted: they are people who were getting by paycheck to paycheck, and then some catastrophe happened (medical emergency, tornado struck, got sued by the RIAA for more money than they make in a lifetime, got laid off, etc), and suddenly they could no longer maintain their house. And without a house, they lost the ability to find a better job or make a down payment—or even the first-and-last-months-up-front for a rental. And even for those who are chronically mentally ill and/or drug-addicted, far from all of them outright refuse treatment. For many, either no treatment is available, or the treatments that are available are either ineffective for them, or are so unpalatable for them that they would rather suffer. So please don't try to excuse those making tens of millions of dollars a year their societal responsibility to care for their fellow man by trying to paint everyone who is destitute as somehow deserving their fate.
  - slx26 7y ago
    I agree with your comment, I just want to add a thought regarding "social responsibilities". Sometimes I think about it, and I believe the first problem is that a lot of people fail to even help themselves, to be responsible, at least in some aspects, for their own lives. And when I reflect about this (and I think this happens to people regardless their wealth levels), I just can't expect people to realistically "respond" to social responsibility in a way that would match our moral ideals.
dfilppi 7y ago
Empathy is expressed by action, not voting. Voting is a means of imposing your values on those that dont share them. Another flaw is treating all homeless as interchangeable. Circumstances vary and so do people.
Jeff_Brown 7y ago
Anybody feel like summarizing the experiment and results? The article doesn't seem to get to the point quickly ...
kqr2 7y ago
Short video documentary on the Hotel 22 bus: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2015/01/28/opinion/hotel-22.amp.html https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2015/01/28/opin...
ttonkytonk 7y ago
I kinda skimmed this article but noticed it seemed to depend on presenting "understandable" examples of homelessness, but shouldn't every example be understandable to the extent that there is a reason for everything? Why do people want to make exceptions? To justify ignoring the plights of others in a world where we cannot survive without the cooperation of others?

62 points by dnetesn 7y ago

No.

Off topic but this seems to be the best place to ask. Is nautilus worth subscribing to? Are their articles accurate and scientifically sound?

r3bl 7y ago
Note: this isn't about accuracy, but you may want to read this first: https://nwu.org/an-open-letter-from-freelancers-at-nautilus-magazine/ https://nwu.org/an-open-letter-from-freelancers-at-nautilus-... And a top comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14227337 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14227337
bognition 7y ago
A few years ago yes. (I subscribed in 2015) but then it came out that the publishers weren’t paying the authors and it turned into a big thing. https://undark.org/article/freelance-writers-nautilus-payment/ https://undark.org/article/freelance-writers-nautilus-paymen...

Proven 7y ago

> If you wanted to design a system to break empathy, you could scarcely do better than the society we’ve created. What society is that? I wish the author thought about the causes. I bet that society is modern welfare state, where empathy is outsourced to the government and hence unnecessary to practice. Furthermore, thanks to the shitty feedback mechanism, system is open to abuse by those who benefit from it, creating a negative feedback loop. I imagine this VR stuff will “work” if and when it becomes mandatory to watch in state-owned schools... Welfare State’s Clockwork Orange (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clockwork_Orange_(film) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clockwork_Orange_(film))

wiofuhwi 7y ago

It is disturbing to read different comments seeing this as manipulative or a threat. Probably well written books, or movies were in similar boats when they were original. They're mechanisms through which to tell stories in more effective ways. If you're scared of what society has done to these people and unwilling to recognize it and reflect on it I don't know if I can call you a human being. I'd say you're not quite there yet, but keep striving and maybe one day you'll get there.

cheerlessbog 7y ago

Now how to build compassion for those online with different political outlook? So much derision and belittling to be found. Nobel Peace Prize to anyone that solves that.

sgeisler 7y ago

> Imagine telling someone they have the chance to spend an hour inside the world of a refugee. Who would agree, and who would avoid it? Chances are, people who don’t want to empathize wouldn’t want to enter an “empathy machine” at all. Isn't avoiding such unpleasant situations one of the main reasons why people try to make more money, move into nicer neighborhoods, etc.? I'm not sure there is such a big market for "entertainment" that makes you feel bad. Personally I see such devices as manipulative and a threat to rational thinking (like all dark patterns that prey on our instincts). Thus I'd try to avoid exposure to them.

sametmax 7y ago
People watch horror movies, practice violent or dangerous sports and have painful sexual practices for fun. I wouldn't be surprised if such a machine would become popular, not as way to build your empathy, but as entertainment. We are weird creatures.
- bryanrasmussen 7y ago
  violent or dangerous sports reward you with adrenaline. I guess horror movies probably do to. I will leave it to the reader's imagination what sexual practices provide as a reward. What reward will this machine give the user?
  - sametmax 7y ago
    No idea. But I've seen videos of people bursting balloon and others commenting on them, encouraging it, like a crowd cheering in front of gladiators. So I'm pretty confident about the ability of humans to build niches out of anything.
- maxxxxx 7y ago
  A lot of dangerous, stressful or painful experiences are fun as long as you know you are getting out Ok on the other side. People would probably enjoy it much less if there was a chance that they may get killed in that machine.

ltbarcly3 7y ago

I don't like how articles like this beg the question and assume that it's morally wrong for people to accrue wealth while simultaneously there exists homelessness nearby. I certainly don't think there is any kind of consensus on this ethical question, and I would even say that it's quite tricky and the answer isn't at all clear to me either. That's not to say it's certainly OK, morally, to have huge concentrations of wealth and homeless people existing on the same city block, but I can't imagine it's decided that it's certainly not OK, especially when the people living outside refuse the help available and refuse treatment for their addiction and/or mental illness, so 'helping' them would require stripping them of their rights and 'helping' them by force.

danaris 7y ago
Except that a significant percentage of the homeless in America are not chronically mentally ill and/or drug-addicted: they are people who were getting by paycheck to paycheck, and then some catastrophe happened (medical emergency, tornado struck, got sued by the RIAA for more money than they make in a lifetime, got laid off, etc), and suddenly they could no longer maintain their house. And without a house, they lost the ability to find a better job or make a down payment—or even the first-and-last-months-up-front for a rental. And even for those who are chronically mentally ill and/or drug-addicted, far from all of them outright refuse treatment. For many, either no treatment is available, or the treatments that are available are either ineffective for them, or are so unpalatable for them that they would rather suffer. So please don't try to excuse those making tens of millions of dollars a year their societal responsibility to care for their fellow man by trying to paint everyone who is destitute as somehow deserving their fate.
- slx26 7y ago
  I agree with your comment, I just want to add a thought regarding "social responsibilities". Sometimes I think about it, and I believe the first problem is that a lot of people fail to even help themselves, to be responsible, at least in some aspects, for their own lives. And when I reflect about this (and I think this happens to people regardless their wealth levels), I just can't expect people to realistically "respond" to social responsibility in a way that would match our moral ideals.

dfilppi 7y ago

Empathy is expressed by action, not voting. Voting is a means of imposing your values on those that dont share them. Another flaw is treating all homeless as interchangeable. Circumstances vary and so do people.

Jeff_Brown 7y ago

Anybody feel like summarizing the experiment and results? The article doesn't seem to get to the point quickly ...

kqr2 7y ago

Short video documentary on the Hotel 22 bus: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2015/01/28/opinion/hotel-22.amp.html https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2015/01/28/opin...

ttonkytonk 7y ago

I kinda skimmed this article but noticed it seemed to depend on presenting "understandable" examples of homelessness, but shouldn't every example be understandable to the extent that there is a reason for everything? Why do people want to make exceptions? To justify ignoring the plights of others in a world where we cannot survive without the cooperation of others?