3 ms·
>The authors of the APSR study—Elizabeth Simas and Scott Clifford of the University of Houston and Justin Kirkland of the University of Virginia—have this kind
by daenz 7y ago
>The authors of the APSR study—Elizabeth Simas and Scott Clifford of the University of Houston and Justin Kirkland of the University of Virginia—have this kind of dynamic in mind when they write, “Polarization is not a consequence of a lack of empathy among the public, but a product of the biased ways in which we experience empathy.”
That's the nugget. According to the study, it seems that people with high empathy are more often people with high empathy towards their in-group...and a lack of empathy for the out-group. I'd argue that it isn't really empathy at all...just a more emotional form of tribalism.
- knzhou 7y agoNah, I would argue that empathy has never been anything more than that. We have existing names for the “real” empathy you being up too — people call it being two-faced, practicing whataboutism, being callously analytical, being too unempathetic to side with the obviously right side, and so on.
- pas 7y agoPeople can be empathetic toward one person easily. A small group, yeah sure, it happens. But the moment they need to consider a group roughly the same size as theirs, and with opposing intents, fuck no. (And that's why seemingly two part politics devolves everywhere to a zero-sum game.)
- r00fus 7y agoI’d call it emotional parsimony. It’s the kind of behavior (core human nature) that views the pain of thousands from another country (or other social/socioeconomic group) as less than the pain of someone directly familiar to oneself.
- baked_ziti 7y ago> According to the study, it seems that people with high empathy are more often people with high empathy towards their in-group...and a lack of empathy for the out-group. I'd argue that it isn't really empathy at all...just a more emotional form of tribalism. Yes this, especially considering literally everybody is this way. Care and concern for some people and none for others is par for the course. At that point it's not empathy, it's just being the same thing everyone else is.
- throwaway2048 7y agoNothing about the definition of empathy demands that it be universal. You should be careful about re-defining something just because you don't like the implications.
- specialist 7y agoI must be an outlier then. I get pretty worked up about perceived injustices. I cringe when I see people get hurt. The people I've volunteered alongside over the years also seem to care enough about the welfare of strangers to actively participate. Sure, I've also know plenty of people who don't care about others. eg solution to climate crisis is to cull humanity by 99%, people in jail deserve it, political opponents are traitors. Though I think most people are in the apathetic middle.
- automatoney 7y agoCould it be the case that your in-group includes strangers and those who have been wronged, but does not include some other group of people? Maybe 'people who don't care about others'? Or maybe it's the people who perpetuate the injustices? I'm not saying that you have to have empathy for these groups, but maybe your outgroup doesn't look like what you may expect.
- specialist 7y agoSorry, I've lost the narrative. In group? Out group? Like when I can't remember which fork is for me and which is for salad. Why the downvotes? I really want to know. Because obviously correct statement about the bell curve distribution of a personality trait is somehow whackadoodle? Or is it because those who volunteer are just virtual signaling SJWs who's only motivation is to mock misanthropes?