5 ms·

At the risk of being overly glib, the pathways for this may seem a little bit obvious: we are actually very empathetic people in general. When we see someone be

by jariel 6y ago

At the risk of being overly glib, the pathways for this may seem a little bit obvious: we are actually very empathetic people in general. When we see someone being treated poorly, we react both emotionally (sympathy, empathy) but also intellectually (moral condemnation). Especially for those who have been real victims in the past, these issues can be very poignant issues and cause us to 'trigger'. In such circumstances, I think a lot of our 'reason' goes out the window and we react purely emotionally. This creates the perfect vector for manipulation by self-obsessed people with total lack of self awareness. In any large group of people, there will be a handful that will say and do anything to get ahead, and if it's just 'really easy to reach out and touch that victimhood button' - they will. Things are very confounded because A) there is usually a degree of truth in the generalisation (i.e. racism, sexism etc. are very real and common things) and B) there may be elements of truth to a specific ordeal (i.e. someone may have been treated in a poor manner, but not in an egregious way). For some people, because 'A' (such bad behaviour in general) absolutely exists, then 'B' (the individual situation) 'must be an example of A' and then some ham-fisted, lop-sided action ensues, especially in the realm of the press. Go ahead and watch the founders of the now infamous 'We Charity' as they were grilled in a Parliamentary setting: with no understanding of what happened, they seem like victims. But if you have an inkling as to what was actually going on, it's clear they were exhibiting some of these Machiavellian tendencies with, constant virtue/victim signalling. Most of us are hard wired to be emotionally empathetic, that's a 'good thing' - it's just easy for a lot of people (and corporations) to take advantage of. This phenom also metastasises in social settings: one of the worst possible things we can be perceived as, is 'unsympathetic'. How 'terrible' is the person who doesn't care about that 'poor person who was a victim' of something! The issue with skepticism, and especially how it's perceived by others, is that is interpreted as a 'lack of sympathy' - when in reality - it's usually more or less a 'lack of belief in the factuality of the situation' in which, it's possible the victim may not be deserving of sympathy - which are different things. Since there's way too much risk in being perceive as unsympathetic, the popular response will usually be lopsided on any 'grey, ambiguous issue'.

DenisM 6y ago
> Most of us are hard wired to be emotionally empathetic, that's a 'good thing' Well, it is only about as good as any other animal instinct we possess - when not balanced with norms and intellect they lead to long-term disasters #. It's rather dismaying that a lot of people elevate empathy to the position of supremacy. # For example empathy could cause one to acquit a cute-looking criminal, or to leap to comfort an ebola victim only to become infected themselves and go on to infect the next emphatic person before dying a horrible death.
gavinray 6y ago
I'm not sure that I would agree that humans are largely empathetic. And this is to be pedantic about the definition (because it matters to me, as obnoxious as silly as that is), because "empathy" is the shared experience of a feeling -- I scream in pain, you feel my pain, I cry my eyes out, you cry your eyes out. "Sympathy" is acknowledging a feeling. "That's a bummer, I know how you feel." I would say that there is a small portion of people, let's ballpark 2-3%, which are overwhelming and genuinely empathetic. These people actually care, for the sole reason that they are interested in the well-being of everyone. Many people are mildly sympathetic. You express your genuine emotions, and they'll give you a heartfelt response and listen for minute or two. A great number of people have very, very little empathy or sympathy. They will feign interest or whatever response a social situation calls for so as to not appear poorly. Unless they are particularly invested in you, and there's a deep bond. (Hell, sometimes people you think were your closest friends will disappear second you ever ask a small favor or inconvenience). But from a rational standpoint, over-empathatecism (or moderate empatheticism, for too many people) would lead to constant intense, and often negative, psychological states/ imbalance. So I'm not complaining. Though I'm not sure why the entire adult world cooperatively plays this game where everyone pretends to care in public about everything, and makes a big show about how "<insert canned positive adjective here>" they are.
- jariel 6y ago
  When the average person sees a man beating a woman, they are sympathetic. When we see starvation and poverty (and we don't attribute it to 'their own behaviour') - we are generally sympathetic. " I'm not sure why the entire adult world cooperatively plays this game" - again I believe it's because to appear 'unsympathetic' is a very bad thing among most people. It generally doesn't pay to appear stern, cold or callous among most people (though for some it does). Sympathetic positions are usually more popular, which is why you see corporate messaging overwhelmingly on this side.
  - gavinray 6y ago
    > It generally doesn't pay to appear stern, cold or callous among most people (though for some it does). Sympathetic positions are usually more popular, which is why you see corporate messaging overwhelmingly on this side. Sure, but it's obviously brazenly disingenuous. Do you think the companies believe that people buy that. That a company actually cares about XYZ. And that the social media/advertising/marketing campaign staff they pay to come up with this had nothing to do with it. Why is the idea that a company has zero interest in your personal well-being or anything else about you, outside of how much potential revenue you're worth, so taboo? There are businesses and products that incorporate some level of social good or net-positive impact, but you can bet if continuing to do so put them in the red that would be quietly ushered out stage left. But it's a business, not a charity. Do I think Coca-Cola _really cares_ about (insert recent tragic event or latest social cause)? No. Do you? Does anyone? Do we care that they don't care? So why does the entire world keep up the charades, and not stay "Stop posting trite corporate marketing, do you think you're fooling anyone?"

by jariel 6y ago

DenisM 6y ago

> Most of us are hard wired to be emotionally empathetic, that's a 'good thing' Well, it is only about as good as any other animal instinct we possess - when not balanced with norms and intellect they lead to long-term disasters #. It's rather dismaying that a lot of people elevate empathy to the position of supremacy. # For example empathy could cause one to acquit a cute-looking criminal, or to leap to comfort an ebola victim only to become infected themselves and go on to infect the next emphatic person before dying a horrible death.

gavinray 6y ago

I'm not sure that I would agree that humans are largely empathetic. And this is to be pedantic about the definition (because it matters to me, as obnoxious as silly as that is), because "empathy" is the shared experience of a feeling -- I scream in pain, you feel my pain, I cry my eyes out, you cry your eyes out. "Sympathy" is acknowledging a feeling. "That's a bummer, I know how you feel." I would say that there is a small portion of people, let's ballpark 2-3%, which are overwhelming and genuinely empathetic. These people actually care, for the sole reason that they are interested in the well-being of everyone. Many people are mildly sympathetic. You express your genuine emotions, and they'll give you a heartfelt response and listen for minute or two. A great number of people have very, very little empathy or sympathy. They will feign interest or whatever response a social situation calls for so as to not appear poorly. Unless they are particularly invested in you, and there's a deep bond. (Hell, sometimes people you think were your closest friends will disappear second you ever ask a small favor or inconvenience). But from a rational standpoint, over-empathatecism (or moderate empatheticism, for too many people) would lead to constant intense, and often negative, psychological states/ imbalance. So I'm not complaining. Though I'm not sure why the entire adult world cooperatively plays this game where everyone pretends to care in public about everything, and makes a big show about how "<insert canned positive adjective here>" they are.

jariel 6y ago
When the average person sees a man beating a woman, they are sympathetic. When we see starvation and poverty (and we don't attribute it to 'their own behaviour') - we are generally sympathetic. " I'm not sure why the entire adult world cooperatively plays this game" - again I believe it's because to appear 'unsympathetic' is a very bad thing among most people. It generally doesn't pay to appear stern, cold or callous among most people (though for some it does). Sympathetic positions are usually more popular, which is why you see corporate messaging overwhelmingly on this side.
- gavinray 6y ago
  > It generally doesn't pay to appear stern, cold or callous among most people (though for some it does). Sympathetic positions are usually more popular, which is why you see corporate messaging overwhelmingly on this side. Sure, but it's obviously brazenly disingenuous. Do you think the companies believe that people buy that. That a company actually cares about XYZ. And that the social media/advertising/marketing campaign staff they pay to come up with this had nothing to do with it. Why is the idea that a company has zero interest in your personal well-being or anything else about you, outside of how much potential revenue you're worth, so taboo? There are businesses and products that incorporate some level of social good or net-positive impact, but you can bet if continuing to do so put them in the red that would be quietly ushered out stage left. But it's a business, not a charity. Do I think Coca-Cola _really cares_ about (insert recent tragic event or latest social cause)? No. Do you? Does anyone? Do we care that they don't care? So why does the entire world keep up the charades, and not stay "Stop posting trite corporate marketing, do you think you're fooling anyone?"