5 ms·

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

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?"
  - jariel 6y ago
    "Do you think the companies believe that people buy that. That a company actually cares about XYZ. " Oh, they absolutely do. 100%. Marketing is all about aspiration, and companies are falling over themselves to be perceived as moral, credible, caring - it makes a huge difference. In a very poignant example, Nike's switched from endorsing athletes for their prowess ... to their politics. The Kaeperinck sponsorship was a massive win for Nike. Lulu Lemon is selling the 'ethics' of Yoga (for $200 yoga pants that make your butt look good!). You noticed that the brand of water Starbucks sold forever was 'Ethos'. That's not an accident. Terms such as 'ethically sourced', 'locally sourced', 'fair trade', 'eco friendly' etc. all over the place. The marketing absolutely works, even if on a cognitive level we have some degree of cynicism, the messaging goes right past our logic to associates a brand directly with an emotion, possibly sympathetic, possibly other thins like the love we have for our children etc.. If you look at celebrity brand marketing these days (i.e. how celebs market themselves), it's at least 1/2 social signalling. It's all about their politics, their charities, their causes, this is driven by smart agents, PR managers etc.. People are smart but crowds are stupid.

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?"
- jariel 6y ago
  "Do you think the companies believe that people buy that. That a company actually cares about XYZ. " Oh, they absolutely do. 100%. Marketing is all about aspiration, and companies are falling over themselves to be perceived as moral, credible, caring - it makes a huge difference. In a very poignant example, Nike's switched from endorsing athletes for their prowess ... to their politics. The Kaeperinck sponsorship was a massive win for Nike. Lulu Lemon is selling the 'ethics' of Yoga (for $200 yoga pants that make your butt look good!). You noticed that the brand of water Starbucks sold forever was 'Ethos'. That's not an accident. Terms such as 'ethically sourced', 'locally sourced', 'fair trade', 'eco friendly' etc. all over the place. The marketing absolutely works, even if on a cognitive level we have some degree of cynicism, the messaging goes right past our logic to associates a brand directly with an emotion, possibly sympathetic, possibly other thins like the love we have for our children etc.. If you look at celebrity brand marketing these days (i.e. how celebs market themselves), it's at least 1/2 social signalling. It's all about their politics, their charities, their causes, this is driven by smart agents, PR managers etc.. People are smart but crowds are stupid.