4 ms·

I am not sure I buy that (empathy leads to xenophobia), so I’d have to think about that some more. I learned this from a particular Buddhist teaching — what so

by hosh 4y ago

I am not sure I buy that (empathy leads to xenophobia), so I’d have to think about that some more. I learned this from a particular Buddhist teaching — what someone want is not necessarily the same as what someone needs. It takes wisdom to know what the deeper needs are. So the way I learned that empathy is a trap the same way sympathy and compassion is a trap. Someone unable able distinguish surface wants for deeper needs, or why and how the suffering happens will seek out things that will not really help.

mcv 4y ago
The issue is of course a lot more complex than I can summarise in a brief comment. It's a 500 page book (though well worth reading). But he describes a couple of experiments, including some with babies: show a baby two puppets, one who is mean and one who is nice, and they'll prefer the nice one. But show them two puppets, one who share the same taste in food but is mean, and another who is nice but doesn't share the same taste, and they'll prefer the mean one. He includes observations that groups of terrorists of various kinds are often very close to each other, soldiers fight harder and more effectively against an enemy if they have a strong sense of camaraderie. Empathy makes us closer to some, but more distant from the rest. The book quotes a professor Bloom who is against empathy for that reason. A colleague of his showed that when people are encouraged to empathise with one mortally ill patient, they're more likely to support preferential treatment for that one patient even if it comes at the cost of other patients who are just as ill and in need of treatment. I wonder if the same is true with Trump supporters: they oppose his indictment because they empathise with him, but they want Hillary Clinton locked up because they don't empathise with her. They believe Trump understands them and cares about them, even in the face of evidence to the contrary. It's not that they're heartless people who have chosen evil, it's that they've been blinded by the limited focus of their empathy. But this is my own speculation, not Bregman's. And I certainly don't pretend to understand it.

by hosh 4y ago

mcv 4y ago

The issue is of course a lot more complex than I can summarise in a brief comment. It's a 500 page book (though well worth reading). But he describes a couple of experiments, including some with babies: show a baby two puppets, one who is mean and one who is nice, and they'll prefer the nice one. But show them two puppets, one who share the same taste in food but is mean, and another who is nice but doesn't share the same taste, and they'll prefer the mean one. He includes observations that groups of terrorists of various kinds are often very close to each other, soldiers fight harder and more effectively against an enemy if they have a strong sense of camaraderie. Empathy makes us closer to some, but more distant from the rest. The book quotes a professor Bloom who is against empathy for that reason. A colleague of his showed that when people are encouraged to empathise with one mortally ill patient, they're more likely to support preferential treatment for that one patient even if it comes at the cost of other patients who are just as ill and in need of treatment. I wonder if the same is true with Trump supporters: they oppose his indictment because they empathise with him, but they want Hillary Clinton locked up because they don't empathise with her. They believe Trump understands them and cares about them, even in the face of evidence to the contrary. It's not that they're heartless people who have chosen evil, it's that they've been blinded by the limited focus of their empathy. But this is my own speculation, not Bregman's. And I certainly don't pretend to understand it.