4 ms·

How do you go from "successful" to "useful"? There seems to be no logical connection from "shitty people are successful" to "empathy is not useful to society."

zwnow 2y ago
Because empathy isn't useful to society. One only lives once so you better make sure you'll be successful. Having empathy will actively hurt your own life
- lolinder 2y ago
  > empathy isn't useful to society ... Having empathy will actively hurt your own life Even if I accepted the second statement (which to be clear, I absolutely do not), it doesn't follow that empathy isn't useful to society. Society is not benefited by everyone running about chasing their own personal success to the exclusion of all others: that kind of world isn't even called a society. We have other names for that and they're less positive.
  - zwnow 2y ago
    I am aware people have trouble building this mental model of an unempathetic society. I am old enough to have witnessed that in 99% of situations people are directly responsible for their own situation. There is no reason to have empathy.
    - lolinder 2y ago
      > building this mental model of an unempathetic society No, it's not about mental models, it's that what you're describing is, at the limit, no longer a society at all. You need a different word for the kind of Randian endgame you're advocating for. Using "society" for it is just confusing things for everyone involved.
    - TheOtherHobbes 2y ago
      You think that's what you've witnessed, but perhaps you're confirming a distorted prejudice and not a reality - because that's exactly what someone who lacks empathy would see. People who can't see green are evidence of a genetic defect, not evidence that green doesn't exist.
    - bumby 2y ago
      >99% of situations people are directly responsible for their own situation. This seems to be a flawed mental model in itself. At the very least, you should elaborate on your definition of empathy. Do you think cognitive empathy is bad? If so, you’re ignoring that social interactions impact outcomes.
    - InsideOutSanta 2y ago
      >I am old enough to have witnessed that in 99% of situations people are directly responsible for their own situation Old people can be wrong, and in this case, they are. >There is no reason to have empathy. This is a category mistake. You reason that empathy is superfluous if people are the cause of their misfortune. However, whether people are the cause of their misfortunes is utterly irrelevant to whether there is a reason to have empathy. So far, none of your arguments have had any discernible logic behind them. If you are so convinced that empathy is needless, why can you not articulate a coherent argument for your position?
      - zwnow 2y ago
        You not seeing arguments doesn't invalidate them. You arent the judge on this.
        InsideOutSanta 2y ago
        Do you think this response will convince anyone that you are correct? You still fail to provide an argument; you're just being unpleasant. To what end? Is that what not having empathy in a society feels like? People just talking at each other without any particular goal in mind other than being unpleasant to each other?
        mdp2021 2y ago
        > will convince anyone Are you sure that would be the poster's attempt. > you're just being He seems to be discussing, to some of us.
        InsideOutSanta 2y ago
        >Are you sure that would be the poster's attempt. What do you suspect he is attempting to do?
        mdp2021 2y ago
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - snozolli 2y ago
      "My confirmation bias has proven me right 99% of the time!"
    - buttercraft 2y ago
      > mental model of an unempathetic society You mean, like, a pack of wild dogs?
- mdp2021 2y ago
  > useful to society On the contrary, the "respect" towards others is a condition to societies. Otherwise, all you'd had would be "accomplices". And also since Edward Bunker told us that actually, "dog eat dog", > will actively hurt your own life in a pool of free rogues you'll be at severe disadvantage as opposed to a society. > One only lives once so you better make sure you will achieve what you should. That includes¹ being something good, not just having some fleeting goods. -- ¹Edit: I wrote 'includes', but that's rhetoric - I meant "mostly is".
  - zwnow 2y ago
    Society already is full of rogues and guess who is winning in this game? The super rich already buying themselves out of society, punishment usually only hurts the ones who already barely own anything. Whats the benefit of a "society"?
    - mdp2021 2y ago
      > and guess who is winning Again that is your perspective on "winning", which remains subjective (and normally faulty). Others call psychopathic achievers simply "contemptible". > Whats the benefit of a "society"? That would be the whole work of Thomas Hobbes, for example: avoiding the nightmare of perpetual conflict. It is very linear to see the benefit of being able to trust your neighbour.
      - zwnow 2y ago
        Trusting your neighbor already is a mistake. Well people like me benefit from society as I can benefit from people being naive.
        InsideOutSanta 2y ago
        >Well people like me benefit from society as I can benefit from people being naive Then, you acknowledge that you benefit from empathy. But only so long as people do not detect that you are not participating in mutual understanding and reciprocation. Once they notice your lack of genuine engagement, your previously gained benefits will disappear. On the other hand, people who exhibit empathy towards others will continue to benefit. Do you see that, by your own logic, empathy is beneficial to society?
- InsideOutSanta 2y ago
  Studies show that the primary predictor for happiness is personal relationships. Make of that what you will.
  - zwnow 2y ago
    What kind of people is the study based on? Does it include people with mental disorders? I dont value personal relationships.
    - InsideOutSanta 2y ago
      Then, you should acknowledge that your experience is not representative of most other people and that basing general arguments like "empathy is useless" on your personal feelings is deeply flawed. (But also, you come across as unhappy and angry, so maybe you're wrong about whether you need personal relationships to be happy. Many people are bad at understanding what makes them happy and end up unhappy because they mistakenly pursue things like wealth.)
- sgarland 2y ago
  > …I was searching for the nature of evil and I now think I have come close to defining it. A lack of empathy. It’s the one characteristic that connects all the defendants, a genuine incapacity to feel with their fellow men. Evil, I think, is the absence of empathy. – Captain G. M. Gilbert, Psychologist at Nuremberg Trials
  - zwnow 2y ago
    That implies there is evil, who's the judge on good vs evil?
    - sgarland 2y ago
      Pretty sure the Nazis leaned towards evil, my dude.
      - lolinder 2y ago
        And for OP's benefit because they presumably missed the attribution of the quote, these were the Nuremberg trials: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_trials https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_trials
    - mdp2021 2y ago
      People who have developed judgement. The blind are not judges on visible colours, those with good eyesight are.
    - buttercraft 2y ago
      Easy: evil lacks empathy. All it takes to not be evil is... empathy.
- fazeirony 2y ago
  > Because empathy isn't useful to society. things that lack empathy: corporations, machines, AI, psychopaths things that are problematic to society: corporations, machines, AI, psychopaths
- goatlover 2y ago
  Did you confuse society with yourself?

zwnow 2y ago

Because empathy isn't useful to society. One only lives once so you better make sure you'll be successful. Having empathy will actively hurt your own life

lolinder 2y ago
> empathy isn't useful to society ... Having empathy will actively hurt your own life Even if I accepted the second statement (which to be clear, I absolutely do not), it doesn't follow that empathy isn't useful to society. Society is not benefited by everyone running about chasing their own personal success to the exclusion of all others: that kind of world isn't even called a society. We have other names for that and they're less positive.
- zwnow 2y ago
  I am aware people have trouble building this mental model of an unempathetic society. I am old enough to have witnessed that in 99% of situations people are directly responsible for their own situation. There is no reason to have empathy.
  - lolinder 2y ago
    > building this mental model of an unempathetic society No, it's not about mental models, it's that what you're describing is, at the limit, no longer a society at all. You need a different word for the kind of Randian endgame you're advocating for. Using "society" for it is just confusing things for everyone involved.
  - TheOtherHobbes 2y ago
    You think that's what you've witnessed, but perhaps you're confirming a distorted prejudice and not a reality - because that's exactly what someone who lacks empathy would see. People who can't see green are evidence of a genetic defect, not evidence that green doesn't exist.
  - bumby 2y ago
    >99% of situations people are directly responsible for their own situation. This seems to be a flawed mental model in itself. At the very least, you should elaborate on your definition of empathy. Do you think cognitive empathy is bad? If so, you’re ignoring that social interactions impact outcomes.
  - InsideOutSanta 2y ago
    >I am old enough to have witnessed that in 99% of situations people are directly responsible for their own situation Old people can be wrong, and in this case, they are. >There is no reason to have empathy. This is a category mistake. You reason that empathy is superfluous if people are the cause of their misfortune. However, whether people are the cause of their misfortunes is utterly irrelevant to whether there is a reason to have empathy. So far, none of your arguments have had any discernible logic behind them. If you are so convinced that empathy is needless, why can you not articulate a coherent argument for your position?
    - zwnow 2y ago
      You not seeing arguments doesn't invalidate them. You arent the judge on this.
      - InsideOutSanta 2y ago
        Do you think this response will convince anyone that you are correct? You still fail to provide an argument; you're just being unpleasant. To what end? Is that what not having empathy in a society feels like? People just talking at each other without any particular goal in mind other than being unpleasant to each other?
        mdp2021 2y ago
        > will convince anyone Are you sure that would be the poster's attempt. > you're just being He seems to be discussing, to some of us.
        InsideOutSanta 2y ago
        >Are you sure that would be the poster's attempt. What do you suspect he is attempting to do?
        mdp2021 2y ago
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - snozolli 2y ago
    "My confirmation bias has proven me right 99% of the time!"
  - buttercraft 2y ago
    > mental model of an unempathetic society You mean, like, a pack of wild dogs?
mdp2021 2y ago
> useful to society On the contrary, the "respect" towards others is a condition to societies. Otherwise, all you'd had would be "accomplices". And also since Edward Bunker told us that actually, "dog eat dog", > will actively hurt your own life in a pool of free rogues you'll be at severe disadvantage as opposed to a society. > One only lives once so you better make sure you will achieve what you should. That includes¹ being something good, not just having some fleeting goods. -- ¹Edit: I wrote 'includes', but that's rhetoric - I meant "mostly is".
- zwnow 2y ago
  Society already is full of rogues and guess who is winning in this game? The super rich already buying themselves out of society, punishment usually only hurts the ones who already barely own anything. Whats the benefit of a "society"?
  - mdp2021 2y ago
    > and guess who is winning Again that is your perspective on "winning", which remains subjective (and normally faulty). Others call psychopathic achievers simply "contemptible". > Whats the benefit of a "society"? That would be the whole work of Thomas Hobbes, for example: avoiding the nightmare of perpetual conflict. It is very linear to see the benefit of being able to trust your neighbour.
    - zwnow 2y ago
      Trusting your neighbor already is a mistake. Well people like me benefit from society as I can benefit from people being naive.
      - InsideOutSanta 2y ago
        >Well people like me benefit from society as I can benefit from people being naive Then, you acknowledge that you benefit from empathy. But only so long as people do not detect that you are not participating in mutual understanding and reciprocation. Once they notice your lack of genuine engagement, your previously gained benefits will disappear. On the other hand, people who exhibit empathy towards others will continue to benefit. Do you see that, by your own logic, empathy is beneficial to society?
InsideOutSanta 2y ago
Studies show that the primary predictor for happiness is personal relationships. Make of that what you will.
- zwnow 2y ago
  What kind of people is the study based on? Does it include people with mental disorders? I dont value personal relationships.
  - InsideOutSanta 2y ago
    Then, you should acknowledge that your experience is not representative of most other people and that basing general arguments like "empathy is useless" on your personal feelings is deeply flawed. (But also, you come across as unhappy and angry, so maybe you're wrong about whether you need personal relationships to be happy. Many people are bad at understanding what makes them happy and end up unhappy because they mistakenly pursue things like wealth.)
sgarland 2y ago
> …I was searching for the nature of evil and I now think I have come close to defining it. A lack of empathy. It’s the one characteristic that connects all the defendants, a genuine incapacity to feel with their fellow men. Evil, I think, is the absence of empathy. – Captain G. M. Gilbert, Psychologist at Nuremberg Trials
- zwnow 2y ago
  That implies there is evil, who's the judge on good vs evil?
  - sgarland 2y ago
    Pretty sure the Nazis leaned towards evil, my dude.
    - lolinder 2y ago
      And for OP's benefit because they presumably missed the attribution of the quote, these were the Nuremberg trials: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_trials https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_trials
  - mdp2021 2y ago
    People who have developed judgement. The blind are not judges on visible colours, those with good eyesight are.
  - buttercraft 2y ago
    Easy: evil lacks empathy. All it takes to not be evil is... empathy.
fazeirony 2y ago
> Because empathy isn't useful to society. things that lack empathy: corporations, machines, AI, psychopaths things that are problematic to society: corporations, machines, AI, psychopaths
goatlover 2y ago
Did you confuse society with yourself?