3 ms·

Well said. There's an odd suspicion of empathy at this point (even some right-wing Christians calling empathy evil which is really odd considering what the foun

Well said. There's an odd suspicion of empathy at this point (even some right-wing Christians calling empathy evil which is really odd considering what the founder of their religion taught). There's so much grievance on all sides that's being fueled by various media outlets and algorithms. Grievance says "I've been uniquely wronged". And it leads to giving up on empathy so as to get even.

CGMthrowaway 1y ago
I suspect your comment references Allie Stuckey, who wrote a book "Toxic Empathy" and was viral in a video with this idea recently.[1] To the unfamiliar reader, her concept of "toxic empathy" can be boiled down thus- -Empathy becomes "toxic" when it encourages a person to affirm sin, validate lies or support destructive policies -Truth over feelings. Biblical love does not blindly affirm an individual's feelings or choices if those choices violate moral truth For a tangible example of these ideas and their connect to the Gospel (what "the founder" taught), watch the video. [1]https://youtu.be/BUjeVodnbzA?t=2978 https://youtu.be/BUjeVodnbzA?t=2978
FloorEgg 1y ago
From what I understand about history (which is just enough to know there's a lot I don't know), it seems that collective victim mentality leads to a rise in authoritarianism. Also yes a hallmark of a victim mentality is a lack of empathy for others. One believes that no one else cares about them, so why should they care about anyone else? It's tragic, but it keeps happening, so maybe it has some bigger picture purpose that's hard to see from an individual's perspective. Doesn't feel great to live through though, and it can get really dark...
card_zero 1y ago
The concept comes from early psychology in the orbit of Freud. It was invented in 1903/1909. It's somewhat mystical and somewhat mechanical, an automatic feeling that we're supposed to have. These days we can be told off for lacking this supposéd thing. I don't like it, quite independently.
- FloorEgg 1y ago
  Which concept?
  - card_zero 1y ago
    Empathy. It's surprisingly modern. I admit compassion is a similar term and refers to almost the same concept, and I have no issues with that one, but it doesn't carry the same pseudoscientific baggage.
    - FloorEgg 1y ago
      Oh interesting, I didn't know this. What I meant was the ability to simulate in one's own mind how someone else would feel about something. Basically an ability to predict an emotional reaction in others. So for example I can empathize with someone who I have to deliver bad news to, and still be an asshole and deliver it harshly, or try my best to soften the blow and deliver it clearly but gently. We can all empathize with each other to an extent, but beyond a limit we need to know more about the other person to increase precision. This is why I mentioned curiosity. For example if I gave you tickets to a football game, but you don't like football, I might predict you will be happy but that would be wrong because you'll feel awkward since you don't like football and I basically just have you an obligation / social problem. Or maybe not because you won't feel uncomfortable saying "no thanks I don't like football", but some people might be super uncomfortable declining a gift like that. So to empathize accurately and precisely we need to know the whole value system of the other person. How does this differ from your view?
      - card_zero 1y ago
        You describe it as something very cognitive, which is great, I say: something amenable to reason, and not compulsive. But the other way it's used is similar to the recent (± 10 years) internet fad for diagnosing everybody you don't like as a "psychopath" or a "sociopath". Telling somebody that they lack empathy is like telling them they're a malfunctioning alien, and need to be in therapy and possibly manacles. For those who use "empathy" this way, we supposedly function through a natural, mysterious, almost supernatural and mystical instinct to care about those people and things who we should, morally, care about. And this instinct, which bypasses cognition to arrive directly as a feeling, holds society together, and anybody who doesn't have (or doesn't display, per your interesting point about how one can "still be an asshole") the correct feelings in the correct situations is suffering from a dangerous brain-wrong. Red flag! This co-opts morality, and takes away your right to intervene cognitively about who or what you care about. But the person who supposedly lacks empathy is not really brain damaged. The person merely has different values, and doesn't care about the person or thing that you say they have to. Fictional instincts (or real but suppressed ones), and the fallacy that natural = good, should not be used as a lever to dictate other people's morality to them. On the other hand, we totally should be considering other people's values, and enquiring about what those values are. Which may prevent much unnecessary fractiousness. Feel free to accuse people of failing to do that.

CGMthrowaway 1y ago

I suspect your comment references Allie Stuckey, who wrote a book "Toxic Empathy" and was viral in a video with this idea recently.[1] To the unfamiliar reader, her concept of "toxic empathy" can be boiled down thus- -Empathy becomes "toxic" when it encourages a person to affirm sin, validate lies or support destructive policies -Truth over feelings. Biblical love does not blindly affirm an individual's feelings or choices if those choices violate moral truth For a tangible example of these ideas and their connect to the Gospel (what "the founder" taught), watch the video. [1]https://youtu.be/BUjeVodnbzA?t=2978 https://youtu.be/BUjeVodnbzA?t=2978

FloorEgg 1y ago

From what I understand about history (which is just enough to know there's a lot I don't know), it seems that collective victim mentality leads to a rise in authoritarianism. Also yes a hallmark of a victim mentality is a lack of empathy for others. One believes that no one else cares about them, so why should they care about anyone else? It's tragic, but it keeps happening, so maybe it has some bigger picture purpose that's hard to see from an individual's perspective. Doesn't feel great to live through though, and it can get really dark...

card_zero 1y ago

The concept comes from early psychology in the orbit of Freud. It was invented in 1903/1909. It's somewhat mystical and somewhat mechanical, an automatic feeling that we're supposed to have. These days we can be told off for lacking this supposéd thing. I don't like it, quite independently.

FloorEgg 1y ago
Which concept?
- card_zero 1y ago
  Empathy. It's surprisingly modern. I admit compassion is a similar term and refers to almost the same concept, and I have no issues with that one, but it doesn't carry the same pseudoscientific baggage.
  - FloorEgg 1y ago
    Oh interesting, I didn't know this. What I meant was the ability to simulate in one's own mind how someone else would feel about something. Basically an ability to predict an emotional reaction in others. So for example I can empathize with someone who I have to deliver bad news to, and still be an asshole and deliver it harshly, or try my best to soften the blow and deliver it clearly but gently. We can all empathize with each other to an extent, but beyond a limit we need to know more about the other person to increase precision. This is why I mentioned curiosity. For example if I gave you tickets to a football game, but you don't like football, I might predict you will be happy but that would be wrong because you'll feel awkward since you don't like football and I basically just have you an obligation / social problem. Or maybe not because you won't feel uncomfortable saying "no thanks I don't like football", but some people might be super uncomfortable declining a gift like that. So to empathize accurately and precisely we need to know the whole value system of the other person. How does this differ from your view?
    - card_zero 1y ago
      You describe it as something very cognitive, which is great, I say: something amenable to reason, and not compulsive. But the other way it's used is similar to the recent (± 10 years) internet fad for diagnosing everybody you don't like as a "psychopath" or a "sociopath". Telling somebody that they lack empathy is like telling them they're a malfunctioning alien, and need to be in therapy and possibly manacles. For those who use "empathy" this way, we supposedly function through a natural, mysterious, almost supernatural and mystical instinct to care about those people and things who we should, morally, care about. And this instinct, which bypasses cognition to arrive directly as a feeling, holds society together, and anybody who doesn't have (or doesn't display, per your interesting point about how one can "still be an asshole") the correct feelings in the correct situations is suffering from a dangerous brain-wrong. Red flag! This co-opts morality, and takes away your right to intervene cognitively about who or what you care about. But the person who supposedly lacks empathy is not really brain damaged. The person merely has different values, and doesn't care about the person or thing that you say they have to. Fictional instincts (or real but suppressed ones), and the fallacy that natural = good, should not be used as a lever to dictate other people's morality to them. On the other hand, we totally should be considering other people's values, and enquiring about what those values are. Which may prevent much unnecessary fractiousness. Feel free to accuse people of failing to do that.