4 ms·

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 feelin

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.
      - FloorEgg 1y ago
        Nice. That makes sense. I agree.
      - cindyllm 1y ago
        [dead]
      - shermantanktop 1y ago
        I used empathy as shorthand for seeing other people as NPCs. It’s the dark side of the spotlight effect. Everyone has that impulse, just like racist thoughts and many other types of bias. One needs to work to really see others as full human beings with thoughts and values unlike your own—-it doesn’t happen automatically; the automatic impulse is to see difference as a defect when compared to the ideal person, who is of course “Me.”

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.
    - FloorEgg 1y ago
      Nice. That makes sense. I agree.
    - cindyllm 1y ago
      [dead]
    - shermantanktop 1y ago
      I used empathy as shorthand for seeing other people as NPCs. It’s the dark side of the spotlight effect. Everyone has that impulse, just like racist thoughts and many other types of bias. One needs to work to really see others as full human beings with thoughts and values unlike your own—-it doesn’t happen automatically; the automatic impulse is to see difference as a defect when compared to the ideal person, who is of course “Me.”