4 ms·

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 abilit

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
    Did you mean "not seeing other people as NPCs"?
    - shermantanktop 1y ago
      Indeed I did.
- jrowen 1y ago
  In my experience I don't really see the word empathy being weaponized like you describe (in actual good-will conversation, as opposed to a generalized social media blast). My first instinct is to believe that you may very well lack empathy for reacting in such a way, but it's also possible that some individual[s] did unfairly or harshly use it to shame you. But this just seems like any kind of disagreement on cultural expectations for interpersonal interactions. Some people will value what they call "empathy" more than others. We can't really say in the general case whether anyone levying these terms is doing so fairly or not, and all one can do is try to route around or find common ground with people that don't...empathize...with their methodologies. If that ends up being most people, then you (the royal you) may be an outlier (or "psycho" in the parlance of our times) and that's gonna be a tough road. In other words, how is "telling somebody that they lack empathy" that much different from "accusing someone of failing to consider other people's values and enquiring about what those values are"?

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
  Did you mean "not seeing other people as NPCs"?
  - shermantanktop 1y ago
    Indeed I did.
jrowen 1y ago
In my experience I don't really see the word empathy being weaponized like you describe (in actual good-will conversation, as opposed to a generalized social media blast). My first instinct is to believe that you may very well lack empathy for reacting in such a way, but it's also possible that some individual[s] did unfairly or harshly use it to shame you. But this just seems like any kind of disagreement on cultural expectations for interpersonal interactions. Some people will value what they call "empathy" more than others. We can't really say in the general case whether anyone levying these terms is doing so fairly or not, and all one can do is try to route around or find common ground with people that don't...empathize...with their methodologies. If that ends up being most people, then you (the royal you) may be an outlier (or "psycho" in the parlance of our times) and that's gonna be a tough road. In other words, how is "telling somebody that they lack empathy" that much different from "accusing someone of failing to consider other people's values and enquiring about what those values are"?