5 ms·

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

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"?
- FloorEgg 1y ago
  I haven't experienced what the parent commenter is referring to either, but it wouldn't surprise me if there was an internet culture bubble somewhere that behaved this way a lot. In general I have noticed a lot of social media bias towards the least respectful interpretation, which is one of the reasons I prefer spending my time here. And as I posted in grandparent I share your sentiment about what empathy means in a most respectful interpretation sense. I also think that we all have a limit of how much we can bend our behavior to other people, especially when we are unexpectedly pushed to our limits (extremely bad days). To have empathy for everyone always is a type of genius, and to also have the will to act on it always religion generally reveres as saintly. (It's exceptional) So one can have a lot of capacity for empathy and usually act on it, but still be called out for lacking it sometimes by a culture taking the least respectful interpretation. It's like road rage in another context. No one's perfect, and most people are average at most things.

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"?

FloorEgg 1y ago
I haven't experienced what the parent commenter is referring to either, but it wouldn't surprise me if there was an internet culture bubble somewhere that behaved this way a lot. In general I have noticed a lot of social media bias towards the least respectful interpretation, which is one of the reasons I prefer spending my time here. And as I posted in grandparent I share your sentiment about what empathy means in a most respectful interpretation sense. I also think that we all have a limit of how much we can bend our behavior to other people, especially when we are unexpectedly pushed to our limits (extremely bad days). To have empathy for everyone always is a type of genius, and to also have the will to act on it always religion generally reveres as saintly. (It's exceptional) So one can have a lot of capacity for empathy and usually act on it, but still be called out for lacking it sometimes by a culture taking the least respectful interpretation. It's like road rage in another context. No one's perfect, and most people are average at most things.