4 ms·

It seems very difficult for one group to empathize with a less fortunate or more marginalized group. Whether it's rich vs poor, white people vs non-white, men v

by nether 12y ago

It seems very difficult for one group to empathize with a less fortunate or more marginalized group. Whether it's rich vs poor, white people vs non-white, men vs women, each thinks the others "don't have it that bad," or at least not as bad as they claim. As a straight guy, I found this chart quite jarring: http://cdn.okcimg.com/blog/mofo_mysteries/Suicide-Three.png http://cdn.okcimg.com/blog/mofo_mysteries/Suicide-Three.png (from the end of http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/mofo-and-other-mysteries/ http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/mofo-and-other-mysteries/ ); I just cannot contemplate how isolating and anguish-inducing having an atypical sexual orientation is. To feel badly for marginalized groups is a tacit admission of privilege and unfairness in the world, which makes us feel bad about ourselves.

tempestn 12y ago
Part of why I find HN so refreshing is that the majority of people here, while probably having above average wealth, also seem to have above average empathy. One example is stories about basic income; they tend to get a generally positive reception, even though a basic income would not be likely to benefit most HN contributors. Similarly, the (largely male) community seems to be very much behind making the tech sector more welcoming to women. Those are just a couple of examples of many.
- zo1 12y ago
  What would you say would happen to a budding startup if the founder or key-members acted and felt opposite to the way you describe most HN contributors as being? Is there even a word for a virtual lynch-mob and subsequent media trial? These are very delicate topics, and individuals that are ambitious can not afford to misstep in that regard. Of course, you could be right, and these individuals are simply unusually kind compared to how kind (or not) we perceive the general public to be.
  - nostrademons 12y ago
    A couple years ago, I was complaining about how I don't do feelings or nice gestures because they're "fake"; it felt dishonest to do things just to make other people feel better so they'd have a higher opinion of me. One of my friends replied with a story about a contractor that he occasionally did business with. The contractor had sent him a nice brief note wishing him a happy birthday (or some other special occasion; my memory is hazy). My friend's first thought was "Oh, wow, that was nice of him to remember." His second thought was "Wait, he probably has a calendar with the birthdates of all of his clients on it and software to send out a form letter on their birthday. He wants our business, after all." His third thought was "Well, it was nice of him to setup that software." As separate, individual human beings without the luxury of mind-reading, we can't actually know why anyone does something. That's why people usually judge themselves by their intentions, but they judge others by their actions. If your actions demonstrate empathy to other people, is that any different from actually having that empathy? (As a side note, this is one reason why market economies are so fascinating. It's a system built on the assumption that everyone is naturally self-interested and doesn't care about others that nevertheless manages to make its participants - even the most selfish and sociopathic of them - act in ways that benefit others.)
- venomsnake 12y ago
  Actually basic income will benefit HN visitors. And everyone else. What you earn at your job is on top of the basic income. Or even better - basic consumption allowance. Also we are engineers - we love to solve problems and try to not moralize much the solutions. We approach a time in which laborless production of material goods will be solved problem, so we need basic demand for the economy to chug along.
  - cousin_it 12y ago
    I agree with that reasoning, but I would word it differently. The economy would probably chug along regardless. The 1% of rich folks would happily colonize the solar system with nanomachines or whatever. The big problem is what happens to the other 99% who only have their labor to sell, if machines depress the price of labor below the minimal cost of sustaining a human body. That's why we need basic income. People might also get psychological problems due to being idle and irrelevant, I have no idea how to solve those. And in the long run, we need Friendly AI anyway :-)
    - zo1 12y ago
      One problem I have with the basic income whenever I see it mentioned, or discussed in the context you noted. It's always phrased as "we need basic income because bad scenario X will happen". It's never phrased as "if scenario X ever happens, we will have to institute basic income". The reason I think the distinction is important is because such proponents are yet to conclusively prove/argue that scenario X will ever happen. And as I don't believe such a scenario will happen anywhere remotely in our lifetimes, we can't and shouldn't use such a wild hypothetical as a valid reason for a huge program. To use it as a reason, and claim it as valid, would be quite disingenuous. Granted, you do phrase it as "[...]what happens[...]if[...]. That's why we need basic income." But you're yet to prove conclusively that the "if" will ever happen.
      - cousin_it 12y ago
        To be fair, many people think that technological unemployment is already happening, so basic income would be a good idea even today. Many others disagree and call it the "luddite fallacy". Personally, I think technological unemployment is not a fallacy and we'll see much more of it in our lifetimes. For example, self-driving cars might put a 50-year-old truck driver out of a job. What would you advise him to do, retrain as a neurosurgeon? What if by the time he's finished retraining, neurosurgery is also automated? Even if theoretically there was an endless supply of jobs for humans, the job market always takes nonzero time to react. When technological change becomes quicker than that, we're in trouble.
- cousin_it 12y ago
  Once upon a time, HN was "Startup News" and most folks here dreamed of making their own startups. Basic income would be a huge benefit to such folks, because it would make failure much less frightening. "The welfare state is the Randian's secret dream" ;-)
zo1 12y ago
It seems very difficult for some people to empathize and understand that certain other groups have different ideals and different definitions of "fairness". Once you realize that, then you'll realize why these things occur, and why some perceive others as not empathizing to the supposed plight of others. E.g. The big differing views on "fairness" are: One side believes that fairness is determined by end-results, others that it is determined by fairness of opportunity (irrespective of end-results). If you're so inclined (to judge and examine your own ideas), then I'd recommend this hefty book to you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Conflict_of_Visions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Conflict_of_Visions
mercer 12y ago
This is on my mind a lot. While I have no illusions that I am good at empathizing with those in 'other' groups, I do think my particular upbringing has shown me up close how different groups can be (whether on a country-level or crazy-religious-subgroup-level). And I feel it made me a better, more empathic person as a result. I've also participated in initiatives that would bring together opposing groups. The primary approach would be talking about the differences or inter-group problems, but the biggest effect came from simply spending a lot of time together doing 'normal' things. And while the effects were not as amazing as one would hope, they seemed to be significant in helping these two groups get along. I can't help but wonder if this is perhaps the best approach to encourage different groups in society to work together or support each other: get rich (young) people to spend significant periods of time with poor people, and vice versa. Get people from different nationalities to truly experience, over a longer period of time, each other's cultures and lifestyles. But perhaps this is already very common, or perhaps most people are just not interested in such a thing.
cousin_it 12y ago
Hmm. If you think women are less fortunate and more marginalized than men, and you think suicide charts are valid evidence about such things in general, then maybe you should look at a men vs women suicide chart. Men kill themselves 3x-10x more than women. Privilege is not one dimensional.

by nether 12y ago

tempestn 12y ago

Part of why I find HN so refreshing is that the majority of people here, while probably having above average wealth, also seem to have above average empathy. One example is stories about basic income; they tend to get a generally positive reception, even though a basic income would not be likely to benefit most HN contributors. Similarly, the (largely male) community seems to be very much behind making the tech sector more welcoming to women. Those are just a couple of examples of many.

zo1 12y ago
What would you say would happen to a budding startup if the founder or key-members acted and felt opposite to the way you describe most HN contributors as being? Is there even a word for a virtual lynch-mob and subsequent media trial? These are very delicate topics, and individuals that are ambitious can not afford to misstep in that regard. Of course, you could be right, and these individuals are simply unusually kind compared to how kind (or not) we perceive the general public to be.
- nostrademons 12y ago
  A couple years ago, I was complaining about how I don't do feelings or nice gestures because they're "fake"; it felt dishonest to do things just to make other people feel better so they'd have a higher opinion of me. One of my friends replied with a story about a contractor that he occasionally did business with. The contractor had sent him a nice brief note wishing him a happy birthday (or some other special occasion; my memory is hazy). My friend's first thought was "Oh, wow, that was nice of him to remember." His second thought was "Wait, he probably has a calendar with the birthdates of all of his clients on it and software to send out a form letter on their birthday. He wants our business, after all." His third thought was "Well, it was nice of him to setup that software." As separate, individual human beings without the luxury of mind-reading, we can't actually know why anyone does something. That's why people usually judge themselves by their intentions, but they judge others by their actions. If your actions demonstrate empathy to other people, is that any different from actually having that empathy? (As a side note, this is one reason why market economies are so fascinating. It's a system built on the assumption that everyone is naturally self-interested and doesn't care about others that nevertheless manages to make its participants - even the most selfish and sociopathic of them - act in ways that benefit others.)
venomsnake 12y ago
Actually basic income will benefit HN visitors. And everyone else. What you earn at your job is on top of the basic income. Or even better - basic consumption allowance. Also we are engineers - we love to solve problems and try to not moralize much the solutions. We approach a time in which laborless production of material goods will be solved problem, so we need basic demand for the economy to chug along.
- cousin_it 12y ago
  I agree with that reasoning, but I would word it differently. The economy would probably chug along regardless. The 1% of rich folks would happily colonize the solar system with nanomachines or whatever. The big problem is what happens to the other 99% who only have their labor to sell, if machines depress the price of labor below the minimal cost of sustaining a human body. That's why we need basic income. People might also get psychological problems due to being idle and irrelevant, I have no idea how to solve those. And in the long run, we need Friendly AI anyway :-)
  - zo1 12y ago
    One problem I have with the basic income whenever I see it mentioned, or discussed in the context you noted. It's always phrased as "we need basic income because bad scenario X will happen". It's never phrased as "if scenario X ever happens, we will have to institute basic income". The reason I think the distinction is important is because such proponents are yet to conclusively prove/argue that scenario X will ever happen. And as I don't believe such a scenario will happen anywhere remotely in our lifetimes, we can't and shouldn't use such a wild hypothetical as a valid reason for a huge program. To use it as a reason, and claim it as valid, would be quite disingenuous. Granted, you do phrase it as "[...]what happens[...]if[...]. That's why we need basic income." But you're yet to prove conclusively that the "if" will ever happen.
    - cousin_it 12y ago
      To be fair, many people think that technological unemployment is already happening, so basic income would be a good idea even today. Many others disagree and call it the "luddite fallacy". Personally, I think technological unemployment is not a fallacy and we'll see much more of it in our lifetimes. For example, self-driving cars might put a 50-year-old truck driver out of a job. What would you advise him to do, retrain as a neurosurgeon? What if by the time he's finished retraining, neurosurgery is also automated? Even if theoretically there was an endless supply of jobs for humans, the job market always takes nonzero time to react. When technological change becomes quicker than that, we're in trouble.
cousin_it 12y ago
Once upon a time, HN was "Startup News" and most folks here dreamed of making their own startups. Basic income would be a huge benefit to such folks, because it would make failure much less frightening. "The welfare state is the Randian's secret dream" ;-)

zo1 12y ago

It seems very difficult for some people to empathize and understand that certain other groups have different ideals and different definitions of "fairness". Once you realize that, then you'll realize why these things occur, and why some perceive others as not empathizing to the supposed plight of others. E.g. The big differing views on "fairness" are: One side believes that fairness is determined by end-results, others that it is determined by fairness of opportunity (irrespective of end-results). If you're so inclined (to judge and examine your own ideas), then I'd recommend this hefty book to you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Conflict_of_Visions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Conflict_of_Visions

mercer 12y ago

This is on my mind a lot. While I have no illusions that I am good at empathizing with those in 'other' groups, I do think my particular upbringing has shown me up close how different groups can be (whether on a country-level or crazy-religious-subgroup-level). And I feel it made me a better, more empathic person as a result. I've also participated in initiatives that would bring together opposing groups. The primary approach would be talking about the differences or inter-group problems, but the biggest effect came from simply spending a lot of time together doing 'normal' things. And while the effects were not as amazing as one would hope, they seemed to be significant in helping these two groups get along. I can't help but wonder if this is perhaps the best approach to encourage different groups in society to work together or support each other: get rich (young) people to spend significant periods of time with poor people, and vice versa. Get people from different nationalities to truly experience, over a longer period of time, each other's cultures and lifestyles. But perhaps this is already very common, or perhaps most people are just not interested in such a thing.

cousin_it 12y ago

Hmm. If you think women are less fortunate and more marginalized than men, and you think suicide charts are valid evidence about such things in general, then maybe you should look at a men vs women suicide chart. Men kill themselves 3x-10x more than women. Privilege is not one dimensional.