Where is the Common Ground?

[Roboramma]

Oh, I don't know. RHINO these days seems a little apropos. Republican Hitlerite in Name Only has a certain applicability given the racist and Fascistic leanings of the GOP.

Yeah, and those not only that, but those damn Hitlerites refuse to find common ground!

 

[Roger Ramjets]

I didn't say it was useless, I said it was overrated.

Being human is overrated. Got it.

These are very different claims.

You claim that empathy is 'overrated' and that it's "pretty damn obvious, if you actually look at the objective evidence". But you haven't offered any actual evidence to support your claim.

Indeed, Democrats are likely to be more empathetic than Republicans. Which also means they are more illogical, more prone to be swayed by emotions, more prone to ignore unintended consequences, and actually less tolerant of people with different views.

Being empathic means being illogical, emotional, ignorant and intolerant. Got it.

Meanwhile...

Empathy is the capacity to understand or feel what another person is experiencing from within their frame of reference, i.e., the capacity to place oneself in another's position. There are many definitions for empathy that encompass a broad range of emotional states. Types of empathy include cognitive empathy, emotional empathy, and somatic empathy...

So not illogical or ignorant, nor intolerant or necessarily 'emotional'.

However...

Atypical empathic responses have been associated with autism and particular personality disorders such as psychopathy, borderline, narcissistic, and schizoid personality disorders; conduct disorder; schizophrenia; bipolar disorder; and depersonalization. Lack of affective empathy has also been associated with sex offenders.

But the good news is that having less empathy means that they can be more logical, less swayed by emotion, and more tolerant of people with 'different views', right?

Everyone is selective about whom they have empathy for. Nobody has empathy for everyone.

7.6 billion people in the World and I empathize with all of them - including murderers, child molesters, narcissists, even you. As a child I was borderline autistic, and I too believed that empathy was 'overrated'. So I get what you are saying. But I managed to embrace my empathic side and grew out of it.

It may seem illogical and 'emotional', but empathy is actually a very useful tool for understanding what another person is experiencing from within their frame of reference. Perhaps if you were to drop the Mr. Spock routine and try a little empathy you might begin to understand how others feel. It might even help us find some common ground!

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Well, both the highest level of poverty and the largest number of people in poverty are in the most left-wing state in the country -- California. So, the left certainly isn't going to solve they problem, being as how they are the problem. We must look elsewhere.

If I may make A Modest Proposal...

 

[tyr_13]

Well, both the highest level of poverty and the largest number of people in poverty are in the most left-wing state in the country -- California. So, the left certainly isn't going to solve they problem, being as how they are the problem. We must look elsewhere.

That simple correlation really doesn't imply what you think it implies. The social sciences are extremely complex and trying to tease out causative influences is going to take more than "both the highest level of poverty and the largest number of people in poverty are in the most left-wing state in the country".

To take that fact and conclude that the left is the problem is very poor reasoning. There may be other reasons that led you to that conclusion, but if so you ought to share them with the rest of us.

The even bigger problem is that you thought what BB said was true or relevant. Now California might have 'the most people in poverty' because they have the highest population (although I'd say Texas actually 'wins' that irrelevant metric too). The highest rates of poverty are the territories, and among the states, the highest rate is those 'most left-wing' states, Mississippi, New Mexico, Alabama, Kentucky, Arkansas, Georgia, West Virginia, Arizona, Tennessee, South Carolina, North Carolina, Texas, Florida, Oklahoma...and THEN California.

It's not true that it is the 'left' states that have this problem 'the most' in the least. It is a just another talking point lie that doesn't get questioned because it's been repeated so many times that many just feel it to be true. Even those who know it isn't true will Cherry pick things and fall back on, 'Well look at Chicago...'

 

[The Norseman]

Well, both the highest level of poverty and the largest number of people in poverty are in the most left-wing state in the country -- California. So, the left certainly isn't going to solve they problem, being as how they are the problem. We must look elsewhere.

I know you grabbed this just to try and gain cheap political points because you aren't actually showing California in context.

Here's the context for people who legitimately wish to know:

https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2016/demo/p60-258.pdf

This is a new 3-year weighted score being developed in order to try and provide a more comprehensive and accurate picture of poverty in relation to things like cost of living, medical expenditures, non-cash benefits and other governmental disbursements, housing, and so on.

Using the still-official poverty numbers, however, California is 15th (or 17th) on the list of most-poor states while nine of the top ten most-poverty stricken states are all Republican leaning.

It's also been shown by reputable studies that poor people tend to make very poor judgments overall in life which can help explain why so many poor Americans voted for Trump. I think that and a desperate need to believe in some sort of fantasy-world where they seem to be better off than they really are.

 

[Lurch]

Doncha just love those who peddle 'statistics' without providing proper context? Such as plucking a *total* without looking at *proportion*. As already noted above, simply saying the most populous entity has the most of, say, poverty, can be awfully misleading. A town of 200 where everyone is poor (100% poverty) is, as a group, doing far worse than is a whole state where, say, half of the 2 million citizens, or a full million, are poor.

But this is so self evident I'm amazed that I feel I must spell it out. Ah well. If everyone who made it as far as grade 9 actually paid attention in class we might not be wading against such a tide of ignorance.

 

[Ziggurat]

Being human is overrated. Got it.

No, you clearly don't. Which is why you have to resort to such straw men.

7.6 billion people in the World and I empathize with all of them

No you don't. You can want to empathize with all of them, but you can't do it. You can't empathize with someone you know nothing about.

including murderers, child molesters, narcissists, even you.

You don't empathize with me. If you did, you wouldn't be so bad at understanding what I'm saying.

As a child I was borderline autistic, and I too believed that empathy was 'overrated'. So I get what you are saying.

No, you don't. That's one of the ironies of this exchange: you're touting empathy, but you aren't actually demonstrating it. I'm not saying empathy isn't good for personal interactions. It is. But it's a very bad basis for public policy decisions. And also note that empathy isn't the same as compassion or kindness or generosity.

 

[Mumbles]

Doncha just love those who peddle 'statistics' without providing proper context? Such as plucking a *total* without looking at *proportion*. As already noted above, simply saying the most populous entity has the most of, say, poverty, can be awfully misleading. A town of 200 where everyone is poor (100% poverty) is, as a group, doing far worse than is a whole state where, say, half of the 2 million citizens, or a full million, are poor.

But this is so self evident I'm amazed that I feel I must spell it out. Ah well. If everyone who made it as far as grade 9 actually paid attention in class we might not be wading against such a tide of ignorance.

Actually, as far as indexed (as opposed to the current official figures) poverty goes, there's a strong discussion to be had about the incredibly high price of real estate in California - but this seems to me to have more to do with developers outright refusing to build affordable housing, combined with local zoning ordinances, than with any amazing liberal failure. Granted, I live on the east coast, so I'm not that tuned in to what's going on there.

(The state that's second highest on the indexed list is Florida - and third is a tie between New York and Louisiana. There's just no correlation to political party or ideology there.)

 

[Roboramma]

Zig, no one actually read the article you posted so they are arguing against something completely different from what you are saying.

I actually haven't read it either, but at least I'm familiar with Paul Bloom and his work. It's worth noting (to others) that he makes a distinction between empathy and compassion.

https://www.amazon.com/Against-Empathy-Case-Rational-Compassion/dp/0062339338

In AGAINST EMPATHY, Bloom reveals empathy to be one of the leading motivators of inequality and immorality in society. Far from helping us to improve the lives of others, empathy is a capricious and irrational emotion that appeals to our narrow prejudices. It muddles our judgment and, ironically, often leads to cruelty. We are at our best when we are smart enough not to rely on it, but to draw instead upon a more distanced compassion.

The point is that empathy is an emotion that's subject to many biases and those biases tend to lead to an unequal application of compassion toward others.

Another quote, from that amazon page:

Leslie: You say that telling people you were writing a book against empathy was like telling people you were writing a book against kittens. So let's start there: What's your quarrel with kittens? What's the trouble with empathy?

Paul: Everyone loves kittens, and just about everyone loves empathy. It's easy to see it as a moral cure-all, making us kinder and more loving, essential for positive social change.

But empathy is surprisingly bad at making us good. It's a spotlight focusing on certain people in the here and now. This makes us care more about them, but it leaves us insensitive to the long-term consequences of our acts and blind as well to the suffering of those we do not or cannot empathize with. Empathy is biased, pushing us in the direction of parochialism and racism. It is innumerate, favoring the one over the many. It can spark violence; our empathy for those close to us is a powerful force for war and atrocity toward others. It exhausts the spirit and can diminish the force of kindness and love. And I'm just getting started!

Leslie: What's the difference between empathy and compassion? Why does that difference matter?

Paul: My subtitle is 'The Case for Rational Compassion.' The 'rational' part refers to how we should make moral decisions, and it's pretty obvious what this means. But 'compassion' might be less clear. I'm referring here to concern for others, wanting their pain to go away, wanting their lives to improve—but without the shared emotional experience that's so central to empathy.

 

[acbytesla]

Zig, no one actually read the article you posted so they are arguing against something completely different from what you are saying.

I actually haven't read it either, but at least I'm familiar with Paul Bloom and his work. It's worth noting (to others) that he makes a distinction between empathy and compassion.

https://www.amazon.com/Against-Empathy-Case-Rational-Compassion/dp/0062339338


The point is that empathy is an emotion that's subject to many biases and those biases tend to lead to an unequal application of compassion toward others.

Another quote, from that amazon page:

I have to say that Bloom is full of crap. I don't agree with his definition of empathy or his premises nor his conclusions. Empathy is the golden rule. It is attempting to see life from someone else's shoes. To attempt to understand what they are going through. Bloom seems to me as another human being who is seeking permission and a rationale for not connecting to others.

 

[Minoosh]

Using the still-official poverty numbers, however, California is 15th (or 17th) on the list of most-poor states while nine of the top ten most-poverty stricken states are all Republican leaning.

It's hard to find common ground with people who make up their own facts.

 

[Minoosh]

Well, both the highest level of poverty and the largest number of people in poverty are in the most left-wing state in the country -- California. So, the left certainly isn't going to solve they problem, being as how they are the problem. We must look elsewhere.

In addition to the dubious poverty claim, I'm not finding numbers to support California being the most left-wing state.

This link for example puts it at No. 6.

Are you ever tempted to look stuff up?

 

[kellyb]

I'm not saying empathy isn't good for personal interactions. It is. But it's a very bad basis for public policy decisions. And also note that empathy isn't the same as compassion or kindness or generosity.

The idea that empathy is overall or always "a very bad basis for public policy decisions" is absolutely incorrect.


But let us know what sort of evidence or rational argument you have to back that one.

Here's a compassion-based policy proposal:

https://nomoneybail.org/

Tell me the anti-compassion "rational" argument against it.

 

[kellyb]

Actually, as far as indexed (as opposed to the current official figures) poverty goes, there's a strong discussion to be had about the incredibly high price of real estate in California - but this seems to me to have more to do with developers outright refusing to build affordable housing, combined with local zoning ordinances, than with any amazing liberal failure.

The high price of real estate in CA is a result of this, the most rightwing property tax law in the country to my knowledge:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_13_(1978)

 

[Roboramma]

The idea that empathy is overall or always "a very bad basis for public policy decisions" is absolutely incorrect.


But let us know what sort of evidence or rational argument you have to back that one.

Here's a compassion-based policy proposal:

https://nomoneybail.org/

Tell me the anti-compassion "rational" argument against it.

Once again, the issue isn't empathy vs. rationality. It's the difference between empathy and compassion.

So you seem to be agreeing with Zig.

 

[Roboramma]

I have to say that Bloom is full of crap. I don't agree with his definition of empathy or his premises nor his conclusions. Empathy is the golden rule. It is attempting to see life from someone else's shoes. To attempt to understand what they are going through. Bloom seems to me as another human being who is seeking permission and a rationale for not connecting to others.

Yes, there are different definitions of empathy. If you want to say that the way he uses the term is different from the way most people do, that's fine, but given the way he outlines the distinction he's trying to make I think he has some good reasons for using the term the way he does. Whether or not we should call it empathy is a valid issue to discuss, but the distinction is a valuable one to make and the problems that he brings up are problems that are worth avoiding.

It's also worth noting the he's a researcher in psychology and I think he's using the term in the same way it's used in the literature.

 

[Minoosh]

Once again, the issue isn't empathy vs. rationality. It's the difference between empathy and compassion.

So you seem to be agreeing with Zig.

From etymologies and different dictionary sites the words mean basically the same thing. I think I understand the distinction being made but I'm not sure.

 

[Roboramma]

The even bigger problem is that you thought what BB said was true or relevant. Now California might have 'the most people in poverty' because they have the highest population (although I'd say Texas actually 'wins' that irrelevant metric too). The highest rates of poverty are the territories, and among the states, the highest rate is those 'most left-wing' states, Mississippi, New Mexico, Alabama, Kentucky, Arkansas, Georgia, West Virginia, Arizona, Tennessee, South Carolina, North Carolina, Texas, Florida, Oklahoma...and THEN California.

Yeah, that's a good point and I'm embarassed that I missed it, though in my defence the fact that his argument had no validity to it was enough to dismiss it, so I didn't really see the need to think about it further. Still, you're right and that's actually pretty funny.

It's not true that it is the 'left' states that have this problem 'the most' in the least. It is a just another talking point lie that doesn't get questioned because it's been repeated so many times that many just feel it to be true. Even those who know it isn't true will Cherry pick things and fall back on, 'Well look at Chicago...'

Yeah, and this brings us to the main issue and the main problem with finding common ground. Not many people are actually interested in it, as far as I can see. Both sides just tend to look for confirmation of their prior views and ignore the things that conflict with them.

 

[Roboramma]

From etymologies and different dictionary sites the words mean basically the same thing. I think I understand the distinction being made but I'm not sure.

This is not meant as a form of argument, but really for those who might be interested:



This is an episode of Sam Harris' podcast in which he talks with Paul Bloom. It's what exposed me to his ideas and I found it very interesting. I'm not entirely sure what my own view of his conclusions is, but the research is extremely interesting even if you draw different conclusions from it than Bloom does.

I don't intend a youtube link to be a substitute for expressing my own views, but in case people are interested in the subject I think this podcast is worth listening to.

 

[kellyb]

I have to say that Bloom is full of crap. I don't agree with his definition of empathy or his premises nor his conclusions. Empathy is the golden rule. It is attempting to see life from someone else's shoes. To attempt to understand what they are going through. Bloom seems to me as another human being who is seeking permission and a rationale for not connecting to others.

Yeah, it just strikes me as word games to rationalize promoting anti-social philosophies and policies and calling it "scientific".

He's already written "Against Empathy: The Case for Rational Compassion", so, I'd like to suggest some future book titles:

• In Defense of Administrative Massacres : Rapid Natural Selection as the Silver Lining in Modern Conflicts
  
• When Famine is a Gift: Teaching Indigenous People the Art of Labor Migration
  
• Scientific Progress is Always Pretty: The Upside of Pediatric Cancer