Where is the Common Ground?

Roboramma said:
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.
Click to expand...

When I think of compassion, I think of someone from "on high" helping someone "down below" - aka "pity".

It's the difference between helping a neighbor or other person you run across or know about because it's just the normal, pro-social way to be and because it's just kind of the right way to act, vs choosing to do something out of charity.

I'm reminded of this line, from Orwell's Down and Out:

The fact is that the Salvation Army are so in the habit of thinking themselves a charitable body that they cannot even run a lodging-house without making it stink of charity.
Click to expand...
 
Minoosh said:
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.
Click to expand...

One of the book reviews says "This entire books is based on the wrong premise that empathy = identification, especially group identification. But "Against Group Identification" wouldn't have made for a controversial title that would have gotten lots of attention to help sell more titles."

I think it's probably just a book written to pander to those opposed to "bleeding heart liberalism."
 
Roboramma said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure something like this is the most common usage in research:

https://pages.uoregon.edu/hodgeslab/files/Download/Decety Hodges_2006.PDF
Empathy is a complex psychological response in which observation, memory, knowledge, and reasoning are combined to yield insights into the
thoughts and feelings of others (Ickes, 1997)
Click to expand...

Maybe his book is really a great, compelling case against using observation, memory, knowledge, and reasoning combined to yield insights into the thoughts and feelings of others. Maybe. LOL
 
kellyb said:
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
Click to expand...


I agree: it's a word game. Yes, Bloom is right that empathy can lead to "irrational" behavior, especially when people act on impulse, but public policy should be deliberative and all laws should be rational. I'm enough of a libertarian to believe that if a law doesn't "make sense" in terms of providing benefits that justify the loss of liberty that all laws entail, then it shouldn't be passed. That comes down to subjective opinion, of course, but Bloom's conclusion that "empathy makes the world worse" is perfect for right-wing pseudo-Christians to justify not doing things to help people they don't like. Giving food stamps to poor people might seem "irrational" to such folks because society doesn't get anything in return, but that isn't true: People need to eat, and if they can't buy food, they will certainly find other ways to get it. People who feel that society does not treat them fairly will likely not feel obliged to follow its rules. The progressive position is that empathy in our public polices makes peoples' lives better, and that makes society better even if you can't see direct benefits. That's really what the "progress" is all about.
 
kellyb said:
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.
Click to expand...

I explicitly said empathy was not the same thing as compassion, and here you are trying to conflate them. Do pay attention, please. This is getting tiresome.
 
WilliamSeger said:
I agree: it's a word game. Yes, Bloom is right that empathy can lead to "irrational" behavior, especially when people act on impulse, but public policy should be deliberative and all laws should be rational. I'm enough of a libertarian to believe that if a law doesn't "make sense" in terms of providing benefits that justify the loss of liberty that all laws entail, then it shouldn't be passed. That comes down to subjective opinion, of course, but Bloom's conclusion that "empathy makes the world worse" is perfect for right-wing pseudo-Christians to justify not doing things to help people they don't like. Giving food stamps to poor people might seem "irrational" to such folks because society doesn't get anything in return, but that isn't true: People need to eat, and if they can't buy food, they will certainly find other ways to get it. People who feel that society does not treat them fairly will likely not feel obliged to follow its rules. The progressive position is that empathy in our public polices makes peoples' lives better, and that makes society better even if you can't see direct benefits. That's really what the "progress" is all about.
Click to expand...

Food stamps are partially a matter of economic stimulus, too:

https://money.cnn.com/2008/01/29/news/economy/stimulus_analysis/
In findings echoed by other economists and studies, he said the study shows the fastest way to infuse money into the economy is through expanding the food-stamp program. For every dollar spent on that program $1.73 is generated throughout the economy, he said.
Click to expand...

Sometimes unintended consequences are good.
 
Ziggurat said:
I explicitly said empathy was not the same thing as compassion, and here you are trying to conflate them. Do pay attention, please. This is getting tiresome.
Click to expand...

That was a typo. The anti-empathy argument, is what I meant.
 
kellyb said:
That was a typo. The anti-empathy argument, is what I meant.
Click to expand...

Why would you think that there's an anti-empathy argument against it? I don't see any connection between agreeing with Bloom and disagreeing with the link you posted. It seems reasonable to me.
 
It seems to me that common ground can only be found with those who reject Trumpism. Trumpists who remain faithful are too far gone and must be made politically marginalized.

I know Trumpists who read this will clutch their perls and exclaim about how intolerant I am being. What I am actually being is realistic. Trumpism - like many, if not most, other populist movements - is a mind virus. It can really only be quarantined and left to consume it's hosts.

ETA: That said, Trumpism is a far more virulent and dangerous strain of populism as it attaches itself primarily to racist hosts.
 
Last edited:
uke2se said:
It seems to me that common ground can only be found with those who reject Trumpism. Trumpists who remain faithful are too far gone and must be made politically marginalized.

I know Trumpists who read this will clutch their perls and exclaim about how intolerant I am being. What I am actually being is realistic. Trumpism - like many, if not most, other populist movements - is a mind virus. It can really only be quarantined and left to consume it's hosts.

ETA: That said, Trumpism is a far more virulent and dangerous strain of populism as it attaches itself primarily to racist hosts.
Click to expand...


I'd define Trumpism as a thin veneer of tribalism masquerading as populism, promoted by demagoguery and empty promises, found to be useful when laid over an agenda for helping the rich get richer, faster. It must be burned to the ground.
 
kellyb said:
That was a typo.
Click to expand...

Sure, kellyb, sure.

The anti-empathy argument, is what I meant.
Click to expand...

Revealing, once again, that you don't understand what I'm saying. You're making multiple mistakes of logic here.

First, you think I'm arguing for inverse empathy, that is, if empathy favors a policy, then that means I should oppose it. But that's not the case at all. I'm arguing that you shouldn't use empathy. Using it in an inverse manner is still using it.

Second, even if you want to use empathy to guide your public policy choices, that doesn't uniquely determine what those policies will be. Different people have empathy for different other people, and while your empathy for A might lead you to favor policy X, someone else's empathy for B might lead them to favor conflicting policy Y. Empathy is subjective.

Third, I'm not arguing about specific policies, I'm arguing about the basis for evaluating policies. So in regard to the policy you referenced, bail money, I haven't taken a stand for or against it. It's an issue I'm unfamiliar with. I'm not saying you should oppose the proposed change, as you seem to think. I'm saying you should evaluate it on the basis of something other than empathy. A proper basis of consideration should include logical analysis, and it can include compassion as well (because once again, compassion isn't the same as empathy). It may well be that such an analysis will still favor this proposal. Because again, I'm not arguing for inverse empathy. Empathy is a bad basis for evaluating policy, because it's not reliable. And that means it's not reliably right or reliably wrong. If it was reliably wrong, then it would be incredibly useful for evaluating choices.
 
So basically everyone is agreement that we need to meet on common ground as long as they get to decide what the common ground is.

Glad we cleared that up. Next we can all agree that the other side needs to compromise with us on everything we're willing to compromise on.
 
WilliamSeger said:
I'd define Trumpism as a thin veneer of tribalism masquerading as populism, promoted by demagoguery and empty promises, found to be useful when laid over an agenda for helping the rich get richer, faster. It must be burned to the ground.
Click to expand...

I think of it mostly as a mental "mark" on a human "mark", as in this:

http://www.goodmagic.com/carny/car_j-p.htm
Mark — A townsperson you believe to be a conspicuously easy victim. The ticket booth would have a high counter, above the average person's eyesight, and when the ticket-seller spotted a towny with a big bankroll he might short-change the customer, leaving the change on the counter. If the customer didn't notice or didn't count his change, the ticket-seller would lean over to give him some "friendly" advice about the best attractions, putting his hand on the customer's shoulder to point him toward a show he simply must see, simultaneously dusting his back with chalk from a hidden supply. If the customer instead complained about the wrong change, the ticket seller could always push the remaining change to him and say "I told you to take it." And what does an agent do when he spots a mark? He "plays" him - that's right, just like you play a hooked fish. But a carny truism is, "Always leave the mark a dollar for gas." With gas money he can go home (you don't want him stuck there to raise a beef).
Click to expand...

Trump's a con artist who saw this demographic of hate radio listeners and infowars watchers and identified them, correctly, as marks.
 
"Empathy" meaning "It is, in general, just a good base idea to at least try to understand how other people are feeling" is good.

"Empathy" meaning "If you truly understood how I felt you'd agree with me" is bad.
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
Different people have empathy for different other people, and while your empathy for A might lead you to favor policy X, someone else's empathy for B might lead them to favor conflicting policy Y. Empathy is subjective.
Click to expand...
Empathy is not necessarily completely subjective. "Broad spectrum" empathy is possible.

because once again, compassion isn't the same as empathy
Click to expand...

Where are you getting your definitions of empathy and compassion from?

Empathy is a bad basis for evaluating policy, because it's not reliable.
Click to expand...

Pure rationality/computation without empathy is useless. Might as well ask Siri to devise policy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom