topic Re: Case against empathy in Community Chat

Case against empathy

Isobel Archer — Sat, 25 Feb 2017 16:47:20 GMT

Didn't want to hijack the thread on millionaires/billionaires and what they "should" do with their money.

One comment - about whether buying a computer for one child is better/worse than contributing to cancer research to benefit many reminded me of this book I just read - The Case Against Empathy by Paul Bloom.

He posits that empathy can work against the common good because empathetic people tend to think what is in front of them is most important. For example he cites studies where empathetic people are asked to evaluate a child for Make a Wish. Typically, once hearing THAT child's story, they will vote to move the child to the top of the list - without knowing anything about the other kids in line - even if that child's request wll cost significantly more than average.

He talks about the difference between empathy (feeling the pain of others to the point of being compelled to allieviate it) and compassion (a less emotional more distanced view of what is really the best solution in the situation.)

I found it fascinating.

Re: Case against empathy

ROMARY — Sat, 25 Feb 2017 16:57:03 GMT

In general: It would be an interesting read.

Re: Case against empathy

Quse — Sat, 25 Feb 2017 17:01:25 GMT

What "millionaires/billionaires and what they "should" do with their money."

What they do with their money is their business, not mine. Personally, I don't care what they do, as long as it doesn't infringe on my liberty.
I think everyone, whether you're a millionaire or billionaire.... or not, should be involved with something that moves them to contribute either monetarily, time wise or both....but I'm not for forcing people in any way shape or form.

Re: Case against empathy

millieshops — Sat, 25 Feb 2017 17:02:56 GMT

@Isobel ArcherSounds right I certainly know my contempt button works that way - when what I feel contempt for is in front of me, my contempt almost always grows.

Re: Case against empathy

Sooner — Sat, 25 Feb 2017 17:06:06 GMT

Everyone who works and pays taxes gives too. Don't forget that component of giving. As more and more programs are put in place, more of us give more. Back in the day, a greater percentage of giving was voluntary on a personal basis. Today, it is more of a group effort and administered not so much on a local basis.

I am not saying this to come down one way or another, but just pointing out that all of us contribute more now through payroll deductions than we used to. . . so it is hard to calculate how much we "give" in a way. I have no way of knowing how much of my non-discretionary salary contributions go to what. That sort of frustrates me.

Re: Case against empathy

Isobel Archer — Sat, 25 Feb 2017 17:08:11 GMT

I used to be much more empathetic in my younger days and I'm not sure that was good for either me or the people I thought I was helping.

I liked one of his examples talking about a cancer patient who didn't want doctors and nurses to "feel his pain," he just wanted competent care. He wanted them to listen to him yes, but not to empathize, but rather to help him deal better with his symptoms and reactions to treatment.

Re: Case against empathy

Quse — Sat, 25 Feb 2017 17:17:39 GMT

@Isobel Archer wrote:
I used to be much more empathetic in my younger days and I'm not sure that was good for either me or the people I thought I was helping.

I liked one of his examples talking about a cancer patient who didn't want doctors and nurses to "feel his pain," he just wanted competent care. He wanted them to listen to him yes, but not to empathize, but rather to help him deal better with his symptoms and reactions to treatment.

@Isobel ArcherI watched this 1st hand when my brother came home to die of his cancer. His vision was that all of his friends and family would come to the house, have good times and say goodbye. The reality was that some people just can't deal with that sort of thing. Some friends wept and wailed, some never came...and my parents constantly hovered over him driving him nuts. He got tired of trying to manage other people's emotions and said to me one day, "living is hard enough, but dying is a pain in the a**!"

Re: Case against empathy

noodleann — Sun, 26 Feb 2017 00:17:33 GMT

Re: Case against empathy

occasionalrain — Sat, 25 Feb 2017 17:59:55 GMT

In general what others do with their money is none of my affair. However, when what they do is, to me, unconsionable then I make it my affair. For example: trophy hunting, supporting animal testing for anything including medical research, destroying the environment...

Re: Case against empathy

QVCkitty1 — Sat, 25 Feb 2017 18:33:40 GMT

I don't think you can discount either quality. I think decent people use both, depending on the situation.

Re: Case against empathy

Puzzle Piece — Sat, 25 Feb 2017 18:40:14 GMT

@Quse wrote:
What "millionaires/billionaires and what they "should" do with their money."

What they do with their money is their business, not mine. Personally, I don't care what they do, as long as it doesn't infringe on my liberty.
I think everyone, whether you're a millionaire or billionaire.... or not, should be involved with something that moves them to contribute either monetarily, time wise or both....but I'm not for forcing people in any way shape or form.

Ditto this!

Re: Case against empathy

Oostende — Sat, 25 Feb 2017 19:13:58 GMT

@Quse and @Puzzle Piece I absolutely agee with you both.

I don't consider paying taxes to be in any way a charitable form of giving. It's compulsory. They throw you in jail if you don't pay taxes. Besides, paying taxes is more about citizenship to my mind.

I believe charity is personal. It is a matter of giving your own resources to people and causes that in no way benefit self.

I'm not sure the purpose of charity is to maximize the good. I think it's just to make a difference in the world in whatever way you feel moved to do.

Re: Case against empathy

goldensrbest — Sat, 25 Feb 2017 19:47:01 GMT

The rich get away of not paying taxes.

Re: Case against empathy

goldensrbest — Sat, 25 Feb 2017 19:50:05 GMT

Without empathy,and compassion,one would be a terrible human.

Re: Case against empathy

Isobel Archer — Sat, 25 Feb 2017 20:02:57 GMT

I'm sure that empathy and compassion can be defined differently than he does - and some may define it as exactly the same thing.

I think the point he is making - and why he takes care in his definition so that this will be clearer - is that "feeling someone's pain" can make you less rather than more able to help them deal with their problems effectively. And can have adverse consequences for others as well (as in the moving the child they heard about to the top of the list without knowing anything about the others.)

Enabling can come from empathy.

Re: Case against empathy

ValuSkr — Sat, 25 Feb 2017 23:18:00 GMT

I think there isn't much difference between "empathy" and "compassion." There's room in the world for small acts of charity and grand acts of charity. Both are necessary. Discussing which is preferred is an academic exercise at best, silly at worst.

Re: Case against empathy

Noel7 — Sat, 25 Feb 2017 20:12:42 GMT

@Sooner wrote:
Everyone who works and pays taxes gives too. Don't forget that component of giving. As more and more programs are put in place, more of us give more. Back in the day, a greater percentage of giving was voluntary on a personal basis. Today, it is more of a group effort and administered not so much on a local basis.

I am not saying this to come down one way or another, but just pointing out that all of us contribute more now through payroll deductions than we used to. . . so it is hard to calculate how much we "give" in a way. I have no way of knowing how much of my non-discretionary salary contributions go to what. That sort of frustrates me.

*****************************

@Sooner

I wouldn't call it giving since it's mandatory, not from free will or motivated by caring for others.

Re: Case against empathy

Noel7 — Sat, 25 Feb 2017 20:22:40 GMT

Bloom is on the wrong track.

Empathy is the ability to understand the feelings of others. There are facial recognition tests for that. It in no way means giving away the store.

It seems to me Bloom is a typical Ayn Rand sociopath who shouldn't have called it empathy since he has no idea about the meaning of the word.

To understand what someone is feeling does not demand response.

Re: Case against empathy

Noel7 — Sat, 25 Feb 2017 20:20:09 GMT

@Isobel Archer wrote:
I'm sure that empathy and compassion can be defined differently than he does - and some may define it as exactly the same thing.

I think the point he is making - and why he takes care in his definition so that this will be clearer - is that "feeling someone's pain" can make you less rather than more able to help them deal with their problems effectively. And can have adverse consequences for others as well (as in the moving the child they heard about to the top of the list without knowing anything about the others.)

Enabling can come from empathy.

********************************

I'm sure of that, too, since he has no idea what empathy is. Understandable for a sociopath.

Re: Case against empathy

cherry — Sat, 25 Feb 2017 20:21:39 GMT

Being able to feel the pain of others, is what distinguishes people, from the likes of the Nazis, who had no empathy for anyone

They were very good at figuring out things ,to persecute and destroy other humans. They sat back and analyzed, and sought the best methods to achieve their goal

I'll take empathy any day of the week ,over that