Submitted via IRC for Runaway1956
There are people who believe that the political polarization now afflicting the United States might finally start to subside if Americans of both parties could somehow become more empathetic. If you're one of these people, the American Political Science Review has sobering news for you.
Last week APSR—one of the alpha journals in political science—published a study[$] which found that "empathic concern does not reduce partisan animosity in the electorate and in some respects even exacerbates it."
The study had two parts. In the first part, Americans who scored high on an empathy scale showed higher levels of "affective polarization"—defined as the difference between the favorability rating they gave their political party and the rating they gave the opposing party. In the second part, undergraduates were shown a news story about a controversial speaker from the opposing party visiting a college campus. Students who had scored higher on the empathy scale were more likely to applaud efforts to deny the speaker a platform.
It gets worse. These high-empathy students were also more likely to be amused by reports that students protesting the speech had injured a bystander sympathetic to the speaker. That's right: According to this study, people prone to empathy are prone to schadenfreude.
This study is urgently important—though not because it's a paradigm shifter, shedding radically new light on our predicament. As the authors note, their findings are in many ways consistent with conclusions reached by other scholars in recent years. But the view of empathy that's emerging from this growing body of work hasn't much trickled down to the public. And public understanding of it may be critical to shifting America's political polarization into reverse somewhere between here and the abyss.
(Score: 4, Informative) by legont on Monday November 11 2019, @06:46PM (53 children)
"Fly over deplorables" overthrew "liberal psychopaths" who are fighting back using "false news media" they control.
Where is empathy here?
"Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Arik on Monday November 11 2019, @07:04PM (49 children)
Where is empathy here?"
It's reserved for those that are on the same side, and that's the problem.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 11 2019, @08:06PM (24 children)
Ah yes, the victim card. Pretty myopic thinking, liberals are supposed to only be angels and still get shit on by conservatives. There was and still is plenty of empathy, but it has worn reaaaaally fucking thin by the election of a criminal conman and constant obstruction of progress the US sorely needs. Like universal healthcare and taxing the elites properly.
We've laid these things out, sourced the facts, yet still we have stupid arguments about whether burning oil and coal is bad and how universal healthcare is some kind of socialism that will lead us into the 2nd coming of communist death camps. Meanwhile you have literal camps for immigrants and poor treatment of minors.
For shame you whiny hypocrites.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 11 2019, @08:17PM (22 children)
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 11 2019, @08:37PM (21 children)
In that article, it's not quite clear to me what the problem is. If I were the target audience, I'd probably be able to pick the right answer from "sins of the father", "Venezuela bad 'mkay", and "cops can and should solve poverty".
Probably, though, it's "cops good povs bad", because as far as I can tell, RedState is just one more so-called "conservative" platform trying to shove Nicaragua-style capitalist politics on the poor whites who suffer the most under it. #rednecklivesmatter
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 11 2019, @09:14PM (20 children)
Ortega is a socialist, like all socialists he became a tyrant. You don't get to claim socialists weren't socialist just because you don't like a specific rulers flavor of Socialist tyranny. Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Mao - you support socialism, you support all of them!
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 11 2019, @11:35PM (1 child)
Dictatorship != socialism
Try passing 8th grade kplzthxbye
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 12 2019, @12:08AM
Which however does not preclude such widespread phenomenon as "daylight".
Looking up the name of the logical fallacy you tried to use is left as an exercise for the reader.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 11 2019, @11:40PM (9 children)
You don't understand the definition of socialism, and thus it's not surprising that you can't differentiate it from communism or fascism.
While we're making definitions up out of thin air, Trump is a hardcore socialist for using taxpayer money to fund the military, law enforcement agencies, and handouts to the rich and corporations. In fact, under this all-encompassing definition of socialism that some people love so dearly, only hardcore anarchists aren't socialists.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 12 2019, @12:17AM (8 children)
Really?
If you think there's some different "not real socialism" definition that is widely accepted and would not include nationalization under the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei or syndicalism under the Partito Nazionale Fascista then it is you that doesn't understand.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 12 2019, @08:24AM (7 children)
Collective ownership is communism not socialism. But we already knew using words as intended is hard for americans when we learned about their party names.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 12 2019, @10:03AM
Go explain that to the Oxford English Dictionary, wikipedia [wikipedia.org] ...
... and every other dictionary written in the past 100 years!
Here's the action replay:
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday November 12 2019, @12:55PM (5 children)
Note the definition said "state or collective". Communism is a subset of Socialism not the other way around.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 12 2019, @06:06PM (4 children)
Millennials! [babylonbee.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday November 12 2019, @07:13PM (1 child)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 13 2019, @08:28AM
May the alt-right recruiting grounds flourish!!! /puke
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 13 2019, @09:49AM (1 child)
A satire site? Really?
https://babylonbee.com/about [babylonbee.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday November 13 2019, @01:49PM
(Score: 3, Insightful) by c0lo on Tuesday November 12 2019, @12:22AM (7 children)
Yeeess, of course.
As another example, a king [wikipedia.org] oversees the one of the most awful** social-democracies [soylentnews.org] on the planet.
** awful indeed how it confirms your assertion in form and contradicts them at every point in substance.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 12 2019, @10:09AM (6 children)
Social democracies are capitalist societies with social welfare. When the balance tips due to demographics (ageing workforce / sub-replacement birthrates / immigration) and there are more taking out than paying in, these countries too will collapse. Was that your point?
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday November 12 2019, @11:10AM (5 children)
I think you should also show how this is a problem specific to social-democracy and a pure capitalistic society is immune.
Nope. That Norway pension fund is an investment one - as much a Ponzi scheme as any stock/share market is. The only difference is it is managed by a (pretty competent judging by the results) government agency instead of a private for-profit entity.
Sort of saying if the world economy is doing fine, so will the Norway pension fund. If the world economy is doing bad, at least the Norway citizens are backed by whatever value those $1T assets would have, so they'll be experiencing a much shorter landing than anyone who goes into hardship if missing $400 in cash flow from one month to the other.
Besides, a better health system is likely to result in a longer active age, a better education makes the persons more adaptable to career switching, a lower criminality leads to lower socialized cost of risk prevention.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday November 12 2019, @12:57PM (4 children)
There's far less "taking out" for starters in a pure capitalist society.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday November 12 2019, @01:40PM (3 children)
And a lot less giving back and redistribution - done right, the later strengthen the society and make it more resilient to adversities. It shows in those numbers already - labor force participation rate, cost vs quality of heath care, percent of tertiary educated population, criminality.
Some more numbers?
Poverty rate: Norway - 0.2% [macrotrends.net], US - 12.3% [ucdavis.edu]
Life expectancy: Norway 82, US - 78.
Nobel laureates per 1M capita (believe it or not, this metric exists [wikipedia.org]. hypothesis - a good metric for the recognized value to humanity): Norway - 24, US - 11.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday November 12 2019, @02:14PM
And done poorly it makes all those conditions worse. One side is Norway and another side is Greece and Venezuela.
I'll note that the poverty comparison is bogus - it's not comparing like. The rest just isn't that interesting.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 12 2019, @04:05PM
Barack Obama got a Nobel peace prize.
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 12 2019, @04:26PM
Why would you even consider posting that. There is very little in the way to assume an accurate argument in trying to parallel the US with Norway. The economics, population (by count and culture), politics and government are all substantially different. To suggest that the US should use a small Scandinavian country as a benchmark is absurd. Even in an attempt to use our close neighbor Canada, you'll quickly note that California alone outnumbers it, and as a whole has a more diverse economy and population. What you're doing is saying it's as simple as mimicking Norway or Canada, but the US has a higher poverty rate than either, meaning more participants that offer zero contribution. To suggest providing all of this to some 320m residents, or even 309m legal citizens, is absurd. First: the bureaucratic establishment will flail and falter you'll be integrating a new wing to the government, the Office of Medical Provision. In a handful of years they'll open a new department for arbitration surrounding healthcare denied or discrimination, complaints and so on. And then with some speculative consideration you could maybe postulate the hazards of selecting a corrupt and paid-for government to head a healthcare program, one which will be at the very least steered by the FDA. Then there's the fact that the system is already taxed, pushing it harder and whipping it screaming "go faster!" is only going to further compromise the already poor treatment rates.
The reality is: you're treating a symptom of a much more substantial problem. A secondary issue. Insurance companies themselves are the truest issue, and the source of inflammation. Billing itself is a process that requires staff on both ends to negotiate the hazardous terrain. Hospitals charge insane rates universally to gouge insurance companies, which in turn jack up their own rates. This puts a bag of saline and its haphazard installation by an under-trained and overpaid nurse at $900 instead of a more reasonable $100, but considering the reality, the bags cost virtually nothing, and the time taken is sub 10 minutes, the real cost there is less than $20. Artificially controlled supply (read: graduate school) rarefying physicians keeps the prices and demand sorted for prospective professionals, as well, as do prohibitive costs and exclusivity of medical school.
http://truecostofhealthcare.org/hospital_financial_analysis/ [truecostofhealthcare.org]
(Score: 1) by Arik on Tuesday November 12 2019, @08:55AM
What?
Nah, going no further, anony. Explain that if you want to continue the conversation. How am I playing the victim card? Please, be explicit. Prove you're human.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 11 2019, @08:10PM
Problem? I'm through the despair, people are stupid and it's popcorn time. [youtube.com]
(Score: 3, Flamebait) by ikanreed on Monday November 11 2019, @09:41PM (22 children)
Bull fucking shit.
Your monstrous inhumanity isn't some artifact of you being perceived to be on the "other side", it's the literal goddamn nazis you willingly abet, it's the goddamn fucking concentration camps, it's the absolute scourge of downright inexcusable "destroy the whole planet for trivial financial convenience" de facto policy.
Also, stop acting like a disintested party, you're a psychopath who is protected from the consequences of your evil by saying "both sides". 100% of the problem is the right. If people are outrageous enough to call you evil, it's because they're decent enough not to lie.
We either have a world where the right wing movement is totally destroyed, or a world that's totally destroyed.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by khallow on Monday November 11 2019, @11:43PM (8 children)
Let me guess. You're the empathetic side?
Good example of dehumanization escalation. Guess it'll be the gas ovens next, right? Or rather for the "right".
(Score: 2) by Arik on Tuesday November 12 2019, @08:34AM
There's no empathetic side. Both sides are empathetic, but they have different limits within which their empathy is active.
These limits are carefully crafted by two competing agencies on Madison Avenue. Both owned by the same holding company, in China.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 1, Troll) by ikanreed on Tuesday November 12 2019, @02:16PM (6 children)
"Where's your empathy" screams the man plunging a knife into a child's abdomen. "You just don't know how hard it is to be me" he sobs as he gestures for his friends to laugh at the small guts spilling on the floor.
I empathize with someone who lost their job in the the shitty tailspin of a rich-only economy we've created over the last 40 years. My empathy ends when they start a pointless ethnic cleansing and doom the planet. You poor babies have ridden the "pity me" train all the way to genocideville and the sooner you die the better.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 12 2019, @02:39PM (4 children)
This character is the reason people are pushing those red flag laws. When he finally goes postal there will be a lot of people nodding their heads saying, "Yep, I always thought he'd be the one." Batshit crazy.
(Score: 1, Troll) by ikanreed on Tuesday November 12 2019, @02:52PM (3 children)
Sure, your "side" such as it is has radicalized to cause hundreds upon hundreds of innocent deaths, but your fantasies of oppression can't be stopped.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 12 2019, @03:58PM (1 child)
Gets a little frustrating arguing with idiots who can't see simple reality. You nailed it though, the ultimate victims gaslighting everyone else.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday November 13 2019, @02:13PM
By example. Genocideville [soylentnews.org] has now dwindled to some nebulous "hundreds and hundreds of deaths" [soylentnews.org]. I wonder what the narrative will be next post?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 12 2019, @07:22PM
I have claimed no "side" except reason and I have not called for anybody's deaths as you have. You are clearly disturbed if you seriously think people you perceive as others must die to save the planet from "destruction for trivial financial convenience." The sad part is that you have convinced yourself that only you and other like minded people can save the world by eliminating those who disagree with you. You are as insane as any other doomsday cult. I hope you get help before you hurt yourself or someone else.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday November 13 2019, @02:07PM
What genocide?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 11 2019, @11:47PM
Yes welcome to rightwing politics, pure projection and zero critical thinking.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday November 12 2019, @03:21AM (6 children)
So you can only empathize with people who agree with you? That ain't empathy, son.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Tuesday November 12 2019, @09:29AM (2 children)
Empathy is a reciprocal thing. In other words, the human brain tends to reserve empathy for people who show empathy themselves, or at least those who haven't demonstrated a complete lack of compassion, mercy and remorse.
In that light you can understand how some folk might not feel empathy for those who cheer babies being torn from their mothers, who shrug their shoulders or roll their eyes at dead families floating down the Rio Grande, who gleefully crush and impoverish others for their own financial ends, who seem to actually take delight in causing suffering to the poor and downtrodden.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday November 12 2019, @11:54AM
No. No it is not. Empathy means you put yourself in someone else's shoes. That's all it means. You're thinking sympathy, which is giving a shit whether those shoes are too tight.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday November 12 2019, @01:03PM
I can understand. Doesn't mean I'll ever respect those folk for that. It's easy to hate those straw men, but it has nothing to do with the vast majority of humanity.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by ikanreed on Tuesday November 12 2019, @02:18PM (2 children)
I empathize with plenty of people who disagree with me. 21st century republicans aren't a polite disagreement. I empathize with your victims. And no matter how many times you come back to complain how unfair it is to say that you deserve to die, it doesn't change the absolute fact that you do entirely from evil choices you've made.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday November 13 2019, @01:09PM
Politeness has nothing to do with empathy.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday November 13 2019, @02:15PM
Those "evil choices" would be?
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 12 2019, @05:06AM (2 children)
Ladies and gentleman, I give you a textbook example of the unhinged rant of the left.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 12 2019, @06:33AM (1 child)
You are just lucky that the Allies (what we used to call the Left) are not still dropping Blockbusters on your Nazi ass, you loser Nazi racist twit!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 12 2019, @08:47AM
Oh hi Ari, can I have a sub sandwich?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Arik on Tuesday November 12 2019, @08:27AM (1 child)
"literal goddamn nazis you willingly abet"
[citation needed]
"goddamn fucking concentration camps"
[citation needed]
"it's the absolute scourge of downright inexcusable "destroy the whole planet for trivial financial convenience" de facto policy."
Well now. For a moment there you sound serious, and coherent. But if you think I have any power over that policy, or do anything but oppose it, what are you smoking?
"Also, stop acting like a disintested party, you're a psychopath who is protected from the consequences of your evil by saying "both sides"."
I've never claimed to be a disinterested party, not at all. I'm pretty transparent about that, actually.
But a psychopath? Really? Wow, I am even more of an underachiever than I thought. I'm a psychopath and I've never even killed anyone. Jeez, I could have racked up 40-50 kills by now without any risk or sweat, if I'd only known that was my goal!
No, wait, that's not my goal. That's just some weird shit from your pen. Why do you write shit like that? Seriously, what's your malfunction?
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday November 12 2019, @01:05PM
(Score: 5, Insightful) by FatPhil on Monday November 11 2019, @09:25PM
To be honest, I think their "empathy scale" test needs re-evaluating, as if all it measures is in-group preference, I'd say it's failing to do what it says on the tin, for the reason you provide.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 12 2019, @02:01AM (1 child)
I'm from flyover country. What you described isn't what happened. The deplorables would have voted for Trump regardless. Instead, a bunch of independents and Midwest Democrats who've gotten repeatedly screwed over (many of whom also voted for "Change We Can Believe In") voted for the relative outsider with the populist message over the establishment "limousine liberal."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 12 2019, @05:21PM
Yes, and that worked out just splendidly, didn't it? Maybe there is a teachable moment in there, somewhere, for Midwest Democrats and independents? Of course, this is not to say that there may also be a teachable moment in there for all the "limousine liberals" as well.
(Score: 5, Funny) by PartTimeZombie on Monday November 11 2019, @06:54PM (4 children)
I am sure this comment thread will be a bastion of good humour and reasoned discussion.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 11 2019, @07:14PM (1 child)
If it's not... blame the democrats.
(Score: 3, Touché) by PartTimeZombie on Monday November 11 2019, @08:26PM
Oh yes.
My team is better than their team.
(Score: 2) by fadrian on Monday November 11 2019, @07:24PM
I yelled "Die heretic scum!" and pushed him off the bridge.
Yes, there is a message here.
That is all.
(Score: 2) by Alfred on Monday November 11 2019, @09:20PM
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 11 2019, @06:56PM (20 children)
More important than what is commented on the summary is their defintiion that, "We argue that, in practice, the experience of empathy is biased toward one’s ingroup and can actually exacerbate political polarization." Their design reflects this belief. I would question that belief, in that if empathy is limited to one's ingroup, or that empathy leads one to favor an ingroup, one isn't displaying empathy. Maybe it is sympathy, groupthink, or just straight-up prejudice. Perhaps the better question: What instrument were they using to measure the student's empathy?
(Score: 1) by Arik on Monday November 11 2019, @07:04PM (18 children)
"Like many past studies, this one gauges people’s level of “empathic concern” by asking them how strongly they agree or disagree with a series of seven statements such as “I often have tender, concerned feelings for people less fortunate than me.”"
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 11 2019, @07:48PM (11 children)
“I often have tender, concerned feelings for people less fortunate than me.”
That's an old commie trick.
To be real, you have to go full biblical by asking them how strongly they agree or disagree with a series of statements such as “I often have tender, concerned feelings for people that hate me.”
(Score: 2, Insightful) by DannyB on Monday November 11 2019, @08:19PM (10 children)
To go full biblical, I would ask, do I think this person that hates me is redeemable? Or do I think God thinks they might be redeemable. If Jesus shed his blood for them, would I shed mine? That's a difficult path to follow. Something to strive for. But could I actually treat this way someone who hates me?
Would tender concerned feelings translate into any action?
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Monday November 11 2019, @08:58PM (9 children)
To really go full biblical wouldn't you ask yourself if that person had seen something they shouldn't have? If they have, then they ought to be turned into a pillar of salt, of course.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday November 11 2019, @09:38PM (8 children)
My understanding is that Lot's wife liked her life in Sodom. She looked back at the life she was now leaving. That is why she turned to salt. So Lot ends up with his two daughters and no wife. The daughters take turns getting him drunk, copulating with him, and getting pregnant. [wikipedia.org] From which come the Moabites and Ammonites.
There is a rumor that if you look at a Vorlon, you turn to stone.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Monday November 11 2019, @10:24PM (5 children)
Yes, the Bible is full of awful stories.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday November 12 2019, @03:23PM (4 children)
The stories don't flatter any of the participants.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday November 12 2019, @08:28PM (3 children)
Particularly god.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday November 12 2019, @09:09PM (2 children)
The fact that people do stupid stuff shouldn't be unflattering of God.
God didn't tell Lot's daughters to get him drunk and get pregnant.
Judges 11 [biblegateway.com] tells a story of a man who made an incredibly stupid and ill-considered vow.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday November 12 2019, @10:05PM (1 child)
God did however murder everyone living in Sodom and Gomorrah.
The Old Testament god is an arsehole.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday November 13 2019, @03:17PM
God also told the Israelites to destroy certain people groups and leave nobody and nothing left alive.
But it also describes why.
But this is a different topic than what Lot's daughters (and other O.T. people) did of their own choice.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 2) by Mykl on Tuesday November 12 2019, @04:56AM
Perhaps that's where the phrase "Don't get all salty" really comes from?
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Tuesday November 12 2019, @09:35AM
Religion is weird [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 5, Insightful) by pipedwho on Monday November 11 2019, @09:19PM (5 children)
In other words, they asked a bunch of questions testing for sympathy and called it empathy.
Do you pity the fool? Sympathy.
Is your heart open and accepting? Empathy.
Sympathy seems to go hand in hand with some level of condescension, judgement and often hypocrisy. "Those poor gays, may god have mercy on their souls." Or, "That poor beggar, someone should give him a job."
Sympathy often manifests in a response that is devoid of empathy, often due to uninformed assumptions.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 11 2019, @09:22PM
"I'm sympathetic to their cause, but they're a bunch of pricks."
"Such a nice bunch of guys deserving of so much better, but I'm totally unsympathetic to their cause."
(Score: 5, Informative) by exaeta on Tuesday November 12 2019, @12:18AM (3 children)
There is actually a technical distinction between empathy and sympathy.
Empathy is the ability to comprehend how others feel at a rational level. I.e., the ability to infer people's feelings from their behavior. That is, an exercise of mirror neurons.
Sympathy is what most people would usually call "empathy" and is roughly concern for another's feelings.
The Government is a Bird
(Score: 2) by pipedwho on Tuesday November 12 2019, @10:08AM (2 children)
If the only criteria for empathy is understanding someone's feelings, then it stands to reason that many of the people surveyed may have been empathic, but didn't give a rat's arse about the person's feelings. Those sorts of 'empathic' people are the epitome of users of the phrase "Sucks to be you."
They know you're feeling like crap about a situation, and well isn't that just too bad.
(Score: 2) by exaeta on Wednesday November 13 2019, @12:23AM (1 child)
The Government is a Bird
(Score: 2) by pipedwho on Wednesday November 13 2019, @08:43PM
I think you're right about that. A study like that likely has an agenda, either intentional or sub-conscious.
Questions like they're asking are the kind of thing that people even lie to themselves about. Who wants to think they have zero concern for someone in trouble? Who wants to think they're being hypocritical? Lest they be found out, or worse, find out that they aren't the loving/caring/etc person they think they are.
Many people are very selective and conditional on where they put (or pretend to put) their concern, and in being selective they are working to their own agenda rather than from the emotional needs of the 'other'.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by DannyB on Monday November 11 2019, @08:14PM
Maybe empathy is biases away from one's outgroup and has more to do with perception of evil than differences over public policy.
I (not a Trump supporter) would have empathy to a Trump supporter in difficulty. But I might not have empathy towards, say, Hitler or Manson, regardless of politics.
I hope that made sense.
I don't have to agree with someone to have empathy. But I might not empathize with someone I would perceive as an evil, defective human being who wants to harm others.
My next door neighbor and I can get along well even if we have differences over public policy ideas. We don't see each other as wanting to hurt others.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 11 2019, @06:58PM (29 children)
Hmm, so too much empathy drives left partisanship. What is it that drives the right? Pure hatred, or a mix of that and something else?
(Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 11 2019, @07:07PM (2 children)
You got close, but the real answer is PURE EVIL.
The Republican party is Satan's political party.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 11 2019, @09:03PM (1 child)
You're confusing empathetic with pathetic. The Republican party is pathetic.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 12 2019, @01:46AM
Emphatically pathetic.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by DeathMonkey on Monday November 11 2019, @07:13PM (4 children)
How many people in either group are going to self-report a lack of empathy?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by DannyB on Monday November 11 2019, @08:21PM (2 children)
I will admit there are people that I would have difficulty feeling empathy for.
Especially if I rightly or wrongly perceive that they are somehow bad evil people.
To transfer files: right-click on file, pick Copy. Unplug mouse, plug mouse into other computer. Right-click, paste.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Monday November 11 2019, @08:43PM
Me too. I'm not going to give myself any glowing scores on the empathy-self-evaluation, though.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday November 12 2019, @03:35AM
I don't. You don't need to cut off your ability to recognize what drives a person to oppose them and you don't need to demonize them. I could simultaneously understand what might drive a meth head into breaking into my house and put two rounds in his chest and one in his head. And unless you're severely deficient in the empathy department, you should be able to as well. So this study was bullshit from the outset, regardless of the conclusions it reached, because it doesn't even understand what empathy is.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday November 12 2019, @01:18PM
I think what's more interesting here is that the study shows that much of the people who self-identify as being empathetic are on the more extremely side of not being empathetic. It's something like people who think they are wealthy being poorer than average or people who think they're astronauts being more likely to live in caves.
I think much of this is due to the population being studied, consisting in large part of college students. The usual group of twenty-somethings will have inflated estimates of their abilities and such. Maybe this is just another thing that doesn't get self-evaluated well. Or even perhaps that young people who don't self-evaluate well are more likely to have problems with empathy too? Then there's the ideologies that have all kinds of empathy for the in-groups and hate for the out-groups.
(Score: 5, Informative) by cmdrklarg on Monday November 11 2019, @07:19PM (7 children)
The lack of empathy, of course. Goes right along with the "I got mine, fuck you" mentality.
The world is full of kings and queens who blind your eyes and steal your dreams.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 11 2019, @08:09PM (4 children)
No, those sociopaths like to imagine they are altruistic realists.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Monday November 11 2019, @08:40PM (3 children)
As do the socialists! That's kinda the whole point.
Everyone is the hero in their own story.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 11 2019, @09:35PM
Is this a bizzaro world version of deathmonkey I'm agreeing with?
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday November 12 2019, @03:45AM
I'm not. I'm entirely too old and tired for that nonsense. I know very well who I am. I'm quite happy with who I am but it's situationally heroic at best. I don't lie to myself to justify something I know is wrong. I just decide if I'm going to do it anyway or not.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 12 2019, @04:05PM
That may be a good abstract point, but reality right now in Western nations is not so equivalent. Conservatives may think they are doing GOD'S work, but a cursory review of reality will quickly show thst the GOP is not GOD and is a true force of evil promoting death and hate. You don't have to be a Democrat, you can even remain a Republican, just vote out the evil shitheads.
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 12 2019, @05:01AM (1 child)
Unfortunately those who most often disparage others claiming they have a "I got mine, fuck you" mentality have their own "I want everything you have but I shouldn't have to work for it like you did" mentality. They never learned to delay gratification so they believe they deserve it instantly by force of law.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 12 2019, @05:40PM
This is actually a truly astonishing comment in that it appears to be a kind of Rorschach test. I suspect that your idea of the people who have an "I got mine, fuck you" and "I want everything you have but I shouldn't have to work for it like you did" mentality may be quite a bit different from who I think displays that attitude. Fascinating!
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Arik on Monday November 11 2019, @07:22PM
That wasn't actually their conclusion, and the study does not appear to support that conclusion.
They don't seem to have found any sort of difference between right and left on this. Only that they identify with a different 'in group' but not how it goes from that point.
And this is nothing new, it's one of the oldest games. Got some troublesome peasants to deal with? Just split them up into two teams and tell each team the other team are the bad guys.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 1) by anubi on Monday November 11 2019, @10:42PM (11 children)
Some people give a damn,
Some don't.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 11 2019, @11:51PM (3 children)
The problem is 'giving a damn' in the wrong place.
Lets say a country is doing poorly with food. You donate millions of tons of food. Suddenly that countries farmers are out of business and can not make anymore more food because they move away. Now you have a country that will always need food. Woopsie!
To fix a problem you have to be very careful not to create a broken window fallacy sort of situation. It is very very very easy to destroy wealth when you intend to create it.
I have an acquaintance who spent 3 years (that I know off) trying to not work. He went from friend to friend trying to live off them. Food, money, housing, you name it. When he finally ran out of people to beg off of he got a job. Suddenly he is doing 100000% better in life. He would today if he could do the same thing. Sit on a couch smoke weed and watch the cable. Everyone had to cut him off and force him to do better. Everyone felt bad for him. Then everyone stopped and he was forced to listen to everyone saying the same thing, get a job. In his case the charity he was getting enabled him to destroy wealth of everyone around him. His mother on the other hand will need help for her whole life. She is mentally challenged. He on the other hand is just fine, but learned exactly how to work the system from his mother.
Be careful how you apply charity. It can be just as dangerous. Some people make it a way of life. Spotting them and pulling them out of that system is hard for they are comfortable with the life they have made at the expense of others. As they look for all intents like people who need real help.
Then there are those who are hell bent on giving things away. https://getpocket.com/explore/item/why-detroit-residents-pushed-back-against-tree-planting?utm_source=pocket-newtab [getpocket.com]
When the person on the reviving end just want you to leave them alone.
Charity unfortunately is a tricky thing. It can make a situation much worse without even really trying.
You feel really bad for people. I do. But it can be just as hard to shutup sit and just listen to them. Sometimes that is all they really need. Maybe a spot of advice. But even then they probably already know the right thing to do but refuse to do it. For 'reasons'.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by acid andy on Tuesday November 12 2019, @12:30AM (2 children)
Sounds like living like that was making him happy, at the time.
"Better" by whose measure? Presumably he was making more of his own money but having much less time to spend in the ways he wanted?
Presumably his friends knew what they were getting into when they decided to help him. Perhaps he was deceiving them, but when they felt like they were reaching a point where they might be giving too much, they stopped and cut it off. He wanted help and, for a while, they wanted to help him. I don't approve of deception or using people, but other than that, why all this focus on defining people's success in how much they are working? What good is that as a measure of success, if it makes you less happy?
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday November 12 2019, @01:23PM (1 child)
Doesn't sound like that to me. But it also sounds like he was making everyone around him unhappy.
Did he really have less time? Begging takes time too.
Why is happiness so important that you're willing to sacrifice other peoples' happiness for it? And why would we think this guy were happy before and not happy after?
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Tuesday November 12 2019, @03:45PM
I don't know, but I bet many CEOs know the answer.
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday November 12 2019, @03:46AM (6 children)
Empathy isn't giving a damn. It's only recognizing how someone else feels. Giving a damn is sympathy.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by anubi on Tuesday November 12 2019, @06:11AM (2 children)
Then if I am sympathetic, I am also apt to be sympathetic as well.
Giving a damn nearly always gets me in trouble, especially at the workplace. Seems quite incompatible with the needs of the leadership mindset.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 1) by anubi on Tuesday November 12 2019, @06:13AM
One of those sympathetics should be empathetic.
I should proofread better.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday November 12 2019, @11:59AM
That's because you're being paid to be a proxy of effort for the owner(s). If you're not being a very good proxy, you're going to make them dissatisfied.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Mer on Tuesday November 12 2019, @11:37AM (2 children)
Actually not really. Empahty is the social skill of reading and understanding emotions.
Sympathy is a social mechanism where you feel for yourself emotions you emphatically perceive.
The act of deciding to solve bad sypathetic feelings by "giving a damn" is just one reason you might give a damn, sympahty can bring you pleasant or neutral feelings that don't call for action and you might want to solve a sympathic problem by simply removing yourself from the presence of the person sending you offending empathic signals.
Shut up!, he explained.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday November 12 2019, @12:01PM (1 child)
Fair enough. People can and do indeed override their emotions with rational thought. Not often enough but they do.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 12 2019, @04:07PM
So...close....to becoming....self...aware! Hmm, it was a pretty full moon last night...