Comment author:siIver
06 October 2016 02:35:05PM
*
3 points
[-]
I think this is the first article in a long time that straight up changed my opinion in a significant way. I always considered empathy a universally good thing – in all forms. In fact I held it as one of the highest values. But the logic of the article is hard to argue with.
I still tentatively disagree that it [emotional empathy] inherently bad. Following what I read, I'd say it's harmful because it's overvalued/misunderstood. The solution would be to recognize that it's an egoistical thing – as I'm writing this I can confirm that I think this now. Whereas cognitive empathy is the selfless thing.
Doing more self-analysis, I think I already understood this on some level, but I was holding the concept of empathy in such high regards that I wasn't able to consciously criticize it.
I think this article is something that people outside of this community really ought to read.
Comment author:username2
06 October 2016 09:31:39PM
1 point
[-]
I think this article is something that people outside of this community really ought to read.
Interesting. Why people outside of this community? I find it is actually the LW and EA communities that place an exorbitant amount of emphasis on empathy. Most of those I know outside of the rationalist community understand the healthy tradeoff between charitable action and looking out for oneself.
Comment author:siIver
07 October 2016 12:19:11AM
0 points
[-]
My observation is that people who are smart generally try to live more ethically, but usually have skewed priorities; e.g. they'll try to support the artists they like and to be decent in earning their money, when they'd fair better just worrying less about all that and donating a bit to the right place every month. Quantitative utility arguments are usually met with rejection.
LW's, on the other hand, seem to be leaning in that direction anyway. Though I'm fairly new to the community, so I could be wrong.
I wouldn't show it to people who lack a "solid" moral base in the first place. They probably fair better in keeping every shred of empathy they have (thinking of how much discrimination still exists today).
Comment author:DanArmak
06 October 2016 11:15:54PM
0 points
[-]
This doesn't entirely match my impression of the LW community. (I know much less about the non-LW EA community.) What are you basing this on? Were there major LW posts about empathy, or LW Survey questions, or something else?
= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
Comments (37)
I think this is the first article in a long time that straight up changed my opinion in a significant way. I always considered empathy a universally good thing – in all forms. In fact I held it as one of the highest values. But the logic of the article is hard to argue with.
I still tentatively disagree that it [emotional empathy] inherently bad. Following what I read, I'd say it's harmful because it's overvalued/misunderstood. The solution would be to recognize that it's an egoistical thing – as I'm writing this I can confirm that I think this now. Whereas cognitive empathy is the selfless thing.
Doing more self-analysis, I think I already understood this on some level, but I was holding the concept of empathy in such high regards that I wasn't able to consciously criticize it.
I think this article is something that people outside of this community really ought to read.
Interesting. Why people outside of this community? I find it is actually the LW and EA communities that place an exorbitant amount of emphasis on empathy. Most of those I know outside of the rationalist community understand the healthy tradeoff between charitable action and looking out for oneself.
My observation is that people who are smart generally try to live more ethically, but usually have skewed priorities; e.g. they'll try to support the artists they like and to be decent in earning their money, when they'd fair better just worrying less about all that and donating a bit to the right place every month. Quantitative utility arguments are usually met with rejection.
LW's, on the other hand, seem to be leaning in that direction anyway. Though I'm fairly new to the community, so I could be wrong.
I wouldn't show it to people who lack a "solid" moral base in the first place. They probably fair better in keeping every shred of empathy they have (thinking of how much discrimination still exists today).
It sounds like you are still clinging to the idea that emotional empathy is a qualitatively good thing... motivated thinking?
This doesn't entirely match my impression of the LW community. (I know much less about the non-LW EA community.) What are you basing this on? Were there major LW posts about empathy, or LW Survey questions, or something else?