DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Does Empathy have a dark side?

You can move it if you want refs, but this absolutely needs to be seen in this forum IMO.

It sure would be nice to have some specifics to discuss rather than a vague, undefined message.

Example: the right holds an unreasonably high level of empathy for babies. Hence they go off the rails on abortion.

The left has gone off the rails in it's empathy for the mother wanting one.

There are dozens of examples, white saviors, illegal immigration etc.

If you're trying to suggest that empathy can get in the way of logic and common sense I certainly agree.

That is precisely what the article and I am suggesting.

It is an interesting article.

These thoughts deserve to be added to the conversation:


so, to break it down correctly, this paragraph actually says a lot:

Breithaupt, who reviews the cultural and scientific history of empathy in his book, explains that empathy is a relatively new concept. The term only emerged in 1909, when it was translated from a German conception of "feeling yourself into a work of art," he says. In the last 40 years, it has risen to prominence as evolutionary biologists started to explore its role in shaping the human brain. Since then, it's become a core psychological concept, and part of what biologists think makes us distinctly human.

_____________

1909 is definitely still considered a new concept when talking about psychology. but i do wonder if people had a word for it already, but it never really made it into history. i understand he's saying the term itself is new, but im sure examples of empathy can be seen in history without them at the time knowing what it was? i dunno just speaking out loud. its odd how finally having a term for it ended up leading to so much research being done.

and then this part:

Vampiristic empathy is a form of empathy where people want to manipulate the people they empathize with so that they can, through them, experience the world in such a way that they really enjoy it.

___________

for me, i dunno if this is a correct term for what the author is describing. this is every parent in history.....ever. any on of our parents can be considered to have vampiristic empathy. i dont believe parents wanting to instill a sense of direction into their kids should be labeled as having vampiristic empathy. sounds like the basic function of parents.

the author also missed a huge point he could've made when bringing up terrorist. he shouldnt have used the angle of terrorist empathizing with their group. a better example would've been those who defend the terrorist. thats empathy, like sort of what Rep. Omar does. she doesn't defend them, but because she grew up in that environment, she understands why people are lead down that path.

or, people who show empathy for fringe groups. you see this with people who defend white nationalist, or black Israelites. they dont necessarily agree with the overall agenda, but since some of their beliefs line up with those on the fringe, they understand -and in some cases relate- to them

for example, i've heard people defend nationalist by going "well, they just dont recognize their country anymore, and i get that".

or, "well, black people have been oppressed so long, i get why the new black panther exist".

empathy absolutely has a dark side, because people can and will empathize with whatever they potentially see within themselves.

but even then, i dont know if that qualifies as being part of the darker side. now, when that empathy turns into sympathy, or even action, thats when the problems start happening.

so i like the article overall. every human has empathy, but empathy to some movements/causes/ideology can certainly have darker consequences attached to it.

J/C

I don't think Humans want to emphasize with others. I think that the majority of humans want others to Emphasize for them. We are (generally speaking) in this day and age a breed of beings where we are the center of the universe in our own minds. Its about us, all day all the time. We try to SHOW empathy towards others, yes. But we fail miserably at it, because in reality, deep down, we only want that empathy for ourselves.

JMO from what I see with how people act anymore.

My guess, without doing a single bit of research, is that relating to another person's feelings was all covered under the concept of "sympathy" for eons until this person differentiated between sympathy and empathy.


I agree to a point, except for this one phrase.. so that they can, through them, experience the world in such a way that they really enjoy it... I don't empathize with my kids or want to instill a sense of direction in my kids so I experience the world in a way that I will really enjoy it.. I want THEM to enjoy it. My enjoyment is up to me.


I agree again Clem..

I can have empathy for a racist nationalist who was born in a racist town, to racist parents, and had primarily racist influences in their life which led them to be violently hateful toward other races..

Similary, the inner city black kid on the streets who ends up in a gang stealing, killing and running drugs...

I can have empathy for the poor hand each person was dealt and how badly the odds were stacked against them that life was going to turn out any different... Now, this is where we get in trouble IMHO..

1. When that empathy for the PERSON turns into rationalization of their crimes and actions, in the end, as tough as it was, they are still responsible for their own actions.

or

2. And this might be the more important at this point.. when I feel empathy for one of those folks above but not the other... and we see this all too often, empathy and excuses for the racist because of where they came from.. but when it comes to the black kid, he should have just worked harder and made smarter choices... or vice versa. And that plays into the "empathy for somebody you can relate to".. I grew up around more white racists than I did inner city black kids so I had more empathy for them, the other I had to learn through friendships, involvement, and good conversations like this with people of varied backgrounds.

Empathy is an idea that has been in existence for centuries. Just because a word was defined as describing it doesn't change anything. I've quoted scripture showing it most certainly was not only understood, but taught as a Christian principal during the time of Christ. And I feel relatively safe in saying it was not suddenly invented at that time......

Matt. 25-41-55

41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ 44 Then they also will answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’ 45 Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’

Empathy, kindness and charity, helping those with less than yourself is a Christian teaching. Not a liberal ideology.

I don't believe human nature has changed in thousands of years.. we are who we have always been. Empathy is very real and a lot of people feel it very genuinely and expect absolutely nothing in return

j/c:

I don't think being genuinely empathetic has a dark side. I think the dark side comes from those that profess to be empathetic for one side, but not all sides.

I think having empathy or not having empathy is a character trait. Some have it and some don't. I never was empathetic towards a person or group of people because I was told to do so. It's just the right thing to do.

I credit my parents for that. They taught my brother and I to treat all people equally. They taught us that the greater good was more important than what was simply good for us. They were ahead of their time when it came to civil rights.

I remember a time when a black family moved into our neighborhood. The first day, all the kids played w/the boy and girl who were black. The next day, the rest of the white kids in the neighborhood were not allowed to play w/the black kids. My brother and I were conflicted. We all liked Martin and his sister [damn, I can't remember her name.] So, we ask our parents what we should do. We didn't want to lose our white friends, who had threatened us that they would not play w/us if we still played w/the black kids, and we didn't see any reason to not play w/our black neighbors.

My parents laid out a scenario where they put us in the places of the two newcomers. How would we feel if no one would play w/us? What would that do our self-esteem? Is it right to follow a crowd if the crowd is unjust? Etc, etc.

Of course, they ended by saying that they were not going to tell us what to do and the choice was ours to make.

I read this board every day and I see the narrow-minded and hateful bias from so many. It's all about finger pointing w/very little self-examination and understanding for the predicaments of others. The Kyle Korver thread is proof of that.

I thank God for my parents. True empathy is far from being dark. The emphasis is on true and not those who preach empathy for one group and hate on another.

And like I said on the Korver thread........you can criticize me as much as you want, but I am staying strong no matter what. Being a good human being that cares about all groups is something that I will never waver from. No matter what!

Followers take the form of the one who leads them.

I can only speak for myself. I don't care what is "in style." I don't care for blindly following the masses. I was taught right from wrong and those deep-rooted values won't change due to current trends.

I think what people consider "current trends" are based on those who yell the loudest and garner the most attention in the moment. I don't believe it actually reflects the world as a whole. I also feel what people claim the current trend is, is purely subjective.

I think the new Ohio “Heartbeat law” is a prime example of demonizing people through empathy. It’s so linear and simple thinking that you HAVE to demonize through empathy to have it line up against logic.

Here is how simple it must be for people:

Do you love babies?
Yes
Then you hate abortion right?
No
So you’re saying you hate babies?
No
Then see, you do hate abortion.
What about in cases of rape?
SO YOU WANT TO KILL BABIES?


Any deviation weaponized your empathy. They try to corner you into a ONE sided stance and if you’re most people you just do not want to stand up to that type of scrutiny so you end up choosing a side.


Virtually every political argument is the same, high nuanced issues drilled down to YOU MUST HATE….women, Mexicans, blacks, babies, police officers…..


The feminists tried to use this one too. Do you believe in equality, yes, congrats you're a feminist!

But wait I don't think we should demonize men.
Why do you hate women?

This is why moderation and having moderate viewpoints that favor differing parties depending on the topic no longer have a place in today's politics. It's become and all or nothing sum.