A bit closer to home, this post reminds me of a lesson I learned in marriage counseling, many decades ago. Sadly, it didn’t do me much good as I’m single, or maybe it did. I apologize for generalizing, but that’s what I learned at the time. If a woman comes to you with a problem, she wants empathy. She wants you to listen, not give solutions. Generally speaking men like to solve problems, not be empathetic. So in succinct terms, keep your mouth shut and your ears and heart open.
The problem is that emotions can be used for mass social manipulation and control. If there weren't outside forces overloading us 24/7 to trigger emotional reactions then almost everything you mention as being bad wouldn't exist otherwise. You're not wrong about the weaknesses, just need to be more aware of the cause. I have cognitive empathy. In my view, emotions are distractions and most of the time, they are an irrelevant feeling
I agree. If you’ve been following some of my writing in the past, you’ll see a lot of effort to address that social manipulation. We cover algowhoring, fear port, psyops, and more because we are always being manipulated and, history demonstrates, always have been mainpulated. Social media is a crazy conflaguration driving ancient processes. Emotions are great. I love feeling emotions… however, my agency allows me to remain, relitively confident, they are MY feelings.
Then we share some of the same concerns/interests! Hopefully soon there will be enough of us that have figured out that we can do some actual good in society if we quit thinking these problems can be solved solo. My immediate goal is to create a think tank style community focused on strengthening public coordination capacity, civic agency, and practical awareness of natural, civil, and political rights.
Notice my choice of framing so that anything I said can't be interpreted as having violent or criminal intent. Intelligence + Strategy. You build shit for space so I'm gonna assume you're a logical individual.
I think that sounds like a great idea. I'd like to proffer my Mixed Mental Arts series for that effort, among others. A great starting point is this essay, where you can find the link tag for all the others I've written. My goal will be to eventually publish this into a book.
I think feelings can be differentiated from emotions and both are natural. Awareness followed by reasonable action is one way they can be leveraged. Agree with the outside forces and risk of letting emotions run amuck due to outside influence 👊🏻
Another post on feelings vs emotions could be interesting to build off this though. Experiencing feelings (or emotions) of any kind isn’t necessarily a bad thing if you’re aware of them and know how to leverage them productively.
All good. My intentions are to be a good husband, father, and man. Any way I can connect effectively with others through how I’ve attempted to explain empathy in my previous education, experience, and now practice, was the intention of this post. Anything can be weaponized by those looking to weaponize, including words. Doesn’t make those things bad in my opinion.
I lean more on the understanding part of that definition where Michael breaks it down into rational vs emotional empathy. I don’t think you need to feel (or are even able to truly feel) what someone else is going through to consider and attempt to understand what is possible. Appreciate you sharing 👊🏻
Great theory, doesn't actually work in practice. Your assertion that donating to addiction centres, advocating for enforcement of encampment laws and volunteering at homeless shelters assumes that these are in fact better for society or for the people they're trying to help. While I'm an advocate for many of these things, they don't work in practice. Addiction centres are built around the idea of having addicted people to treat. There's no incentive for them to actually solve addiction. That would be counter productive to their entire purpose.
Enforcement of encampment laws is in theory great, but it has massive flaws. To use a slightly different example, the laws requiring people on welfare check in and prove their need for the assistance. Great in theory, motivational in theory, in practice it just creates government busy work. It creates the appearance of enforcement without actually solving the problem. If they don't see progress, they kick them off welfare. This according to government stats has the appearance of creating fewer people on welfare but what you've actually done is created more homeless people because they don't have access to welfare anymore.
This becomes an even bigger problem because the underlying problem isn't the enforcement of standards but that the economic conditions for getting work are fundamentally flawed. We are barrelling full steam ahead into having everything done by AI while not considering that this could negatively impact people's ability to get work and avoid becoming homeless. Yet at the same time we're cutting funding to welfare.
Volunteering at a homeless shelter has the same logical error. The homeless shelter doesn't actually have an incentive to solve homelessness. Why would it want to go out of business?
There are challenges to that for sure. It’s a problem with a lot of layers but at least we are digging beyond the simply, sypathetic approach and can have that conversation you brought up.
Without the theory, what you described sounds ‘heartless’ when, in reality, it’s the most caring in solving the actual problems unlike the sympathetic approach which can enable.
You’re poings are spot on. That’s why we need to mature.
A bit closer to home, this post reminds me of a lesson I learned in marriage counseling, many decades ago. Sadly, it didn’t do me much good as I’m single, or maybe it did. I apologize for generalizing, but that’s what I learned at the time. If a woman comes to you with a problem, she wants empathy. She wants you to listen, not give solutions. Generally speaking men like to solve problems, not be empathetic. So in succinct terms, keep your mouth shut and your ears and heart open.
And realize that it’s never, really, about the nail!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4EDhdAHrOg
Haha have seen this video many times. The first time being in that counseling 101 class!
Oh that's fun!!
OMG! ROTFL. Perfect!!! Whoever did that video is a pure, adulterated genius
It's so perfect.
I also learned this lesson the hard way and almost lost my wife because of it after our first loss. Appreciate you sharing brother
The problem is that emotions can be used for mass social manipulation and control. If there weren't outside forces overloading us 24/7 to trigger emotional reactions then almost everything you mention as being bad wouldn't exist otherwise. You're not wrong about the weaknesses, just need to be more aware of the cause. I have cognitive empathy. In my view, emotions are distractions and most of the time, they are an irrelevant feeling
I agree. If you’ve been following some of my writing in the past, you’ll see a lot of effort to address that social manipulation. We cover algowhoring, fear port, psyops, and more because we are always being manipulated and, history demonstrates, always have been mainpulated. Social media is a crazy conflaguration driving ancient processes. Emotions are great. I love feeling emotions… however, my agency allows me to remain, relitively confident, they are MY feelings.
Then we share some of the same concerns/interests! Hopefully soon there will be enough of us that have figured out that we can do some actual good in society if we quit thinking these problems can be solved solo. My immediate goal is to create a think tank style community focused on strengthening public coordination capacity, civic agency, and practical awareness of natural, civil, and political rights.
Notice my choice of framing so that anything I said can't be interpreted as having violent or criminal intent. Intelligence + Strategy. You build shit for space so I'm gonna assume you're a logical individual.
I think that sounds like a great idea. I'd like to proffer my Mixed Mental Arts series for that effort, among others. A great starting point is this essay, where you can find the link tag for all the others I've written. My goal will be to eventually publish this into a book.
https://www.polymathicbeing.com/p/mixing-mental-arts
Is that a project that both you and Kyle work on?
That’s specifically me.
I think feelings can be differentiated from emotions and both are natural. Awareness followed by reasonable action is one way they can be leveraged. Agree with the outside forces and risk of letting emotions run amuck due to outside influence 👊🏻
Empathy is feeling what someone else is feeling.
It can fuck right off.
That would be sympathy or emotional empathy. Paul Bloom would agree with you though in his book against empathy.
Oh yeah. Sympathy vs emotional empathy. I have a hard time remembering more than two things
Which is why I just stick with empathy vs sympathy for the distinctions and overlap.
Another post on feelings vs emotions could be interesting to build off this though. Experiencing feelings (or emotions) of any kind isn’t necessarily a bad thing if you’re aware of them and know how to leverage them productively.
Which is expressly the issue.
Empathy is too frequently weaponized.
I rejected your post due to redefining "empathy" to something convient.
Even this rebuttal: "how to leverage them productively". This is backdoor leverage. Any independent thinker will recognize this manipulation.
Frankly, this left me suspect of your intentions.
All good. My intentions are to be a good husband, father, and man. Any way I can connect effectively with others through how I’ve attempted to explain empathy in my previous education, experience, and now practice, was the intention of this post. Anything can be weaponized by those looking to weaponize, including words. Doesn’t make those things bad in my opinion.
Hahaha. I respectfully disagree on the definition but enjoyed the note
It's broadly the agreed upon definition. https://www.simplypsychology.org/sympathy-empathy-compassion.html
Glad to have brought mirth either way.
I lean more on the understanding part of that definition where Michael breaks it down into rational vs emotional empathy. I don’t think you need to feel (or are even able to truly feel) what someone else is going through to consider and attempt to understand what is possible. Appreciate you sharing 👊🏻
Great theory, doesn't actually work in practice. Your assertion that donating to addiction centres, advocating for enforcement of encampment laws and volunteering at homeless shelters assumes that these are in fact better for society or for the people they're trying to help. While I'm an advocate for many of these things, they don't work in practice. Addiction centres are built around the idea of having addicted people to treat. There's no incentive for them to actually solve addiction. That would be counter productive to their entire purpose.
Enforcement of encampment laws is in theory great, but it has massive flaws. To use a slightly different example, the laws requiring people on welfare check in and prove their need for the assistance. Great in theory, motivational in theory, in practice it just creates government busy work. It creates the appearance of enforcement without actually solving the problem. If they don't see progress, they kick them off welfare. This according to government stats has the appearance of creating fewer people on welfare but what you've actually done is created more homeless people because they don't have access to welfare anymore.
This becomes an even bigger problem because the underlying problem isn't the enforcement of standards but that the economic conditions for getting work are fundamentally flawed. We are barrelling full steam ahead into having everything done by AI while not considering that this could negatively impact people's ability to get work and avoid becoming homeless. Yet at the same time we're cutting funding to welfare.
Volunteering at a homeless shelter has the same logical error. The homeless shelter doesn't actually have an incentive to solve homelessness. Why would it want to go out of business?
There are challenges to that for sure. It’s a problem with a lot of layers but at least we are digging beyond the simply, sypathetic approach and can have that conversation you brought up.
Without the theory, what you described sounds ‘heartless’ when, in reality, it’s the most caring in solving the actual problems unlike the sympathetic approach which can enable.
You’re poings are spot on. That’s why we need to mature.