People who think empathy is everything

[HS Mom in NC]

But why shouldn’t people ever try to persuade each other?

 

You did see my line about only going on about it if the other sincerely asks about the thought process in my last post, right?

 

I don’t understand why a mother and daughter shouldn’t have some back-and-forth conversations about issues they both consider to be important.

 

In the example to OP gave, it's not respectful back and forth.  Women need to learn to put an end to that crap right away and model that to their kids. Granted it's commonly normalized in American culture, but it needs to end. It's essentially evangelizing to someone who is showing they aren't receptive and then trying to justify it as, "I'm just trying to have a back and forth about something I think is important." 

 

When a grandparent is getting into the parent's parenting choices and demanding explanations for them, it's overstepping a boundary because that's not a healthy peer relationship.  It's over-stepping by reverting back to the parent/minor child role that's not appropriate.

 

I don’t think a lack of “healthy boundaries†are an issue in eternalsummer’s examples.

 

I think the lack of boundaries jump off the page. 

 

Honestly, I don’t think there is a one-size-fits-all answer to “how adults should respectfully handle that kind of conversation.†What is right for you may be entirely different from what is right in other people’s relationships, and what’s right for eternalsummer in her relationship with her mom may be entirely different from what is right in eternalsummer’s relationships with other people in her life.

 

Lots of people tolerate extended family being disrespectful and over-stepping because it's familiar to them. Some people even interpret it as caring, which is tragic.   Engaging in these pointless squabbles is unnecessary drama and conflict that doesn't contribute positively to any relationship.  The emotion heavy idealists need to be more discerning about who, when, and how they evangelize.

 

[Catwoman]

 

When you respond within a quote, it makes it impossible to quote you, so I will simply say that I completely disagree with everything you posted. I think you are reading waaaaaay too much into eternalsummer’s posts about her mom, and your views of what constitute “healthy boundaries†are far too extreme for me to be able to agree with you, and your definition of people as being “emotion-heavy idealists†seems highly accusatory toward many people who are only stating opinions and engaging in conversations where there are opposing viewpoints. You seem to have very strong and harsh opinions as to what counts as being “respectful†and “disrespectful,†and I don’t think it’s wise to make such general proclamations.

[Catwoman]

I think nitpicking eternal's post misses the point of the thread, frankly.

:iagree:

 

And I don’t think any of us is in a position to judge her relationship with her mother, particularly in such a harsh manner.

[Tsuga]

I know someone who is like this.

 

They aren't rational or empathetic so much as they just take their verbal cues from a particular social set, and then use those words and have those dialogues in an almost scripted way. It's like there's not really anything there. They could not possibly discuss Popper or even Stephen Hawking. It's all about justifying a certain lifestyle-brand of conversation with "science" in the same way others would justify the exact opposite lifestyle-brand of conversation with "in the Lord's name amen".

 

These people are ultimately irrational and are just looking to a source of authority to justify their own incoherent ramblings. I hate it when they use "science" or "rationalism" or "empathy". These are the liberal versions of the Bible, tradition, and morality. Just hearken back to those big picture things and voila, what you said is true.

 

Blech.

[KungFuPanda]

That's really interesting. i don't think I have that gene! I'm not autistic; just hard core. (Our unofficial family motto is, "Suck it up, Buttercup.")

 

Okay, carry on.

You can be a super empathetic person without being emotionally fragile. I’m not a cryer, I can compartmentalise and stay steady. However, I can almost feel other people’s moods, get what zone they’re in, and adjust my response accordingly. It’s a very useful life skill. I thought everyone could read people well, but the older I get the more I realize this is not a skill everyone has.

[Joker]

I know I come across as a much more emotional poster/person on here than I actually am in real life. I think it's because I stuff so much down with those who think differently than I do but are my close family and I work hard at keeping those relationships, so sometimes I read something online and I know I don't handle it well. Actually those people IRL are so much more outside my own thinking than anyone here but I still feel I'm much more emotional and not very open minded here sometimes. I'm sure it happens with me when I'm face to face with people too but they aren't those "close" relationships I'm trying to hang onto. I've been talking with dh a lot about a thread the other day but it took me a while to go through some things. 

 

Dh says I'm someone who feels guilty for not feeling guilty. I just feel a lot and sometimes that means I need to step away and take time to think on things before I can truly discuss it. The problem is that I don't always give myself that time. 

 

 

[Bluegoat]

It's the nature of the conversation that shouldn't have happened, not the basic content itself.

 

The failure is not recognizing that she's engaged with someone who isn't interested in her answers. So many people can't read that situation accurately.   When someone asks, "Why are you __________ " and continues on without a break with a reason why it's a problem, then she should understand that person doesn't actually want to know.  The why is a springboard to launch into why that person already thinks the person is wrong.  When someone ACTUALLY wants to know why so they can genuinely consider the other person's point of view, there's silence after the why.  Homeschoolers fall into this trap all the time.  A sincere person wanting to know why you homeschool just asks why you homeschool and stops talking so they can hear your answer instead of launching into all the problems they see with homeschooling. 

 

So the way a conversation like that should happen with healthy boundaries is more like:

 

Parent: Mom, we aren't eating any food others prepare.

Grandparent: Why is that?

Parent: We have moral convictions about not participating in consuming food sourced from abused animals.

Grandparent: How will you handle social situations with food?

Parent: We'll send our own food.

 

That's how adults should respectfully handle that kind of conversation.  Neither person needs to persuade the other unless the other is specifically asking respectfully about how they came to those conclusions. 

 

 

I think you are putting your own expectations here and assuming they are the limits of what is healthy.  

 

Lots of people have healthy good relationships that operate differently than that.  Probably there are other elements that come into it, but I think you are really mistaken to read something like that and assume people's boundaries are a problem.

[Bluegoat]

I know someone who is like this.

 

They aren't rational or empathetic so much as they just take their verbal cues from a particular social set, and then use those words and have those dialogues in an almost scripted way. It's like there's not really anything there. They could not possibly discuss Popper or even Stephen Hawking. It's all about justifying a certain lifestyle-brand of conversation with "science" in the same way others would justify the exact opposite lifestyle-brand of conversation with "in the Lord's name amen".

 

These people are ultimately irrational and are just looking to a source of authority to justify their own incoherent ramblings. I hate it when they use "science" or "rationalism" or "empathy". These are the liberal versions of the Bible, tradition, and morality. Just hearken back to those big picture things and voila, what you said is true.

 

Blech.

 

Yes, I can identify with this kind of person. It might be the issue with my friend's friend.

 

It seems like there are people like this in every group that has a lot of adherents or members.  

[MistyMountain]

All people even those who are logical and fact based are driven by emotions more so then you would think or they would admit. We also all engage in some cognitive bias to confirm our own beliefs. People who use only rational arguments do not get as far as those who appeal to emotion.

[LucyStoner]

Empathy isn’t about demanding other people understand your emotions, it’s about understanding other people’s emotions. I don’t think someone who constantly makes their emotional reactions center stage is especially empathic.

[Bluegoat]

I wonder too, if we don't stop to think about the purpose of any particular discussion - we let the purposes blur into one another.

 

Obviously, if one is talking to a person who is sharing some kind of suffering particular to her, we'd maybe switch on the empathy mode and switch off (or at least dim) the 'let's pick this argument apart'. 

 

But if we're talking in a group in order to parse out the truths or otherwise of a social or economic or political issue, maybe we don't really see the need for the personal empathy mode quite so much. 

 

There's a problem when modes get muddled, I guess. And when we get upset about the mode being used, particularly when it's not on our own behalf but that of others not even participating in the conversation. 

 

 

This perhaps touches on a reason why I find these instances frustrating.

 

My friend was very much of the view that the writer of the article we were discussing didn't spend enough time being empathetic with those who would feel the effects of the policy under discussion, and that people reading the article needed to stop and do this.

 

My inner response was - ok, well, I think I've done that already, but let's say I take a moment here and do that. What are you expecting then - I'll say something about their difficulties, or ? - how is that supposed to show itself in policy discussions?  In fact I think the writer showed real understanding of the effects that the policy would have on individuals - she just still thought that for various reasons one approach was much better than the other.  Was she supposed to write some paragraphs about people's feelings to somehow satisfy people that she was actually not a nasty person?

 

It seems almost like becomes for show more than anything else.

[poppy]

This perhaps touches on a reason why I find these instances frustrating.

 

My friend was very much of the view that the writer of the article we were discussing didn't spend enough time being empathetic with those who would feel the effects of the policy under discussion, and that people reading the article needed to stop and do this.

 

My inner response was - ok, well, I think I've done that already, but let's say I take a moment here and do that. What are you expecting then - I'll say something about their difficulties, or ? - how is that supposed to show itself in policy discussions?  In fact I think the writer showed real understanding of the effects that the policy would have on individuals - she just still thought that for various reasons one approach was much better than the other.  Was she supposed to write some paragraphs about people's feelings to somehow satisfy people that she was actually not a nasty person?

 

It seems almost like becomes for show more than anything else.

 

I don't know what the issue it is you are discussing, but, I absolutely do not have faith to think the author of a given article sympathizes with the people involved in the topic they write about.   I am imagining the topic is something like DACA.   A person asking for empathy might not be looking for assurances that the author wasn't 'a nasty person' but instead was someone who viewed the Dreamers as should-be-citizen people, not  criminals / the enemy.  That baseline assumption impacts the whole conversation.

[Bluegoat]

I don't know what the issue it is you are discussing, but, I absolutely do not have faith to think the author of a given article sympathizes with the people involved in the topic they write about.   I am imagining the topic is something like DACA.   A person asking for empathy might not be looking for assurances that the author wasn't 'a nasty person' but instead was someone who viewed the Dreamers as should-be-citizen people, not  criminals / the enemy.  That baseline assumption impacts the whole conversation.

 

Having faith in it is really not the point at all.

 

Reading an article about something like government policy, it's outcomes, etc,, you very often have no more reason to think the person has been uncaring than you do to think they have taken time to empathize.  For all you know, the individual could have very personal relationships with the people involved.  That is not what you would expect to be reading about in an article of the outcomes of policy, or the principles and values that lie under the larger issue.  In many publications and forums of speech, that wouldn't really even be appropriate.

 

To think that because someone in writing, or having a discussion, actually comes to a conclusion you don't agree with does so simply because they are not sympathetic is pretty presumptuous.  Especially when it's unclear in and of itself what kinds of outcomes would be best for people.

 

Your example to me is illustrative.   If the point of the discussion is to determine what is right to do with regard to citizenship in such cases, assuming they have a right to citizenship before actually presenting any arguments or principles is bad logic, you are very likely to make a circular argument.  And it sounds a lot like basing your analysis of the arguments presented on whether they happen to correspond to your preconceived views rather than on their own merits.  If you are wanting a conversation that begins with the right to citizenship and explores what to do from there, you ask "what is your basic view of the status of these people."  Well-written articles generally also make their position clear in that kind of discussion.  You don't need to ask people to empathize and write some kind of description of that so you can try and figure out what their empathy means about their principles.  

[EmseB]

I don't know what the issue it is you are discussing, but, I absolutely do not have faith to think the author of a given article sympathizes with the people involved in the topic they write about. I am imagining the topic is something like DACA. A person asking for empathy might not be looking for assurances that the author wasn't 'a nasty person' but instead was someone who viewed the Dreamers as should-be-citizen people, not criminals / the enemy. That baseline assumption impacts the whole conversation.

I think that another trick to the whole empathy thing is not assuming that a person (based on their position on a particular issue) holds to one of two binary motivations that you (general) have created for the issue. Especially when one of these motivations basically ascribes not only a lack of empathy to them but also a lack of humanity. In this way, complex policy issues get reduced to shouting matches.

[poppy]

Having faith in it is really not the point at all.

 

Reading an article about something like government policy, it's outcomes, etc,, you very often have no more reason to think the person has been uncaring than you do to think they have taken time to empathize.  For all you know, the individual could have very personal relationships with the people involved.  That is not what you would expect to be reading about in an article of the outcomes of policy, or the principles and values that lie under the larger issue.  In many publications and forums of speech, that wouldn't really even be appropriate.

 

To think that because someone in writing, or having a discussion, actually comes to a conclusion you don't agree with does so simply because they are not sympathetic is pretty presumptuous.  Especially when it's unclear in and of itself what kinds of outcomes would be best for people.

 

Your example to me is illustrative.   If the point of the discussion is to determine what is right to do with regard to citizenship in such cases, assuming they have a right to citizenship before actually presenting any arguments or principles is bad logic, you are very likely to make a circular argument.  And it sounds a lot like basing your analysis of the arguments presented on whether they happen to correspond to your preconceived views rather than on their own merits.  If you are wanting a conversation that begins with the right to citizenship and explores what to do from there, you ask "what is your basic view of the status of these people."  Well-written articles generally also make their position clear in that kind of discussion.  You don't need to ask people to empathize and write some kind of description of that so you can try and figure out what their empathy means about their principles.  

 

No, you misunderstand me.   was responding specifically to your point:

My friend was very much of the view that the writer of the article we were discussing didn't spend enough time being empathetic with those who would feel the effects of the policy under discussion, and that people reading the article needed to stop and do this.

 

My inner response was - ok, well, I think I've done that already, but let's say I take a moment here and do that. What are you expecting then - I'll say something about their difficulties, or ? - how is that supposed to show itself in policy discussions?  In fact I think the writer showed real understanding of the effects that the policy would have on individuals - she just still thought that for various reasons one approach was much better than the other.  Was she supposed to write some paragraphs about people's feelings to somehow satisfy people that she was actually not a nasty person?

 

I read that to mean you assume the writers already stopped to reflect on the effects of the impacted people.  No?

 

It's possible to be empathetic and be anti-DACA.

It's possible to be empathetic and be pro-DACA.

But it's also possible to  have no sympathy whatsoever and be anti-DACA.

You are presuming I'm  arguing from a pro-DACA position, but  what I'm actually saying is, do not take a writer's empathy or consideration into human effects for granted.

 

You may be arguing that empathy should have no place whatsoever in these discussions, but, that's not clear to me. Your original point was it shouldn't be the only thing.

 

 

[Pam in CT]

re essential importance of usually unstated premises:

I think that another trick to the whole empathy thing is not assuming that a person (based on their position on a particular issue) holds to one of two binary motivations that you (general) have created for the issue. Especially when one of these motivations basically ascribes not only a lack of empathy to them but also a lack of humanity. In this way, complex policy issues get reduced to shouting matches.

 

:iagree:

 

It's virtually impossible to do this over the internet, but in deep explorations of divergent perspectives that I've had with IRL people, nearly ALL differences can ultimately be unwound to either different PREMISES or different USES OF LANGUAGE.

 

Neither of which I would consider either a matter of either "empathy" or of "evidence" (although I agree that temperamentally many people do naturally gravitate toward a more person-based or a more evidence-based form of reasoning; and some folks are more adept than others, in shifting to the other form of reasoning for the purpose of a dialogue).

 

 

 

 

[Tsuga]

"I think that another trick to the whole empathy thing is not assuming that a person (based on their position on a particular issue) holds to one of two binary motivations that you (general) have created for the issue."

 

Yes, but I think Bluegoat is not doing that. She wrote,

 

" In fact I think the writer showed real understanding of the effects that the policy would have on individuals - she just still thought that for various reasons one approach was much better than the other. Was she supposed to write some paragraphs about people's feelings to somehow satisfy people that she was actually not a nasty person?"

 

I personally think that spending time to write about the effects on individual lives does demonstrate empathy. That is how you do it in conversation. For example, "I know how frustrating it is to miss a party you have been looking forward to. I bet you really wanted the cake and now you're just at home with a fever. And everyone else will talk about the party at school." To me, repeating what the other person said is a key part of showing empathy.

 

I think what Bluegoat is saying is you can discuss the article from the other point of view without accepting that while empathy makes you feel bad for the person in question, it isn't the most compelling argument.

 

For the record, I believe in a world without borders but I don't think the empathy argument pushes me anywhere on this particular issue. I believe it is a Constitutional issue.

[Bluegoat]

No, you misunderstand me.   was responding specifically to your point:

My friend was very much of the view that the writer of the article we were discussing didn't spend enough time being empathetic with those who would feel the effects of the policy under discussion, and that people reading the article needed to stop and do this.

 

My inner response was - ok, well, I think I've done that already, but let's say I take a moment here and do that. What are you expecting then - I'll say something about their difficulties, or ? - how is that supposed to show itself in policy discussions?  In fact I think the writer showed real understanding of the effects that the policy would have on individuals - she just still thought that for various reasons one approach was much better than the other.  Was she supposed to write some paragraphs about people's feelings to somehow satisfy people that she was actually not a nasty person?

 

I read that to mean you assume the writers already stopped to reflect on the effects of the impacted people.  No?

 

It's possible to be empathetic and be anti-DACA.

It's possible to be empathetic and be pro-DACA.

But it's also possible to  have no sympathy whatsoever and be anti-DACA.

You are presuming I'm  arguing from a pro-DACA position, but  what I'm actually saying is, do not take a writer's empathy or consideration into human effects for granted.

 

You may be arguing that empathy should have no place whatsoever in these discussions, but, that's not clear to me. Your original point was it shouldn't be the only thing.

 

I think the writer took it into account because of what she said, not because I assumed it.  But even if she had said nothing about it, it really had very little to do with her arguments.  They would still stand on their own merits

 

And as for the people posting in the discussion - it was exactly what Esme said - she seemed to be holding a particular binary.

 

I think it's profoundly important to have empathy for all people.  It should be at the base of everything we do and are, though how o respond is not simply about making ourselves feel loving.  It's actually kind of annoying to have this kind of assumption that particular people need special treatment when I highly suspect that a less appealing group of people might not get the same calls for us to empathize before talking about policy.  I've seen many of the same kinds of people to be shockingly uninterested in the humanity of people they don't consider worthy of consideration, people who break some social taboo.  And it seem to me that in both cases actually they are not reasoning in an empathetic way, they are just using their emotions to decide what they want done with these people.  Empathy is mostly an excuse.

[Bluegoat]

"I think that another trick to the whole empathy thing is not assuming that a person (based on their position on a particular issue) holds to one of two binary motivations that you (general) have created for the issue."

 

Yes, but I think Bluegoat is not doing that. She wrote,

 

" In fact I think the writer showed real understanding of the effects that the policy would have on individuals - she just still thought that for various reasons one approach was much better than the other. Was she supposed to write some paragraphs about people's feelings to somehow satisfy people that she was actually not a nasty person?"

 

I personally think that spending time to write about the effects on individual lives does demonstrate empathy. That is how you do it in conversation. For example, "I know how frustrating it is to miss a party you have been looking forward to. I bet you really wanted the cake and now you're just at home with a fever. And everyone else will talk about the party at school." To me, repeating what the other person said is a key part of showing empathy.

 

I think what Bluegoat is saying is you can discuss the article from the other point of view without accepting that while empathy makes you feel bad for the person in question, it isn't the most compelling argument.

 

For the record, I believe in a world without borders but I don't think the empathy argument pushes me anywhere on this particular issue. I believe it is a Constitutional issue.

 

Yes, I'm along those lines too, actually.  I believe the right to move around is a fundamental human right, not one that comes with citizenship.  There are practical issues around it that need to be dealt with, and it can require balance with other people's rights when there is conflict.  But that's the fundamental lens through which I view immigration.

 

It's really isn't about me feeling empathetic - I could feel that way even if I thought the underlying principle was different, but it would certainly lead me to other conclusions.

 

FWIW I think it's fine for people to write or talk about human experiences, sometimes that's the most important thing to do.  But it isn't always on point or necessary.  

[wintermom]

 repeating what the other person said is a key part of showing empathy.

 

 

This reminded me so much of my Theories of Counseling class. I forget which method it is, but listening and repeating back (paraphrase) exactly what the person just said, is this counseling method in a nutshell.

 

Bluegoat, is your job to be a counselor to this person, or have an intellectual dialogue with her?  Are you exchanging ideas and treating each other as equals, or not? Can you explain your ideas freely without worrying about how it makes her feel?

Edited January 28, 2018 by wintermom

[poppy]

I think the writer took it into account because of what she said, not because I assumed it.  But even if she had said nothing about it, it really had very little to do with her arguments.  They would still stand on their own merits

 

And as for the people posting in the discussion - it was exactly what Esme said - she seemed to be holding a particular binary.

 

I think it's profoundly important to have empathy for all people.  It should be at the base of everything we do and are, though how o respond is not simply about making ourselves feel loving.  It's actually kind of annoying to have this kind of assumption that particular people need special treatment when I highly suspect that a less appealing group of people might not get the same calls for us to empathize before talking about policy.  I've seen many of the same kinds of people to be shockingly uninterested in the humanity of people they don't consider worthy of consideration, people who break some social taboo.  And it seem to me that in both cases actually they are not reasoning in an empathetic way, they are just using their emotions to decide what they want done with these people.  Empathy is mostly an excuse.

 

 

I agree with you about people giving up on empathy for people who break social taboos - people in prisons, for example, are being used as slave labor,  and people are basically OK with that , which I find really depressing. 

 

I suggest you considering trying to state your arguments in a different way when talking to this person.  Not because you're wrong, but because it's not effective.  Don't be a hammer, persuade instead.  The best communicators are those that manage to have you leaving the conversation thinking THEIR ideas were your own.

[Bluegoat]

This reminded me so much of my Theories of Counseling class. I forget which method it is, but listening and repeating back (paraphrase) exactly what the person just said, is this counseling method in a nutshell.

 

Bluegoat, is your job to be a counselor to this person, or have an intellectual dialogue with her?  Are you exchanging ideas and treating each other as equals, or not? Can you explain your ideas freely without worrying about how it makes her feel?

 

No no, I'm not a counsellor.

 

It was a discussion over a long-form article.  So very much an everybody is equal kind of discussion, though of course there are limits to how mean one wants to be, or aggressive, if people seem sensitive.

 

I suppose I could have repeated back, though I wouldn't normally see straight repeat-back as a regular part of that kind of discussion.  One thing though that this makes me think is - part of the reason it was difficult to respond to the idea we needed more empathy is that there wasn't really any indication about what that would change.  As in "I think in this articular area this policy indicates lack of understanding and sympathy for people's experience.."  Something more specific like that could be responded to pretty clearly.  But just "you need to empathize more"  and "the writer needs to use more empathetic language" - it's a little hard for me to think what I could say to that, or see how it's very useful in the discussion.

 

 

Edited January 29, 2018 by Bluegoat

[Bluegoat]

I agree with you about people giving up on empathy for people who break social taboos - people in prisons, for example, are being used as slave labor,  and people are basically OK with that , which I find really depressing. 

 

I suggest you considering trying to state your arguments in a different way when talking to this person.  Not because you're wrong, but because it's not effective.  Don't be a hammer, persuade instead.  The best communicators are those that manage to have you leaving the conversation thinking THEIR ideas were your own.

 

 

Yes, I wish I could figure out quite how to do that, because I would probably try it.  I guess that's what I am trying to figure out here - I don't know how to discuss it when the starting point seems to be whatever she means by empathizing - which maybe I am starting to think means something else entirely, or is even just intended to shut down discussion.

[Paige]

"the writer needs to use more empathetic language" - it's a little hard for me to think what I could say to that, or see how it's very useful in the discussion.

 

I've got no patience for that. I'd probably nod and smile and change the conversation because at that point I'd think there could be no rational discussion. Whether the writer uses empathetic language or not is irrelevant to the discussion of the writer's points, IMO. Perhaps she should be empathetic to the author's attempts to sound unbiased and professional. 

[8circles]

I have found most of this discussion puzzling because I don't really understand what kind of discussion this is about. I've never heard anyone say or hint that empathy is everything to the degree that the OP seems to be about. I think. It's unclear to me what that even means.

 

But, I will say, that I think it's entirely unproductive to posit empathy as a contrast to logic, or vice versa. It seems like maybe it's a combination of differences is personality, speaking/writing style, vocabulary, etc. and not really empathy vs logic. That seems like a lazy way of saying I'm right and they're wrong.

 

It's important to realize that while empathy, and empathetic language, may mean nothing to you, it may mean quite a lot to someone else, and that doesn't make them illogical.

 

I don't know what a super-feeler is. Is that the same as an empath?

[Bluegoat]

I think super feelers are just meant to experience emotion very strongly, not only their own.  I don't know if that's the same as empath or not.

 

I wouldn't have said empathy or emotion in general is opposed to reason - I think of it as a bit like sense information, and it can contain intuitive insights.  Ideally they should work together.  But I would say in a discussion of complex issues it needs to be filtered or organized by your rational faculties.

 

I don't know, at this point I'm really not sure what they were expecting or looking for.

[8circles]

I think super feelers are just meant to experience emotion very strongly, not only their own.  I don't know if that's the same as empath or not.

 

I wouldn't have said empathy or emotion in general is opposed to reason - I think of it as a bit like sense information, and it can contain intuitive insights.  Ideally they should work together.  But I would say in a discussion of complex issues it needs to be filtered or organized by your rational faculties.

 

I don't know, at this point I'm really not sure what they were expecting or looking for.

 

Hmmm. Well, given what you've shared in this thread, it seems like they were expecting empathy.

 

It does no one any favors to act as though reason is enough. Humans aren't robots. Empathy can do a lot to improve understanding and finding common ground in discussion. Reason/logic isn't everything.

[8circles]

The trouble is, the person the OP discusses isn't being empathic at all. Just using an appeal for empathy to kind of shut down discussion. So, is that actually empathy, or empathic language at all ?

 

Idk, I wasn't there, but when I've had those appeals directed at me, it certainly hasn't felt like empathy, but more like shaming. And I can state with utter certainty that when I've done the 'but what about the children!' bit, it had nothing to do with empathy, but rather an attempt at moral coercion - using 'feeling' to try to sway people to my side of the argument. 

 

I agree that people are by no means split into a simple binary of logical vs feeling. 

 

Sure.

 

Like I said, I don't understand what this kind of conversation looks like because I've never seen it. Lots of the responses are talking about "super feelers" which is something completely different than what you're describing, so I'm clueless.

 

I do see the difference between actual empathy and moral coercion but I guess I'm not sure how that becomes such a huge negative that no discussion is possible because "empathy is everything". 

[eternalsummer]

I can feel empathetic for people who are adversely affected by a certain policy without necessarily changing my position on the policy.  In those instances, generally either I think there is another group that is more adversely impacted by the opposite policy (this might apply to something like my views on abortion, for example) or I think there is a principle that is fundamental to the way society works or nature works that, however much some might like to change it, would seriously compromise the function of society or contravene what you might call part of natural law.

 

Most things fall into the former category, for me, now that I think about it.

 

 

[8circles]

I'm pretty sure that any of the discussions here a few years ago about same sex marriage fell into the 'empathy or nothing' trap. 

 

Opponents were just big old meanies who hated gay people. 

 

Are some opponents like this ? Sure. Are most ? Probably not. Did appeals to think of all the gay and lesbian children of posters here work in any way to argue our case ? Almost certainly not.

 

I mean, sure, it had nothing to do with empathy really. It was more of a 'feel the way we feel or nothing' trap.

 

Empathy probably would have looked like really trying to understand what people felt they were losing, and what their thinking behind that was. Even if we continued to disagree, and fight our side. Whose to say our fight wouldn't be more effective for ditching the attempts at control of the emotional narrative, and attempts at real empathy ?

 

Anyway, that's just one example of using 'empathy' as moral coercion that comes to mind.

 

I understand what you're saying. I just don't see this moral coercion as such an awful thing in a discussion. 

 

In this particular example, I actually know what people are feeling on both sides, because I've firmly held views on both sides in my life. I don't think that it's a matter of "real empathy" (which means that the other is "fake empathy"?) It's more believing one side is more deserving of empathy than the other. Is moral coercion useless in a discussion? I don't think so, but it probably depends on the people involved. Do people use moral coercion in discussion because "empathy is everything"? No, I don't think so. So I guess I'm unclear if this moral coercion is actually what the OP was talking about.

[Pam in CT]

re moral coercion, vs empathy as a door to thinking about an issue in a different way

 

I'm pretty sure that any of the discussions here a few years ago about same sex marriage fell into the 'empathy or nothing' trap. 

 

Opponents were just big old meanies who hated gay people. 

 

Are some opponents like this ? Sure. Are most ? Probably not. Did appeals to think of all the gay and lesbian children of posters here work in any way to argue our case ? Almost certainly not.

 

I mean, sure, it had nothing to do with empathy really. It was more of a 'feel the way we feel or nothing' trap.

 

Empathy probably would have looked like really trying to understand what people felt they were losing, and what their thinking behind that was. Even if we continued to disagree, and fight our side. Whose to say our fight wouldn't be more effective for ditching the attempts at control of the emotional narrative, and attempts at real empathy ?

 

Anyway, that's just one example of using 'empathy' as moral coercion that comes to mind.

 

This is helpful, because it brings into focus a different dimension than the empathy v evidence lenses:  the concrete example vs abstract principle lenses.

 

I agree with the OP that some people approach reasoning from a more person-centered, and others from a more evidence-based, perspective.  But like JodieSue upthread I don't think those two are the ONLY forms of reasoning.

 

I actually struggled to follow what this thread was even about because the discussion seemed so abstract -- so disconnected from CONTENT -- that I felt unmoored, like The Madness of Scar in the Lion King,  what am I even talking about???    :willy_nilly: 

 

... whereas your concrete example, of how prior same sex marriage discussions on WTM played out in real time, clicks into place for me.

 

And ironically: for me, with that issue, empathy WAS a door that opened way for me to change my mind.  

 

 

***

 

Twenty years ago, I perceived SSM as an issue of civil rights -- access to insurance benefits, ability to adopt on equal footing, hospital visitation and ability to make medical decisions on behalf of partners and children, standing on estate issues and so forth.  I was at the time deeply immersed in a interfaith group, and some of its members from other faiths -- compassionate and empathic people, not "haters -- could OTOH see the civil rights side, but OTO were very deeply troubled by what they saw as a  ritual that to them was a religious sacrament being altered and redefined by the state.  The word "marriage" itself -- not what I perceived to be the concurrent civil rights and documentary ease that went along with the word -- seemed at the time to be the hangup.

 

(Valuing the "abstract principle" of equal civil rights irrespective of sexual orientation, seems to me not to *fit* exactly into evidence-based, or empathy-based, forms of reasoning, KWIM?  It's a principle, not either a data set or a human consciousness.)

 

So, via my #Brilliant powers of Abstraction, I ended netting out to favor of a policy that separated the rights of marriage into a state-issued Civil document; from the religious conferral of the word "marriage."  I saw, or thought I saw, important parallels with the modern invention of the civilly issued birth certificate, which split out the factual legal existence of people from religious cycle events like baptism or christening or bris -- which in an earlier historical era could be withheld on grounds of illegitimacy or parents-of-the-wrong-faith etc, dooming a second-class of people to a marginal half-life of lesser rights through no fault of their own.

 

It helped clarify, that my brother lived in Singapore which does exactly this: everyone gets a civil marriage license; then everyone can do as they wish in terms of whatever religious sacrament/blessing of Big Party they want, or not.  The civil rights are tied to the state-issued piece of paper; the religious blessings are conferred as religious authorities decide, or not.  Just like a birth certificate vs a baptismal certificate for proving age/eligibility for school or medical or getting-a-passport or benefits purposes.

 

At the level of abstraction, I thought this made all the sense in the world: dtop the fight over the word "marriage" and focus instead on winning the associated rights.

 

Two of our neighbors/friends/fellow congregants were the named couple in the SSM court case that worked its way through the state appeals system.

 

They didn't think much of my #Brilliantly reasoned abstract solution, LOL.

 

 

 

Two things made me change my mind: the first, was their call to personal empathy.  Which I did not experience as moral coercion, at all, but rather as Try to put yourself in our moccasins (OK: pointy Italian loafers) and walk a mile in our walk.  We've lived together for twenty years, we have a house, we have a child, S is head of the PTA.  What you're advocating will have the effect of rendering our partnership as a second tier relationship to yours with Tom; rendering our child second class to yours.  The word is valued throughout American society; the word matters.

 

I didn't experience this as moral coercion (though, conceivably, another listener might).  I experienced it as the two of them explaining their walk.  The same kind of communication my fellow wrestlers and I were trying to do in our interfaith group.

 

 

(The other thing that made me change my mind was actually reading the text of the defense-of-marriage laws being enacted in CA and FL, which made very clear that such legislation was doing the very opposite of my #Brilliant abstract policy; far from separating civil from religious issues, whatever language was used to defend them, in their actual words they expressly did restrict gay couple's access to the civil / economic  benefits of marriage.  So again, neither empathy, nor evidence based: it just clarified for me that the only practical way to extend my abstract value of Equal Protection and access to Equal Civil Rights was through use of that laden word "marriage.")  

 

This came second, though; the empathy call came first.

 

 

 

ETA: I just saw your cross-post.  I totally, absolutely agree that you can't "shame people into agreeing with you."  As a tactic that is going nowhere.

 

I do think it's possible, when know each other well and we hear each other deeply, to change our thinking.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sorry this got so long and personal and arguably irrelevant, lol.  You just made this third, "abstract principle" form of reasoning sort of click for me.

Edited January 29, 2018 by Pam in CT

[eternalsummer]

Well, and at any rate, for the most part it's not the crux of the argument (x group deserves empathy more than y group), or if it is, you can argue on those premises (which group deserves more empathy in this situation, and why should policy be guided by it) instead of just insisting that someone who holds the opposite position is not sufficiently empathetic, or whatever.

 

I am trying to think of a good topic to discuss this in relevance to that doesn't make people stabby.  Typed it out with abortion and immigration and veganism, gave up.

 

Trying a more neutral and simpler approach with abortion, which is pretty straightforward compared to some other topics:

 

When I make an argument about abortion, I am, as 8circles said, basically arguing that the fetus deserves more empathy than the mother; that is to say, for me, the rights of the fetus to not be killed supercede the mother's right to not be pregnant or to not deliver a child (in the vast majority of cases - let's not talk about exceptions and lose the forest for the trees).  Now, you could say that I am making an emotional argument ("won't someone think of the children!") and that pro-choice supporters are also making an emotional argument ("won't someone think of the women!"), and that would be true in some ways.  Essentially, though, the point of difference is not which group deserves more sympathy, but why.  For someone who doesn't believe that life starts at conception, or that the right to life starts at conception, privileging the rights of the fetus or embryo over the rights of the woman makes no sense.  You can say "won't someone think of the children" to pro-choice supporters all day, but because they don't equate embryos or blastocysts or fetuses (might have missed a stage!) with children in terms of the right to life, it's a moot argument.  Similarly, you can say "won't someone think of the women" to pro-life supporters all day, but because they think that they are weighing the right to life vs the right to happiness or the right to self-determination, it's also a moot argument.

 

So with abortion, the argument boils down in the end to whether the fetus has a right to life, or at what point in development it has the right to life, and why.  Pro-choice supporters don't hate babies and pro-lifers don't hate women (by definition, I mean - I'm sure some individuals are one way or another); they just have a different view of when life starts.

 

Part of the reason people make emotional appeals, or point to the emotional aspect of the argument, is because (imo) for them it feels effective.  Pro-lifers show you the photos of half-developed fetuses because for them, because they believe the fetus has as inherent a right to life as a newborn, the photo is emotionally and morally equivalent to a photo of a dead baby.  Pro-choicers use the coat hanger as a symbol because for them, the person potentially harmed by abortion is the pregnant woman (that being the only person involved), and they want their opponents to recognize the harm unregulated abortions can cause.  (at least this is my understanding).  

 

But neither of those arguments, while they can be effective for your own supporters, really make much of a serious dent in the basic view of opponents.  I used to be pro-choice and when I saw the images of aborted fetuses, I wasn't suddenly converted to the pro-life position.  I didn't even feel that much empathy for the fetus (and I certainly wouldn't have felt any for a picture of an aborted 7 week embryo, I think); I was just irritated that someone was trying to manipulate me by pretending that a fetus is equivalent to a baby in terms of personhood.  Now that I am pro-life, I am not converted to a pro-choice position by considering the suffering of women who would have back-alley abortions with coat hangers.  I feel empathy for those women but because for me the question is much more fundamental (does the fetus have an inherent right to life), the question of sorrow for the person who is not allowed to terminate the right to life of the fetus is real, it exists, but it is not the central argument.

 

 

I hope that made sense and didn't come across as evangelist about abortion; I'm not trying to make an argument for or against abortion but explain how I see the issue in terms of empathy, etc.  It's hard to see your own biases, though.

[8circles]

Pam, YES! Exactly everything you wrote, my journey was the same as yours, including the layover at civil/religious separation.

 

I don't know what you call it - moral coercion, empathy, shame... It was an important step in finding my way. And I detest the word shame, but I am ashamed of my prior position, which I think is appropriate. So... Not sure what to do with that.

[Pam in CT]

eternalsummer: to me, your reasoning on how to weigh the competing moral claims of fetus v mother is not empathy-based, but abstract.

 

Perhaps it just nets out to different use of language, though.  It often does.

[eternalsummer]

Deciding whether the fetus has a right to life is an abstract discussion, yes.

 

What I'm saying is that often people on both sides supplant that abstract discussion, which is imo the core of the issue one way or another, with empathy-based discussions about feeling badly for the woman or feeling badly for the fetus.

 

Does that make sense?

 

 

Re: same sex marriage, my position on it was not like yours to start with, but I can see how an empathetic argument (walking in another person's shoes, for example) gave you another way to see the issue and changed your mind about how it should be addressed.

 

for me, because the starting point is different, the empathy argument, which it does make me feel emapthetic, doesn't affect the way I see the issue as a whole.

[Pam in CT]

re "shame"

Pam, YES! Exactly everything you wrote, my journey was the same as yours, including the layover at civil/religious separation.

I don't know what you call it - moral coercion, empathy, shame... It was an important step in finding my way. And I detest the word shame, but I am ashamed of my prior position, which I think is appropriate. So... Not sure what to do with that.

 

Another word with different meanings to different people, isn't it.

 

Interior inventory and personal conscience is a good thing.  Attempts at what Sadie just called "moral coercion" is not.  

 

I am ashamed for how I just spoke to my child is a constructive recognition that paves the way for doing better the next time.  You should be ashamed! -- not so much.

 

 

 

#MeToo has definitely raised my consciousness of how women's shame is wielded as a weapon against women.  I notice the language much more than I did even six months ago.  Sigh.

 

 

[8circles]

Sorry,I'm in my car and quote isn't working.

 

Re: the abortion example. I think the way you laid it out is a very oversimplified way of looking at it that is really only useful for illustrating the hypothetical of an appeal to empathy. It isn't real. As an aside, it is really close to what I thought was real when I was very much what is known as pro-life. I'm still pro-life (and also pro-choice) but have a better understanding of the bigger picture.

[Pam in CT]

competing rights as abstraction v relative empathic identification

Deciding whether the fetus has a right to life is an abstract discussion, yes.

 

What I'm saying is that often people on both sides supplant that abstract discussion, which is imo the core of the issue one way or another, with empathy-based discussions about feeling badly for the woman or feeling badly for the fetus.

 

Does that make sense?

 

Well, yes, "deciding" (or holding as a premise that) a fetus has a right to life is an abstract idea.

 

But so too is the framework, even once that decision or premise is made, on how to balance the claims of one group vs the claims of another.

 

Once we're in that claims-of-one vs claims-of-the-other arena, we have to sort out how to, in your words, "privilege" those competing claims (just as with killing-is-wrong but self-defense-is-justifiable, or freedom-from-search-is-guaranteed but mandatory-breathalyzer-checkpoints-are-permitted, or universal-right-to-vote but ID-requirements-are-allowed, or free-speech-is-guaranteed but not-while-the-movie-is-running types or any number of balancing acts big or small that public policy has to make).

 

That prioritizing balance -- in how I understand these terms, at least -- is reasoned out abstractly, not by collective imagining of anybody's moccasins or by any particular set of data.

 

 

...

Re: same sex marriage, my position on it was not like yours to start with, but I can see how an empathetic argument (walking in another person's shoes, for example) gave you another way to see the issue and changed your mind about how it should be addressed.

 

for me, because the starting point is different, the empathy argument, which it does make me feel emapthetic, doesn't affect the way I see the issue as a whole.

 

 

I don't think I'm following what you're saying here (perhaps because, like Hermione, I'm afraid I am hopelessly mundane and can only follow if the dialogue hews pretty close to the pretty concrete example)....

 

... but on the importance of "starting points" I have found, in plumbing different perspectives, that nearly all of them net out either to unshared premises, or different uses of language.  Rather than differences in reasoning, which IME most people can code-switch if we are committed to doing so, once we understand one another's forms.

 

Which is both good news and bad, I suppose.

[eternalsummer]

I agree with you about the nature of the abortion debate and of the nature of competing privilege debates in general; it is largely an abstract discussion.  

 

Re: same sex marriage, what I meant by different starting points was different premises. I can understand your consideration of empathy (and the reason your stance changed originally because of an empathetic appeal) based on your premises.

[Scarlett]

I think people often change their mind on issues due to empathy/feelings.  That is why it is important to set your standards based on something before you get to the point of wanting to change your mind because your best friend/brother/mother yourself suddenly wants to go against said standards.

 

I think it is important to note that we can have empathy for people who feel/want/have done things that are against said standard without changing the standard.

[Pam in CT]

re working "solutions" where premises are not shared

...
Re starting from a different premise. Pam, if conflicts sometimes boil down to this - what are the solutions ? I hate to bring up the gender thing again, but that's where my brain is. If person A starts from the premise that 'woman' is a biological category, and person B starts from the premise that 'woman' is a social category - how is consensus even achievable ? It doesn't matter how many people might be hurt that 'woman' is considered a social category (or vice versa), and how many times we are called to empathy, if the premise is false (in our opinion), surely the only thing that will change our minds is a demonstration that our premise is faulty ?

 

 

Well, first, my (you "know" me: somewhat uncharacteristic) deep-down optimism that people who are truly committed to trying to understand one another and hanging in to the dialogue... can nearly always work through differences in reasoning styles and achieve understanding of where each other is coming from...

 

....does not equate directly to "solutions."  If the goals of dialogue are respect and understanding: virtually always achievable, even across very significant differences, if people are truly committed.  

 

If the goals are conversion to ANY particular outcome, not so much; and even less, to a particular, specific outcome that one "side" is convinced as "right."

 

____

 

But, that said, second: better understanding can often, in Quaker language, "open way."  Areas of shared values or principles that were eclipsed by the obvious differences sometimes emerge; routes to de-escalation that were previously clouded by the smoke of the conflict can become visible in a cease-fire; circuitous paths to peripheral areas or seemingly minor or side-issues can sometimes yield surprises.

 

If premises are not shared, sometimes people can find a (wobbly, circuitous, arguably goofy and inefficient and not-squarely-on-point) path by glimpsing a totally out-of-the-box other-place where both "sides" can find sufficient light to trust that some path to the (different) goals they have, is there.  That is how the Founding Fathers muddled through a particular stumbling block to creation of this country: they had very different premises about the value of a strong central leader... they could not get to agreement on the right distribution of power between federal and state... and what ultimately broke the apparently intractable divergence of views was Madison's radical innovation of vesting very considerable power in neither of those loci, but rather somewhere else entirely: in individuals, in the Bill of Rights.

 

(It now seems so obvious, but) at the time this was making things up out of whole cloth: until then power struggles, and compromises, had always been based on categories -- geographic regions, people with titles or guild memberships or type of worker, people affiliated with particular religions, etc.  The very idea of "individual" as opposed to "member of _____ group" is quite a modern, Enlightenment innovation... and for the founders to glimpse in that perilous and newfangled abstraction a solution to their very immediate central-rural power struggle was truly an imaginative, creative leap.  It was also not directly on point. It addressed the underlying conflict at a tangent.  But it's held.

 

Whereas: the 3/5 compromise to the Founding Fathers' other intractable unshared premise *was* directly on point, a classic, brute split-the-difference approach... and did not hold.

 

 

 

Another "way" that sometimes can be found is common commitment to a principle that is separate from the unshared premises.  That is more or less how, to my understanding of our history at least, we've muddled through the gradual expansion of civil rights here.  Despite ongoing differences in premises about who truly is fully human... we've had sufficient agreement on the principle that All People Are Created Equal and that everyone deserves equal protection under the law that we've been able, in fits and starts punctuated with backlash, to gradually effect policy that included ever more of our population... even despite/across the struggle we very much still wage, based on different premises on who is and isn't "deserving."

 

If the US manages to muddle through our current Darkest Hour, it will be due to a common commitment to Rule of Law, Not Men... that transcends other differences in premises and forms of reasoning and policy orientations.  (This morning, I am feeling profoundly uneasy that this commitment will hold: I may soon be moving to Australia.  But I digress.)

 

 

 

Another "way" that sometimes can be found through breaking-bread kind of engagement is recognition, even if grudging, that we're actually all in the same canoe whether we'd choose it or not, whether we like it or not.  Israelis and non-citizen Palestinians may have little else to agree on, but they'll all be incinerated together if a nuclear missile strikes: so too, North and South Korea.  So, too, with climate change, and many other issues closer to home.

 

 

 

And there are others; that's the thing about Way; Way Opens. 

 

:grouphug:

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Sometimes also language is itself a tool, that can pry open new doors... but that is rather different direction, so I'll leave here.)

 

Edited January 30, 2018 by Pam in CT

[Bluegoat]

Pam, my quoting is not working today, so please excuse the decontextualized question.

 

And Bluegoat, sorry if this is off topic...

 

Re starting from a different premise. Pam, if conflicts sometimes boil down to this - what are the solutions ? I hate to bring up the gender thing again, but that's where my brain is. If person A starts from the premise that 'woman' is a biological category, and person B starts from the premise that 'woman' is a social category - how is consensus even achievable ? It doesn't matter how many people might be hurt that 'woman' is considered a social category (or vice versa), and how many times we are called to empathy, if the premise is false (in our opinion), surely the only thing that will change our minds is a demonstration that our premise is faulty ?

 

 

I think this is not only not off topic, but really where I think we have to go with it.

 

For me it means you have to first take a step back and address the premise.  A lot of the time these aren't fundamental epistemological assumptions, they are things you can discuss.

 

I think sometimes there isn't really going to be a consensus, and if the question is something like immigration that requires effective action, or is about a social institution like marriage, you will end up taking one road as a society rather than the other.

 

I feel the same way as you about being asked to empathize with regard to things like this, I don't see how it could change my mind about something objective.  It could convince me that there should be way to help those people as well, but it isn't going to change the objective point.

[8circles]

I think this is not only not off topic, but really where I think we have to go with it.

 

For me it means you have to first take a step back and address the premise.  A lot of the time these aren't fundamental epistemological assumptions, they are things you can discuss.

 

I think sometimes there isn't really going to be a consensus, and if the question is something like immigration that requires effective action, or is about a social institution like marriage, you will end up taking one road as a society rather than the other.

 

I feel the same way as you about being asked to empathize with regard to things like this, I don't see how it could change my mind about something objective.  It could convince me that there should be way to help those people as well, but it isn't going to change the objective point.

 

Not disagreeing with you really.

 

But objective points are not required to be without empathy (or emotion? I'm not sure which we're talking about really). So people can come to the same objective conclusion, one coming from an empathic or empathetic perspective and one coming from an apathetic perspective. Or maybe you would call it something else.

 

An empathetic perspective is not void of reason. Whether or not this applies to your OP, I don't know. But being asked to empathize does not mean "I don't care about logic, it's about FEEEELINGS."

[Pam in CT]

Not disagreeing with you really.

 

But objective points are not required to be without empathy (or emotion? I'm not sure which we're talking about really). So people can come to the same objective conclusion, one coming from an empathic or empathetic perspective and one coming from an apathetic perspective. Or maybe you would call it something else.

 

An empathetic perspective is not void of reason. Whether or not this applies to your OP, I don't know. But being asked to empathize does not mean "I don't care about logic, it's about FEEEELINGS."

 

 

Yeah, this is the risk of positing person-centered and evidence-based (which as an aside does not equal, exactly, "logic"-based either; and I'm not quite clear which it is to which the OP is referencing) as binary dueling systems of reasoning.  Different reasoning systems *can* be in tension, but they also can complement and mutually support each other.  Most of us lean on different forms of reasoning under different circumstances, in thinking through different subjects, though we don't in ordinary life go around assigning language and labeling what our reasoning basis is.

[Bluegoat]

Not disagreeing with you really.

 

But objective points are not required to be without empathy (or emotion? I'm not sure which we're talking about really). So people can come to the same objective conclusion, one coming from an empathic or empathetic perspective and one coming from an apathetic perspective. Or maybe you would call it something else.

 

An empathetic perspective is not void of reason. Whether or not this applies to your OP, I don't know. But being asked to empathize does not mean "I don't care about logic, it's about FEEEELINGS."

 

But where are you supposed to go in a conversation like that?  And why would you assume that the person hasn't empathized?

 

For example as I said above, I think freedom of movement is a basic right - it relates to what I think about land and resources and their ownership, that really, these are not things that can be privately owned as they are for all.

 

I also think that people have a right to live where they have always lived and invested labour.

 

These can easily come into conflict with each other.  And no matter which side I were to come down on, someone could say "you need to empathize more with the other guys".

 

I really have no idea what that would mean beyond what I'd have already done, why they would think I haven't empathized with both situations, what I would say about  my empathizing it that would be satisfying to this person, or how it would help untangle the elements of the problem.  In fact it seems to me that unless they can point to something much more specific that they think is missing, bringing that into the discussion is very likely to obscure what is already going to be a complicated discussion.  How would empathy help untie that kind of knot?

[8circles]

But where are you supposed to go in a conversation like that?  And why would you assume that the person hasn't empathized?

 

For example as I said above, I think freedom of movement is a basic right - it relates to what I think about land and resources and their ownership, that really, these are not things that can be privately owned as they are for all.

 

I also think that people have a right to live where they have always lived and invested labour.

 

These can easily come into conflict with each other.  And no matter which side I were to come down on, someone could say "you need to empathize more with the other guys".

 

I really have no idea what that would mean beyond what I'd have already done, why they would think I haven't empathized with both situations, what I would say about  my empathizing it that would be satisfying to this person, or how it would help untangle the elements of the problem.  In fact it seems to me that unless they can point to something much more specific that they think is missing, bringing that into the discussion is very likely to obscure what is already going to be a complicated discussion.  How would empathy help untie that kind of knot?

 

A conversation like what? I don't really understand what kind of conversation you are having that you've described in the OP, because you've summed it up with "empathy is everything" yet I don't see that.

 

"you need to empathize more" means exactly that. So according to the person you are conversing with, you aren't empathizing enough. So, either you aren't capable of more or you don't see them as worthy of more or you don't think there's any more empathy to be had. And the other person does. 

 

As to how would empathy help to untie that kind of knot - maybe it's not untie-able. Is there a moral component that empathy or emotions can highlight? How does logic help untie it? Sometimes the best you can do is agree to disagree. 

[Pam in CT]

re reframing the terms of the dialogue

But where are you supposed to go in a conversation like that?  And why would you assume that the person hasn't empathized?

 

For example as I said above, I think freedom of movement is a basic right - it relates to what I think about land and resources and their ownership, that really, these are not things that can be privately owned as they are for all.

 

I also think that people have a right to live where they have always lived and invested labour.

 

These can easily come into conflict with each other.  And no matter which side I were to come down on, someone could say "you need to empathize more with the other guys".

 

I really have no idea what that would mean beyond what I'd have already done, why they would think I haven't empathized with both situations, what I would say about  my empathizing it that would be satisfying to this person, or how it would help untangle the elements of the problem.  In fact it seems to me that unless they can point to something much more specific that they think is missing, bringing that into the discussion is very likely to obscure what is already going to be a complicated discussion.  How would empathy help untie that kind of knot?

 

 

In the first bolded -- what do you mean by "where do you go"?  Is your purpose to bring the other person around, or to understand where she is coming from?  (Bringing another person who starts out with different premises "around," through sheer force of #Brilliant reasoning -- of whatever kind -- is mighty rare.  Finding common ground happens; hauling someone else forcibly over your line is rare.)

 

And in the second -- why would you *care* what you think she may *assume* about your reasoning process?  What does that have to do with anything? To me that would privilege what you believe she believes about your *intentions* -- which to my mind can only ever be partially known even to ourselves, let alone anyone else* -- over the IRL spoken-aloud dialogue that you're actually having in the moment.  To me, that's getting all meta about one another's interior landscape -- in a way that I can barely manage with my husband of 27 years, whom I knew for another 10 before we got married, with whom I literally have grown into maturity -- when it's challenging enough to just focus deeply on one another's expressed WORDS AND ACTIONS.  

 

----

 

If OTOH your dialogue partner is actually saying out loud words like "you need to empathize more with the other guys", that amounts to a setting-the-rules-of-engagement-of-the-dialogue issue.  That kind of language skirts very close to Sadie's "moral coercion" line.  It is certainly ineffective tactically, and in my world illegitimate ethically.

 

But so long as both partners are truly engaged in good faith to the dialogue (that is, of course, a bit IF) there are language tricks to work through it.  Communication techniques exist for her to bring attention and focus to the plight of affected individuals, and explain how that lens informs how she sees immigration issues, that are not morally coercive.

 

____

 

 

Similarly, if *you* were starting from a premise like "land and natural resources cannot be owned," then to my mind, in order to frame productive dialogue that (to use your bolded term) "goes" somewhere, *you* have to find language that bridges the tension between that premise and the empirical reality that we live in a society that -- empirically -- has worked out systems to carve out and define boundaries and enforce property contracts.  Empirically: they can be owned; it is highly likely, that this is obvious to her. Without explicit language that somehow acknowledges your premise -- that morally they oughtn't be -- is an ideal, that frames your worldview, she may feel the discussion is unmoored from the world she lives in.   

 

Otherwise you're just putting decorative embellishment on a painting of Utopia, KWIM?  And she is likely as perplexed on where to "go" from your utopian ideals, as you are on where to go from hers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

* though I concede: this is a bedrock worldview-foundational PREMISE, not something I can easily prove by evidence or "logic," lol

[Bluegoat]

re reframing the terms of the dialogue

 

 

In the first bolded -- what do you mean by "where do you go"?  Is your purpose to bring the other person around, or to understand where she is coming from?  (Bringing another person who starts out with different premises "around," through sheer force of #Brilliant reasoning -- of whatever kind -- is mighty rare.  Finding common ground happens; hauling someone else forcibly over your line is rare.)

 

And in the second -- why would you *care* what you think she may *assume* about your reasoning process?  What does that have to do with anything? To me that would privilege what you believe she believes about your *intentions* -- which to my mind can only ever be partially known even to ourselves, let alone anyone else* -- over the IRL spoken-aloud dialogue that you're actually having in the moment.  To me, that's getting all meta about one another's interior landscape -- in a way that I can barely manage with my husband of 27 years, whom I knew for another 10 before we got married, with whom I literally have grown into maturity -- when it's challenging enough to just focus deeply on one another's expressed WORDS AND ACTIONS.  

 

----

 

If OTOH your dialogue partner is actually saying out loud words like "you need to empathize more with the other guys", that amounts to a setting-the-rules-of-engagement-of-the-dialogue issue.  That kind of language skirts very close to Sadie's "moral coercion" line.  It is certainly ineffective tactically, and in my world illegitimate ethically.

 

But so long as both partners are truly engaged in good faith to the dialogue (that is, of course, a bit IF) there are language tricks to work through it.  Communication techniques exist for her to bring attention and focus to the plight of affected individuals, and explain how that lens informs how she sees immigration issues, that are not morally coercive.

 

____

 

 

Similarly, if *you* were starting from a premise like "land and natural resources cannot be owned," then to my mind, in order to frame productive dialogue that (to use your bolded term) "goes" somewhere, *you* have to find language that bridges the tension between that premise and the empirical reality that we live in a society that -- empirically -- has worked out systems to carve out and define boundaries and enforce property contracts.  Empirically: they can be owned; it is highly likely, that this is obvious to her. Without explicit language that somehow acknowledges your premise -- that morally they oughtn't be -- is an ideal, that frames your worldview, she may feel the discussion is unmoored from the world she lives in.   

 

Otherwise you're just putting decorative embellishment on a painting of Utopia, KWIM?  And she is likely as perplexed on where to "go" from your utopian ideals, as you are on where to go from hers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

* though I concede: this is a bedrock worldview-foundational PREMISE, not something I can easily prove by evidence or "logic," lol

 

 

My immediate purpose is really just to respond to her statement about what I've said.  Don't know that I am exactly trying to convince, though that is in some ways implicit I guess in describing your thinking - otherwise no one would point out what they perceive to be flaws in other's thinking.  The larger purpose is to discuss the issue, from my POV.  What she was thinking in posting the article IDK.

 

As far as what response, I don't know what a person says to show they feel for a person's experience of reality, someone who isn't even in the conversation. If they are already assuming that I haven't thought about that because they don't like the conclusions I've come to, what could I possibly say to convince them otherwise?  What other basis could they have for that conclusion, since that's been the whole conversation?

 

The only thing I can think of is "I have empathy for the difficulty this person is facing" or some more long winded version of that.  I sometimes get the sense that the latter is what is expected, but I find it really discomfiting - it almost feels like posturing or using someone else suffering to support my argument.  In fact I think this at least in part comes down to what you say about other's interior landscapes - why it feels to me like it's presumptuous thing to be asked - who the heck is she to assume anything about my interior intentions?

 

And I am really not clear what it would achieve if I did say that, or even that it would be believed.  

 

As far as trying to make explicit what might be an abstraction or ideal, yes, I totally agree - I would have to attempt to do that and not assume it was obvious.  I don't find that kind of bridging hard to conceptualize even when it is difficult to actually communicate it.

[Bluegoat]

A conversation like what? I don't really understand what kind of conversation you are having that you've described in the OP, because you've summed it up with "empathy is everything" yet I don't see that.

 

"you need to empathize more" means exactly that. So according to the person you are conversing with, you aren't empathizing enough. So, either you aren't capable of more or you don't see them as worthy of more or you don't think there's any more empathy to be had. And the other person does. 

 

As to how would empathy help to untie that kind of knot - maybe it's not untie-able. Is there a moral component that empathy or emotions can highlight? How does logic help untie it? Sometimes the best you can do is agree to disagree. 

 

A conversation about a political/social topic.

 

How would someone I don't know have any idea about whether I empathize or not?

 

This person didn't even address any of the more objective points in the article made and simply said - this writer isn't empathetic, you don't have to believe these arguments, this person is just wired this way.  You can be different.

 

Weirdly, my friend then said she thought the writer had changed her position somewhat and was not more empathetic than in another, earlier article.  Which is totally bizarre to me because her position didn't change at all.

[Bluegoat]

This gets back to something you've said before - what if there is a virtue more important than kindness ? For example, the virtue of attempting to get at truth ? An objective truth ? I can see how one can empathise one's way to 'a' truth - subjective - but if one accepts there is Capital T truth out there - how can you feel yourself there ? Surely it's only by examining the premise and working through from there one can find it ?

 

And is it merely personal preference that a person requires a certain amount of empathising to be performed before looking at the premise of the argument ?

 

I focus on argument, because the only time this matters (to me) is when issues of public policy are at stake, and yes, we are wanting to persuade in those situations, not merely understand.

 

To me, the question is around demands for publicly performed empathy instead of addressing the truth or otherwise of the premise.

 

Yeah.  I think I've always believed that truth is a higher value than kindness, and explicitly so after reading Plato.  I was reminded of it recently in the book group I was attending which is I think what prompted me to mention it on the boards.  It's not that Truth doesn't contain love, because it does and you can't escape that, but you have to order them correctly or you will soon find the outcomes are unloving.  There is too much literature and psychology and myth and art directed toward that reality to poo-poo it IMO.

 

But I think this idea of performing empathy is what I am finding difficult particularly.  It's not just having someone say, we need to remember to think about people's experiences around this, or even that they think it's more important be kind than focus on truth.  It's the sense that there is supposed to be some sort of demonstration.  I'm not exactly a demonstrative person, and I don't come from a very demonstrative culture either.  And it seems to me like something that could be very easily faked and so I can't put much value on it - I don't see how it helps the people in question.