It's always such a pet peeve of mine when people try to frame empathy and rationality as dialectical opposites. Even if in his book he says they aren't, he still gives this implicit assumption merit by the video's framing and syntax. People are not automatons who live in a world of first order logic and can separate emotion from reason. The core of people's decision-making and reasoning _is driven through emotion._ The problem of the matter is which _type_ of emotion. I basically agree with trying to eliminate bias, taking a step back, etc., but the framing used to get there is so needlessly obfuscatory.
100% agree @HerebyOrdinary ... I think that's one of the things that sticks in my craw the most -- using "baiting" language versus just being clear. Working against relation bias should be called "expanding empathy" -- we literally need to expand the size of the groups under consideration in moral judgements. The subject is complicated enough without picking a false fight using aggressive or oppositional terms. I think this kind of problem lies behind in-fighting between groups and individuals who are basically already on the same page and on the same side. Their real opposition just sits back and laughs as they nit-pick each other.
He's incorrectly defining empathy in order to make his point; empathy is NOT simply taking on someone else's emotions as your own. He's not arguing against empathy, although that's a great marketing narrative - he's just arguing for better implementations of it. He's not wrong, just a bit overdramatic about it.
Okay, how are you defining empathy here bud? Can you specify those distinctions? I thought that emotional “perspective taking” was a fairly good vague description of empathy, but then what do I know?
Thank you. I agree. Other researchers and authors with different views (like Brene Brown) provide a more (I believe) wholesome definition of empathy. My favorite is “recognizing and responding appropriately to others’ emotions”. The “emotional empathy” that he mentioned is only a part of true empathy. The other equally important part is the actionable empathy (how do we respond to those emotions). When someone is empathetic to me, I feel seen and heard in a non-judgmental way. I also feel connected to that person. I don’t necessarily need that person to “fix”, solve, advise or even cheer me up. So the “actionable empathy” sometimes simply is about acknowledging the feelings, keep quiet, listen and being present.
@@vuhuong3042 Thanks for the definition, but in what way is the empathy ‘actionable’, exactly, if it isn’t about vocally engaging with the person or soliciting advice? These sound like bullshit buzzwords designed to reduce psychotherapy into something entirely ineffective. I can talk to a wall. If the empathy is actionable then in what way is it actioned by this highly non-engaged, “person-centric” approach?
Empathy is a flawed concept can be easily manipulated both ways by anyone who is pathological, logical arguments and Aristotelian thinking is where its at, never assume anything, usually the people who say and believe they're the victims are actually the abusers, anyone who doesn't align themselves with the truth in all things and live their life accordingly or at least trying their best to.. leave them be, don't waste your time..
after watching this, i now view empathy as a tool for understanding -- understanding that can eventually develop into compassion. thanks for this perspective
Good way to put it, a tool that can be mixed with rationality to try and determine a resolution once we get a feeling or instinctual emotions of what it may feel like. From there we can communicate with ourselves or others to deepen understanding rather than act on assumptions or person bias completely and then cultivate compassion and work at the problem.
I understand the argument, and I see good reasons for the cases where empathy is misplaced. But let me ask one important question: How do we know that the outcome we call rational is the best outcome for everyone? If we cannot answer this question accurately, we are behaving paternalistically.
"How do we know the outcome we call rational is the best outcome for everyone?" By discussing the outcome with everyone. That is compassion: using the rational to process the emotional part not only of one person, but everyone in the situation.
@Gibran Camus In Germany we have a saying, which goes like: Well-intentioned is the opposite of good. (Gut gemeint, ist das Gegenteil von gut.) In my humble opinion every action should be measured by its outcome. There are many example, where the idea was good and the outcome dramatically. One of the most common dramas is the idea when parents dictate the career and the child becomes unhappy as a result. Another is industrialisation and climate change. Supposedly rational decisions can lead to irrational results. It doesn't mean it always will, but it can. And that is exactly what I say. In most cases you simply cannot say, what the best outcome will be. If nobody can say that, but a majority agrees to go for it, we call it democracy. But if only a few people agree, we call it paternalism or on a political level authoritarianism. There are only very very few cases, where a hand full of people really know what the outcome will be. And these cases always have to do with science and always have very few factors.
@@fisicogamer1902 It would be great, if global compassion processed really rationally would be possible. But I really haven't seen anything like this. There's always an irrational catch. Also there is a cognitive bias, which says that supposedly rational actions can lead to irrational outcomes. It's called "rational irrationality". The truth is, there is no real rationality. It is always framed in some kind of context. And that context can change easily.
@@kleckerklotz9620 The "supposed rational actions" are, in fact, actions based on incomplete data. That is a sad fact that is omnipresent in human experience, but we as humans can still do something about it by supporting such people that do such actions. The problem is that emotional empathy brings a lot of people together to pitchfork against someone that did a poorly informed decision. We can't eliminate suffering, but we can for sure as hell alleviate it.
Empathy is just second hand feeling someones emotion. The empathy is not the problem, the problem is the inability to think rationally and critically when emotions are involved.
Which is one of the consequences of empathy’s function interfering with what would otherwise be unclouded moral judgement. This was the thesis he presented us with in this short.
@@tjwoosta I completely agree with you. And I think his conclusion demonised empathy a little too strongly in that he advocated away from the heart and toward the mind as supreme moral arbitrator. We have too much mind and too little heart here in the West right now. But with that being said, any given person must suffer that period of growth in which they are still cultivating the discipline required to temper their emotions, to divorce from them, or to carefully sift through those experientially cacophonous composites of emotions & sensations to parse them into distinct categories, each one connecting that portion of their internal experience to its corresponding environmental stimuli, so that they can better understand the relation between that experienced emotion and its environmental cause, and the purpose (if any) that this given emotion might serve. Thereafter they can determine whether its ‘information’, or influence on them, is helpful to them or not, and under what conditions some given emotion, impulse, or sensation’s reflexive (or “untrained”) response is useful, and how its energies might be most profitably recruited. Since learning to do just that takes any human being some considerable time (being part of the normal developmental process of emotionally maturing), then in the meantime the individual might default to shortcuts, or general principles, because *only* responding reflexively to that cacophonous maelstrom of inputs and forces trying to internally move them in disparate directions, all at once, is what we call “emotional”, a style of behaviour typically deemed to be juvenile, unreliable, and unhelpful. So until we learn to train, understand, and ultimately master our emotions, we haven’t much left to depend on than somewhat more rational means, lest we default instead to only those irrationally frenetic spasms of behaviour characteristic of juvenility, or ‘immaturity’. Hence perhaps this man’s emphasis on mind > heart, or rationality > empathy.
The reason this is relevant to empathy is because ‘emotional empathy’s’ function is to either lock us into a direct 1:1 relationship with another’s internal emotional states, or at very least allow us to creatively reproduce some internal representation of the other person’s emotional state as a “best guess”. Either way, we are experiencing emotions ourselves during that empathic process (provided it’s ‘emotional empathy’ we’re discussing, as in the video, and not its partner ‘cognitive empathy’). So in case 1, any complex of emotions and sensations the other person experiences will affect us, like for like; whereas in case 2 we can only presume that our internal systems will sometimes “messily” reconstruct (essentially imagine) the other person’s internal states, such that we are ourselves subject to some internal cacophony of internal “noise” constituted by some complex mixture of emotions and sensations. Why should we presume our system would cleanly represent another person’s emotional internal life when it has likely not yet learned to resolve its own internal emotional mess? And what if their internal life *is* messy and our system is accurately representing that complexity? Therefore, when empathising with another, we will be subject to just those same difficulties we face when dealing with our *own* internal emotional environment, namely the difficulties arising from its “noisy” and messy complexity, as articulated at length both above and in the previous comment.
being empathetic to a person's situation doesn't necessarily mean your going to become emotional to the point your unable to think critically or rationally.
Empathy is the feeling leads to action. Action can be rational (with rational compassion) or irrational (with vengeance or anger, for example). It's on you to choose how to act.
Not so fast. You need also a safe society to act compassionately. Try to be compassionate towards Jews in Nazi Germany and you'll see that your compassion gets killed with you faster than you can help someone. To be compassionate in such situations is not for everyone: only people that can be smart enough to cover their tracks. That is why we need to spread awareness about the difference about the empathies :emotional and cognitive. He is talking against emotional empathy: to feel what the other person feel, without necessarily helping or hindering the situation.
Why do you think that compassion is rational? I see that there are some benefits, but there are also negatives. For instance people often make themselves and others sick trying to live up to some crazy idea of helping others by wearing themselves and others out. It can also lead to things like overpopulation or bad decisions. A good example would be college costs. They went up because people wanted free education, but the net result was inflation rising and college costs skyrocketing.
@@fisicogamer1902 I guess I don't experience that. I don't instantaneously feel what others do even after putting myself in their position to get their perspective as best I can. And although I agree with your example of Nazi Germany that is a fairly harsh example even though there are many places that holds true today (acting with compassion towards someone who breaks Sharia Law in Afghanistan or helping to protect someone wanted for homosexual acts where they are banned, for examples). But generally speaking, empathy is an emotion and how you choose to react is an action. Even if you fill yourself up with the same emotions as someone else you can learn to not react irrationally to those feelings.
@@bumblebootwiddletoes5185 Yes, that is what we call cognitive empathy- the ability to act based on the understanding of other organisms situation- you don't need to "feel" what they feel, understanding and acting based on that understanding is enough. This is what the video defends. Less "feeling what others feel" and more "acting based on other people's situations"
This guy completely the point of empathy. Empathy is not just feeling what the other persons feels, is understanding the feelings of the other person in a rational and emotional level so you can be more helpful and understanding when you decide to help that person through compassion. Compassion is not a feeling, it's an action, it's an act of love.
You also miss part of it. Aside rational Nd emotional levels, there's the Somatic level, the embodiment of emotions. That's where empathy is. We're asked for more than help, we're asked for support, which is the invisible part of help. How can you give support if empathy makes you feel bad? I reversed this and manage to make people get access to my feelings, by not being affected.
My problem lately is not with empathy but these so-called "empaths". I've even met someone who described themselves as a "hyper-empath", is if they were some sort of x-men. I used to be one of those people that labelled themselves as an empath. Let me explain: I grew up with an alcoholic parent and when they drank it was a living nightmare at home. I was very young, felt very scared and vulnerable. And as a result I became hypervigilant to their emotional state. I would be able to just lay eyes on them once after coming home from school and knew exactly what they were feeling, how their day had been, what I can bring up around them, what'll upset them etc. And this ability transferred to other people too - TO AN EXTENT. I've now come to realise that there was a lot of negativity embedded within my empathy. Sometimes my empathy wasn't actually empathy but an illusionary projection - projecting unreal anger, depression or fragility. So I think when it comes to empathy people also need to take a step back and ask themselves how much of their empathy is actually empathy and how much is projection, because empathy can bring people together but it can also be used as a self-protective mechanism which one needs to be aware of. Our sensors can sometimes be faulty or corrupted. Later in life I'd meet highly emotional, difficult people and their emotions would unsettle me so much that I would cater to their emotional needs like I did to my parent. I was so scared of feeling their second-hand depression, anger or despair that I went out of my way to "help" them. I wasn't helping them though, I was sometimes enabling them. Empathy can make us blind to the validity of people's emotional responses, or rather how they act upon their own emotional responses. I think the real value of empathy is not necessarily to intuit someone's feelings like a psychic ability or to show them how in sync you are with them or how deeply you understand them but I think the purpose of empathy is to be able to sit with someone, listen to what they say, actually listen and not feel what they feel but let them present it to you, in their own way and time. I think it's about showing people you can spend time with their emotions in a shared space, but it's about the time together itself, not only the actual exchange of emotion. Obviously empathy is a valuable thing, but I think you're right, it shouldn't be our ultimate moral compass, it should be controlled to an extent, and one needs to be aware of how "accurate" their own empathy is.
I agree with you! I referred to myself as an empath a while ago too, but I didn't mean it in the same way those people with a superiority complex do. It was just the way I found at the time to refer to my now professionally acknowledged hypersensitivity due to ADHD and a possible autism, which has always caused me to feel overwhelmed and confused. When I learned about the word, I felt like I was finally able to *name* my struggle, and I felt understood. Now it's embarrassing to think of how I probably sounded like using that word. It's just sad that so many people use it with entitlement and consequently make others who are just trying to understand themselves better look bad
100%, I grew up in the same situation basically. I think what you said about being "accurate with empathy", this is about being mindful when feeling empathy, not being reactive on it and allowing yourself the room to actually just think about why you're feeling the empathy and how you should proceed with the feeling, which is the same approach you should have for any feeling for that matter. You should be accurate in understanding why you feel empathy in the first place, for sure. This all comes down to how practiced you are with being mindful and being truly self aware and present, and also what this guy was saying about being rationally compassionate should follow. You can only do this when you're mindful otherwise you'll inevitably get things wrong. To replace empathy with rational compassion I disagree with though, I don't think this guy is exactly right, but right enough. I think they're both part of the same mechanism. I think you need empathy in the first place to act with compassion, other wise you would have no incentive to do so. In order to know what compassion is you must have felt some degree of empathy for the world. I mean I could be wrong but Im pretty sure this is how it works.
@@camihl3841 I'm the same. I personally describe my own autism as always having a strong desire to find the most perfect and logical truth behind something, and so when I see a world of suffering, I find it overwhelming to compute because of all the illogical injustice and all the potential conspiracies of why the world is like it is, etc. I find it unbearable to accept without at least trying to come up with solutions myself. I don't think it's actually anything to do with empathy though and rather I just have an innate desire for truth and when I don't have that, it hurts to the point I've literally stopped functioning in the past, as dramatic as that sounds. If I don't know the truth, I will ponder it for months on a regular basis until I find it. I'm much better now, mainly because I've learnt how to be mindful and present. This stops my brain going mad basically. I can control how I respond when I feel like that now.
Empathy as a linguistic term means first of all only an ability to grasp the emotion of the other person. But this does not mean that I am overwhelmed by the emotion itself! So that I can do this, I need insight and reason as a tool. Rational compassion can never replace empathy because there is something deeply instinctual about empathy that is not tied to cultural conditioning. But empathy cannot replace rational compassion either, because action needs control and regulation. Ultimately, we need empathy and rational compassion in a healthy balance. Striking a balance is something I have to learn. Unfortunately, in Western society we lack the education on how to deal with our feelings and instincts. When we ignore or deny them, massive tensions arise that eventually erupt into outbursts of great irrationality.
@@joeyondakeys yeah I like his point of view but my issue lies in that fact as well. Why does utilizing empathy mean we can't look at issues through other types of logical thinking? Can't we use empathy to assist with rational compassion?
I see you say that in western society you lack the education on how to deal with your feeings and instincts and that you either "ignore or deny them." I respectfully disagree. I think one of the strongest pillars of western education is its teaching of psychology or psychologists. It may be argued that western education itself does not deal with feelings and instincts but it sure gives a student enough knowledge to know that their feeling and instincts are complex entities that need to be evaluated/analysed. This very brief but insightful introduction sparked an interest in me and my very amateur and shallow indulgence in this area led me discover psychotherapy and later cognitive behavioral therapy which has immensely helped me understand my thoughts and feelings. Infact, I will go a step further and say that although yoga and meditation techniques and what is now popular in the west as mindfulness are generally portrayed as a panacea for a healthy and happy life, in my own psychological struggles, I have found CBT far more effective than meditation. My tens of hours of meditation gave me little benefit compared to a few minutes of CBT. Please share your thoughts on this. Thank you.
@@shantanu683 Personally I hardly find anything worthwhile in the popular psychology discourse. Phenomena is described as if all we had to do is learn some patterns and then we would be good. My experience has been opposite, that the lousy explanations, as if they in and of itself were things that we could control, serve no real purpose. Describing a phenomena with psychological terminology is only useful if one can find acceptance of their situation with it, but in my experience it mostly leads to preoccupation with fears. If one wants to try and improve their life in some capacity they are better of with altering their environment and starting some practice that they find suits them. You can't help someone by pointing a finger at someone and presuming they have "disorders" or "illnesses".
@@shantanu683 maybe it's easier to follow cbt that you find it working? The glorification of western science isn't necessary to address the problems associated with the western world view of never ending growth.
Personally, I think morality requires a balance of empathy, emotions, and intellect. All three need to be in balance, but our rational mind (intellect) has to make the final decision about our actions. It sounds similar to what he's saying, so perhaps my version of empathy is compassion.
Empathy is necessary only when one sees oneself as fundamentally separate or independent from others. If others are seen as part of one's greater being, then naturally one has reason to care, much as one avoids causing unnecessary harm to one's own body parts.
Agreed, another things is a lot of the time, we try to be everything at once thinking that it's the best way to approach all scenarios. In reality, we should put on different hats and intelligently decide which state is going to yield the most positive.
that doesn't really work to shift anything in a world that is filled with upside-down paradigms that pathologise the normal and normalise pathology. just saying.
Yes, a minimal effort in this direction makes the world much more understandable, we just don't want to stay, get stuck there. I go quickly from empathy to detachment, it doesn't mean we have to get stuck and expend a lot of of emotional energy which leads to burnout.
My guy would cup his hands around my face and give me a soft kiss and say, "it's going to be alright". More than anything else, this was what I needed at that moment of distress, or anger, or whatever it was I was battling. I wasn't alone. He didn't need to agree with me, I just wanted someone to listen and provide a little comfort. RIP MST.
I thought as I clicked on this video that Mr. Bloom was going to be a malignant narcissist, but I found out that he's actually a rational thinker and I appreciate his viewpoints. They're helpful to me because I tend to be overly empathic. He's allowing me to see this in another way that will likely help myself and others.
I'm 54 and my wife and I are VERY worried about our future, gas and food prices rising daily. We have had our savings dwindle with the cost of living into the stratosphere, we are finding it impossible to replace it. We can get by, but cant seem to get ahead. My condolences to anyone retiring in this crisis, 30years nonstop just for a crooked system to take all you worked for.
@Amina Aliyu Woooo that woman her good work has been everywhere. Been seeing a lot of good comments about her on several places. I feel more confident investing with her, I've been obsessed with her trading strategies
I've had his book on my reading list for almost two years, and I'm more interested in it after watching this. I'm an extremely empathetic person and generally I think people could be better at putting themselves in each other's shoes. But I think he has a point and we also need to be more precise about the words we use and what our needs are. Sometimes is compassion, not empathy, that we need. Sometimes is care. What I will never support is total indifference, contempt and disregard for one another's problems.
Paul Bloom's key points from this video: 0:10 - Empathy is good for some activities (e.g., enjoying a movie) - but not as a moral guide. 0:25 - Empathy (or "emotional empathy"): putting yourself in someone else's shoes and feeling what they feel 0:33 - Many people think empathy is core to being a good person. 0:37 - Paul Bloom's book: "Against Empathy: The Case for Rational Compassion" 0:50 - Empathy is biased and parochial (narrow-minded). Research shows that we mostly empathize with people that are more similar to us (look like us, speak our language, etc.). 1:28 - One argument FOR empathy: the total positive effects of empathy outweigh the total negative effects of empathy (e.g., bias of empathy, tendency to get violent). 1:53 - Even if this is true, there are better alternatives to empathy as a moral guide. 2:00 - Another argument FOR empathy: empathy is vital for intimate relationships. For example, when your partner is mad, your partner wants you to be mad with them. 2:40 - But this isn't true for all feelings (like anxiety). 3:30 - Paul Bloom presents "Rational Compassion" as an alternative to empathy. 3:40 - Rationality is good for achieving goals, but it doesn't tell you which goals. 4:03 - Compassion: caring for others. Compassion can point you to the right goals.
I still don't understand the difference between empathy: putting yourself in someone's shoes and "compassion" which is caring for others. How can you care for others if you can't do empathy?
@@31896eneri Excellent point, Irene. The way I interpret it is: Empathy is to internalize the (emotional) pain that the other person feels, to "feel your pain". Compassion is to say: "I realize that this situation causes you emotional pain. And even though I don't really feel your pain, I realize that this is important to you and thus should be important to all of us. So if there is something we can do to try to help you in dealing with your pain, then we (and more specifically I) should try to do it." I'll give two examples: Someone goes through a gruesome cancer treatment. Can you feel their physical pain and emotional distress? No, unless you yourself have had a similar illness and treatment. But you still should want to cheer them. Or someone mourns the loss of a young child. Can you actually feel their emotional pain if you never had children? Not really. But you still recognize that it is painful to them, and may be able to provide some solace.
Sometimes the excess of empathy can cause certain type of innecesary damage to other people like being overprotective and don't let you son experiment the real world and live his life by his own, the same can goes when the quality of you life increase so much that you giving up and eat in excess and you finish up damaging you own body.
I had never heard anyone present empathy as the planned end-game for interacting with someone until now. I feel the presenter is working through issues to discover what many of us naturally understand. Empathy opens the door to present compassion in a meaningful manner to its recipient.
Well said! Empathy may be ego-centric and flawed (like all human emotions) but in my considerable experience those without empathy are rarely compassionate.
Empathy is what we feel inside and not necessarily the actions that we put out. If my partner for instance is stressed up, by acting empathetically, I will in the first place feel or have the thought of how does it feel like to be stressed up. But I'll have to show empathy also by encouraging him/her.
We need both. Compassion and empathy both help us understand other people's emotions. However, with empathy we're feeling the emotion with people, so therefore we understand their emotions better allowing us to connect with people on a deeper level. However, with compassion, we might understand the emotion a little less, but we're able to have a broader perspective and offer solutions/advice to the people we're feeling compassionate towards. I think both are valuable "tools" that are equally beneficial and should be used with discretion depending on the situation. 😸
I think the issue is that empathy is always going to have the "flaw" of us overlaying a projection of what we think the other person is feeling. For instance, someone close to me may think I sound desperate when on a call with a customer service agent as I was talking fast when in fact I couldn't care less and was aggravated because I made the call to prove a point about something else. I normally dislike phone calls intensely as I hate phone trees and waiting for agents that don't really have any power to make swift changes when an algorithm or a stupid and archaic system is in effect.
I figured out, a few years ago, that my personal moral code is best described as Compassionate Reciprocity. I treat others as I would like to be treated under the same circumstances. I understand that revenge doesn't fix anything (though a Justice System is still necessary as a deterrent to both harm and recidivism). I do try to think about how I would feel if I were in someone else's proverbial shoes, but I try to focus more on the _circumstances that elicit the emotional response_ rather than the emotions themselves. Some of my friends have actually called me a heartless robot because, while they're busy being _triggered,_ I'm considering what facts of the situation they're missing...facts that could _mitigate_ the severity of reactive distress.
I do both, depending on whether I can accurately feel the same thing they are feeling or not. The origin of the emotion is more compelling because then a more tempered and relaxed response can hopefully be determined.
I was feeling very disturbed for the past few months because of being an empathetic person. It was very difficult to carrying all the feelings which were not even entirely mine and I could connect to this video so much now. It is true and the term "rational compassion" did full justice to it. Sometimes we fail to console other person and it downs our own energy in an extended level that it's hard to gather energy for ourselves. Wanting to feel from heart all the time shouldn't be the only solution rather sometimes our head can lead us to a beautiful direction too! Not going entirely against empathy but sometimes being an empath is hard and "rational compassion" can come to rescue. Saying "I am here" is equally beautiful than saying "I can feel you", i think.
I hate when somebody says "calm down" when Im angry. Even though its been said with "helpful" intention. Its more like a "nicely" wrapped demand, rather than being a warm & friendly approach
Well Mr. Psychologist Sir on this one I am in complete agreement compared to the last big think release, Iv argued for rationale compassion before and the idea of taking a much more disimpassioned approach to how we relate and think about one another as yes this has proven worth. You do have quite a polarising but interesting range theories which create some intrigue I will admit.
One of my psychologist friends taught me the method of "Reflect, validate, present options" when I discussed my struggles with teaching my kids to be emotionally intelligent. The basic recipe is to reflect their emotions back at them so they are they're not alone (safety, community); then to affirm that what they're feeling is okay, and not to be shamed (empathy, compassion), then to present options and paths they can take, next, so they can move forward (rational discourse, intellectual abstraction). If we expand this framework to the ideas presented here, empathy is not an alternative to rationale abstraction, but, rather, is complementary to it. Empathy builds trust. Trust builds community Community gives way to rational, collective progress.
Have you considered that people do not _choose_ their emotions or lack thereof? Asking a psychopath, having congenital lack of empathy, to _choose_ empathy is not very helpful. On the other hand, offering a compatible solution may be useful.
the other morning i had a serious conversation with my mom. it was about me my future their level of parenthood and how to continue growing. throughout the conversation i would notice that sometimes she would get very emotional and fight back crying for different reasons. my goal wasnt to make her cry tho but to have a deep understanding so i would try to empathize with that sorrow she felt while also trying to remain unique in my perspective of the discussion. i was still me in all form but because i could empatgize i was able to perceive the situation more clearly and managed to have a pretty decent talk.
i would say empathy is a useful tool for bonding. and now youve got to know whwn youre going to bond with when and how. and theres also places where empathy is a problem holding you back from making better decisions.
I was empathetic with a man and he took advantage of me, I am also against empathy now because people will not feel the same for you will not give it back to you
I’m not sure if this is a product of the video being so condensed, but is some really sophomoric shit. Empathy is bad because people tend to extend it towards people like them and not different people? Then your problem is xenophobia, not with empathy. Oh, mirroring empathy isn’t helpful when someone is stressed? Then using empathy to understand what they’re feeling without literally sharing their feeling is still productive. How could you help them without some understanding of how they feel? And the replacement is “rational compassion,” which I’m not exactly convinced is in opposition to empathy, as defined here. When we use empathy, in practice, it’s not this un-metered flurry of emotions where we just perfectly mirror what somebody else feels and then just sit on our hands. Obviously we use rational thought to arrive at solutions based on our compassion towards others that we often arrive at through our empathetic practice. I think this argument really is just purely semantic and detached from real practice in order to pretend profundity. Lot of that coming from this channel.
I bought this book and it actually made a lot of valid points. I’m also so sick of hearing everybody around me throw the word “empathy” around. Compassion does have a nice ring to it.
Empathy is the feeling that leads to action. Action can be rational or irrational. It's on you to decide how to act (compassion is a rational choice), but if you don't have empathy in the first place you won't care enough to act at all and will thus lack compassion.
Honestly, I do have trouble feeling empathy sometimes. For example, I have co-workers that sometimes talk about how they couldn't buy their kid a certain $300 toy or how they aren't getting everything they want. I honestly can't relate and have no sympathy, empathy, emotions over them getting upset. No one gets everything they want and most people on the planet don't even have food or clean water. I have empathy for people who don't have the basics but when it comes to others not having above and beyond, I feel apathy. Is this wrong?
Without empathy, who's going to have ''rational compassion'. Why would they? And empathy is not a moral giude, it's simply something you feel and act upon. Nothing more. Also, empathy is NOT being a mirror of the other person. It's the ability to feel exactly what the other person needs. And the desire to help them with them that. But maybe we need to HAVE empathy to understand this. There is a downside to empathy, that's is true. But that is all about forgetting too much about yourself. And finally, I'm getting a bit tired of all these so called experts , telling me that I'm doing everything wrong. Sorry for the rant guys, but I had to get this off my chest.
I've been wrestling with my thoughts on this very issue - I agree that unbridled empathy is of little use except to buy into another's traumatic thinking. It offers no solutions; no method to ameliorate the trauma. This piece is a leap forward that really assists my coming to a conclusion.
You misunderstand empathy sir. Empathy is not just a though experiment of putting yourself in someone else's shoes. Empathy is about fully understanding the other person's life experience. We feel the good and bad emotions. Empathy is not just for the bad emotions, it works on all emotions. Of course if you stopped at living vicariously, I think you would be right. You need to have a full understanding of what it means to be that other person. Compassion is great, but it is even better when built upon empathy. I would argue that you can't have rational compassion without first having empathy. 2 cents from a Pawn in the mental health field.
I don't know about that, I am autistic and cannot feel what others feel. So you saying my compassion is flawed? The trump card of psycopaths is that they understand others cognitively, using that to control others. What matters is the action that helps people, not feeling what they feel. Teenagers are a good example. They are bubbling with random emotions due to their hormones. As parents, they can't feel what the teenagers feel, or they will be overwhelmed as well. What they need is a safe world to experiment, and sometimes some tough love to put them in the right path.
@@fisicogamer1902 Autism is not defined by an inability to feel empathy. I currently work as a Behavioral Therapist with youth on the spectrum. I promise you someone that has autism absolutely can feel and express empathy. In fact people on the spectrum have good affective empathy and a strong sense for social problems that plague society. If you honestly cannot feel empathy, then yes I would say your compassion is absolutely flawed. Like in the case of a psychopath. They can be compassionate, but that is due to modeling or because they want to manipulate. You are getting stuck on feeling what others feel and missing the way more vital understanding portion. When you fully understand the other's experience it leads to better action. Action for the sake of action will lead to poor results. Thoughtful action comes from a good understanding. Using your teenager analogy, the parents are best suited to feel what their kids are experiencing as they usually have the best understanding. Whom is best to show compassion to the child, a loving parent or the state? Technically in your world view, the state would be best served to raise all kids, as the state has the greatest ability to act compassion upon the child. Compassion for the sake of compassion is one dimensional and lacks the full understanding that comes with empathy.
@@SoulOfTorment Well, yes autistic people can feel empathy towards others. The problem is that they have difficulties expressing concern for other people's problems and being understood as such. I don't know what you mean about the state being more compassionate than parents. Compassion, as the video say, it is the ability to understand the situation of the other and act based on it. Parents can offer that more than the state. That doesn't need to be connected with feeling what other ones feel. Has to do with being around other people and understanding from where that behavior comes from, instead of labeling it as "just irrational". Now imagine again that the teenager feels suicidal. Would it be helpful to feel suicidal with them? Emotional empathy, aka feeling what others feel is a burden to solve problems, not help. What helps is cognitive empathy, understanding their situation and context and act based on that. Everyone can do this, as long as they can learn, but not everyone can do emotional empathy.
Possibly one of the worst 'good ideas' I've ever heard... Having an understanding of how people might be feeling can only be a good thing. Empathy is different from sympathy - I can try to understand how someone is feeling, but I don't necessarily have to agree with them. But at least, by trying to understand things from their point of view, I gain insight that makes my stance/action far more reasonable and considerate and therefore more likely to be agreeable and successful. A more considerate world with more empathy, not less, is what we need. No, when I'm stressed, I don't want my partner to have little idea about how I'm feeling and just tell me to get over it 🙄... I want them to have an understanding and therefore tailor their intervention to me in a way that is effective at getting me out of the stress and is considerate at the same time. Surely that is better?! I feel this guy has come up with a terrible idea that just 'sounds cool' and 'edgy' and 'thought provoking', but in actual fact it's quite a terrible idea.. He'll most likely just hold on to it forever and I can see him going on about it into his old age, despite how crap it is, because it sounds 'new' and 'revolutionary'... But the reality is that its a terrible idea.
The more important question than is it a terrible idea or not is if it is even possible. Brains would essentially have to be rewired and mating would need to be restricted to those who essentially lack empathy. Not possible nor practical, therefore the idea although terrible is benign
Quote from the Dude: "Well... Yeah?! That's just like... uhm... your opinion man!" Big Think is getting desperate for clicks. İ hope unsubscribing isn't an overreaction.
This one made me roll my eyes. I stoppped at: 'Empathy is racist because people tend to empathize with people who look like them'. Me: 'well this means these people actually lack empathy'
You are correct. "Empathy" only towards your own tribe is actually no empathy, it is simply a narcissist projecting his own feelings onto others he perceives as "being like me".
He built his entire argument on the fact that you only feel empathy for the people who are similar to you. IDK how far that is true and he makes no point explaining it.
Compassion means I feel with you, empathy is complete identification. E.g. acting profession is based on empathy, you have to get into the skin of the character, completely paste it over your feeling to be able to understand their reactions etc., but in real life, as a moral guide, which is the argument here, I can use common sense and logic to rationally deduce and feel with you, without identification.
Empathy is still the basis of this though. Whatever it is that you do after you put yourself in their shoes afterwards is your choice. But empathy is still the foundation.
I have to agree. I think 'being empathetic' has become way too over-emphasized in our society, to the point that you are considered an absolute a-hole if you dare to even question it. But as Bloom points out, empathy that doesn't actually lead to tangible solutions, empathy in which people are merely seeking to pass their emotional state on to others around them, isn't necessarily productive in relationships, and can become harmful if made a habit. There is also a significant difference between 'sympathy' and 'empathy' that I think many don't grasp. I worked for a business owner who saw himself as very empathetic when what he really was, was very sympathetic toward his employees that were struggling. True empathy would have enabled him to create better expecations, better structure and better accountability for his employees, knowing that these things actually help people succeed in their jobs. Instead his sympathy for them absolutely paralyzed his ability to be an effective leader at all and he couldn't do any of the above. .
Empathy is simply a tool with which you can understand another's perspective and emotions. Not that complicated. And if you as a human cannot do it, you have a lot of growing to do!
This is so stupid i am baffled why is it on this page. You need to have empathy recognize anxiety and then react by opposite emotional state. Imagining being in somebody else shoes does not mean always act on that feeling.
I love this guy wow , my mind is opened 🙆♂️I agree because empathy is how society is born, imagine where I’m from in Africa Albino kids were killed because they were a sign of bad omen, someone connected a bad event to the kids and those shared feelings especially from those most affected by the bad happenstance results in a louder voice advocating the killing of innocent kids so In conclusion, empathy can spread more bad than good faster than the speed of light and let’s not talk about how it is a manipulative feeling call me to the Big Think podium I will explain
100% agree. You can also see from a vegan's perspective how poor empathy is as a moral guide: Most people have empathy with their cats and dogs but no empathy at all with pigs, cows, chickens - without a rational and ethically consistent reason but just because of their upbringing and socialization.
I would add region of life in the deciding factors in diet. Northern climates do not support a healthy diet following vegan practices. Advanced technology has made it a possible thing, but economically and environmentally supporting a vegan diet in these areas has negative effects. Increased energy usage to produce the heat and light needed (which makes it vulnerable to energy cost increases), destruction of natural environment to create buildings to produce foods, depleted soils from crops which animal manure is great at fixing. Tropical type regions can produce a sustainable vegan diet without any of the northern climates negatives. On a side note I would add that small scale farming for meat’s and mass production farming of meat’s are two different things. In mass production there is concern for profit and this supersedes compassion. Like egg production and environment are not very pleasant existence for the chickens. Smaller farm’s treat their animals good. There is a lot of hands on care involved which means a good relationship must exist with the animals. Many are part of the farmers daily life for years before butchering is done. For people who do not supply their own foods for themselves there is a big disconnection of what happens to get that food to the shelves for purchase. Assumptions are made from well intended ideals and a narrower information pool. This leaves the aspect of killing. And this often comes down to personal determination. Is stepping on an ant killing it immoral? Is putting down a suffering animal moral? I only know about small scale butchering. The fastest, least painful & most humane way is used to kill. If the animal suffers it’s a bad butchering. So assuming that no rational or ethical reasons exist for omnivorous diets beyond upbringing and socializing has omitted the climatic and environmental aspects. Both are quite rational and ethical when done humanely.
@@kariannecrysler640 Do you apply the same reasoning to eating cats and dogs? If I treat my dog really well and if my dog is part of my daily life for years would it be moral to shoot her in the head or slit her throat just because I like the taste of her muscles/inner organs? Because this is what I was talking about: selective empathy. Edit: I am not talking about suffering, frankly I think it's cynical to reduce morality to the question of suffering. As if life had nothing else to offer.
@@hester234 if you want to raise and eat dog, go for it. It is not my personal choice, but it happens all over the world. Your way is not the only way, nor is mine. The whole point is to respect that. So, some person who has ate dog their entire lives, because it’s culturally normal is due their respect too. I also don’t plan on eating insects or snails which are considered delicacies in some cultures, but I am going to support their right to choose for themselves and not pass judgment on them for being different than myself.
@@kariannecrysler640 So moral relativism is the answer? Why not make everything a mere personal choice when it comes to humans? Edit: I think it's quite fascinating that people pretend to be totally fine with cruelty as soon as you point our their cognitive dissonance when it comes to animal exploitation. Just look at this thread, how it started, and now we are at "everything humans do to animals is fine because morality is just about personal choices". Or is this a strawman? If I misunderstood you, please clarify. Do you draw a line between right and wrong and if yes, where is it?
You're right. I suffered from very bad things caused by empathy. Till this morning, I realized that the bad choices in my life are all caused by empathy--I absorb other people's bad feelings and try to be a good person, but that hurts me and my life.
That’s all that is thnx for the comment, I was hoping someone else felt this way so I guess we are experiencing empathy lol . This guy is old and feels old lol ahh old people
I agree with everything that he's said. However the one thing I think about is the fact that I attribute empathy with seeing eyes unclouded by baise or hate. Not being biased and becoming a mirror of the other person. But genuinely fully understanding them and all that they are, and working to find the right solution to improve their life. Honestly my definition aligns with what he calls rational compassion. And that I appreciate.
I think, in my opinion, a better way to go about it is to learn to set boundaries. Learn to distinguish between their feelings and yours. “Ok I feel for this person, however these are not MY feelings these are their feelings. I can relate to their experience/ emotions but I am not in that/their situation. I am ok, I am safe.” This still allows you to put yourself into the other person’s shoes without having to carry the weight of someone else’s emotions, internalizing it and making it your own. In the long run that can lead to emotional burn out. Especially if you have a hard time separating other people’s feelings from your own and end up soaking up a lot of negative energy around you. Perhaps this is an alternative to or what was meant with “rational compassion”, granted I’ve never read the book.
If only you know what the future says, you'll know that indeed cryptocurrency is the future, investing in it now will be the wisest thing to do. Hold!!! And you'll thank yourself
The best investment one can do right now is to invest in Forex and Crypto market through stocks are good. To me, trading the forex and crypto market is way better than any online investment 💯
She has been trading for me, her strategies are wonderful and she made me see binary and forex trade from a different dimension. I keep making profits weekly
@@puppy.t2602 Great! I personally love proving people wrong but investing in bitcoin for me has not been impressing. How much exactly do you make of you don't mind me asking
Empathy should only be for the people closest to us, empathy cannot exist for people we don’t know on the other side of the world, compassion can. I see empathy only as an option for the ones closest to me. But we still need it in our closest relationships with partners, parents, children, etc. I think we all need a little morality, empathy and compassion, if these aren’t there there is a problem.
@@Bc232klm no I’m 41 and I agree with him. You simply cannot feel empathy( feeling what someone else feels) with for example a war victim if you don’t stand in their shoes or are in the exact same position, that’s called compassion. And I think the brain word you mean is amygdala… and a couple of other little parts connected
The only problem is that emotions are hard to contain within certain boundaries. Besides empathy breeds on polarity: if I empathize strongly with someone, it means that I'll antipatize other people also strongly. Also, if a close friend is overwhelmed with emotion, that friend doesn't need someone to feel that. That friend needs someone to just help them through that emotion. This is done with rationality, not with empathy.
@@fisicogamer1902 but how does rationality work if empathy is outed in a fight between spouses? If one person really hurt the other one(big lie or cheating or something big) and you have to fight/talk but there is no empathy or compassion…. Only morality and that will be the morality of the one who hurtled the other one? This will be a problem because their morality was lowered the problem started….
@@MsDutch Everyone has their own morality. In good relationships that morality should be shared at a certain level. No relationship can work when people have completely different morals. There are many ways to solve that situation and not a single one involves feeling what the other feels. One can end the relationship, give the relationship a timeout to reorganize their own arguments, or create a new relationship with new rules. All of those options involve morality and rationality, not feeling what the other felt.
The whole point of empathy is to remove bias and apply to all. He starts with someone who is ignorant to empathy’s application and purpose. Its not about natural inclination, it’s about supernatural application and MINDFULNESS. Understanding leads to EFFECTIVE solutions. You have to be able to understand, then problem solve. Having empathy is not the final destination. How he using empathy wrong?
"When someone falls into a hole, sympathy is jumping into the hole with him. Empathy/compassion is offering him a hand to get out."..As I remember it from Dan Millman.
Interesting point about personal empathy and mindful rational moral action.👍 Truly transcendent universal empathy is not imagining yourself in anyone else's shoes but actually understanding what it is like to be in the other's position. :)
Any emotional response to another person without some measure of logical application or some set of rational boundaries is pretty much _always_ going to lead to some negative effect. Most people realize and understand this just as a matter of course. It's one of those "common sense" sorts of understanding. The portion of the populace that doesn't understand this is a tiny minority. Small enough that discussing this "revelation" is rather pointless. It's why, generally, we naturally empathize more with a victim of violence than a perpetrator of violence. This guy is saying something akin to "I'm against the color blue because, if the color blue is on a hot water faucet, it can be misleading". NO! Really? Shocking!
You tend to think that humans use rationality to override their emotions frequently. Not when empathy is at play. Take nazi germany as an example. Because of empathy, most of the population was dominated by anger against jews, while the other part was paralyzed by fear of the drawback of standing against the government. Empathy , or "emotional empathy" , as the video says it, isn't a switch you turn on or off: it is someething that always fires especially in tough situations in life. Controlling it is much more difficult than you think. Mass hysterias and pitchforking are caused by emotional empathy.
@@fisicogamer1902 All your response does is illustrate the part of my comment that says "without some measure of logical application or some set of rational boundaries". Humans don't normally react or respond strictly on emotion except in extreme circumstances. That's what it means to be rational. It's the very definition of the term.
@@BigRalphSmith "Humans don't normally react or respond strictly on emotion except in extreme circumstance"That is the point. Who decides a circumstance is extreme? Emotions! That is why when we need the most rationality, all we have are feelings that hinder our progress. We can be better than that, by observing more and choosing ourselves more, without feeling involved. That is one of the points of the video.
@@BigRalphSmith Maybe I wasn't clear enough. You seem to believe that only a tiny minority of people act based on raw emotions. The truth is actually the opposite: When we most need logical plans, that is when our emotional brain dominates and makes us act impulsively. That is why we need to create a culture to turn off these instinctual reactions that are bad for interpersonal relationships.
Lost me when he said, and I'm paraphrasing here, that "we only empathize with people who look like us, who speak our language." This is demonstrably false.
Morals come from personal and group values. Many values can be held without empathy. The real question is, which values are most promoted by modern society?
@@FalseCogs Values can be irrational and just based in the indoctrination and the believes that other have to accept since his childhood just because other people repeat the same thing to them.
This is very interesting. I know many people who are, individually, very empathetic, but lack any critical analysis for it once it isn’t directly in front of them.
"If you have to be persuaded, reminded, bullied, pressured, incentivized, lied to, guilt tripped, cohersed, socially shamed, Censored, threatened, paid, and Criminalized, if all Of this is necessary to gain your compliance, you can Be Absolutely certain what is being promoted is not in your best interest, to whom understand the truth I love you guys, You remind me that I'm not going crazy, and That the state of affairs of our time is Abhorrently pathological, I wish you all And myself the strength to endure what is to come." ~ Larry Lee
My issue with a lot of the pop psychology world is that most of the work feels like semantics arguments. This gets us nowhere and is more a response to the interpretation that we can just feel what others feel, and that empathy has no utility for issues like climate change. Going off of the guise of "rationale compassion" seems to make sense, but underscores the types of biases that also come with "rationality". There is no objective right to many things, sometimes there are subjective agreements or cohesion. Without considering and trying to understand all parties involved we achieve shortcomings in our own framing of the world. What he frames here is a limited scope of empathy and emotional investigation that is based off of studies of how empathy is most commonly used. I think it's more advantageous to argue for the listening and understanding of unrepresented parties in a given society. They are often left out of rational solutions because of the framing of fields like psychology (which tends to naturalize a norm whether or not it is a condition of society and not human nature)
You are going into a tangent here. He isn't talking about governing countries. It's what we can do as individuals. If I have a biased opinion, I have to use rationality to break it. That is why he frames rationality so much. But emotions aren't necessarily wrong, so we have to think about them as well and understand them. Only after that we can come to a decision. All you said is embedded in the process that the guy in the video said. You are just going into the details about the compassion process.
@@fisicogamer1902 he specifically talks about social organization for "rationale compassion". To me that's just a way to say be more critical about how empathy is interpreted and used. It's impossible to argue with him because it's a semantics argument that imo feels like a response to social justice movements that argue for understanding of their particular cause. It's not that far from a "facts don't care about your feelings" position to me. I argue that line of thinking does nothing to get people out of their personal biases but rather reinforces them. They don't truly understand that there are multiple forms of rationality and that objectivity is not only illusive but not possible for people to come to. Everything has a context, and a bias. A lot of social fields of study fall into this pitfall of feeling they can be unbiased (particularly psychology and economics)
@@Newjawns42 biases are generally based on feelings. The guy argues that, the more we can take those out of the equation, the less biased we will be. The more people understand that, the less harsh we are going to judge each other and more compassionate we will be towards not a group, but towards human beings and organisms in general.
@@fisicogamer1902 I disagree, I think biases may involve feelings but can also be systemic blindspots or influenced by the dominant culture. It's like how if you train ai only a certain type of dog, it's perception of what dogs are like may be ill informed, there may be contradictions amoungst breeds, external factors such as human influence, environmental factors that make studying the most common breed alone insufficient in grasping a good picture. Humans are individual but in the aggregate move as systems, these systems are strong enough to make it hard to distinguish what is natural about us and what is constructed by external forces. Biases are hard to account for when there is a lack of critical analysis of external forces and blindspots. Empathy is one such tool to demystify some blindspots but not the only tool.
@@Newjawns42 Biases don't necessarily shape our actions. Suppose I hate black people, but I know discriminating them is a crime, so I treat them as neutral as possible. I won't commit racism, even if I am as biased as someone that commits racism. In this case, i used rationality to understand my own biases and stop them from shaping my actions. Cultural biases are such systems that one can break free with rational intention. One way is exposing oneself to a new culture through learning a new language, for example. Now, when the bias is in the emotions of one's being, it is really difficult, or near-nigh impossible to not shape our actions in some way. Cultural biases don't necessarily need to shape our actions. Awareness of one's biases leads to control of them to not shape our behavior in bad ways. This comes with rationality, not empathy.
That morality is tribal is for a very good reason - altruism as reciprocity is only guaranteed when applied within a small group. It doesn't have any evolutionary benefits when it's indiscriminate. So, in a sense - it might be much more rational than you think.
there are 2 types of empathy: cognitive and emotional. Cognitive empathy: deciding what to do to help or hinder that person's situation. Emotional empathy: feeling what the other person is feeling. Just don't use the emotional empathy and grow your cognitive empathy.
@@fisicogamer1902 What do you mean "don't use the emotional empathy"? Surely it's automatic? And surely it has function outside of what's being discussed? Are you not just using a mixture of both at various levels anyway? Are we just talking about balance?... Wouldn't optimal just look like people being educated enough on the subject to understand the pitfalls?
@@captainprivate3768 you see it arising, but let it fade away before acting. Don't act while it is dominating your system. No, I don't use emotional empathy because when i see the suffering of other people I just get anxious, or annoyed, instead of "feeling what they feel". Instead I talk to them and try to understand the root of their suffering. I try my best to not pick sides. We are not talking about balance: we are talking about abandoning emotional empathy and use cognitive empathy only.
For the first 2 minutes my argument is: I personally do not feel empathy for a specific group or people. Though it has taken some self evaluation and reflection to get to that point. I feel empathy for people who I feel deserve that empathy. e.g those in poverty, difficult situations, mental health issues, forced into situations
He is talking to a popular but flawed understanding of empathy, that is empathy involves taking on whatever is going on for the other person. This is crap. It is simply about recognizing that people are in a different place to us, whether that is a bad day, different moral codes, or just people we have nothing in common with. Empathy doesn't mean we have to take on their view, or indulge it, it simply means we can acknowledge the difference, and engage with them without judging them. It works.
We dont need to disregard empathy, we need to be more emotionally mature to understand and help others , the guy said we need someone 'intelligent 'to calm our anxiety down , but does he even know that high empathy is a sign of intelligence? He seems like he dosent know what he's talking about and just fucking around with words around the same point . Tbh wasted my time.
You are confusing the 2 empathies. The "High empathy" that you said , is "cognitive empathy" and involves understanding the situation of the other and taking a rational decision to help or hinder the other person. The other that he talks on the video, is "emotional empathy" and is only feeling what the other person is feeling, without necessarily helping or hindering the other person.
Brilliant way to think. But it would stem from environment and education. Compassion and morals are learned , so limiting people to these aspects requires trust of the teachers intentions and beliefs. It also makes them vulnerable, to be a lost knowledge in a dire situation. To make it a more solid ideal the addition of accountability and a basic respect for life & what’s needed to sustain it, would give greater assurances to overcome possible inadequacies of beliefs and actions. And I would add that empathy could be an opening act to the show of compassion. A steppingstone in the journey to intelligent choices that cause no harm. Because it takes a lot of brainstorming from many different angles to find solutions that benefit all. One of the greatest aspects of this channel. Let Paul Bloom know he is quickly becoming my favorite here😁💚
He's deciding incorrectly that empathy doesn't already cover the kind of rational compassion that he's talking about. Basically he's creating a syntax problem and solving it by changing syntax.
I am from Denver Colorado USA I connected with her and she has helped me a lot,she makes so much profit for me she is a FINRA agent, the best I can invest with so far ever since I came across expert Mrs Angela Cole Carr, my bad turned out being good and profitable. She's made success earlier than we thought.
A bit silly. If empathy is defined as putting yourself in the other's shoes and trying to imagine how they feel, then that does not necessarily lead to mirroring their behaviour. And I cannot be the only one who thinks that empathy and compassion are hardly any different in everyday usage.
I'm going to shower you with attention and my awareness. I'm going to give you a lot of my time. I'm going to be in physical proximity to you. I'm going to touch you, hold you, cuddle you. I'm going to try to connect with you physically, emotionally, intellectually, spiritually. I'm going to take good care of you. I'm going to care about your needs. I'm going to help you to meet your needs. I'm going to help you to survive. I'm going to shelter you from excessive suffering, fear and trauma. I'm going to have your back. I'm going to defend you and be loyal to you. I'm going to take on your agenda as my own. I'm going to make you an extension of me. I'm going to treat you as well as i would treat myself. I'm going to be happy for you when you succeed. I'm going to want for you what you most want for yourself. I'm going to sacrifice for you and work on your behalf. I'm going to support you nurture you and encourage you. I'm going to cheerlead you. I'm going to encourage your self-exploration, self-expression and self-actualization. I'm going to respect your sovereignty as a consciousness. I'm not going to try to manipulate you, control you, dominate you or exploit you. I'm going to totally accept you and never judge you. I'm going to value you for your sake and appreciate you and see your intrinsic beauty. I'm not going to need anything from you and I'm not going to make you a tool to satisfy my own needs. I'm going to respect your point of view, wanting to understand your point of view, wanting to understand you, your uniqueness, taking the time to deeply get to know you. I'm not going to force my agenda or point of view on you. I'm going to listen to you and care about your interests and share similar interests with you. I'm going to develop togetherness with you and collaborate with you. I'm going to be there for you when you're down and hopeless. I'm going to be there for you when you're lonely. I'm going to validate your feelings, sharing your emotions with you, empathizing with you. Your pain is going to be my pain. I'm going to meet you where you're at, at your developmental level. I'm going to forgive you for your mistakes. I'm going to be patient with you. I'm going to see the good in you even when you don't see the good in yourself. I'm going to be generous and kind. I'm going to give you verbal approval and praise. I'm going to compliment you on your uniqueness. I'm going to keep my promises to you. I'm going to keep my peace with you, avoid conflict with you. I'm going to tell the truth to you. You're going to be able to fully trust me and I'm never going to cash in on that trust. I'm going to see your realness, warts and shadow and all as you truly are. I'm going to deeply appreciate the finite portion of consciousness that you are and I'm going to accept your selfishness whenever you have the urge to be selfish. Now ask yourself on a scale of 0 to 10 how loved do you feel? Open Your Eyes. 😂🦘🦘🧨
The best way of being empathetic is being truly genuine of the pain of others ! Cry sincerely, Be happy sincerly with another person ! Be genuine with other ! Be honest and be compassionate !
OMG Finally someone is telling how exactly how I feel. People keep telling me I need to have empathy, but many people suffer or have hardship because of their own choices and actions.
I strongly question the notion that we have more empathy to people who look like us. If you grow up with a more diverse range of ethnicity etc. You develop empathy for all kinds of people. As someone who is of mixed race I don't developed a biased empathy to mixed-raced people. Your biases come from your environment not your genes.
It's always such a pet peeve of mine when people try to frame empathy and rationality as dialectical opposites. Even if in his book he says they aren't, he still gives this implicit assumption merit by the video's framing and syntax. People are not automatons who live in a world of first order logic and can separate emotion from reason. The core of people's decision-making and reasoning _is driven through emotion._ The problem of the matter is which _type_ of emotion.
I basically agree with trying to eliminate bias, taking a step back, etc., but the framing used to get there is so needlessly obfuscatory.
Completely agree
empathy should be a skill that you use, not a condition that you suffer
Which is ironic, because the people who think they are “logical” and “factual” are quite literally the most emotional and deluded liars of us all….
@@Darth_Bateman kind of makes sense, if they are blind to their biases, they will have a harder time applying any corrections.
100% agree @HerebyOrdinary ... I think that's one of the things that sticks in my craw the most -- using "baiting" language versus just being clear. Working against relation bias should be called "expanding empathy" -- we literally need to expand the size of the groups under consideration in moral judgements. The subject is complicated enough without picking a false fight using aggressive or oppositional terms. I think this kind of problem lies behind in-fighting between groups and individuals who are basically already on the same page and on the same side. Their real opposition just sits back and laughs as they nit-pick each other.
He's incorrectly defining empathy in order to make his point; empathy is NOT simply taking on someone else's emotions as your own. He's not arguing against empathy, although that's a great marketing narrative - he's just arguing for better implementations of it. He's not wrong, just a bit overdramatic about it.
Okay, how are you defining empathy here bud? Can you specify those distinctions?
I thought that emotional “perspective taking” was a fairly good vague description of empathy, but then what do I know?
Thank you. I agree. Other researchers and authors with different views (like Brene Brown) provide a more (I believe) wholesome definition of empathy. My favorite is “recognizing and responding appropriately to others’ emotions”. The “emotional empathy” that he mentioned is only a part of true empathy. The other equally important part is the actionable empathy (how do we respond to those emotions). When someone is empathetic to me, I feel seen and heard in a non-judgmental way. I also feel connected to that person. I don’t necessarily need that person to “fix”, solve, advise or even cheer me up. So the “actionable empathy” sometimes simply is about acknowledging the feelings, keep quiet, listen and being present.
also check out cognitive vs. affective empathy distinction often used in psych.
@@vuhuong3042 Thanks for the definition, but in what way is the empathy ‘actionable’, exactly, if it isn’t about vocally engaging with the person or soliciting advice?
These sound like bullshit buzzwords designed to reduce psychotherapy into something entirely ineffective. I can talk to a wall. If the empathy is actionable then in what way is it actioned by this highly non-engaged, “person-centric” approach?
Empathy is a flawed concept can be easily manipulated both ways by anyone who is pathological, logical arguments and Aristotelian thinking is where its at, never assume anything, usually the people who say and believe they're the victims are actually the abusers, anyone who doesn't align themselves with the truth in all things and live their life accordingly or at least trying their best to.. leave them be, don't waste your time..
after watching this, i now view empathy as a tool for understanding -- understanding that can eventually develop into compassion. thanks for this perspective
Good way to put it, a tool that can be mixed with rationality to try and determine a resolution once we get a feeling or instinctual emotions of what it may feel like. From there we can communicate with ourselves or others to deepen understanding rather than act on assumptions or person bias completely and then cultivate compassion and work at the problem.
I understand the argument, and I see good reasons for the cases where empathy is misplaced. But let me ask one important question: How do we know that the outcome we call rational is the best outcome for everyone? If we cannot answer this question accurately, we are behaving paternalistically.
"How do we know the outcome we call rational is the best outcome for everyone?"
By discussing the outcome with everyone. That is compassion: using the rational to process the emotional part not only of one person, but everyone in the situation.
@Gibran Camus In Germany we have a saying, which goes like: Well-intentioned is the opposite of good. (Gut gemeint, ist das Gegenteil von gut.) In my humble opinion every action should be measured by its outcome. There are many example, where the idea was good and the outcome dramatically. One of the most common dramas is the idea when parents dictate the career and the child becomes unhappy as a result. Another is industrialisation and climate change. Supposedly rational decisions can lead to irrational results. It doesn't mean it always will, but it can. And that is exactly what I say. In most cases you simply cannot say, what the best outcome will be. If nobody can say that, but a majority agrees to go for it, we call it democracy. But if only a few people agree, we call it paternalism or on a political level authoritarianism. There are only very very few cases, where a hand full of people really know what the outcome will be. And these cases always have to do with science and always have very few factors.
@@fisicogamer1902 It would be great, if global compassion processed really rationally would be possible. But I really haven't seen anything like this. There's always an irrational catch.
Also there is a cognitive bias, which says that supposedly rational actions can lead to irrational outcomes. It's called "rational irrationality". The truth is, there is no real rationality. It is always framed in some kind of context. And that context can change easily.
Sometimes a person wants comforting but has no real desire for rational changes. Then it becomes a game of subtle hints wrapped in empathy.
@@kleckerklotz9620 The "supposed rational actions" are, in fact, actions based on incomplete data. That is a sad fact that is omnipresent in human experience, but we as humans can still do something about it by supporting such people that do such actions. The problem is that emotional empathy brings a lot of people together to pitchfork against someone that did a poorly informed decision. We can't eliminate suffering, but we can for sure as hell alleviate it.
Empathy is just second hand feeling someones emotion. The empathy is not the problem, the problem is the inability to think rationally and critically when emotions are involved.
Which is one of the consequences of empathy’s function interfering with what would otherwise be unclouded moral judgement. This was the thesis he presented us with in this short.
@@117Industries I would argue that it is not a function of empathy, but a lack of discipline.
@@tjwoosta I completely agree with you. And I think his conclusion demonised empathy a little too strongly in that he advocated away from the heart and toward the mind as supreme moral arbitrator. We have too much mind and too little heart here in the West right now. But with that being said, any given person must suffer that period of growth in which they are still cultivating the discipline required to temper their emotions, to divorce from them, or to carefully sift through those experientially cacophonous composites of emotions & sensations to parse them into distinct categories, each one connecting that portion of their internal experience to its corresponding environmental stimuli, so that they can better understand the relation between that experienced emotion and its environmental cause, and the purpose (if any) that this given emotion might serve. Thereafter they can determine whether its ‘information’, or influence on them, is helpful to them or not, and under what conditions some given emotion, impulse, or sensation’s reflexive (or “untrained”) response is useful, and how its energies might be most profitably recruited.
Since learning to do just that takes any human being some considerable time (being part of the normal developmental process of emotionally maturing), then in the meantime the individual might default to shortcuts, or general principles, because *only* responding reflexively to that cacophonous maelstrom of inputs and forces trying to internally move them in disparate directions, all at once, is what we call “emotional”, a style of behaviour typically deemed to be juvenile, unreliable, and unhelpful.
So until we learn to train, understand, and ultimately master our emotions, we haven’t much left to depend on than somewhat more rational means, lest we default instead to only those irrationally frenetic spasms of behaviour characteristic of juvenility, or ‘immaturity’. Hence perhaps this man’s emphasis on mind > heart, or rationality > empathy.
The reason this is relevant to empathy is because ‘emotional empathy’s’ function is to either lock us into a direct 1:1 relationship with another’s internal emotional states, or at very least allow us to creatively reproduce some internal representation of the other person’s emotional state as a “best guess”. Either way, we are experiencing emotions ourselves during that empathic process (provided it’s ‘emotional empathy’ we’re discussing, as in the video, and not its partner ‘cognitive empathy’).
So in case 1, any complex of emotions and sensations the other person experiences will affect us, like for like; whereas in case 2 we can only presume that our internal systems will sometimes “messily” reconstruct (essentially imagine) the other person’s internal states, such that we are ourselves subject to some internal cacophony of internal “noise” constituted by some complex mixture of emotions and sensations. Why should we presume our system would cleanly represent another person’s emotional internal life when it has likely not yet learned to resolve its own internal emotional mess? And what if their internal life *is* messy and our system is accurately representing that complexity?
Therefore, when empathising with another, we will be subject to just those same difficulties we face when dealing with our *own* internal emotional environment, namely the difficulties arising from its “noisy” and messy complexity, as articulated at length both above and in the previous comment.
being empathetic to a person's situation doesn't necessarily mean your going to become emotional to the point your unable to think critically or rationally.
Empathy is the feeling leads to action. Action can be rational (with rational compassion) or irrational (with vengeance or anger, for example). It's on you to choose how to act.
Not so fast. You need also a safe society to act compassionately. Try to be compassionate towards Jews in Nazi Germany and you'll see that your compassion gets killed with you faster than you can help someone. To be compassionate in such situations is not for everyone: only people that can be smart enough to cover their tracks. That is why we need to spread awareness about the difference about the empathies :emotional and cognitive. He is talking against emotional empathy: to feel what the other person feel, without necessarily helping or hindering the situation.
Why do you think that compassion is rational? I see that there are some benefits, but there are also negatives. For instance people often make themselves and others sick trying to live up to some crazy idea of helping others by wearing themselves and others out. It can also lead to things like overpopulation or bad decisions. A good example would be college costs. They went up because people wanted free education, but the net result was inflation rising and college costs skyrocketing.
@@fisicogamer1902 I guess I don't experience that. I don't instantaneously feel what others do even after putting myself in their position to get their perspective as best I can. And although I agree with your example of Nazi Germany that is a fairly harsh example even though there are many places that holds true today (acting with compassion towards someone who breaks Sharia Law in Afghanistan or helping to protect someone wanted for homosexual acts where they are banned, for examples). But generally speaking, empathy is an emotion and how you choose to react is an action. Even if you fill yourself up with the same emotions as someone else you can learn to not react irrationally to those feelings.
@@crpggamerI guess the point is that people should feel empathy for others and then respond with rational compassion. I'll change it.
@@bumblebootwiddletoes5185 Yes, that is what we call cognitive empathy- the ability to act based on the understanding of other organisms situation- you don't need to "feel" what they feel, understanding and acting based on that understanding is enough. This is what the video defends. Less "feeling what others feel" and more "acting based on other people's situations"
This guy completely the point of empathy. Empathy is not just feeling what the other persons feels, is understanding the feelings of the other person in a rational and emotional level so you can be more helpful and understanding when you decide to help that person through compassion. Compassion is not a feeling, it's an action, it's an act of love.
You also miss part of it. Aside rational Nd emotional levels, there's the Somatic level, the embodiment of emotions. That's where empathy is.
We're asked for more than help, we're asked for support, which is the invisible part of help.
How can you give support if empathy makes you feel bad? I reversed this and manage to make people get access to my feelings, by not being affected.
My problem lately is not with empathy but these so-called "empaths". I've even met someone who described themselves as a "hyper-empath", is if they were some sort of x-men. I used to be one of those people that labelled themselves as an empath. Let me explain:
I grew up with an alcoholic parent and when they drank it was a living nightmare at home. I was very young, felt very scared and vulnerable. And as a result I became hypervigilant to their emotional state. I would be able to just lay eyes on them once after coming home from school and knew exactly what they were feeling, how their day had been, what I can bring up around them, what'll upset them etc. And this ability transferred to other people too - TO AN EXTENT. I've now come to realise that there was a lot of negativity embedded within my empathy. Sometimes my empathy wasn't actually empathy but an illusionary projection - projecting unreal anger, depression or fragility. So I think when it comes to empathy people also need to take a step back and ask themselves how much of their empathy is actually empathy and how much is projection, because empathy can bring people together but it can also be used as a self-protective mechanism which one needs to be aware of. Our sensors can sometimes be faulty or corrupted. Later in life I'd meet highly emotional, difficult people and their emotions would unsettle me so much that I would cater to their emotional needs like I did to my parent. I was so scared of feeling their second-hand depression, anger or despair that I went out of my way to "help" them. I wasn't helping them though, I was sometimes enabling them. Empathy can make us blind to the validity of people's emotional responses, or rather how they act upon their own emotional responses.
I think the real value of empathy is not necessarily to intuit someone's feelings like a psychic ability or to show them how in sync you are with them or how deeply you understand them but I think the purpose of empathy is to be able to sit with someone, listen to what they say, actually listen and not feel what they feel but let them present it to you, in their own way and time. I think it's about showing people you can spend time with their emotions in a shared space, but it's about the time together itself, not only the actual exchange of emotion.
Obviously empathy is a valuable thing, but I think you're right, it shouldn't be our ultimate moral compass, it should be controlled to an extent, and one needs to be aware of how "accurate" their own empathy is.
Well thought-out, and your experiences explain your position. Thanks for sharing.
I agree with you! I referred to myself as an empath a while ago too, but I didn't mean it in the same way those people with a superiority complex do. It was just the way I found at the time to refer to my now professionally acknowledged hypersensitivity due to ADHD and a possible autism, which has always caused me to feel overwhelmed and confused. When I learned about the word, I felt like I was finally able to *name* my struggle, and I felt understood. Now it's embarrassing to think of how I probably sounded like using that word.
It's just sad that so many people use it with entitlement and consequently make others who are just trying to understand themselves better look bad
I think your comment is beautifully written and profound. Thank you for sharing.
100%, I grew up in the same situation basically.
I think what you said about being "accurate with empathy", this is about being mindful when feeling empathy, not being reactive on it and allowing yourself the room to actually just think about why you're feeling the empathy and how you should proceed with the feeling, which is the same approach you should have for any feeling for that matter. You should be accurate in understanding why you feel empathy in the first place, for sure. This all comes down to how practiced you are with being mindful and being truly self aware and present, and also what this guy was saying about being rationally compassionate should follow. You can only do this when you're mindful otherwise you'll inevitably get things wrong. To replace empathy with rational compassion I disagree with though, I don't think this guy is exactly right, but right enough. I think they're both part of the same mechanism. I think you need empathy in the first place to act with compassion, other wise you would have no incentive to do so. In order to know what compassion is you must have felt some degree of empathy for the world. I mean I could be wrong but Im pretty sure this is how it works.
@@camihl3841 I'm the same. I personally describe my own autism as always having a strong desire to find the most perfect and logical truth behind something, and so when I see a world of suffering, I find it overwhelming to compute because of all the illogical injustice and all the potential conspiracies of why the world is like it is, etc. I find it unbearable to accept without at least trying to come up with solutions myself. I don't think it's actually anything to do with empathy though and rather I just have an innate desire for truth and when I don't have that, it hurts to the point I've literally stopped functioning in the past, as dramatic as that sounds. If I don't know the truth, I will ponder it for months on a regular basis until I find it. I'm much better now, mainly because I've learnt how to be mindful and present. This stops my brain going mad basically. I can control how I respond when I feel like that now.
Empathy as a linguistic term means first of all only an ability to grasp the emotion of the other person. But this does not mean that I am overwhelmed by the emotion itself! So that I can do this, I need insight and reason as a tool. Rational compassion can never replace empathy because there is something deeply instinctual about empathy that is not tied to cultural conditioning. But empathy cannot replace rational compassion either, because action needs control and regulation. Ultimately, we need empathy and rational compassion in a healthy balance. Striking a balance is something I have to learn. Unfortunately, in Western society we lack the education on how to deal with our feelings and instincts. When we ignore or deny them, massive tensions arise that eventually erupt into outbursts of great irrationality.
@@joeyondakeys yeah I like his point of view but my issue lies in that fact as well. Why does utilizing empathy mean we can't look at issues through other types of logical thinking? Can't we use empathy to assist with rational compassion?
This guy is talking like empathy = pity.
Empathy isn't synonymous with pity. You can be angry your spouse had a bad day and be empathetic.
I see you say that in western society you lack the education on how to deal with your feeings and instincts and that you either "ignore or deny them."
I respectfully disagree. I think one of the strongest pillars of western education is its teaching of psychology or psychologists. It may be argued that western education itself does not deal with feelings and instincts but it sure gives a student enough knowledge to know that their feeling and instincts are complex entities that need to be evaluated/analysed. This very brief but insightful introduction sparked an interest in me and my very amateur and shallow indulgence in this area led me discover psychotherapy and later cognitive behavioral therapy which has immensely helped me understand my thoughts and feelings.
Infact, I will go a step further and say that although yoga and meditation techniques and what is now popular in the west as mindfulness are generally portrayed as a panacea for a healthy and happy life, in my own psychological struggles, I have found CBT far more effective than meditation. My tens of hours of meditation gave me little benefit compared to a few minutes of CBT.
Please share your thoughts on this. Thank you.
@@shantanu683 Personally I hardly find anything worthwhile in the popular psychology discourse. Phenomena is described as if all we had to do is learn some patterns and then we would be good. My experience has been opposite, that the lousy explanations, as if they in and of itself were things that we could control, serve no real purpose. Describing a phenomena with psychological terminology is only useful if one can find acceptance of their situation with it, but in my experience it mostly leads to preoccupation with fears.
If one wants to try and improve their life in some capacity they are better of with altering their environment and starting some practice that they find suits them. You can't help someone by pointing a finger at someone and presuming they have "disorders" or "illnesses".
@@shantanu683 maybe it's easier to follow cbt that you find it working? The glorification of western science isn't necessary to address the problems associated with the western world view of never ending growth.
Personally, I think morality requires a balance of empathy, emotions, and intellect. All three need to be in balance, but our rational mind (intellect) has to make the final decision about our actions. It sounds similar to what he's saying, so perhaps my version of empathy is compassion.
Empathy is necessary only when one sees oneself as fundamentally separate or independent from others. If others are seen as part of one's greater being, then naturally one has reason to care, much as one avoids causing unnecessary harm to one's own body parts.
Agreed, another things is a lot of the time, we try to be everything at once thinking that it's the best way to approach all scenarios. In reality, we should put on different hats and intelligently decide which state is going to yield the most positive.
@@FalseCogs That was marvelously insightful and well-articulated. Thank you for sharing that.
that doesn't really work to shift anything in a world that is filled with upside-down paradigms that pathologise the normal and normalise pathology. just saying.
Yes, a minimal effort in this direction makes the world much more understandable, we just don't want to stay, get stuck there. I go quickly from empathy to detachment, it doesn't mean we have to get stuck and expend a lot of of emotional energy which leads to burnout.
My guy would cup his hands around my face and give me a soft kiss and say, "it's going to be alright". More than anything else, this was what I needed at that moment of distress, or anger, or whatever it was I was battling. I wasn't alone. He didn't need to agree with me, I just wanted someone to listen and provide a little comfort. RIP MST.
I thought as I clicked on this video that Mr. Bloom was going to be a malignant narcissist, but I found out that he's actually a rational thinker and I appreciate his viewpoints. They're helpful to me because I tend to be overly empathic. He's allowing me to see this in another way that will likely help myself and others.
empathy be hard
I'm 54 and my wife and I are VERY worried about our future, gas and food prices rising daily. We have had our savings dwindle with the cost of living into the stratosphere, we are finding it impossible to replace it. We can get by, but cant seem to get ahead. My condolences to anyone retiring in this crisis, 30years nonstop just for a crooked system to take all you worked for.
Despite the economic crisis, this is still a good time to invest in Crypto and Gold
I have heard a lot about investments with Noelle and how good she is, please how safe are the profits?
@Amina Aliyu Woooo that woman her good work has been everywhere. Been seeing a lot of good comments about her on several places. I feel more confident investing with her, I've been obsessed with her trading strategies
@@anthonymiller6180 I have also been trading with her. profits are secured and over a 100 percent return on investment.
การ ลงทุน ครั้ง แรก ของ ฉัน กับ نويل أتشسون ให้ เงิน ฉัน มาก 53000 นั่น ฉัน ต้อง กลัว ว่า จะ ขาดทุน มี เพื่อน สี่ คน ที่ เกี่ยวข้อง กับ เธอ แล้ว.
I've had his book on my reading list for almost two years, and I'm more interested in it after watching this. I'm an extremely empathetic person and generally I think people could be better at putting themselves in each other's shoes. But I think he has a point and we also need to be more precise about the words we use and what our needs are. Sometimes is compassion, not empathy, that we need. Sometimes is care. What I will never support is total indifference, contempt and disregard for one another's problems.
I agree with you. And I too have been trying to resolve my discomfort with empathy as the panacea.
Paul Bloom's key points from this video:
0:10 - Empathy is good for some activities (e.g., enjoying a movie) - but not as a moral guide.
0:25 - Empathy (or "emotional empathy"): putting yourself in someone else's shoes and feeling what they feel
0:33 - Many people think empathy is core to being a good person.
0:37 - Paul Bloom's book: "Against Empathy: The Case for Rational Compassion"
0:50 - Empathy is biased and parochial (narrow-minded). Research shows that we mostly empathize with people that are more similar to us (look like us, speak our language, etc.).
1:28 - One argument FOR empathy: the total positive effects of empathy outweigh the total negative effects of empathy (e.g., bias of empathy, tendency to get violent).
1:53 - Even if this is true, there are better alternatives to empathy as a moral guide.
2:00 - Another argument FOR empathy: empathy is vital for intimate relationships. For example, when your partner is mad, your partner wants you to be mad with them.
2:40 - But this isn't true for all feelings (like anxiety).
3:30 - Paul Bloom presents "Rational Compassion" as an alternative to empathy.
3:40 - Rationality is good for achieving goals, but it doesn't tell you which goals.
4:03 - Compassion: caring for others. Compassion can point you to the right goals.
thanks
I still don't understand the difference between empathy: putting yourself in someone's shoes and "compassion" which is caring for others. How can you care for others if you can't do empathy?
@@31896eneri Excellent point, Irene. The way I interpret it is: Empathy is to internalize the (emotional) pain that the other person feels, to "feel your pain". Compassion is to say: "I realize that this situation causes you emotional pain. And even though I don't really feel your pain, I realize that this is important to you and thus should be important to all of us. So if there is something we can do to try to help you in dealing with your pain, then we (and more specifically I) should try to do it."
I'll give two examples: Someone goes through a gruesome cancer treatment. Can you feel their physical pain and emotional distress? No, unless you yourself have had a similar illness and treatment. But you still should want to cheer them.
Or someone mourns the loss of a young child. Can you actually feel their emotional pain if you never had children? Not really. But you still recognize that it is painful to them, and may be able to provide some solace.
This certainly helps a lot, thanks!
Sometimes the excess of empathy can cause certain type of innecesary damage to other people like being overprotective and don't let you son experiment the real world and live his life by his own, the same can goes when the quality of you life increase so much that you giving up and eat in excess and you finish up damaging you own body.
I had never heard anyone present empathy as the planned end-game for interacting with someone until now. I feel the presenter is working through issues to discover what many of us naturally understand.
Empathy opens the door to present compassion in a meaningful manner to its recipient.
Well said! Empathy may be ego-centric and flawed (like all human emotions) but in my considerable experience those without empathy are rarely compassionate.
Empathy is what we feel inside and not necessarily the actions that we put out. If my partner for instance is stressed up, by acting empathetically, I will in the first place feel or have the thought of how does it feel like to be stressed up. But I'll have to show empathy also by encouraging him/her.
We need both. Compassion and empathy both help us understand other people's emotions. However, with empathy we're feeling the emotion with people, so therefore we understand their emotions better allowing us to connect with people on a deeper level. However, with compassion, we might understand the emotion a little less, but we're able to have a broader perspective and offer solutions/advice to the people we're feeling compassionate towards. I think both are valuable "tools" that are equally beneficial and should be used with discretion depending on the situation. 😸
I think the issue is that empathy is always going to have the "flaw" of us overlaying a projection of what we think the other person is feeling. For instance, someone close to me may think I sound desperate when on a call with a customer service agent as I was talking fast when in fact I couldn't care less and was aggravated because I made the call to prove a point about something else. I normally dislike phone calls intensely as I hate phone trees and waiting for agents that don't really have any power to make swift changes when an algorithm or a stupid and archaic system is in effect.
I figured out, a few years ago, that my personal moral code is best described as Compassionate Reciprocity. I treat others as I would like to be treated under the same circumstances. I understand that revenge doesn't fix anything (though a Justice System is still necessary as a deterrent to both harm and recidivism). I do try to think about how I would feel if I were in someone else's proverbial shoes, but I try to focus more on the _circumstances that elicit the emotional response_ rather than the emotions themselves. Some of my friends have actually called me a heartless robot because, while they're busy being _triggered,_ I'm considering what facts of the situation they're missing...facts that could _mitigate_ the severity of reactive distress.
I do both, depending on whether I can accurately feel the same thing they are feeling or not. The origin of the emotion is more compelling because then a more tempered and relaxed response can hopefully be determined.
@@letsdomath1750 PRECISELY!!!
I was feeling very disturbed for the past few months because of being an empathetic person. It was very difficult to carrying all the feelings which were not even entirely mine and I could connect to this video so much now. It is true and the term "rational compassion" did full justice to it. Sometimes we fail to console other person and it downs our own energy in an extended level that it's hard to gather energy for ourselves. Wanting to feel from heart all the time shouldn't be the only solution rather sometimes our head can lead us to a beautiful direction too! Not going entirely against empathy but sometimes being an empath is hard and "rational compassion" can come to rescue. Saying "I am here" is equally beautiful than saying "I can feel you", i think.
Next, do one entitled *'Why I'm A Sociopath'*
Yeah sure, you are super emphatic calling sociopath to a person that you don't even know, very mature of you part.
I hate when somebody says "calm down" when Im angry. Even though its been said with "helpful" intention.
Its more like a "nicely" wrapped demand, rather than being a warm & friendly approach
Well Mr. Psychologist Sir on this one I am in complete agreement compared to the last big think release, Iv argued for rationale compassion before and the idea of taking a much more disimpassioned approach to how we relate and think about one another as yes this has proven worth. You do have quite a polarising but interesting range theories which create some intrigue I will admit.
One of my psychologist friends taught me the method of "Reflect, validate, present options" when I discussed my struggles with teaching my kids to be emotionally intelligent.
The basic recipe is to reflect their emotions back at them so they are they're not alone (safety, community); then to affirm that what they're feeling is okay, and not to be shamed (empathy, compassion), then to present options and paths they can take, next, so they can move forward (rational discourse, intellectual abstraction).
If we expand this framework to the ideas presented here, empathy is not an alternative to rationale abstraction, but, rather, is complementary to it. Empathy builds trust. Trust builds community
Community gives way to rational, collective progress.
I'm gonna go with "no, fuck off." Let's not build a society of psychopaths please and thank you.
Have you considered that people do not _choose_ their emotions or lack thereof? Asking a psychopath, having congenital lack of empathy, to _choose_ empathy is not very helpful. On the other hand, offering a compatible solution may be useful.
the other morning i had a serious conversation with my mom.
it was about me my future their level of parenthood and how to continue growing.
throughout the conversation i would notice that sometimes she would get very emotional and fight back crying for different reasons. my goal wasnt to make her cry tho but to have a deep understanding so i would try to empathize with that sorrow she felt while also trying to remain unique in my perspective of the discussion. i was still me in all form but because i could empatgize i was able to perceive the situation more clearly and managed to have a pretty decent talk.
i would say empathy is a useful tool for bonding. and now youve got to know whwn youre going to bond with when and how.
and theres also places where empathy is a problem holding you back from making better decisions.
I'd rather not have everyone being a psychopath
We already have a psychopath problem. That's why America is so screwed up.
@@GenerationX1984 you're lacking empathy. A nation built on theft and murder is always going to be that way
I was empathetic with a man and he took advantage of me, I am also against empathy now because people will not feel the same for you will not give it back to you
That’s a different thing, your problem isn’t empathy - your problem is codependency and weak boundaries. Next time leave when you see red flags
I’m not sure if this is a product of the video being so condensed, but is some really sophomoric shit. Empathy is bad because people tend to extend it towards people like them and not different people? Then your problem is xenophobia, not with empathy. Oh, mirroring empathy isn’t helpful when someone is stressed? Then using empathy to understand what they’re feeling without literally sharing their feeling is still productive. How could you help them without some understanding of how they feel? And the replacement is “rational compassion,” which I’m not exactly convinced is in opposition to empathy, as defined here. When we use empathy, in practice, it’s not this un-metered flurry of emotions where we just perfectly mirror what somebody else feels and then just sit on our hands. Obviously we use rational thought to arrive at solutions based on our compassion towards others that we often arrive at through our empathetic practice. I think this argument really is just purely semantic and detached from real practice in order to pretend profundity. Lot of that coming from this channel.
I have come to love Paul Bloom, truly has changed my way of thinking. Thank you, Big Think for sharing his views
I bought this book and it actually made a lot of valid points. I’m also so sick of hearing everybody around me throw the word “empathy” around. Compassion does have a nice ring to it.
I'm extremely cautious of self-proclaimed "empaths"
Empathy is the feeling that leads to action. Action can be rational or irrational. It's on you to decide how to act (compassion is a rational choice), but if you don't have empathy in the first place you won't care enough to act at all and will thus lack compassion.
Compassion is different. They are not synonymous. Not liking the word empathy is hardly a reason to discount it.
Honestly, I do have trouble feeling empathy sometimes. For example, I have co-workers that sometimes talk about how they couldn't buy their kid a certain $300 toy or how they aren't getting everything they want. I honestly can't relate and have no sympathy, empathy, emotions over them getting upset. No one gets everything they want and most people on the planet don't even have food or clean water. I have empathy for people who don't have the basics but when it comes to others not having above and beyond, I feel apathy. Is this wrong?
Without empathy, who's going to have ''rational compassion'. Why would they? And empathy is not a moral giude, it's simply something you feel and act upon. Nothing more.
Also, empathy is NOT being a mirror of the other person. It's the ability to feel exactly what the other person needs. And the desire to help them with them that. But maybe we need to HAVE empathy to understand this.
There is a downside to empathy, that's is true. But that is all about forgetting too much about yourself.
And finally, I'm getting a bit tired of all these so called experts , telling me that I'm doing everything wrong.
Sorry for the rant guys, but I had to get this off my chest.
I've been wrestling with my thoughts on this very issue - I agree that unbridled empathy is of little use except to buy into another's traumatic thinking. It offers no solutions; no method to ameliorate the trauma. This piece is a leap forward that really assists my coming to a conclusion.
You misunderstand empathy sir. Empathy is not just a though experiment of putting yourself in someone else's shoes. Empathy is about fully understanding the other person's life experience. We feel the good and bad emotions. Empathy is not just for the bad emotions, it works on all emotions. Of course if you stopped at living vicariously, I think you would be right. You need to have a full understanding of what it means to be that other person. Compassion is great, but it is even better when built upon empathy. I would argue that you can't have rational compassion without first having empathy. 2 cents from a Pawn in the mental health field.
I don't know about that, I am autistic and cannot feel what others feel. So you saying my compassion is flawed?
The trump card of psycopaths is that they understand others cognitively, using that to control others. What matters is the action that helps people, not feeling what they feel. Teenagers are a good example. They are bubbling with random emotions due to their hormones. As parents, they can't feel what the teenagers feel, or they will be overwhelmed as well. What they need is a safe world to experiment, and sometimes some tough love to put them in the right path.
this is BS
@@fisicogamer1902 Autism is not defined by an inability to feel empathy. I currently work as a Behavioral Therapist with youth on the spectrum. I promise you someone that has autism absolutely can feel and express empathy. In fact people on the spectrum have good affective empathy and a strong sense for social problems that plague society. If you honestly cannot feel empathy, then yes I would say your compassion is absolutely flawed. Like in the case of a psychopath. They can be compassionate, but that is due to modeling or because they want to manipulate.
You are getting stuck on feeling what others feel and missing the way more vital understanding portion. When you fully understand the other's experience it leads to better action. Action for the sake of action will lead to poor results. Thoughtful action comes from a good understanding. Using your teenager analogy, the parents are best suited to feel what their kids are experiencing as they usually have the best understanding. Whom is best to show compassion to the child, a loving parent or the state? Technically in your world view, the state would be best served to raise all kids, as the state has the greatest ability to act compassion upon the child. Compassion for the sake of compassion is one dimensional and lacks the full understanding that comes with empathy.
@@SoulOfTorment Well, yes autistic people can feel empathy towards others. The problem is that they have difficulties expressing concern for other people's problems and being understood as such. I don't know what you mean about the state being more compassionate than parents. Compassion, as the video say, it is the ability to understand the situation of the other and act based on it. Parents can offer that more than the state. That doesn't need to be connected with feeling what other ones feel. Has to do with being around other people and understanding from where that behavior comes from, instead of labeling it as "just irrational". Now imagine again that the teenager feels suicidal. Would it be helpful to feel suicidal with them? Emotional empathy, aka feeling what others feel is a burden to solve problems, not help. What helps is cognitive empathy, understanding their situation and context and act based on that. Everyone can do this, as long as they can learn, but not everyone can do emotional empathy.
Is it possible to fully understand another person's life experience?
The most important thing in life are the feelings of sentient things, and the valuation given them. That guides my compass always.
Possibly one of the worst 'good ideas' I've ever heard... Having an understanding of how people might be feeling can only be a good thing. Empathy is different from sympathy - I can try to understand how someone is feeling, but I don't necessarily have to agree with them. But at least, by trying to understand things from their point of view, I gain insight that makes my stance/action far more reasonable and considerate and therefore more likely to be agreeable and successful.
A more considerate world with more empathy, not less, is what we need. No, when I'm stressed, I don't want my partner to have little idea about how I'm feeling and just tell me to get over it 🙄... I want them to have an understanding and therefore tailor their intervention to me in a way that is effective at getting me out of the stress and is considerate at the same time. Surely that is better?!
I feel this guy has come up with a terrible idea that just 'sounds cool' and 'edgy' and 'thought provoking', but in actual fact it's quite a terrible idea.. He'll most likely just hold on to it forever and I can see him going on about it into his old age, despite how crap it is, because it sounds 'new' and 'revolutionary'... But the reality is that its a terrible idea.
Aw man I feel for this persons spouse.
@@jro1611 I know, same.. There's nothing worse than a person who makes a concious effort to try to be considerate/thoughtful.
The more important question than is it a terrible idea or not is if it is even possible. Brains would essentially have to be rewired and mating would need to be restricted to those who essentially lack empathy. Not possible nor practical, therefore the idea although terrible is benign
What a simplistic and anine take on this.
Quote from the Dude: "Well... Yeah?! That's just like... uhm... your opinion man!"
Big Think is getting desperate for clicks. İ hope unsubscribing isn't an overreaction.
I’d rather live in a world with empathy than a world with none
This one made me roll my eyes. I stoppped at: 'Empathy is racist because people tend to empathize with people who look like them'.
Me: 'well this means these people actually lack empathy'
You are correct. "Empathy" only towards your own tribe is actually no empathy, it is simply a narcissist projecting his own feelings onto others he perceives as "being like me".
He built his entire argument on the fact that you only feel empathy for the people who are similar to you. IDK how far that is true and he makes no point explaining it.
You can't act compassionately without empathy.
Compassion means I feel with you, empathy is complete identification. E.g. acting profession is based on empathy, you have to get into the skin of the character, completely paste it over your feeling to be able to understand their reactions etc., but in real life, as a moral guide, which is the argument here, I can use common sense and logic to rationally deduce and feel with you, without identification.
You can. Just a bit harder
Empathy is still the basis of this though. Whatever it is that you do after you put yourself in their shoes afterwards is your choice. But empathy is still the foundation.
I have to agree. I think 'being empathetic' has become way too over-emphasized in our society, to the point that you are considered an absolute a-hole if you dare to even question it. But as Bloom points out, empathy that doesn't actually lead to tangible solutions, empathy in which people are merely seeking to pass their emotional state on to others around them, isn't necessarily productive in relationships, and can become harmful if made a habit.
There is also a significant difference between 'sympathy' and 'empathy' that I think many don't grasp. I worked for a business owner who saw himself as very empathetic when what he really was, was very sympathetic toward his employees that were struggling. True empathy would have enabled him to create better expecations, better structure and better accountability for his employees, knowing that these things actually help people succeed in their jobs. Instead his sympathy for them absolutely paralyzed his ability to be an effective leader at all and he couldn't do any of the above. .
Empathy is simply a tool with which you can understand another's perspective and emotions. Not that complicated. And if you as a human cannot do it, you have a lot of growing to do!
Watching this video helped me make sense of the things around me. Thanks a million for the great video.
This is so stupid i am baffled why is it on this page. You need to have empathy recognize anxiety and then react by opposite emotional state. Imagining being in somebody else shoes does not mean always act on that feeling.
I love this guy wow , my mind is opened 🙆♂️I agree because empathy is how society is born, imagine where I’m from in Africa Albino kids were killed because they were a sign of bad omen, someone connected a bad event to the kids and those shared feelings especially from those most affected by the bad happenstance results in a louder voice advocating the killing of innocent kids so In conclusion, empathy can spread more bad than good faster than the speed of light and let’s not talk about how it is a manipulative feeling call me to the Big Think podium I will explain
100% agree. You can also see from a vegan's perspective how poor empathy is as a moral guide: Most people have empathy with their cats and dogs but no empathy at all with pigs, cows, chickens - without a rational and ethically consistent reason but just because of their upbringing and socialization.
I would add region of life in the deciding factors in diet. Northern climates do not support a healthy diet following vegan practices. Advanced technology has made it a possible thing, but economically and environmentally supporting a vegan diet in these areas has negative effects. Increased energy usage to produce the heat and light needed (which makes it vulnerable to energy cost increases), destruction of natural environment to create buildings to produce foods, depleted soils from crops which animal manure is great at fixing. Tropical type regions can produce a sustainable vegan diet without any of the northern climates negatives.
On a side note I would add that small scale farming for meat’s and mass production farming of meat’s are two different things. In mass production there is concern for profit and this supersedes compassion. Like egg production and environment are not very pleasant existence for the chickens. Smaller farm’s treat their animals good. There is a lot of hands on care involved which means a good relationship must exist with the animals. Many are part of the farmers daily life for years before butchering is done. For people who do not supply their own foods for themselves there is a big disconnection of what happens to get that food to the shelves for purchase. Assumptions are made from well intended ideals and a narrower information pool. This leaves the aspect of killing. And this often comes down to personal determination. Is stepping on an ant killing it immoral? Is putting down a suffering animal moral? I only know about small scale butchering. The fastest, least painful & most humane way is used to kill. If the animal suffers it’s a bad butchering. So assuming that no rational or ethical reasons exist for omnivorous diets beyond upbringing and socializing has omitted the climatic and environmental aspects. Both are quite rational and ethical when done humanely.
Couldn't agree more with this point. Coupled with the harming effects of the environment from the industry.
@@kariannecrysler640 Do you apply the same reasoning to eating cats and dogs? If I treat my dog really well and if my dog is part of my daily life for years would it be moral to shoot her in the head or slit her throat just because I like the taste of her muscles/inner organs? Because this is what I was talking about: selective empathy. Edit: I am not talking about suffering, frankly I think it's cynical to reduce morality to the question of suffering. As if life had nothing else to offer.
@@hester234 if you want to raise and eat dog, go for it. It is not my personal choice, but it happens all over the world. Your way is not the only way, nor is mine. The whole point is to respect that. So, some person who has ate dog their entire lives, because it’s culturally normal is due their respect too. I also don’t plan on eating insects or snails which are considered delicacies in some cultures, but I am going to support their right to choose for themselves and not pass judgment on them for being different than myself.
@@kariannecrysler640 So moral relativism is the answer? Why not make everything a mere personal choice when it comes to humans?
Edit: I think it's quite fascinating that people pretend to be totally fine with cruelty as soon as you point our their cognitive dissonance when it comes to animal exploitation. Just look at this thread, how it started, and now we are at "everything humans do to animals is fine because morality is just about personal choices". Or is this a strawman? If I misunderstood you, please clarify. Do you draw a line between right and wrong and if yes, where is it?
You're right. I suffered from very bad things caused by empathy. Till this morning, I realized that the bad choices in my life are all caused by empathy--I absorb other people's bad feelings and try to be a good person, but that hurts me and my life.
Synopsis: old man decides he wants to make money and writes a book with a controversial-viral title to achieve it
That’s all that is thnx for the comment, I was hoping someone else felt this way so I guess we are experiencing empathy lol . This guy is old and feels old lol ahh old people
I agree with everything that he's said. However the one thing I think about is the fact that I attribute empathy with seeing eyes unclouded by baise or hate. Not being biased and becoming a mirror of the other person. But genuinely fully understanding them and all that they are, and working to find the right solution to improve their life. Honestly my definition aligns with what he calls rational compassion. And that I appreciate.
I think, in my opinion, a better way to go about it is to learn to set boundaries. Learn to distinguish between their feelings and yours.
“Ok I feel for this person, however these are not MY feelings these are their feelings.
I can relate to their experience/ emotions but I am not in that/their situation. I am ok, I am safe.”
This still allows you to put yourself into the other person’s shoes without having to carry the weight of someone else’s emotions, internalizing it and making it your own. In the long run that can lead to emotional burn out. Especially if you have a hard time separating other people’s feelings from your own and end up soaking up a lot of negative energy around you.
Perhaps this is an alternative to or what was meant with “rational compassion”, granted I’ve never read the book.
When you have empathy their feelings become your feelings. So you apparently don't know what the term means.
Very well said.. I understand..
Clickbait researcher.
It's about understanding, not mirroring.
If only you know what the future says, you'll know that indeed cryptocurrency is the future, investing in it now will be the wisest thing to do. Hold!!! And you'll thank yourself
The best investment one can do right now is to invest in Forex and Crypto market through stocks are good. To me, trading the forex and crypto market is way better than any online investment 💯
@@laurievelardo9365 Absolutely Yes 👍... Crypto is profitable 🤑🤑🤑
She has been trading for me, her strategies are wonderful and she made me see binary and forex trade from a different dimension. I keep making profits weekly
Well am not surprised seeing this cause am a huge beneficiary of this woman top notch tactics and skills.
@@puppy.t2602 Great! I personally love proving people wrong but investing in bitcoin for me has not been impressing. How much exactly do you make of you don't mind me asking
Sometimes the videos on this channel make me so sad, as I have so many regrets.
Thank you Big Think for helping so many of us.
Empathy should only be for the people closest to us, empathy cannot exist for people we don’t know on the other side of the world, compassion can. I see empathy only as an option for the ones closest to me. But we still need it in our closest relationships with partners, parents, children, etc.
I think we all need a little morality, empathy and compassion, if these aren’t there there is a problem.
Lol, what? Of course it can... are you young? Maybe your frontal lobe hasn't fully developed yet?
@@Bc232klm no I’m 41 and I agree with him. You simply cannot feel empathy( feeling what someone else feels) with for example a war victim if you don’t stand in their shoes or are in the exact same position, that’s called compassion. And I think the brain word you mean is amygdala… and a couple of other little parts connected
The only problem is that emotions are hard to contain within certain boundaries. Besides empathy breeds on polarity: if I empathize strongly with someone, it means that I'll antipatize other people also strongly. Also, if a close friend is overwhelmed with emotion, that friend doesn't need someone to feel that. That friend needs someone to just help them through that emotion. This is done with rationality, not with empathy.
@@fisicogamer1902 but how does rationality work if empathy is outed in a fight between spouses?
If one person really hurt the other one(big lie or cheating or something big) and you have to fight/talk but there is no empathy or compassion…. Only morality and that will be the morality of the one who hurtled the other one? This will be a problem because their morality was lowered the problem started….
@@MsDutch Everyone has their own morality. In good relationships that morality should be shared at a certain level. No relationship can work when people have completely different morals. There are many ways to solve that situation and not a single one involves feeling what the other feels. One can end the relationship, give the relationship a timeout to reorganize their own arguments, or create a new relationship with new rules. All of those options involve morality and rationality, not feeling what the other felt.
The whole point of empathy is to remove bias and apply to all. He starts with someone who is ignorant to empathy’s application and purpose. Its not about natural inclination, it’s about supernatural application and MINDFULNESS. Understanding leads to EFFECTIVE solutions. You have to be able to understand, then problem solve. Having empathy is not the final destination. How he using empathy wrong?
"When someone falls into a hole, sympathy is jumping into the hole with him. Empathy/compassion is offering him a hand to get out."..As I remember it from Dan Millman.
Wow! My new favorite quote, thank you!
@@camihl3841 I recommend Dan Millman's books.
Hence the expression 'My deepest sympathies'.
Backwards, you have it.
@@mauricetaylor209 Ha Ha.
Interesting point about personal empathy and mindful rational moral action.👍 Truly transcendent universal empathy is not imagining yourself in anyone else's shoes but actually understanding what it is like to be in the other's position. :)
Any emotional response to another person without some measure of logical application or some set of rational boundaries is pretty much _always_ going to lead to some negative effect.
Most people realize and understand this just as a matter of course. It's one of those "common sense" sorts of understanding. The portion of the populace that doesn't understand this is a tiny minority. Small enough that discussing this "revelation" is rather pointless.
It's why, generally, we naturally empathize more with a victim of violence than a perpetrator of violence.
This guy is saying something akin to "I'm against the color blue because, if the color blue is on a hot water faucet, it can be misleading".
NO! Really? Shocking!
You tend to think that humans use rationality to override their emotions frequently. Not when empathy is at play. Take nazi germany as an example. Because of empathy, most of the population was dominated by anger against jews, while the other part was paralyzed by fear of the drawback of standing against the government. Empathy , or "emotional empathy" , as the video says it, isn't a switch you turn on or off: it is someething that always fires especially in tough situations in life. Controlling it is much more difficult than you think. Mass hysterias and pitchforking are caused by emotional empathy.
@@fisicogamer1902 All your response does is illustrate the part of my comment that says "without some measure of logical application or some set of rational boundaries".
Humans don't normally react or respond strictly on emotion except in extreme circumstances. That's what it means to be rational. It's the very definition of the term.
@@BigRalphSmith "Humans don't normally react or respond strictly on emotion except in extreme circumstance"That is the point. Who decides a circumstance is extreme? Emotions! That is why when we need the most rationality, all we have are feelings that hinder our progress. We can be better than that, by observing more and choosing ourselves more, without feeling involved. That is one of the points of the video.
@@fisicogamer1902 Um, Okay?
You seem to be responding to something other than what I was saying. Not sure but it looks that way.
Thanks for sharing.
@@BigRalphSmith Maybe I wasn't clear enough. You seem to believe that only a tiny minority of people act based on raw emotions. The truth is actually the opposite: When we most need logical plans, that is when our emotional brain dominates and makes us act impulsively. That is why we need to create a culture to turn off these instinctual reactions that are bad for interpersonal relationships.
Lost me when he said, and I'm paraphrasing here, that "we only empathize with people who look like us, who speak our language."
This is demonstrably false.
There is very little motivation for morals without empathy. Take away the empathy, and morals go with it.
Morals come from personal and group values. Many values can be held without empathy. The real question is, which values are most promoted by modern society?
@@FalseCogs Values can be irrational and just based in the indoctrination and the believes that other have to accept since his childhood just because other people repeat the same thing to them.
Bro is a good teacher, it’s quite empathetic of him to share this with us
This is very interesting. I know many people who are, individually, very empathetic, but lack any critical analysis for it once it isn’t directly in front of them.
Rational compassion instead of empathy
Interesting
Extraordinary video. Greetings!
Sounds like what I've seen with ASD.
I suspect I'm on the spectrum and I've always had low levels of empathy, though I'm very compassionate. It's a good thing, if you ask me.
@@river3516 Me too and maybe that's why I somewhat agree with the guy. Maybe he is too idk.
Exactly right. First-hand experience here.
طرح جديد ممتاز
New prospective of empathy good job🙏❤️
This guy has point
"If you have to be persuaded, reminded, bullied, pressured,
incentivized, lied to, guilt tripped, cohersed, socially shamed,
Censored, threatened, paid, and
Criminalized, if all
Of this is necessary to gain your compliance, you can
Be
Absolutely certain what is being promoted is not in your best interest, to whom understand the truth I love you guys,
You remind me that I'm not going crazy, and
That the state of affairs of our time is
Abhorrently pathological, I wish you all
And myself the strength to endure what is to come." ~ Larry Lee
My issue with a lot of the pop psychology world is that most of the work feels like semantics arguments. This gets us nowhere and is more a response to the interpretation that we can just feel what others feel, and that empathy has no utility for issues like climate change. Going off of the guise of "rationale compassion" seems to make sense, but underscores the types of biases that also come with "rationality". There is no objective right to many things, sometimes there are subjective agreements or cohesion. Without considering and trying to understand all parties involved we achieve shortcomings in our own framing of the world. What he frames here is a limited scope of empathy and emotional investigation that is based off of studies of how empathy is most commonly used. I think it's more advantageous to argue for the listening and understanding of unrepresented parties in a given society. They are often left out of rational solutions because of the framing of fields like psychology (which tends to naturalize a norm whether or not it is a condition of society and not human nature)
You are going into a tangent here. He isn't talking about governing countries. It's what we can do as individuals. If I have a biased opinion, I have to use rationality to break it. That is why he frames rationality so much. But emotions aren't necessarily wrong, so we have to think about them as well and understand them. Only after that we can come to a decision. All you said is embedded in the process that the guy in the video said. You are just going into the details about the compassion process.
@@fisicogamer1902 he specifically talks about social organization for "rationale compassion". To me that's just a way to say be more critical about how empathy is interpreted and used. It's impossible to argue with him because it's a semantics argument that imo feels like a response to social justice movements that argue for understanding of their particular cause. It's not that far from a "facts don't care about your feelings" position to me. I argue that line of thinking does nothing to get people out of their personal biases but rather reinforces them. They don't truly understand that there are multiple forms of rationality and that objectivity is not only illusive but not possible for people to come to. Everything has a context, and a bias. A lot of social fields of study fall into this pitfall of feeling they can be unbiased (particularly psychology and economics)
@@Newjawns42 biases are generally based on feelings. The guy argues that, the more we can take those out of the equation, the less biased we will be. The more people understand that, the less harsh we are going to judge each other and more compassionate we will be towards not a group, but towards human beings and organisms in general.
@@fisicogamer1902 I disagree, I think biases may involve feelings but can also be systemic blindspots or influenced by the dominant culture. It's like how if you train ai only a certain type of dog, it's perception of what dogs are like may be ill informed, there may be contradictions amoungst breeds, external factors such as human influence, environmental factors that make studying the most common breed alone insufficient in grasping a good picture. Humans are individual but in the aggregate move as systems, these systems are strong enough to make it hard to distinguish what is natural about us and what is constructed by external forces. Biases are hard to account for when there is a lack of critical analysis of external forces and blindspots. Empathy is one such tool to demystify some blindspots but not the only tool.
@@Newjawns42 Biases don't necessarily shape our actions. Suppose I hate black people, but I know discriminating them is a crime, so I treat them as neutral as possible. I won't commit racism, even if I am as biased as someone that commits racism. In this case, i used rationality to understand my own biases and stop them from shaping my actions. Cultural biases are such systems that one can break free with rational intention. One way is exposing oneself to a new culture through learning a new language, for example. Now, when the bias is in the emotions of one's being, it is really difficult, or near-nigh impossible to not shape our actions in some way. Cultural biases don't necessarily need to shape our actions. Awareness of one's biases leads to control of them to not shape our behavior in bad ways. This comes with rationality, not empathy.
That morality is tribal is for a very good reason - altruism as reciprocity is only guaranteed when applied within a small group. It doesn't have any evolutionary benefits when it's indiscriminate. So, in a sense - it might be much more rational than you think.
Also, in any historically typical society, the vast majority of most people's interactions are with people similar to themselves.
So compassion = empathy - attachment??
Or in words, compassion is detached empathy?
there are 2 types of empathy: cognitive and emotional. Cognitive empathy: deciding what to do to help or hinder that person's situation. Emotional empathy: feeling what the other person is feeling. Just don't use the emotional empathy and grow your cognitive empathy.
@@fisicogamer1902 What do you mean "don't use the emotional empathy"? Surely it's automatic? And surely it has function outside of what's being discussed? Are you not just using a mixture of both at various levels anyway? Are we just talking about balance?...
Wouldn't optimal just look like people being educated enough on the subject to understand the pitfalls?
@@captainprivate3768 you see it arising, but let it fade away before acting. Don't act while it is dominating your system. No, I don't use emotional empathy because when i see the suffering of other people I just get anxious, or annoyed, instead of "feeling what they feel". Instead I talk to them and try to understand the root of their suffering. I try my best to not pick sides. We are not talking about balance: we are talking about abandoning emotional empathy and use cognitive empathy only.
For the first 2 minutes my argument is: I personally do not feel empathy for a specific group or people. Though it has taken some self evaluation and reflection to get to that point. I feel empathy for people who I feel deserve that empathy. e.g those in poverty, difficult situations, mental health issues, forced into situations
Unsubbed. Videos need actual content.
Same. Literally a meaningless video. I remember when they posted ok stuff
He is talking to a popular but flawed understanding of empathy, that is empathy involves taking on whatever is going on for the other person. This is crap. It is simply about recognizing that people are in a different place to us, whether that is a bad day, different moral codes, or just people we have nothing in common with. Empathy doesn't mean we have to take on their view, or indulge it, it simply means we can acknowledge the difference, and engage with them without judging them. It works.
He is against EMOTIONAL empathy. To not include this qualifier in the title makes it click-bait material.
There's nothing wrong with trying to come up with the title that grabs attention. I don't think it qualifies as clickbait
Precisely. Very misleading.
Yeah, I think he should explain both empathies on the video as well. I see many people here confused about the subject of the video itself.
Thank you
We dont need to disregard empathy, we need to be more emotionally mature to understand and help others , the guy said we need someone 'intelligent 'to calm our anxiety down , but does he even know that high empathy is a sign of intelligence? He seems like he dosent know what he's talking about and just fucking around with words around the same point . Tbh wasted my time.
You are confusing the 2 empathies. The "High empathy" that you said , is "cognitive empathy" and involves understanding the situation of the other and taking a rational decision to help or hinder the other person. The other that he talks on the video, is "emotional empathy" and is only feeling what the other person is feeling, without necessarily helping or hindering the other person.
Brilliant way to think. But it would stem from environment and education. Compassion and morals are learned , so limiting people to these aspects requires trust of the teachers intentions and beliefs. It also makes them vulnerable, to be a lost knowledge in a dire situation. To make it a more solid ideal the addition of accountability and a basic respect for life & what’s needed to sustain it, would give greater assurances to overcome possible inadequacies of beliefs and actions. And I would add that empathy could be an opening act to the show of compassion. A steppingstone in the journey to intelligent choices that cause no harm. Because it takes a lot of brainstorming from many different angles to find solutions that benefit all. One of the greatest aspects of this channel.
Let Paul Bloom know he is quickly becoming my favorite here😁💚
eh. this guy is still touting his bait and switch wordplay.
He's deciding incorrectly that empathy doesn't already cover the kind of rational compassion that he's talking about. Basically he's creating a syntax problem and solving it by changing syntax.
A $43,000 profit sent to my portfolio each week, Ms. Angela cole car is amazing.
Wow! How’s that possible please I’ll appreciate your assistance on how to go about it.
Same here, I started with $3,000 now earning $28,300 bi-weekly profits with her trading program.
Her good reputation already speaks for her last month i invested over $100,000 with her and I've already made over $250,000 profit.
How, I'm in need of her assistance?
I am from Denver Colorado USA I connected with her and she has helped me a lot,she makes so much profit for me she is a FINRA agent, the best I can invest with so far ever since I came across expert Mrs Angela Cole Carr, my bad turned out being good and profitable. She's made success earlier than we thought.
It's true. Sometimes I'm arguing for more empathy, what I really want is more compassion. Put yourself in somebody else's shoes for compassion.
You want no empathy? Go online and read social media comments....
there's no compassion in those comments either. He argues for compassion and he makes a good point
Wonderful
When did this channel become a right wing think tank?
A long time ago
Anyone knows the song within the first 1:20 sec?
Well I feel sorry for you! Perhaps you will grow out of it!
A bit silly. If empathy is defined as putting yourself in the other's shoes and trying to imagine how they feel, then that does not necessarily lead to mirroring their behaviour. And I cannot be the only one who thinks that empathy and compassion are hardly any different in everyday usage.
I'm going to shower you with attention and my awareness. I'm going to give you a lot of my time. I'm going to be in physical proximity to you. I'm going to touch you, hold you, cuddle you. I'm going to try to connect with you physically, emotionally, intellectually, spiritually. I'm going to take good care of you. I'm going to care about your needs. I'm going to help you to meet your needs. I'm going to help you to survive. I'm going to shelter you from excessive suffering, fear and trauma. I'm going to have your back. I'm going to defend you and be loyal to you. I'm going to take on your agenda as my own. I'm going to make you an extension of me. I'm going to treat you as well as i would treat myself. I'm going to be happy for you when you succeed. I'm going to want for you what you most want for yourself. I'm going to sacrifice for you and work on your behalf. I'm going to support you nurture you and encourage you. I'm going to cheerlead you. I'm going to encourage your self-exploration, self-expression and self-actualization. I'm going to respect your sovereignty as a consciousness. I'm not going to try to manipulate you, control you, dominate you or exploit you. I'm going to totally accept you and never judge you. I'm going to value you for your sake and appreciate you and see your intrinsic beauty. I'm not going to need anything from you and I'm not going to make you a tool to satisfy my own needs. I'm going to respect your point of view, wanting to understand your point of view, wanting to understand you, your uniqueness, taking the time to deeply get to know you. I'm not going to force my agenda or point of view on you. I'm going to listen to you and care about your interests and share similar interests with you. I'm going to develop togetherness with you and collaborate with you. I'm going to be there for you when you're down and hopeless. I'm going to be there for you when you're lonely. I'm going to validate your feelings, sharing your emotions with you, empathizing with you. Your pain is going to be my pain. I'm going to meet you where you're at, at your developmental level. I'm going to forgive you for your mistakes.
I'm going to be patient with you. I'm going to see the good in you even when you don't see the good in yourself. I'm going to be generous and kind. I'm going to give you verbal approval and praise. I'm going to compliment you on your uniqueness. I'm going to keep my promises to you. I'm going to keep my peace with you, avoid conflict with you. I'm going to tell the truth to you. You're going to be able to fully trust me and I'm never going to cash in on that trust. I'm going to see your realness, warts and shadow and all as you truly are. I'm going to deeply appreciate the finite portion of consciousness that you are and I'm going to accept your selfishness whenever you have the urge to be selfish. Now ask yourself on a scale of 0 to 10 how loved do you feel? Open Your Eyes. 😂🦘🦘🧨
10.
My ex is a DA
I feel empathy for whoever I’m talking to in the moment. Whatever’s in front of me. Not “the people that make me feel safe”
The best way of being empathetic is being truly genuine of the pain of others ! Cry sincerely, Be happy sincerly with another person ! Be genuine with other ! Be honest and be compassionate !
OMG Finally someone is telling how exactly how I feel. People keep telling me I need to have empathy, but many people suffer or have hardship because of their own choices and actions.
I strongly question the notion that we have more empathy to people who look like us. If you grow up with a more diverse range of ethnicity etc. You develop empathy for all kinds of people. As someone who is of mixed race I don't developed a biased empathy to mixed-raced people. Your biases come from your environment not your genes.
Nice thesis. This is a refreshing view that aligns with my conclusions.