Discussion:
Empathy
hibbsa
2012-12-16 19:15:52 UTC
Permalink
Something that might be helpful to a discussion about empathy would be
if particapants disclose whether they personally consistently experience
what they assume must be meant by 'empathy'. Not everyone does.

For example...for you personally....is it a case of you get that empathy
experience but override it with your good-philosophy and rational
bearing? Or do you just not experience empathy and from a standpoint of
sensation actually don't have much clue what people are even talking
about?
Elliot Temple
2012-12-16 21:40:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by hibbsa
Something that might be helpful to a discussion about empathy would be
if particapants disclose whether they personally consistently experience
what they assume must be meant by 'empathy'. Not everyone does.
Stop trying to invade people's privacy.

-- Elliot Temple
http://fallibleideas.com/
hibbsa
2012-12-17 02:43:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Elliot Temple
Post by hibbsa
Something that might be helpful to a discussion about empathy would be
if particapants disclose whether they personally consistently experience
what they assume must be meant by 'empathy'. Not everyone does.
Stop trying to invade people's privacy.
-- Elliot Temple
http://fallibleideas.com/
Voluntary disclosure doesn't involve any kind of invasion that I can see. So the question would be the relevance/importance to the discussion of what is suggested.
About that I would say that, if you don't experience the sensation of empathy, and never have...then you about as useful to people that do or have as a blind man is to a discussion about the visual sensation of colour.
Brett Hall
2012-12-17 11:04:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by hibbsa
Post by Elliot Temple
Post by hibbsa
Something that might be helpful to a discussion about empathy would be
if particapants disclose whether they personally consistently experience
what they assume must be meant by 'empathy'. Not everyone does.
Stop trying to invade people's privacy.
-- Elliot Temple
http://fallibleideas.com/
Voluntary disclosure doesn't involve any kind of invasion that I can see. So the question would be the relevance/importance to the discussion of what is suggested.
About that I would say that, if you don't experience the sensation of empathy, and never have...then you about as useful to people that do or have as a blind man is to a discussion about the visual sensation of colour.
Is this what emotions are like? Is empathy, poorly defined as it is, a quale like the perception of some colour?

Brett.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
hibbsa
2012-12-20 11:19:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brett Hall
Post by hibbsa
Post by Elliot Temple
Post by hibbsa
Something that might be helpful to a discussion about empathy would be
if particapants disclose whether they personally consistently experience
what they assume must be meant by 'empathy'. Not everyone does.
Stop trying to invade people's privacy.
-- Elliot Temple
http://fallibleideas.com/
Voluntary disclosure doesn't involve any kind of invasion that I can see. So the question would be the relevance/importance to the discussion of what is suggested.
About that I would say that, if you don't experience the sensation of empathy, and never have...then you about as useful to people that do or have as a blind man is to a discussion about the visual sensation of colour.
Is this what emotions are like? Is empathy, poorly defined as it is, a quale like the perception of some colour?
Brett.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
From what I can make of it, empathy is linked in with social instinct (Or call it social static memes if you prefer...in the end once 'static memes' have been worked through to their consequences I suspect there aren't going to be that many differences)
Not everyone has it. Psychopaths don't get empathy. Autism/Asperger's have less empathy which may be part of the reason for the tendency to be socially isolated, unable to grasp social cues and so on.

What is the difference and similarity between psychopathy and autism spectrum disorders would be of potential interest.
Rami Rustom
2012-12-20 17:23:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brett Hall
Post by Brett Hall
Post by hibbsa
Post by Elliot Temple
Post by hibbsa
Something that might be helpful to a discussion about empathy would be
if particapants disclose whether they personally consistently experience
what they assume must be meant by 'empathy'. Not everyone does.
Stop trying to invade people's privacy.
-- Elliot Temple
http://fallibleideas.com/
Voluntary disclosure doesn't involve any kind of invasion that I can see. So the question would be the relevance/importance to the discussion of what is suggested.
About that I would say that, if you don't experience the sensation of empathy, and never have...then you about as useful to people that do or have as a blind man is to a discussion about the visual sensation of colour.
Is this what emotions are like? Is empathy, poorly defined as it is, a quale like the perception of some colour?
Brett.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
From what I can make of it, empathy is linked in with social instinct (Or call it social static memes if you prefer...in the end once 'static memes' have been worked through to their consequences I suspect there aren't going to be that many differences)
What does "worked through to their consequences" mean?
Post by Brett Hall
Not everyone has it. Psychopaths don't get empathy. Autism/Asperger's have less empathy which may be part of the reason for the tendency to be socially isolated, unable to grasp social cues and so on.
Those concepts are not any good. We have better ideas to explain what
you're trying to explain. Those concepts explain that genes have a
causal role, but they don't.

When psychologists refer to someone as having a "psychopathy", what's
really going on is that that person has evil ideas, ideas that he uses
to kill and hurt innocent people. And I guess the psychologists assume
that having those evil ideas *must* be due to a physical illness, but
that's false. Horrible experiences during childhood (plus his
understanding about them, i.e. his choices) is sufficient to causing
one to have evil ideas.

When psychologists refer to someone as having "Autism/Asperger's",
what's really going on is that that person has ideas that are not
socially accepted, ideas that he uses while playing and talking to
people and whatever else. And the psychologist is assuming that having
these socially unacceptable ideas *must* be due to a physical illness,
but that's false.
Post by Brett Hall
What is the difference and similarity between psychopathy and autism spectrum disorders would be of potential interest.
Well, a similarity I see, using my ideas above, is that having evil
ideas about killing and hurting innocent people (aka "psychopathy") is
a special case of having ideas that are socially unacceptable (aka
"Autism/Asperger's"). But, a few hundred years ago, it was socially
accepted to kill people who had socially unacceptable ideas (referring
to the killing of "witches"). Would you call those witch-killers
psychopaths? If so, how do you explain why there were so many more
psychopaths back then than compared to today?

-- Rami Rustom
http://ramirustom.blogspot.com
a b
2012-12-20 18:58:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by Brett Hall
Post by Brett Hall
Post by hibbsa
Post by Elliot Temple
Post by hibbsa
Something that might be helpful to a discussion about empathy would be
if particapants disclose whether they personally consistently experience
what they assume must be meant by 'empathy'. Not everyone does.
Stop trying to invade people's privacy.
-- Elliot Temple
http://fallibleideas.com/
Voluntary disclosure doesn't involve any kind of invasion that I can
see. So the question would be the relevance/importance to the discussion of
what is suggested.
About that I would say that, if you don't experience the sensation of
empathy, and never have...then you about as useful to people that do or have
as a blind man is to a discussion about the visual sensation of colour.
Is this what emotions are like? Is empathy, poorly defined as it is, a
quale like the perception of some colour?
Brett.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
From what I can make of it, empathy is linked in with social instinct
(Or call it social static memes if you prefer...in the end once 'static
memes' have been worked through to their consequences I suspect there aren't
going to be that many differences)
What does "worked through to their consequences" mean?
For example, if a 'static meme' is similar enough, ubiquitous enough,
and in the population long enough, and makes itself useful enough,
then any mutations in the brain that improve the execution of that
meme would become positively advantageous, thus natural selection
kicks in. And I think DD does say static memes came first and were
around a long long time. That's one example.
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by Brett Hall
Not everyone has it. Psychopaths don't get empathy. Autism/Asperger's
have less empathy which may be part of the reason for the tendency to be
socially isolated, unable to grasp social cues and so on.
Those concepts are not any good. We have better ideas to explain what
you're trying to explain. Those concepts explain that genes have a
causal role, but they don't.
It's fine by me for you to regard psychopaths and autistic/asperger's
in the way that you do. Underlying causality can be put to one side.
E.g. you may assume every time I say "psychopath" what I mean is
"people with socially different ideas and behaviour such that they
would be high on the psychopath checklist"
Post by Rami Rustom
When psychologists refer to someone as having a "psychopathy", what's
really going on is that that person has evil ideas,
But does a psychopath have evil ideas? Typically they would probably
agree with Rand, agree with the ideas against altruism, agree with the
ideas about putting oneself first absolutely without compromise.

So what are these evil ideas you have in mind?
Post by Rami Rustom
ideas that he uses
to kill and hurt innocent people. And I guess the psychologists assume
that having those evil ideas *must* be due to a physical illness, but
that's false. Horrible experiences during childhood (plus his
understanding about them, i.e. his choices) is sufficient to causing
one to have evil ideas.
The reason I am personally convinced there is a genetic component is
because I have seen scientific evidence in the form brain imaging. If
you are interested you could look into that.
Post by Rami Rustom
When psychologists refer to someone as having "Autism/Asperger's",
what's really going on is that that person has ideas that are not
socially accepted, ideas that he uses while playing and talking to
people and whatever else. And the psychologist is assuming that having
these socially unacceptable ideas *must* be due to a physical illness,
but that's false.
Again the reason I see it differently is because I have looked at
scientific evidence that I find compelling. I'm not concerned whether
you agree with the evidence or have ever seen it or even know about
it. I am content that if you are interested you can easily look into
it yourself. You may or may not find it compelling.
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by Brett Hall
What is the difference and similarity between psychopathy and autism
spectrum disorders would be of potential interest.
Well, a similarity I see, using my ideas above, is that having evil
ideas about killing and hurting innocent people (aka "psychopathy") is
a special case of having ideas that are socially unacceptable (aka
"Autism/Asperger's"). But, a few hundred years ago, it was socially
accepted to kill people who had socially unacceptable ideas (referring
to the killing of "witches"). Would you call those witch-killers
psychopaths? If so, how do you explain why there were so many more
psychopaths back then than compared to today?
I don't really agree that psychopathy is equivalent to having ideas
about killing/hurting people.
Rami Rustom
2012-12-20 20:37:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by Brett Hall
Post by Brett Hall
Post by hibbsa
Post by Elliot Temple
Post by hibbsa
Something that might be helpful to a discussion about empathy
would be
if particapants disclose whether they personally consistently
experience
what they assume must be meant by 'empathy'. Not everyone does.
Stop trying to invade people's privacy.
-- Elliot Temple
http://fallibleideas.com/
Voluntary disclosure doesn't involve any kind of invasion that I can
see. So the question would be the relevance/importance to the discussion of
what is suggested.
About that I would say that, if you don't experience the sensation of
empathy, and never have...then you about as useful to people that do or have
as a blind man is to a discussion about the visual sensation of colour.
Is this what emotions are like? Is empathy, poorly defined as it is, a
quale like the perception of some colour?
Brett.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
From what I can make of it, empathy is linked in with social instinct
(Or call it social static memes if you prefer...in the end once 'static
memes' have been worked through to their consequences I suspect there aren't
going to be that many differences)
What does "worked through to their consequences" mean?
For example, if a 'static meme' is similar enough, ubiquitous enough,
and in the population long enough, and makes itself useful enough,
then any mutations in the brain that improve the execution of that
meme would become positively advantageous, thus natural selection
kicks in. And I think DD does say static memes came first and were
around a long long time. That's one example.
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by Brett Hall
Not everyone has it. Psychopaths don't get empathy. Autism/Asperger's
have less empathy which may be part of the reason for the tendency to be
socially isolated, unable to grasp social cues and so on.
Those concepts are not any good. We have better ideas to explain what
you're trying to explain. Those concepts explain that genes have a
causal role, but they don't.
It's fine by me for you to regard psychopaths and autistic/asperger's
in the way that you do. Underlying causality can be put to one side.
E.g. you may assume every time I say "psychopath" what I mean is
"people with socially different ideas and behaviour such that they
would be high on the psychopath checklist"
Post by Rami Rustom
When psychologists refer to someone as having a "psychopathy", what's
really going on is that that person has evil ideas,
But does a psychopath have evil ideas? Typically they would probably
agree with Rand, agree with the ideas against altruism, agree with the
ideas about putting oneself first absolutely without compromise.
They do or they don't? Are you assuming that?

I bet you're assuming that someone whose not willing to sacrifice
one's preferences necessitates sacrificing someone else's preferences,
right? I reject that. Every single interaction between two or more
people can be a win/win situation, such that both people get what they
want -- meaning that no one sacrifices. This is Rand's view. Why do
you think that having this idea is psychopathic?
Post by a b
So what are these evil ideas you have in mind?
By that I meant wanting to kill someone, or torture them, or rape
them, things like that.
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
ideas that he uses
to kill and hurt innocent people. And I guess the psychologists assume
that having those evil ideas *must* be due to a physical illness, but
that's false. Horrible experiences during childhood (plus his
understanding about them, i.e. his choices) is sufficient to causing
one to have evil ideas.
The reason I am personally convinced there is a genetic component is
because I have seen scientific evidence in the form brain imaging. If
you are interested you could look into that.
Please link the article here.
Post by a b
I don't really agree that psychopathy is equivalent to having ideas
about killing/hurting people.
What is it then?

-- Rami
a b
2012-12-21 10:59:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by Brett Hall
Post by Brett Hall
Post by hibbsa
Post by Elliot Temple
Post by hibbsa
Something that might be helpful to a discussion about empathy
would be
if particapants disclose whether they personally consistently
experience
what they assume must be meant by 'empathy'. Not everyone does.
Stop trying to invade people's privacy.
-- Elliot Temple
http://fallibleideas.com/
Voluntary disclosure doesn't involve any kind of invasion that I can
see. So the question would be the relevance/importance to the
discussion of
what is suggested.
About that I would say that, if you don't experience the sensation of
empathy, and never have...then you about as useful to people that
do or have
as a blind man is to a discussion about the visual sensation of colour.
Is this what emotions are like? Is empathy, poorly defined as it is, a
quale like the perception of some colour?
Brett.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
From what I can make of it, empathy is linked in with social instinct
(Or call it social static memes if you prefer...in the end once 'static
memes' have been worked through to their consequences I suspect there aren't
going to be that many differences)
What does "worked through to their consequences" mean?
For example, if a 'static meme' is similar enough, ubiquitous enough,
and in the population long enough, and makes itself useful enough,
then any mutations in the brain that improve the execution of that
meme would become positively advantageous, thus natural selection
kicks in. And I think DD does say static memes came first and were
around a long long time. That's one example.
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by Brett Hall
Not everyone has it. Psychopaths don't get empathy.
Autism/Asperger's
have less empathy which may be part of the reason for the tendency to be
socially isolated, unable to grasp social cues and so on.
Those concepts are not any good. We have better ideas to explain what
you're trying to explain. Those concepts explain that genes have a
causal role, but they don't.
It's fine by me for you to regard psychopaths and autistic/asperger's
in the way that you do. Underlying causality can be put to one side.
E.g. you may assume every time I say "psychopath" what I mean is
"people with socially different ideas and behaviour such that they
would be high on the psychopath checklist"
Post by Rami Rustom
When psychologists refer to someone as having a "psychopathy", what's
really going on is that that person has evil ideas,
But does a psychopath have evil ideas? Typically they would probably
agree with Rand, agree with the ideas against altruism, agree with the
ideas about putting oneself first absolutely without compromise.
They do or they don't? Are you assuming that?
I bet you're assuming that someone whose not willing to sacrifice
one's preferences necessitates sacrificing someone else's preferences,
right?
I know about finding common preferences
Post by Rami Rustom
I reject that. Every single interaction between two or more
people can be a win/win situation, such that both people get what they
want -- meaning that no one sacrifices. This is Rand's view. Why do
you think that having this idea is psychopathic?
You are assuming a lot of things. What about the possibility
psychopathy is an unfairly maligned condition?
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
So what are these evil ideas you have in mind?
By that I meant wanting to kill someone, or torture them, or rape
them, things like that.
There's nothing about psychopathy that necessarily means wanting to do
that stuff. You have to be drawn to the ideas of [gratuitous] torture,
rape, murder, in the first place. It's unlikely that many psychopaths
are at all interested in doing that sort of thing.
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
ideas that he uses
to kill and hurt innocent people. And I guess the psychologists assume
that having those evil ideas *must* be due to a physical illness, but
that's false. Horrible experiences during childhood (plus his
understanding about them, i.e. his choices) is sufficient to causing
one to have evil ideas.
The reason I am personally convinced there is a genetic component is
because I have seen scientific evidence in the form brain imaging. If
you are interested you could look into that.
Please link the article here.
I meant I've physically seen the process/evidence. I could probably
find something for you...but I worded things here carefully so as to
not leave myself with that obligation. You can easily find it
yourself. It typically needs more than one document anyway. When I
look into something I end up with 20 or 30 pages open (follow links,
googling names, etc). So it's really something one has to do for
oneself.
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
I don't really agree that psychopathy is equivalent to having ideas
about killing/hurting people.
What is it then?
-- Rami
Well...there's an evolving understanding. There's a lot of recent
theorizing suggesting that while psychopaths are disproportionately
represented in prison, the same is also true in boardrooms.
Maybe they have recieved an unfairly bad press? Maybe they are more
like heros of good philosophy. Uber -rational beings with special
analytical powers as the result of possessing brains innately
unclutered by empathy, fear, fear of pain, etc.
Rami Rustom
2012-12-21 15:13:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by Brett Hall
Post by Brett Hall
Post by hibbsa
Post by Elliot Temple
Post by hibbsa
Something that might be helpful to a discussion about empathy
would be
if particapants disclose whether they personally consistently
experience
what they assume must be meant by 'empathy'. Not everyone
does.
Stop trying to invade people's privacy.
-- Elliot Temple
http://fallibleideas.com/
Voluntary disclosure doesn't involve any kind of invasion that I can
see. So the question would be the relevance/importance to the
discussion of
what is suggested.
About that I would say that, if you don't experience the sensation of
empathy, and never have...then you about as useful to people that
do or have
as a blind man is to a discussion about the visual sensation of
colour.
Is this what emotions are like? Is empathy, poorly defined as it is, a
quale like the perception of some colour?
Brett.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
From what I can make of it, empathy is linked in with social instinct
(Or call it social static memes if you prefer...in the end once 'static
memes' have been worked through to their consequences I suspect
there aren't
going to be that many differences)
What does "worked through to their consequences" mean?
For example, if a 'static meme' is similar enough, ubiquitous enough,
and in the population long enough, and makes itself useful enough,
then any mutations in the brain that improve the execution of that
meme would become positively advantageous, thus natural selection
kicks in. And I think DD does say static memes came first and were
around a long long time. That's one example.
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by Brett Hall
Not everyone has it. Psychopaths don't get empathy.
Autism/Asperger's
have less empathy which may be part of the reason for the tendency to be
socially isolated, unable to grasp social cues and so on.
Those concepts are not any good. We have better ideas to explain what
you're trying to explain. Those concepts explain that genes have a
causal role, but they don't.
It's fine by me for you to regard psychopaths and autistic/asperger's
in the way that you do. Underlying causality can be put to one side.
E.g. you may assume every time I say "psychopath" what I mean is
"people with socially different ideas and behaviour such that they
would be high on the psychopath checklist"
Post by Rami Rustom
When psychologists refer to someone as having a "psychopathy", what's
really going on is that that person has evil ideas,
But does a psychopath have evil ideas? Typically they would probably
agree with Rand, agree with the ideas against altruism, agree with the
ideas about putting oneself first absolutely without compromise.
They do or they don't? Are you assuming that?
I bet you're assuming that someone whose not willing to sacrifice
one's preferences necessitates sacrificing someone else's preferences,
right?
I know about finding common preferences
Ok. Do you agree with it? Do you agree that every interaction between
people can involve common preferences such that no one gets hurt (i.e.
no one sacrifices)? And for that reason, its bad to sacrifice one's
own preferences and its bad to sacrifice another person's preferences?
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
I reject that. Every single interaction between two or more
people can be a win/win situation, such that both people get what they
want -- meaning that no one sacrifices. This is Rand's view. Why do
you think that having this idea is psychopathic?
You are assuming a lot of things. What about the possibility
psychopathy is an unfairly maligned condition?
I don't know why you're saying I'm assuming things. I'm trying to
understand *your* position. And since I don't understand it yet, I'm
rephrasing your position as best as I understand it and I'm expecting
you to tell me if I understood your position correctly. If you say I
don't understand your position, then I expect you to explain which
part I'm misunderstanding.

Judging from what you just said, I think you mean this: Maybe
"psychopathy" *is* a disease *but* that its not one that causes a
person to have evil ideas or commit evil acts. Is that what you mean?
I don't agree that there is such a thing as psychopathy. Either there
is a disease in a body part, in this case we're talking about the
brain, or there is no disease at all. Thats what disease means -- and
the suffix -pathy means disease.
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
So what are these evil ideas you have in mind?
By that I meant wanting to kill someone, or torture them, or rape
them, things like that.
There's nothing about psychopathy that necessarily means wanting to do
that stuff. You have to be drawn to the ideas of [gratuitous] torture,
rape, murder, in the first place. It's unlikely that many psychopaths
are at all interested in doing that sort of thing.
What do you think a "psychopath" is? How do you recognize one?
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
Post by Rami Rustom
ideas that he uses
to kill and hurt innocent people. And I guess the psychologists assume
that having those evil ideas *must* be due to a physical illness, but
that's false. Horrible experiences during childhood (plus his
understanding about them, i.e. his choices) is sufficient to causing
one to have evil ideas.
The reason I am personally convinced there is a genetic component is
because I have seen scientific evidence in the form brain imaging. If
you are interested you could look into that.
Please link the article here.
I meant I've physically seen the process/evidence.
So you mean that you read articles that explain that there is a
genetic component that plays a causal role in... what?
Post by a b
I could probably
find something for you...but I worded things here carefully so as to
not leave myself with that obligation. You can easily find it
yourself. It typically needs more than one document anyway. When I
look into something I end up with 20 or 30 pages open (follow links,
googling names, etc). So it's really something one has to do for
oneself.
Post by Rami Rustom
Post by a b
I don't really agree that psychopathy is equivalent to having ideas
about killing/hurting people.
What is it then?
-- Rami
Well...there's an evolving understanding. There's a lot of recent
theorizing suggesting that while psychopaths are disproportionately
represented in prison, the same is also true in boardrooms.
Maybe they have recieved an unfairly bad press? Maybe they are more
like heros of good philosophy. Uber -rational beings with special
analytical powers as the result of possessing brains innately
unclutered by empathy, fear, fear of pain, etc.
Why do you think any of those things are inborn?

A newborn does not know fear nor empathy.

Did that research that you read involve brain imaging of newborns and
then they tracked those people throughout their lives?

Or was the brain imaging only done in adulthood? If so, how do you
know that people's differing ideas are not the cause of the
differences in brain images? (Note that our ideas are instantiated
physically in our brains as neural connections.)


BTW, what you're saying about empathy and people labeled with
Autism/Aspergers having less empathy is wrong.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/18/health/fearing-a-stigma-for-people-with-autism.html?_r=3&
Post by a b
In a widely circulated defense of the empathic powers of her 11-year-old son, who has an Asperger diagnosis, Emily Willingham, a science blogger, wrote that “he can’t bear to watch people crack tree nuts, like pecans, because being something of a tree nut himself, he feels pain on behalf of the nuts.”
So empathy is about ideas. This person has the false idea that pecans feel pain.
Post by a b
His own flat affect, he explained, does not mean that he has no feelings: “Our emotions don’t naturally show on our faces,” he wrote. “This is perhaps the most frustrating part of the Asperger experience, because people think you’re not feeling when you may be feeling even more strongly than they are.”
Seriously? Because a person doesn't do the social vibrations that most
people do when they have certain emotions, he's deemed not having
emotions? Thats stupid. Emotions are private. By not making those
social vibrations, one can keep his emotions private. And if he wants
to let others know about his emotions, he can talk to certain people
about them. Why broadcast to the whole world about one's emotions?

Consider the really bad emotions, like anger. When a person gets
angry, should he show that on his face? First of all, anger is a bad
emotion. Its about wanting to hurt someone. So if someone knows that
anger is bad, why would he want other people to know that he's
currently having the anger emotion? He'd be stupid to do that.
Furthermore, if a parent got angry and then let the anger show on his
face, his kids are liable to learn to do the same. Why would the
parent want to teach his kids to react to things with anger?

-- Rami


------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Fabric-of-Reality/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Fabric-of-Reality/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
Fabric-of-Reality-digest-***@public.gmane.org
Fabric-of-Reality-fullfeatured-***@public.gmane.org

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Fabric-of-Reality-unsubscribe-***@public.gmane.org

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Alan Forrester
2012-12-20 19:22:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Brett Hall
Post by Brett Hall
Post by hibbsa
Post by Elliot Temple
Post by hibbsa
Something that might be helpful to a discussion about empathy would be
if particapants disclose whether they personally consistently experience
what they assume must be meant by 'empathy'. Not everyone does.
Stop trying to invade people's privacy.
-- Elliot Temple
http://fallibleideas.com/
Voluntary disclosure doesn't involve any kind of invasion that I can see. So the question would be the relevance/importance to the discussion of what is suggested.
About that I would say that, if you don't experience the sensation of empathy, and never have...then you about as useful to people that do or have as a blind man is to a discussion about the visual sensation of colour.
Is this what emotions are like? Is empathy, poorly defined as it is, a quale like the perception of some colour?
Brett.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
From what I can make of it, empathy is linked in with social instinct (Or call it social static memes if you prefer...in the end once 'static memes' have been worked through to their consequences I suspect there aren't going to be that many differences)
People don't have instincts, only knowledge they haven't questioned yet.

Empathy is just a word for certain responses that the particular audience in question happens to like. If a man shoots a burglar who comes into his house, lefties might insist we should have empathy for the burglar, while righties might say we should have empathy for the shooter.
Post by Brett Hall
Not everyone has it. Psychopaths don't get empathy. Autism/Asperger's have less empathy which may be part of the reason for the tendency to be socially isolated, unable to grasp social cues and so on.
What is the difference and similarity between psychopathy and autism spectrum disorders would be of potential interest.
Psychopathy and autism are both labels for behaviour that psychiatrists dislike: the difference between them is arbitrary and of no interest.

Alan
a b
2012-12-20 20:05:41 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 7:22 PM, Alan Forrester
Post by Alan Forrester
Post by Brett Hall
Post by Brett Hall
Post by hibbsa
Post by Elliot Temple
Post by hibbsa
Something that might be helpful to a discussion about empathy would be
if particapants disclose whether they personally consistently experience
what they assume must be meant by 'empathy'. Not everyone does.
Stop trying to invade people's privacy.
-- Elliot Temple
http://fallibleideas.com/
Voluntary disclosure doesn't involve any kind of invasion that I can
see. So the question would be the relevance/importance to the discussion of
what is suggested.
About that I would say that, if you don't experience the sensation of
empathy, and never have...then you about as useful to people that do or have
as a blind man is to a discussion about the visual sensation of colour.
Is this what emotions are like? Is empathy, poorly defined as it is, a
quale like the perception of some colour?
Brett.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
From what I can make of it, empathy is linked in with social instinct
(Or call it social static memes if you prefer...in the end once 'static
memes' have been worked through to their consequences I suspect there aren't
going to be that many differences)
People don't have instincts, only knowledge they haven't questioned yet.
Empathy is just a word for certain responses that the particular audience
in question happens to like. If a man shoots a burglar who comes into his
house, lefties might insist we should have empathy for the burglar, while
righties might say we should have empathy for the shooter.
Post by Brett Hall
Not everyone has it. Psychopaths don't get empathy. Autism/Asperger's
have less empathy which may be part of the reason for the tendency to be
socially isolated, unable to grasp social cues and so on.
What is the difference and similarity between psychopathy and autism
spectrum disorders would be of potential interest.
Psychopathy and autism are both labels for behaviour that psychiatrists
dislike: the difference between them is arbitrary and of no interest.
Alan
The way it looks to me, you and others make a great deal of physical
claims that amount to predictions. Which would mean they are
falsifiable. So given you have moved onto falsifiable territory why
not formalize it, and make clear what the stakes are? If mirror
neurons are physically demonstrated at some point, what in your
philosophy will be falsified? How big will it be for what you believe?
Likewise if it is proven there is a subset of people with brains that
do not work in the same way and that this does not change throughout
life regardless of philosophy or experience, what will be falsified?
Stand behind what you believe and say what is at stake.
Elliot Temple
2012-12-20 22:21:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by a b
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 7:22 PM, Alan Forrester
Post by Alan Forrester
Post by Brett Hall
Post by Brett Hall
Post by hibbsa
Post by Elliot Temple
Post by hibbsa
Something that might be helpful to a discussion about empathy would be
if particapants disclose whether they personally consistently experience
what they assume must be meant by 'empathy'. Not everyone does.
Stop trying to invade people's privacy.
-- Elliot Temple
http://fallibleideas.com/
Voluntary disclosure doesn't involve any kind of invasion that I can
see. So the question would be the relevance/importance to the discussion of
what is suggested.
About that I would say that, if you don't experience the sensation of
empathy, and never have...then you about as useful to people that do or have
as a blind man is to a discussion about the visual sensation of colour.
Is this what emotions are like? Is empathy, poorly defined as it is, a
quale like the perception of some colour?
Brett.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
From what I can make of it, empathy is linked in with social instinct
(Or call it social static memes if you prefer...in the end once 'static
memes' have been worked through to their consequences I suspect there aren't
going to be that many differences)
People don't have instincts, only knowledge they haven't questioned yet.
Empathy is just a word for certain responses that the particular audience
in question happens to like. If a man shoots a burglar who comes into his
house, lefties might insist we should have empathy for the burglar, while
righties might say we should have empathy for the shooter.
Post by Brett Hall
Not everyone has it. Psychopaths don't get empathy. Autism/Asperger's
have less empathy which may be part of the reason for the tendency to be
socially isolated, unable to grasp social cues and so on.
What is the difference and similarity between psychopathy and autism
spectrum disorders would be of potential interest.
Psychopathy and autism are both labels for behaviour that psychiatrists
dislike: the difference between them is arbitrary and of no interest.
Alan
The way it looks to me, you and others make a great deal of physical
claims that amount to predictions. Which would mean they are
falsifiable. So given you have moved onto falsifiable territory why
not formalize it, and make clear what the stakes are? If mirror
neurons are physically demonstrated at some point, what in your
philosophy will be falsified? How big will it be for what you believe?
Likewise if it is proven there is a subset of people with brains that
do not work in the same way and that this does not change throughout
life regardless of philosophy or experience, what will be falsified?
Stand behind what you believe and say what is at stake.
You can't physically demonstrate something that isn't well defined in the first place. What observations would count?

-- Elliot Temple
http://beginningofinfinity.com/
Loading...