Where is the Common Ground?

[Roboramma]

Originally Posted by Lurch

Oh, I don't know. RHINO these days seems a little apropos. Republican Hitlerite in Name Only has a certain applicability given the racist and Fascistic leanings of the GOP.

Yeah, and those not only that, but those damn Hitlerites refuse to find common ground!

[Roger Ramjets]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

I didn't say it was useless, I said it was overrated.

Being human is overrated. Got it.

Quote:

These are very different claims.

You claim that empathy is 'overrated' and that it's "pretty damn obvious, if you actually look at the objective evidence". But you haven't offered any actual evidence to support your claim.

Quote:

Indeed, Democrats are likely to be more empathetic than Republicans. Which also means they are more illogical, more prone to be swayed by emotions, more prone to ignore unintended consequences, and actually less tolerant of people with different views.

Being empathic means being illogical, emotional, ignorant and intolerant. Got it.

Meanwhile...

Quote:

Empathy is the capacity to understand or feel what another person is experiencing from within their frame of reference, i.e., the capacity to place oneself in another's position. There are many definitions for empathy that encompass a broad range of emotional states. Types of empathy include cognitive empathy, emotional empathy, and somatic empathy...

So not illogical or ignorant, nor intolerant or necessarily 'emotional'.

However...

Quote:

Atypical empathic responses have been associated with autism and particular personality disorders such as psychopathy, borderline, narcissistic, and schizoid personality disorders; conduct disorder; schizophrenia; bipolar disorder; and depersonalization. Lack of affective empathy has also been associated with sex offenders.

But the good news is that having less empathy means that they can be more logical, less swayed by emotion, and more tolerant of people with 'different views', right?

Quote:

Everyone is selective about whom they have empathy for. Nobody has empathy for everyone.

7.6 billion people in the World and I empathize with all of them - including murderers, child molesters, narcissists, even you. As a child I was borderline autistic, and I too believed that empathy was 'overrated'. So I get what you are saying. But I managed to embrace my empathic side and grew out of it.

It may seem illogical and 'emotional', but empathy is actually a very useful tool for understanding what another person is experiencing from within their frame of reference. Perhaps if you were to drop the Mr. Spock routine and try a little empathy you might begin to understand how others feel. It might even help us find some common ground!

[Roger Ramjets]

Originally Posted by BrooklynBaby

Well, both the highest level of poverty and the largest number of people in poverty are in the most left-wing state in the country -- California. So, the left certainly isn't going to solve they problem, being as how they are the problem. We must look elsewhere.

If I may make A Modest Proposal...

[tyr_13]

Originally Posted by BrooklynBaby

Well, both the highest level of poverty and the largest number of people in poverty are in the most left-wing state in the country -- California. So, the left certainly isn't going to solve they problem, being as how they are the problem. We must look elsewhere.

Originally Posted by Roboramma

That simple correlation really doesn't imply what you think it implies. The social sciences are extremely complex and trying to tease out causative influences is going to take more than "both the highest level of poverty and the largest number of people in poverty are in the most left-wing state in the country".

To take that fact and conclude that the left is the problem is very poor reasoning. There may be other reasons that led you to that conclusion, but if so you ought to share them with the rest of us.

The even bigger problem is that you thought what BB said was true or relevant. Now California might have 'the most people in poverty' because they have the highest population (although I'd say Texas actually 'wins' that irrelevant metric too). The highest rates of poverty are the territories, and among the states, the highest rate is those 'most left-wing' states, Mississippi, New Mexico, Alabama, Kentucky, Arkansas, Georgia, West Virginia, Arizona, Tennessee, South Carolina, North Carolina, Texas, Florida, Oklahoma...and THEN California.

It's not true that it is the 'left' states that have this problem 'the most' in the least. It is a just another talking point lie that doesn't get questioned because it's been repeated so many times that many just feel it to be true. Even those who know it isn't true will Cherry pick things and fall back on, 'Well look at Chicago...'

[The Norseman]

Originally Posted by BrooklynBaby

Well, both the highest level of poverty and the largest number of people in poverty are in the most left-wing state in the country -- California. So, the left certainly isn't going to solve they problem, being as how they are the problem. We must look elsewhere.

I know you grabbed this just to try and gain cheap political points because you aren't actually showing California in context.

Here's the context for people who legitimately wish to know:

https://www.census.gov/content/dam/C...mo/p60-258.pdf

This is a new 3-year weighted score being developed in order to try and provide a more comprehensive and accurate picture of poverty in relation to things like cost of living, medical expenditures, non-cash benefits and other governmental disbursements, housing, and so on.

Using the still-official poverty numbers, however, California is 15th (or 17th) on the list of most-poor states while nine of the top ten most-poverty stricken states are all Republican leaning.

It's also been shown by reputable studies that poor people tend to make very poor judgments overall in life which can help explain why so many poor Americans voted for Trump. I think that and a desperate need to believe in some sort of fantasy-world where they seem to be better off than they really are.

[Lurch]

Doncha just love those who peddle 'statistics' without providing proper context? Such as plucking a *total* without looking at *proportion*. As already noted above, simply saying the most populous entity has the most of, say, poverty, can be awfully misleading. A town of 200 where everyone is poor (100% poverty) is, as a group, doing far worse than is a whole state where, say, half of the 2 million citizens, or a full million, are poor.

But this is so self evident I'm amazed that I feel I must spell it out. Ah well. If everyone who made it as far as grade 9 actually paid attention in class we might not be wading against such a tide of ignorance.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

Being human is overrated. Got it.

No, you clearly don't. Which is why you have to resort to such straw men.

Quote:

7.6 billion people in the World and I empathize with all of them

No you don't. You can want to empathize with all of them, but you can't do it. You can't empathize with someone you know nothing about.

Quote:

including murderers, child molesters, narcissists, even you.

You don't empathize with me. If you did, you wouldn't be so bad at understanding what I'm saying.

Quote:

As a child I was borderline autistic, and I too believed that empathy was 'overrated'. So I get what you are saying.

No, you don't. That's one of the ironies of this exchange: you're touting empathy, but you aren't actually demonstrating it. I'm not saying empathy isn't good for personal interactions. It is. But it's a very bad basis for public policy decisions. And also note that empathy isn't the same as compassion or kindness or generosity.

[Mumbles]

Originally Posted by Lurch

Doncha just love those who peddle 'statistics' without providing proper context? Such as plucking a *total* without looking at *proportion*. As already noted above, simply saying the most populous entity has the most of, say, poverty, can be awfully misleading. A town of 200 where everyone is poor (100% poverty) is, as a group, doing far worse than is a whole state where, say, half of the 2 million citizens, or a full million, are poor.

But this is so self evident I'm amazed that I feel I must spell it out. Ah well. If everyone who made it as far as grade 9 actually paid attention in class we might not be wading against such a tide of ignorance.

Actually, as far as indexed (as opposed to the current official figures) poverty goes, there's a strong discussion to be had about the incredibly high price of real estate in California - but this seems to me to have more to do with developers outright refusing to build affordable housing, combined with local zoning ordinances, than with any amazing liberal failure. Granted, I live on the east coast, so I'm not that tuned in to what's going on there.

(The state that's second highest on the indexed list is Florida - and third is a tie between New York and Louisiana. There's just no correlation to political party or ideology there.)

[Roboramma]

Zig, no one actually read the article you posted so they are arguing against something completely different from what you are saying.

I actually haven't read it either, but at least I'm familiar with Paul Bloom and his work. It's worth noting (to others) that he makes a distinction between empathy and compassion.

https://www.amazon.com/Against-Empat.../dp/0062339338

Quote:

In AGAINST EMPATHY, Bloom reveals empathy to be one of the leading motivators of inequality and immorality in society. Far from helping us to improve the lives of others, empathy is a capricious and irrational emotion that appeals to our narrow prejudices. It muddles our judgment and, ironically, often leads to cruelty. We are at our best when we are smart enough not to rely on it, but to draw instead upon a more distanced compassion.

The point is that empathy is an emotion that's subject to many biases and those biases tend to lead to an unequal application of compassion toward others.

Another quote, from that amazon page:

Quote:

Leslie: You say that telling people you were writing a book against empathy was like telling people you were writing a book against kittens. So let's start there: What's your quarrel with kittens? What's the trouble with empathy?

Paul: Everyone loves kittens, and just about everyone loves empathy. It's easy to see it as a moral cure-all, making us kinder and more loving, essential for positive social change.

But empathy is surprisingly bad at making us good. It's a spotlight focusing on certain people in the here and now. This makes us care more about them, but it leaves us insensitive to the long-term consequences of our acts and blind as well to the suffering of those we do not or cannot empathize with. Empathy is biased, pushing us in the direction of parochialism and racism. It is innumerate, favoring the one over the many. It can spark violence; our empathy for those close to us is a powerful force for war and atrocity toward others. It exhausts the spirit and can diminish the force of kindness and love. And I'm just getting started!

Leslie: What's the difference between empathy and compassion? Why does that difference matter?

Paul: My subtitle is 'The Case for Rational Compassion.' The 'rational' part refers to how we should make moral decisions, and it's pretty obvious what this means. But 'compassion' might be less clear. I'm referring here to concern for others, wanting their pain to go away, wanting their lives to improve—but without the shared emotional experience that's so central to empathy.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by Roboramma

Zig, no one actually read the article you posted so they are arguing against something completely different from what you are saying.

I actually haven't read it either, but at least I'm familiar with Paul Bloom and his work. It's worth noting (to others) that he makes a distinction between empathy and compassion.

https://www.amazon.com/Against-Empat.../dp/0062339338


The point is that empathy is an emotion that's subject to many biases and those biases tend to lead to an unequal application of compassion toward others.

Another quote, from that amazon page:

I have to say that Bloom is full of crap. I don't agree with his definition of empathy or his premises nor his conclusions. Empathy is the golden rule. It is attempting to see life from someone else's shoes. To attempt to understand what they are going through. Bloom seems to me as another human being who is seeking permission and a rationale for not connecting to others.

[Minoosh]

Originally Posted by The Norseman

Using the still-official poverty numbers, however, California is 15th (or 17th) on the list of most-poor states while nine of the top ten most-poverty stricken states are all Republican leaning.

It's hard to find common ground with people who make up their own facts.

[Minoosh]

Originally Posted by BrooklynBaby

Well, both the highest level of poverty and the largest number of people in poverty are in the most left-wing state in the country -- California. So, the left certainly isn't going to solve they problem, being as how they are the problem. We must look elsewhere.

In addition to the dubious poverty claim, I'm not finding numbers to support California being the most left-wing state.

This link for example puts it at No. 6.

Are you ever tempted to look stuff up?

[kellyb]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

I'm not saying empathy isn't good for personal interactions. It is. But it's a very bad basis for public policy decisions. And also note that empathy isn't the same as compassion or kindness or generosity.

The idea that empathy is overall or always "a very bad basis for public policy decisions" is absolutely incorrect.


But let us know what sort of evidence or rational argument you have to back that one.

Here's a compassion-based policy proposal:

https://nomoneybail.org/

Tell me the anti-compassion "rational" argument against it.

[kellyb]

Originally Posted by Mumbles

Actually, as far as indexed (as opposed to the current official figures) poverty goes, there's a strong discussion to be had about the incredibly high price of real estate in California - but this seems to me to have more to do with developers outright refusing to build affordable housing, combined with local zoning ordinances, than with any amazing liberal failure.

The high price of real estate in CA is a result of this, the most rightwing property tax law in the country to my knowledge:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Califo...ition_13_(1978)

[Roboramma]

Originally Posted by kellyb

The idea that empathy is overall or always "a very bad basis for public policy decisions" is absolutely incorrect.


But let us know what sort of evidence or rational argument you have to back that one.

Here's a compassion-based policy proposal:

https://nomoneybail.org/

Tell me the anti-compassion "rational" argument against it.

Once again, the issue isn't empathy vs. rationality. It's the difference between empathy and compassion.

So you seem to be agreeing with Zig.

[Roboramma]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

I have to say that Bloom is full of crap. I don't agree with his definition of empathy or his premises nor his conclusions. Empathy is the golden rule. It is attempting to see life from someone else's shoes. To attempt to understand what they are going through. Bloom seems to me as another human being who is seeking permission and a rationale for not connecting to others.

Yes, there are different definitions of empathy. If you want to say that the way he uses the term is different from the way most people do, that's fine, but given the way he outlines the distinction he's trying to make I think he has some good reasons for using the term the way he does. Whether or not we should call it empathy is a valid issue to discuss, but the distinction is a valuable one to make and the problems that he brings up are problems that are worth avoiding.

It's also worth noting the he's a researcher in psychology and I think he's using the term in the same way it's used in the literature.

[Minoosh]

Originally Posted by Roboramma

Once again, the issue isn't empathy vs. rationality. It's the difference between empathy and compassion.

So you seem to be agreeing with Zig.

From etymologies and different dictionary sites the words mean basically the same thing. I think I understand the distinction being made but I'm not sure.

[Roboramma]

Originally Posted by tyr_13

The even bigger problem is that you thought what BB said was true or relevant. Now California might have 'the most people in poverty' because they have the highest population (although I'd say Texas actually 'wins' that irrelevant metric too). The highest rates of poverty are the territories, and among the states, the highest rate is those 'most left-wing' states, Mississippi, New Mexico, Alabama, Kentucky, Arkansas, Georgia, West Virginia, Arizona, Tennessee, South Carolina, North Carolina, Texas, Florida, Oklahoma...and THEN California.

Yeah, that's a good point and I'm embarassed that I missed it, though in my defence the fact that his argument had no validity to it was enough to dismiss it, so I didn't really see the need to think about it further. Still, you're right and that's actually pretty funny.

Quote:

It's not true that it is the 'left' states that have this problem 'the most' in the least. It is a just another talking point lie that doesn't get questioned because it's been repeated so many times that many just feel it to be true. Even those who know it isn't true will Cherry pick things and fall back on, 'Well look at Chicago...'

Yeah, and this brings us to the main issue and the main problem with finding common ground. Not many people are actually interested in it, as far as I can see. Both sides just tend to look for confirmation of their prior views and ignore the things that conflict with them.

[Roboramma]

Originally Posted by Minoosh

From etymologies and different dictionary sites the words mean basically the same thing. I think I understand the distinction being made but I'm not sure.

This is not meant as a form of argument, but really for those who might be interested:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

This is an episode of Sam Harris' podcast in which he talks with Paul Bloom. It's what exposed me to his ideas and I found it very interesting. I'm not entirely sure what my own view of his conclusions is, but the research is extremely interesting even if you draw different conclusions from it than Bloom does.

I don't intend a youtube link to be a substitute for expressing my own views, but in case people are interested in the subject I think this podcast is worth listening to.

[kellyb]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

I have to say that Bloom is full of crap. I don't agree with his definition of empathy or his premises nor his conclusions. Empathy is the golden rule. It is attempting to see life from someone else's shoes. To attempt to understand what they are going through. Bloom seems to me as another human being who is seeking permission and a rationale for not connecting to others.

Yeah, it just strikes me as word games to rationalize promoting anti-social philosophies and policies and calling it "scientific".

He's already written "Against Empathy: The Case for Rational Compassion", so, I'd like to suggest some future book titles:

• In Defense of Administrative Massacres : Rapid Natural Selection as the Silver Lining in Modern Conflicts
  
• When Famine is a Gift: Teaching Indigenous People the Art of Labor Migration
  
• Scientific Progress is Always Pretty: The Upside of Pediatric Cancer

[kellyb]

Originally Posted by Roboramma

Once again, the issue isn't empathy vs. rationality. It's the difference between empathy and compassion.

So you seem to be agreeing with Zig.

When I think of compassion, I think of someone from "on high" helping someone "down below" - aka "pity".

It's the difference between helping a neighbor or other person you run across or know about because it's just the normal, pro-social way to be and because it's just kind of the right way to act, vs choosing to do something out of charity.

I'm reminded of this line, from Orwell's Down and Out:

Quote:

The fact is that the Salvation Army are so in the habit of thinking themselves a charitable body that they cannot even run a lodging-house without making it stink of charity.

[kellyb]

Originally Posted by Minoosh

From etymologies and different dictionary sites the words mean basically the same thing. I think I understand the distinction being made but I'm not sure.

One of the book reviews says "This entire books is based on the wrong premise that empathy = identification, especially group identification. But "Against Group Identification" wouldn't have made for a controversial title that would have gotten lots of attention to help sell more titles."

I think it's probably just a book written to pander to those opposed to "bleeding heart liberalism."

[kellyb]

Originally Posted by Roboramma

It's also worth noting the he's a researcher in psychology and I think he's using the term in the same way it's used in the literature.

I'm pretty sure something like this is the most common usage in research:

https://pages.uoregon.edu/hodgeslab/...odges_2006.PDF

Quote:

Empathy is a complex psychological response in which observation, memory, knowledge, and reasoning are combined to yield insights into the
thoughts and feelings of others (Ickes, 1997)

Maybe his book is really a great, compelling case against using observation, memory, knowledge, and reasoning combined to yield insights into the thoughts and feelings of others. Maybe. LOL

[WilliamSeger]

Originally Posted by kellyb

Yeah, it just strikes me as word games to rationalize promoting anti-social philosophies and policies and calling it "scientific".

He's already written "Against Empathy: The Case for Rational Compassion", so, I'd like to suggest some future book titles:

• In Defense of Administrative Massacres : Rapid Natural Selection as the Silver Lining in Modern Conflicts
  
• When Famine is a Gift: Teaching Indigenous People the Art of Labor Migration
  
• Scientific Progress is Always Pretty: The Upside of Pediatric Cancer

I agree: it's a word game. Yes, Bloom is right that empathy can lead to "irrational" behavior, especially when people act on impulse, but public policy should be deliberative and all laws should be rational. I'm enough of a libertarian to believe that if a law doesn't "make sense" in terms of providing benefits that justify the loss of liberty that all laws entail, then it shouldn't be passed. That comes down to subjective opinion, of course, but Bloom's conclusion that "empathy makes the world worse" is perfect for right-wing pseudo-Christians to justify not doing things to help people they don't like. Giving food stamps to poor people might seem "irrational" to such folks because society doesn't get anything in return, but that isn't true: People need to eat, and if they can't buy food, they will certainly find other ways to get it. People who feel that society does not treat them fairly will likely not feel obliged to follow its rules. The progressive position is that empathy in our public polices makes peoples' lives better, and that makes society better even if you can't see direct benefits. That's really what the "progress" is all about.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by kellyb

The idea that empathy is overall or always "a very bad basis for public policy decisions" is absolutely incorrect.


But let us know what sort of evidence or rational argument you have to back that one.

Here's a compassion-based policy proposal:

https://nomoneybail.org/

Tell me the anti-compassion "rational" argument against it.

I explicitly said empathy was not the same thing as compassion, and here you are trying to conflate them. Do pay attention, please. This is getting tiresome.

[kellyb]

Originally Posted by WilliamSeger

I agree: it's a word game. Yes, Bloom is right that empathy can lead to "irrational" behavior, especially when people act on impulse, but public policy should be deliberative and all laws should be rational. I'm enough of a libertarian to believe that if a law doesn't "make sense" in terms of providing benefits that justify the loss of liberty that all laws entail, then it shouldn't be passed. That comes down to subjective opinion, of course, but Bloom's conclusion that "empathy makes the world worse" is perfect for right-wing pseudo-Christians to justify not doing things to help people they don't like. Giving food stamps to poor people might seem "irrational" to such folks because society doesn't get anything in return, but that isn't true: People need to eat, and if they can't buy food, they will certainly find other ways to get it. People who feel that society does not treat them fairly will likely not feel obliged to follow its rules. The progressive position is that empathy in our public polices makes peoples' lives better, and that makes society better even if you can't see direct benefits. That's really what the "progress" is all about.

Food stamps are partially a matter of economic stimulus, too:

https://money.cnn.com/2008/01/29/new...ulus_analysis/

Quote:

In findings echoed by other economists and studies, he said the study shows the fastest way to infuse money into the economy is through expanding the food-stamp program. For every dollar spent on that program $1.73 is generated throughout the economy, he said.

Sometimes unintended consequences are good.

[kellyb]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

I explicitly said empathy was not the same thing as compassion, and here you are trying to conflate them. Do pay attention, please. This is getting tiresome.

That was a typo. The anti-empathy argument, is what I meant.

[Cain]

I can't understand why anyone would think empathy is a good thing.

[Roboramma]

Originally Posted by kellyb

Yeah, it just strikes me as word games to rationalize promoting anti-social philosophies and policies and calling it "scientific".

Except he doesn't promote anti-social philosophies or policies.

[Roboramma]

Originally Posted by kellyb

That was a typo. The anti-empathy argument, is what I meant.

Why would you think that there's an anti-empathy argument against it? I don't see any connection between agreeing with Bloom and disagreeing with the link you posted. It seems reasonable to me.

[WilliamSeger]

Originally Posted by kellyb

Food stamps are partially a matter of economic stimulus, too:

https://money.cnn.com/2008/01/29/new...ulus_analysis/


Sometimes unintended consequences are good.

Yes, one belief on the right seems to be that government spending disappears down a black hole. You can't cut government spending much without losing jobs and procurements from the private sector.

[uke2se]

It seems to me that common ground can only be found with those who reject Trumpism. Trumpists who remain faithful are too far gone and must be made politically marginalized.

I know Trumpists who read this will clutch their perls and exclaim about how intolerant I am being. What I am actually being is realistic. Trumpism - like many, if not most, other populist movements - is a mind virus. It can really only be quarantined and left to consume it's hosts.

ETA: That said, Trumpism is a far more virulent and dangerous strain of populism as it attaches itself primarily to racist hosts.

[WilliamSeger]

Originally Posted by uke2se

It seems to me that common ground can only be found with those who reject Trumpism. Trumpists who remain faithful are too far gone and must be made politically marginalized.

I know Trumpists who read this will clutch their perls and exclaim about how intolerant I am being. What I am actually being is realistic. Trumpism - like many, if not most, other populist movements - is a mind virus. It can really only be quarantined and left to consume it's hosts.

ETA: That said, Trumpism is a far more virulent and dangerous strain of populism as it attaches itself primarily to racist hosts.

I'd define Trumpism as a thin veneer of tribalism masquerading as populism, promoted by demagoguery and empty promises, found to be useful when laid over an agenda for helping the rich get richer, faster. It must be burned to the ground.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by kellyb

That was a typo.

Sure, kellyb, sure.

Quote:

The anti-empathy argument, is what I meant.

Revealing, once again, that you don't understand what I'm saying. You're making multiple mistakes of logic here.

First, you think I'm arguing for inverse empathy, that is, if empathy favors a policy, then that means I should oppose it. But that's not the case at all. I'm arguing that you shouldn't use empathy. Using it in an inverse manner is still using it.

Second, even if you want to use empathy to guide your public policy choices, that doesn't uniquely determine what those policies will be. Different people have empathy for different other people, and while your empathy for A might lead you to favor policy X, someone else's empathy for B might lead them to favor conflicting policy Y. Empathy is subjective.

Third, I'm not arguing about specific policies, I'm arguing about the basis for evaluating policies. So in regard to the policy you referenced, bail money, I haven't taken a stand for or against it. It's an issue I'm unfamiliar with. I'm not saying you should oppose the proposed change, as you seem to think. I'm saying you should evaluate it on the basis of something other than empathy. A proper basis of consideration should include logical analysis, and it can include compassion as well (because once again, compassion isn't the same as empathy). It may well be that such an analysis will still favor this proposal. Because again, I'm not arguing for inverse empathy. Empathy is a bad basis for evaluating policy, because it's not reliable. And that means it's not reliably right or reliably wrong. If it was reliably wrong, then it would be incredibly useful for evaluating choices.

[JoeMorgue]

So basically everyone is agreement that we need to meet on common ground as long as they get to decide what the common ground is.

Glad we cleared that up. Next we can all agree that the other side needs to compromise with us on everything we're willing to compromise on.

[WilliamSeger]

Originally Posted by Cain

I can't understand why anyone would think empathy is a good thing.

[kellyb]

Originally Posted by WilliamSeger

I'd define Trumpism as a thin veneer of tribalism masquerading as populism, promoted by demagoguery and empty promises, found to be useful when laid over an agenda for helping the rich get richer, faster. It must be burned to the ground.

I think of it mostly as a mental "mark" on a human "mark", as in this:

http://www.goodmagic.com/carny/car_j-p.htm

Quote:

Mark — A townsperson you believe to be a conspicuously easy victim. The ticket booth would have a high counter, above the average person's eyesight, and when the ticket-seller spotted a towny with a big bankroll he might short-change the customer, leaving the change on the counter. If the customer didn't notice or didn't count his change, the ticket-seller would lean over to give him some "friendly" advice about the best attractions, putting his hand on the customer's shoulder to point him toward a show he simply must see, simultaneously dusting his back with chalk from a hidden supply. If the customer instead complained about the wrong change, the ticket seller could always push the remaining change to him and say "I told you to take it." And what does an agent do when he spots a mark? He "plays" him - that's right, just like you play a hooked fish. But a carny truism is, "Always leave the mark a dollar for gas." With gas money he can go home (you don't want him stuck there to raise a beef).

Trump's a con artist who saw this demographic of hate radio listeners and infowars watchers and identified them, correctly, as marks.

[JoeMorgue]

"Empathy" meaning "It is, in general, just a good base idea to at least try to understand how other people are feeling" is good.

"Empathy" meaning "If you truly understood how I felt you'd agree with me" is bad.

[The Big Dog]

Originally Posted by kellyb

I think of it mostly as a mental "mark" on a human "mark", as in this:

http://www.goodmagic.com/carny/car_j-p.htm


Trump's a con artist who saw this demographic of hate radio listeners and infowars watchers and identified them, correctly, as marks.

Sensational to see leftists straining for common ground!

Another great thread

[kellyb]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Different people have empathy for different other people, and while your empathy for A might lead you to favor policy X, someone else's empathy for B might lead them to favor conflicting policy Y. Empathy is subjective.

Empathy is not necessarily completely subjective. "Broad spectrum" empathy is possible.

Quote:

because once again, compassion isn't the same as empathy

Where are you getting your definitions of empathy and compassion from?

Quote:

Empathy is a bad basis for evaluating policy, because it's not reliable.

Pure rationality/computation without empathy is useless. Might as well ask Siri to devise policy.