CDZ Is empathy the key to this hate and division?

[candycorn]

Sure. Empathy is in most places. Not so much online.

 

[Mac1958]

They Choose not to do those ideas, because having two ideas in your head and not doing one of them is a sign of intelligence.

Well, that opens up ANOTHER can of worms.

Is it a lack of intelligence, or is it just intellectual laziness? Or is it that adherence to an ideology robs a person of their fundamental curiosity? What role does self esteem play in this?

Empathy seems like a fundamental human trait. In fact, isn't empathy something that usually separates us from the other animals?

How do we lose something that powerful? This seems like a cultural issue to me, and when something becomes cultural it becomes far more difficult to eradicate.
.

 

[yowsa]

One definition of "empathy" is: "the psychological identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another."

As I think about the deepening divisions in our country, and as I observe our strengthening proclivity for binary thought and a clear unwillingness to give an inch in political conversation, it occurs to me that an increasing lack of empathy may be at its foundation - both as a cause and an effect.

The less we communicate civilly, the more we distance ourselves from contrary thought and opinion, the less understanding we have of those with whom we disagree. It seems like we can in no way even understand the other person's perspective, that we tend to create immediate distortedcaricatures of it, and that gives us license to ignore/dismiss it out of hand.

Do we, or do we not, want to at least have an accurate understanding of, and appreciation for, another person's perspective on an issue before we respond?

Isn't there something potentially constructive or valuable, something we haven't thought about, somewhere within another person's perspective?

What stops us, do you suppose, from maintaining enough empathy for at least understanding and appreciating the view of someone who does not agree with us?

Three questions there. Let's see if we can put down our fists and dig a little.
.

The Badlands is where we hack out these issues. The "CDZ" is what? Nonsense?

 

[Mac1958]

The Badlands is where we hack out these issues. The "CDZ" is what? Nonsense?

Good news: You're not required to post here.
.

 

[Olde Europe]

The Badlands is where we hack out these issues. The "CDZ" is what? Nonsense?

Good news: You're not required to post here.
.

Here's where we get to behold the much-touted "empathy" experience a sudden - but by no means unexpected - death at the hands of the exclusionary principle.

 

[sjay]

I'm going to leave this answer to either Morgan Freeman or neil degrasse Tyson, they come up with the smart stuff, white women.

Hope you realize that the reason you're not getting any responses is because you don't make any sense.

 

[Weatherman2020]

One definition of "empathy" is: "the psychological identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another."

As I think about the deepening divisions in our country, and as I observe our strengthening proclivity for binary thought and a clear unwillingness to give an inch in political conversation, it occurs to me that an increasing lack of empathy may be at its foundation - both as a cause and an effect.

The less we communicate civilly, the more we distance ourselves from contrary thought and opinion, the less understanding we have of those with whom we disagree. It seems like we can in no way even understand the other person's perspective, that we tend to create immediate distortedcaricatures of it, and that gives us license to ignore/dismiss it out of hand.

Do we, or do we not, want to at least have an accurate understanding of, and appreciation for, another person's perspective on an issue before we respond?

Isn't there something potentially constructive or valuable, something we haven't thought about, somewhere within another person's perspective?

What stops us, do you suppose, from maintaining enough empathy for at least understanding and appreciating the view of someone who does not agree with us?

Three questions there. Let's see if we can put down our fists and dig a little.
.

The division is due to the Left openly embracing evil. Infanticide, open borders, terrorism, racism, communism, etc etc.

 

[Mike Dwight]

Sjay my Losses from schemers from a guaranteed 35,000 a year, for 8 years, $280,000 lost potential salary, lost time which is every Moment a contracted police security purpose I don't give a Heck, I'll bill the Heck out of this Public Safety is another 280,000 dollars if anybody doesn't Shut Up about that being totally the top level commandeered effort, and 10,000 should be there for meaningless directionless slander, having Deep Government have laser twitches as if you did anything for Any of that, not possible. I don't need to be Understood for Any of that to be in effect. Well hey here's not understood? That the University Chair, Board, and Provost have me linked "to the Amy Bishop shooting" at the campus of UAHuntsville and that any and all occurrences come in a direct authoritative line from Suspicion, Nobody is in that situation, and no reason I dealt with it more than anybody else, Ever.
They got a right to bring up random misunderstandings from years earlier?! That's totally separate. They didn't have a reason to ask. There wasn't any links whatsoever to Not liking Dr. Landry's PUNISHMENT METHOD of immaturely calling out "terrorist". Totally irrelevant. Dr. Landry's class commanded an aura of student enrapture and inferiority and a neutral pose invited open targeted scorn and hostility. Most of their problems end up like that.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

One definition of "empathy" is: "the psychological identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another."

As I think about the deepening divisions in our country, and as I observe our strengthening proclivity for binary thought and a clear unwillingness to give an inch in political conversation, it occurs to me that an increasing lack of empathy may be at its foundation - both as a cause and an effect.

The less we communicate civilly, the more we distance ourselves from contrary thought and opinion, the less understanding we have of those with whom we disagree. It seems like we can in no way even understand the other person's perspective, that we tend to create immediate distortedcaricatures of it, and that gives us license to ignore/dismiss it out of hand.

Do we, or do we not, want to at least have an accurate understanding of, and appreciation for, another person's perspective on an issue before we respond?

Isn't there something potentially constructive or valuable, something we haven't thought about, somewhere within another person's perspective?

What stops us, do you suppose, from maintaining enough empathy for at least understanding and appreciating the view of someone who does not agree with us?

Three questions there. Let's see if we can put down our fists and dig a little.
.

The division is due to the Left openly embracing evil. Infanticide, open borders, terrorism, racism, communism, etc etc.

Your post (utter nonsense) shows that you have no empathy. For that matter, no knowledge -

FACT is, there's plenty of blame and shame to go around. We're all, right and left, trying to live our lives the best we know how. How about the same standards of behavior from all?

 

[baileyn45]

As i've heard many times before, empathy makes horrible law. Structuring a law around one instance, ignores the millions of others that may be affected.

 

[Mac1958]

As i've heard many times before, empathy makes horrible law. Structuring a law around one instance, ignores the millions of others that may be affected.

Like anything (and everything) else, we just love to take an idea and go too far with it, so I don't disagree.

But I'm not talking about actions based only and specifically on empathy. I'm not going that far. I'm just saying that if we refuse to accurately understand another person's opinion and perspective -- and that's exactly what we're doing, we're refusing -- then communication is lost; if communication is lost, we (a) our tribal instincts cause us to only hate other opinions more and more, and (b) chances of communication, collaboration and innovation go out the window.

I think we know this. I'll bet that, at some level, we know what we're doing to ourselves with this behavior. What I wonder is if our tribal & self-esteem impulses are stopping us from putting our fists down for even a moment and just thinking.

It appears that fundamental human empathy is now considered a weakness, on both ends of the spectrum. I'm pretty sure that's not a good idea.
.

 

[Mike Dwight]

Aw, did you notice my empathy check? Just saying... Its OK I gamble millions in illegal car races, I'll make it back.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Empathy, at least when talking politics, is inversely proportional to tribalism. The more strongly a person identifies with a tribe, the less empathy they have for those they assign to the other tribe.

It seems to me as time goes by, not only are people identifying with a tribe, but acting more strident by way of the requirements for being in it.

 

[Mac1958]

Empathy, at least when talking politics, is inversely proportional to tribalism. The more strongly a person identifies with a tribe, the less empathy they have for those they assign to the other tribe. It seems to me as time goes by, not only are people identifying with a tribe, but acting more strident by way of the requirements for being in it.

Yep. It creates its own momentum, it feeds on itself.
.

 

[oldsoul]

One definition of "empathy" is: "the psychological identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another."

As I think about the deepening divisions in our country, and as I observe our strengthening proclivity for binary thought and a clear unwillingness to give an inch in political conversation, it occurs to me that an increasing lack of empathy may be at its foundation - both as a cause and an effect.

The less we communicate civilly, the more we distance ourselves from contrary thought and opinion, the less understanding we have of those with whom we disagree. It seems like we can in no way even understand the other person's perspective, that we tend to create immediate distortedcaricatures of it, and that gives us license to ignore/dismiss it out of hand.

Do we, or do we not, want to at least have an accurate understanding of, and appreciation for, another person's perspective on an issue before we respond?

Isn't there something potentially constructive or valuable, something we haven't thought about, somewhere within another person's perspective?

What stops us, do you suppose, from maintaining enough empathy for at least understanding and appreciating the view of someone who does not agree with us?

Three questions there. Let's see if we can put down our fists and dig a little.
.

I have little in common, politically, with true socialists, and even less with true communists. However, I have yet to find even one person with whom I cannot agree with on something, even politically. I'll give you an extreme example: Hitler. While I disagree with his solutions pretty much across the board (I'm not sure on ALL of his positions so I cannot say anything absolute), There is one this which I think we would have agreed on. That is that in the 1920's and 1930's the economic state of Germany was... horrible, to say the least. Something needed to be done. That is pretty much the extent of what we would have agreed upon though, economically. With this in mind I shall attempt to address your questions.

Do we, or do we not, want to at least have an accurate understanding of, and appreciation for, another person's perspective on an issue before we respond?

Absolutely. Even if all you are attempting is to change their mind, you must have ACCURATE knowledge of the opposing perspective to have any hope of even having an intelligent conversation with them. Sadly, an "intelligent conversation" is not the goal of many on TV, social media, and even here on this board. Too often the goal is to "score points" by proving them wrong. But, even then you need to understand what their position truly is in order to attempt to "prove" them wrong. More to the point of the question though, as a society I'm not so sure we do want to know. Simply because if we have a true picture of another perspective, and have an open mind, we must evaluate said position, and compare it to our own. When doing this, our position is challenged, and we may find our convictions to be flawed. Too many people want nothing do to with that.

Isn't there something potentially constructive or valuable, something we haven't thought about, somewhere within another person's perspective?

Absolutely. In my opening example of Hitler, there is much of value. Mostly in the way of learning how to defeat this thinking when it is encountered, and in understanding how that part of history happened so we can avoid it in the future. Sadly, again, most people choose to only think about right here, right now. Thus, we continually make the same mistakes over and over again.

What stops us, do you suppose, from maintaining enough empathy for at least understanding and appreciating the view of someone who does not agree with us?

Simply put, if we closely examine other positions, we then compare them to our own. When this happens, even under the best of circumstances, we then must examine our own positions enough to decide if they are superior to another. Occasionally, we all know, we will find that our position(s) will be found to be lacking in some way. This is a difficult thing for most people to deal with. It becomes an internal struggle of sorts. We may even encounter a time when we must CHANGE our position because of some new fact, viewpoint, or other input. That too is difficult for most people. Most people, for whatever reason, avoid conflict (whether internal or external), it's a "self-preservation" mechanism that has served us well for millenia. However, in an intellectual way it has stifled human advancement and achievement.

This can be observed readily on college campuses across the globe. Few professors accept, and even fewer welcome, opposing ideas/views in their classrooms. It is my belief that this is seen as a challenge to their authority. Many times, nothing could be further from the truth. However, when one has been told over and over that they have a superior position (regardless of the validity) one tends to believe it, and sees challenges to that position as a threat. Take the most recent Presidential election as an example: Over the course of years (maybe decades) Clinton was told that she was great, that she was a force to be reckoned with (politically). So, when she lost (for the first time?) it was devastating to her. Quite understandably. She was, undoubtedly, told over and over that Trump was unable to beat her, it was her time. So, like any rational person, she went to work to discover why she lost. That is where the logic train stops, in my opinion, and instead of accepting that Trump ran a better campaign, as evidenced by his win, she started looking for ways that he, or "the system" victimized her, thus rationalizing her loss. To her, and many of her supporters, I am convinced, it wasn't that she lost, but that the election was, somehow, stolen. It's the only explanation, sense she "couldn't lose" to Trump. It could not be that his ideas were better, or that he ran a smarter campaign. It had to be sexism, or Russian collusion, or some other outside force she had no control over. In short, it simply could not be her fault, it HAD to be something nefarious. Therefore, she, and her supporters, had no need to examine themselves, or their positions.

 

[Mac1958]

One definition of "empathy" is: "the psychological identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another."

As I think about the deepening divisions in our country, and as I observe our strengthening proclivity for binary thought and a clear unwillingness to give an inch in political conversation, it occurs to me that an increasing lack of empathy may be at its foundation - both as a cause and an effect.

The less we communicate civilly, the more we distance ourselves from contrary thought and opinion, the less understanding we have of those with whom we disagree. It seems like we can in no way even understand the other person's perspective, that we tend to create immediate distortedcaricatures of it, and that gives us license to ignore/dismiss it out of hand.

Do we, or do we not, want to at least have an accurate understanding of, and appreciation for, another person's perspective on an issue before we respond?

Isn't there something potentially constructive or valuable, something we haven't thought about, somewhere within another person's perspective?

What stops us, do you suppose, from maintaining enough empathy for at least understanding and appreciating the view of someone who does not agree with us?

Three questions there. Let's see if we can put down our fists and dig a little.
.

I have little in common, politically, with true socialists, and even less with true communists. However, I have yet to find even one person with whom I cannot agree with on something, even politically. I'll give you an extreme example: Hitler. While I disagree with his solutions pretty much across the board (I'm not sure on ALL of his positions so I cannot say anything absolute), There is one this which I think we would have agreed on. That is that in the 1920's and 1930's the economic state of Germany was... horrible, to say the least. Something needed to be done. That is pretty much the extent of what we would have agreed upon though, economically. With this in mind I shall attempt to address your questions.

Do we, or do we not, want to at least have an accurate understanding of, and appreciation for, another person's perspective on an issue before we respond?

Absolutely. Even if all you are attempting is to change their mind, you must have ACCURATE knowledge of the opposing perspective to have any hope of even having an intelligent conversation with them. Sadly, an "intelligent conversation" is not the goal of many on TV, social media, and even here on this board. Too often the goal is to "score points" by proving them wrong. But, even then you need to understand what their position truly is in order to attempt to "prove" them wrong. More to the point of the question though, as a society I'm not so sure we do want to know. Simply because if we have a true picture of another perspective, and have an open mind, we must evaluate said position, and compare it to our own. When doing this, our position is challenged, and we may find our convictions to be flawed. Too many people want nothing do to with that.

Isn't there something potentially constructive or valuable, something we haven't thought about, somewhere within another person's perspective?

Absolutely. In my opening example of Hitler, there is much of value. Mostly in the way of learning how to defeat this thinking when it is encountered, and in understanding how that part of history happened so we can avoid it in the future. Sadly, again, most people choose to only think about right here, right now. Thus, we continually make the same mistakes over and over again.

What stops us, do you suppose, from maintaining enough empathy for at least understanding and appreciating the view of someone who does not agree with us?

Simply put, if we closely examine other positions, we then compare them to our own. When this happens, even under the best of circumstances, we then must examine our own positions enough to decide if they are superior to another. Occasionally, we all know, we will find that our position(s) will be found to be lacking in some way. This is a difficult thing for most people to deal with. It becomes an internal struggle of sorts. We may even encounter a time when we must CHANGE our position because of some new fact, viewpoint, or other input. That too is difficult for most people. Most people, for whatever reason, avoid conflict (whether internal or external), it's a "self-preservation" mechanism that has served us well for millenia. However, in an intellectual way it has stifled human advancement and achievement.

This can be observed readily on college campuses across the globe. Few professors accept, and even fewer welcome, opposing ideas/views in their classrooms. It is my belief that this is seen as a challenge to their authority. Many times, nothing could be further from the truth. However, when one has been told over and over that they have a superior position (regardless of the validity) one tends to believe it, and sees challenges to that position as a threat. Take the most recent Presidential election as an example: Over the course of years (maybe decades) Clinton was told that she was great, that she was a force to be reckoned with (politically). So, when she lost (for the first time?) it was devastating to her. Quite understandably. She was, undoubtedly, told over and over that Trump was unable to beat her, it was her time. So, like any rational person, she went to work to discover why she lost. That is where the logic train stops, in my opinion, and instead of accepting that Trump ran a better campaign, as evidenced by his win, she started looking for ways that he, or "the system" victimized her, thus rationalizing her loss. To her, and many of her supporters, I am convinced, it wasn't that she lost, but that the election was, somehow, stolen. It's the only explanation, sense she "couldn't lose" to Trump. It could not be that his ideas were better, or that he ran a smarter campaign. It had to be sexism, or Russian collusion, or some other outside force she had no control over. In short, it simply could not be her fault, it HAD to be something nefarious. Therefore, she, and her supporters, had no need to examine themselves, or their positions.

A couple of things: First you say that "people want nothing to do with" admitting our convictions may be flawed. Why is that? It is as simple as, say, self esteem? What stops us from admitting the obvious about our tribe when a flaw is pointed out?

Second, interesting, attaching a self-preservation element to it. It's also disturbing, in that it essentially just leaves us with the rest of the animals. At the first hint of danger, a rat or a rabbit will run. Are we not any better than that at this point?

I think the further we move away from communication and collaboration, the less we'll innovate, the more we'll deteriorate. We're devolving. Yet we're not stupid, we see what's happening. I'd like to know why so many people are just fine with that.
.

 

[sparky]

How do people go through life not looking outside their little bubble?

demial is comfortable

I think people confuse empathy and sympathy

they are two distinct terms

The voices of reason and moderation are completely drowned out right now.

which is (IMHO) the goal....

The problem, in short, isn't that we don't understand them, the problem is not to confront them with the full measure of the contempt they (and the both-sides propagandists trying to legitimize them) so amply deserve. In that, most of us have to admit failure every so often.

Impossible at this point in time Old One...

They (the powers that be) operate beyond comtempt, above our laws, in a sea of moral turpitude

Being partisan is a luxury.

Like being stoned all the time...

~S~

 

[Disir]

Like being stoned all the time...

Or at all. If you like,I can throw rocks at you.

 

[Correll]

One definition of "empathy" is: "the psychological identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another."

As I think about the deepening divisions in our country, and as I observe our strengthening proclivity for binary thought and a clear unwillingness to give an inch in political conversation, it occurs to me that an increasing lack of empathy may be at its foundation - both as a cause and an effect.

The less we communicate civilly, the more we distance ourselves from contrary thought and opinion, the less understanding we have of those with whom we disagree. It seems like we can in no way even understand the other person's perspective, that we tend to create immediate distortedcaricatures of it, and that gives us license to ignore/dismiss it out of hand.

Do we, or do we not, want to at least have an accurate understanding of, and appreciation for, another person's perspective on an issue before we respond?

Isn't there something potentially constructive or valuable, something we haven't thought about, somewhere within another person's perspective?

What stops us, do you suppose, from maintaining enough empathy for at least understanding and appreciating the view of someone who does not agree with us?

Three questions there. Let's see if we can put down our fists and dig a little.
.

When the Left calls the Right racist, they destroy all attempts at empathy, from both sides.

 

[Mac1958]

When the Left calls the Right racist, they destroy all attempts at empathy, from both sides.

So they control what you think and say?
.