CDZ Is empathy the key to this hate and division?

[Disir]

Do people here ever have to collaborate with someone at work on a project or complex task?

Can't you produce better work if you and your fellow collaborator accurately understand what each of you are saying during the process? Is there no give & take, no sharing of ideas, no learning, no creation of something new that wasn't there before? Does the end product suffer in quality if communication is garbled, inaccurate, distorted?

I'm not even sure how to ask these questions. It's a little chilling that I even HAVE to.
.

Yes. I have to collaborate all of the time. Sometimes it works splendidly well and other times it's a bust. So, the projects (not comfortable with that terminology here) that I work on take anywhere from a few months to several years. Collaboration can occur at different intervals and incorporate different groups of people but there is generally a core group and one individual that stays with the project until the goal has been reached.

It fails when I have 14 people that all want to tell someone (usually me) what to do. They are largely unaware of the time constraints and intricate details and they don't care. It is selective hearing and completely different goals/agenda. These people do not give a damn about the project as a whole. There is an entire generation of people that are focused on telling people what to do. When you point out the intricate details or the ramifications of applying that phenomenal idea then they become obnoxious. How dare you question? They don't actually do anything.

Can you have completely different goals/agendas and collaborate well? Yes. Each person has a complex task in front of them and they are invested in that task/issue. I have a great respect for what those people bring to the table. They ARE bringing something to the table. I have a low tolerance for BS. They have a low tolerance for BS. We go in and do it. They bring highly detailed information and they deliver it.

 

[sparky]

These people do not give a damn about the project as a whole. There is an entire generation of people that are focused on telling people what to do. When you point out the intricate details or the ramifications of applying that phenomenal idea then they become obnoxious. How dare you question? They don't actually do anything

Those would be Architects in my universe Disir, imho they are in the dictonary close to Archangle for good reason

~S~

 

[Mac1958]

Can you have completely different goals/agendas and collaborate well? Yes. Each person has a complex task in front of them and they are invested in that task/issue. I have a great respect for what those people bring to the table. They ARE bringing something to the table. I have a low tolerance for BS. They have a low tolerance for BS. We go in and do it. They bring highly detailed information and they deliver it.

For some reason we want to act differently when it comes to politics and go in the opposite direction. All ego all the time. That doesn't work in business.

The biggest success stories are almost always a result of collaboration. Bill Gates says the smartest business decisions he made were the people he hired. Steve Jobs said "we don't hire smart people to tell them what to do. We hire smart people to tell US what to do." Collaboration yields innovation. We know that.

That doesn't translate to politics, sadly. It did at one time: The Constitution. And you can't collaborate without listening and understanding.
.

 

[Disir]

Can you have completely different goals/agendas and collaborate well? Yes. Each person has a complex task in front of them and they are invested in that task/issue. I have a great respect for what those people bring to the table. They ARE bringing something to the table. I have a low tolerance for BS. They have a low tolerance for BS. We go in and do it. They bring highly detailed information and they deliver it.

For some reason we want to act differently when it comes to politics and go in the opposite direction. All ego all the time. That doesn't work in business.

The biggest success stories are almost always a result of collaboration. Bill Gates says the smartest business decisions he made were the people he hired. Steve Jobs said "we don't hire smart people to tell them what to do. We hire smart people to tell US what to do." Collaboration yields innovation. We know that.

That doesn't translate to politics, sadly. It did at one time: The Constitution. And you can't collaborate without listening and understanding.
.

People spend most of their time focusing on ideology (mental masturbation) rather than issues. Ideology doesn't fix a hazardous waste dump five miles away from the projects. It doesn't fix a street that has had extreme flooding for 30 years. Talking about talking leads nowhere.

 

[Mac1958]

Can you have completely different goals/agendas and collaborate well? Yes. Each person has a complex task in front of them and they are invested in that task/issue. I have a great respect for what those people bring to the table. They ARE bringing something to the table. I have a low tolerance for BS. They have a low tolerance for BS. We go in and do it. They bring highly detailed information and they deliver it.

For some reason we want to act differently when it comes to politics and go in the opposite direction. All ego all the time. That doesn't work in business.

The biggest success stories are almost always a result of collaboration. Bill Gates says the smartest business decisions he made were the people he hired. Steve Jobs said "we don't hire smart people to tell them what to do. We hire smart people to tell US what to do." Collaboration yields innovation. We know that.

That doesn't translate to politics, sadly. It did at one time: The Constitution. And you can't collaborate without listening and understanding.
.

People spend most of their time focusing on ideology (mental masturbation) rather than issues. Ideology doesn't fix a hazardous waste dump five miles away from the projects. It doesn't fix a street that has had extreme flooding for 30 years. Talking about talking leads nowhere.

Talking about talking is pointless. Communicating within a collaborative process is critical.

We're afraid to do that.
.

 

[sartre play]

The missing piece is maybe not empathy but honesty. reinforcing a lie because it supports your tribes view point, when winning become more important than finding truth, its impossible that only one political view has all the right answers. history seems to support a lean to far in any direction causes negative results.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

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

This is why I'm done compromising. I used to try to understand the extremist elements of our political landscape. But they have infiltrated the social fabric of society via social media and have dumbed down the discussion to memes. My only goal for extremists at this point is total scorched earth destruction.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

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.
.

Another well written, well intended post it seems. I do enjoy reading them even though I most often disagree with your premise(s). The ethos of your idea here is swallowed whole by the elephant lurking not so silently in the "room" of our nation. It's impossible to ignore that just honed to a gleam razor's edge the radical American Left holds to the throat of Western Civilization. I get it, Mac . . . you want to negotiate; walk down the middle of the road, identify on some level with both sides and otherwise come off as a voice of reason, as a grownup in the "room". Problem with trying to fulfill that role in this day and age is attempting to do so completely misses a tragically fundamental mark. See, regardless of what one side, Right or Left might argue or preach, there exists foundational, eternal human Right and human Wrong, human good and human evil. Seems to me you would attempt to redefine them in order to avoid inevitable conflict.

The ideologies of both the Left and Right will argue infinitely over what is moral and just, while radical Leftist philosophers debate whether or not "good" or rather "moral" good even exists. They will sell our youth on the notion that the ancient concept of human "good" is relative to each individual person and/or situation; that anything goes depending on personal desire or goal. Both the American political and ideological Right and Left are equally corrupt, no doubt about it. However, the radical American Left now overtly runs on, pushes and teaches ideological goals which clearly run against the survival of both the human race at large, and modern Western civilization. If "they" fully get their way, civilization as we know it, the culmination of fifty millennia of human social development, will end.

Thus, in the face of such a threat no amount of empathy, negotiation or appeasement of the enemies of civilization will achieve what you speculate. Compromise was never an option. Did Napoleon compromise with the remnants of the French radical Left who drove his nation to ruin during its first revolution? Did the North Vietnamese compromise with Pol Pot's murder regime in Cambodia? What you're missing here (I hope) is the radical American Left's relentless assault on human life and human "good" as we've always known it across the Western World. Is the American Right flawless, devoid of "sin" or institutionalized corruption? Hell no. Human nature tends to thrive on organized greed and oppression, to require it to some degree for civilization to exist. However, the American Left of our day, the core ethos of its ideology now become a full blown cult, is to have that power the Right still holds, plus dictate the beliefs and limitations of freedom for every American. Total domination over our minds and bodies. How can empathy for those who will destroy our freedom and individuality if allowed to do so make a difference on the eve of America's collapse. The time to choose sides is now. I pity those who double line walk down the middle of the road.

Contrary to popular opinion here, I have zero (0) interest in staying in the "middle of the road". That just isn't the way life works; it never has, it never will.

What happens in real life if and when people bother to drop the ego, communicate and collaborate, is that 70% or 80% of the final input on any given individual issue may come from side A; the next time, that same percentage might favor side B; and the third time, A & B create something all new. Like our Constitution. "Compromise" does not mean "50/50". When my "side" is on the ass end of the 80/20 scenario, I just have to get over it and hope that the plan works.

This is the way business works. Collaboration, and the innovation that comes from it, is what made this country so dynamic. Why can't that same environment apply in other areas? This is one thing I've never understood. Have political partisans never had to work with someone at their job who had different ideas? Have they never collaborated with someone at work to create something new? Yet when it comes to politics, somehow that's no longer allowed.

Right now both ends demonstrate zero curiosity about the other. Each has created their caricatures, their boogeymen, which only makes things worse. Empathy has somehow become a negative, a sign of weakness. I think it's the opposite.
.

Right wing/conservatives, especially genX and younger are more open to new ideas than anyone else. That's why the left hates us so much, because we won't submit to their group-think.

As a non liberal Gen-X, I call bullshit. You Cult45 members have your own group-think. You're exactly like left wingers.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

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.

'Evil'. The language of religion. I suppose it never occurs to you that some people just think your ideas are shit.

 

[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.

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.
.

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?

For most people, myself included until recently (and even now at times), our self-esteem/emotions are far too embedded in our political/religious/social beliefs/positions. Therefore, we see opposition as a threat. The thinking is, "If I'm wrong, then I must be flawed." We seem to have some difficulty separating ourselves from our beliefs/positions. Hence, when we are confronted with someone who does not share in our opinions, either they are bad/evil, or we are; not either their opinion is flawed or ours is. We seem to have difficulty separating the person from the opinion. One might say, "Trump is a bad person" When in reality what should be said is, "I think Trump's opinion(s) are wrong/flawed."

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?

In many ways, politically speaking, "no", we are not. All that separates us from other animals is the WAY we run, or attack.

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.

Actually, no we don't see what is happening. What we see is that this group, or that group is different than me, and therefore wrong. If they are wrong, they are bad. It really is just that simple. It's a mindset that has been cultivated, by media, politicians, and other leaders for a very long time. Even religious leaders are part of the problem. When I was growing up I was taught that one must believe/do certain things to please God, and enter into Heaven. If one did not, they would go to Hell. I was also taught that Hell is where bad/evil people go after death. At no time was the idea that an otherwise good person would/would not go to Hell simply because they did not believe/do what God, supposedly, wanted even addressed. So, the implication is, "people who do not believe/do as I believe/do, are bad people." This, I believe, is a deeply flawed, if not outright evil, way of looking at the world. It's a message than many religions have been delivering for decades, if not millenia. It is a message that has spilled out of houses of worship, and into popular culture. In some ways this is good (ie. people who believe that slavery is ok, are likely not good people), in many ways this is very bad and destructive (ie. people who do not believe in {insert political ideology here}, are bad people). This ALWAYS leads to bloodshed, every single time. THAT is what we, as a society, are refusing to see. It's not that we can't, it's that we make a decision not to, consciously or unconsciously.

 

[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.
.

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?

For most people, myself included until recently (and even now at times), our self-esteem/emotions are far too embedded in our political/religious/social beliefs/positions. Therefore, we see opposition as a threat. The thinking is, "If I'm wrong, then I must be flawed." We seem to have some difficulty separating ourselves from our beliefs/positions. Hence, when we are confronted with someone who does not share in our opinions, either they are bad/evil, or we are; not either their opinion is flawed or ours is. We seem to have difficulty separating the person from the opinion. One might say, "Trump is a bad person" When in reality what should be said is, "I think Trump's opinion(s) are wrong/flawed."

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?

In many ways, politically speaking, "no", we are not. All that separates us from other animals is the WAY we run, or attack.

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.

Actually, no we don't see what is happening. What we see is that this group, or that group is different than me, and therefore wrong. If they are wrong, they are bad. It really is just that simple. It's a mindset that has been cultivated, by media, politicians, and other leaders for a very long time. Even religious leaders are part of the problem. When I was growing up I was taught that one must believe/do certain things to please God, and enter into Heaven. If one did not, they would go to Hell. I was also taught that Hell is where bad/evil people go after death. At no time was the idea that an otherwise good person would/would not go to Hell simply because they did not believe/do what God, supposedly, wanted even addressed. So, the implication is, "people who do not believe/do as I believe/do, are bad people." This, I believe, is a deeply flawed, if not outright evil, way of looking at the world. It's a message than many religions have been delivering for decades, if not millenia. It is a message that has spilled out of houses of worship, and into popular culture. In some ways this is good (ie. people who believe that slavery is ok, are likely not good people), in many ways this is very bad and destructive (ie. people who do not believe in {insert political ideology here}, are bad people). This ALWAYS leads to bloodshed, every single time. THAT is what we, as a society, are refusing to see. It's not that we can't, it's that we make a decision not to, consciously or unconsciously.

Thank you.

I agree, at some point we moved from "you're different" to "you're wrong and bad".

I also agree that this happened over time, and that it's possible we don't see it. The old "frog in the pot" story. What concerns me the most here is that this appears to now be cultural, and when something gets that far, it's much more difficult to eradicate.

This is regression. Our thought processes seem to stop once we identify a threat to our self esteem, and we just shut that threat out and run to the safety of our tribe. Tribal Psychology and Political Behavior - Econlib

Ego and self esteem are surely playing a role in this. When people are literally afraid to communicate and understand, we're in trouble.
.

 

[Mac1958]

The missing piece is maybe not empathy but honesty. reinforcing a lie because it supports your tribes view point, when winning become more important than finding truth, its impossible that only one political view has all the right answers. history seems to support a lean to far in any direction causes negative results.

Absolutely. When defending an ideology, all's fair in love and war.

That's why we want to hate those who disagree with us. Dehumanize them. It gives us the excuse to do or say anything to "beat" them.
.

 

[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.

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.
.

In the broad discussion of this thread, I still don't like the concept of empathy. Now I don't mean I dislike empathy, but in broad discussions the emotional reactions empathy evokes often overrides any rational discussion. I think that what's going on at the southern border is a perfect example. People see children that in dire straights. Anyone with a conscious feels empathy. And yet I've got children within a couple miles of my home in Ohio in dire straights. They're not on TV so no one gives a damn. The obvious rational thought that maybe we should clean up our own mess first is lost because people feel empathy for the child at the border, even though that child is in dire straights because some adult has decided to drag them across a desert.

Well, I'm trying to maintain a distinction between (a) having an honest and accurate understanding of another person's views, and (b) inserting emotion and acting on it. "Feeling" has nothing to do with this. It's about accurate knowledge.

My overall point is that I'm seeing less and less evidence that the ends of the spectrum really understand each other. Both have created these simplistic, shallow, hyperbolic caricatures of the other and appear to be content with that as fact.

We can't collaborate to fix or improve any complex problems when you have a distorted of your collaborators. One of the things that really concern me here is that I even have to say that. To me, that's just fundamental logic.

Instead of trying to improve things, we're more worried about "beating" the other "side". To me, that's just madness. I don't get it.
.

I strive to put my emotions aside. Rational thought is the only hope. My point is that when there is less and less rational thought, only emotion wins .And that is never good. Emotions are winning, in the history of human beings, this is not good. Stack the corpses.

 

[Mac1958]

I strive to put my emotions aside. Rational thought is the only hope. My point is that when there is less and less rational thought, only emotion wins .And that is never good. Emotions are winning, in the history of human beings, this is not good. Stack the corpses.

Yep. It looks to me like it's emotion in the form of ego and self-esteem. It seems like we're connecting our "stands" on the issues with who we are as people, and we'll protect and defend threats to our political opinions with the same desperation than we would a physical threat.

So, we hate and dehumanize people, making it much easier to attack them.

Here's a study that looks at how we connect a social identity to tribal politics: Political Partisanship as a Social Identity - Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics

From the study:

Social identity theory provides a strong foundation for the study of partisanship and political involvement. A social identity involves a subjective sense of belonging to a group, which is internalized to varying degrees, resulting in individual differences in identity strength, a desire to positively distinguish the group from others, and the development of ingroup bias (Tajfel, 1981). Moreover, once identified with a group, or in this instance political party, members are motivated to protect and advance the party’s status and electoral dominance as a way to maintain their party’s positive distinctiveness (Huddy, 2001). In developing the theory, Tajfel and Turner (1979) placed key emphasis on this need among group members “to differentiate their own groups positively from others to achieve a positive social identity” (Turner et al., 1987, p. 42).
.

 

[baileyn45]

I strive to put my emotions aside. Rational thought is the only hope. My point is that when there is less and less rational thought, only emotion wins .And that is never good. Emotions are winning, in the history of human beings, this is not good. Stack the corpses.

Yep. It looks to me like it's emotion in the form of ego and self-esteem. It seems like we're connecting our "stands" on the issues with who we are as people, and we'll protect and defend threats to our political opinions with the same desperation than we would a physical threat.

So, we hate and dehumanize people, making it much easier to attack them.

Here's a study that looks at how we connect a social identity to tribal politics: Political Partisanship as a Social Identity - Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics

From the study:

Social identity theory provides a strong foundation for the study of partisanship and political involvement. A social identity involves a subjective sense of belonging to a group, which is internalized to varying degrees, resulting in individual differences in identity strength, a desire to positively distinguish the group from others, and the development of ingroup bias (Tajfel, 1981). Moreover, once identified with a group, or in this instance political party, members are motivated to protect and advance the party’s status and electoral dominance as a way to maintain their party’s positive distinctiveness (Huddy, 2001). In developing the theory, Tajfel and Turner (1979) placed key emphasis on this need among group members “to differentiate their own groups positively from others to achieve a positive social identity” (Turner et al., 1987, p. 42).
.

I think it is more simplistic. Divide and and conquer. Seperate people as much as possible, white vs black, male vs female, straight vs gay, then mix it up. White gay male vs straight black male, transgender female vs lesbian, What makes me laugh is that I just played 18 holes of golf with a black guy, as a white guy, just like I do every Friday. And tomorrow I'm cooking dinner for a gay couple that are family. And as a conservative, I'm divisive? What I just can't get through to leftists is that I didn't play golf with a black man, I played golf with Greg. And I'm not cooking dinner for a gay couple, I'm cooking dinner for Taylor and Pablo. Get over it..

 

[Mac1958]

I strive to put my emotions aside. Rational thought is the only hope. My point is that when there is less and less rational thought, only emotion wins .And that is never good. Emotions are winning, in the history of human beings, this is not good. Stack the corpses.

Yep. It looks to me like it's emotion in the form of ego and self-esteem. It seems like we're connecting our "stands" on the issues with who we are as people, and we'll protect and defend threats to our political opinions with the same desperation than we would a physical threat.

So, we hate and dehumanize people, making it much easier to attack them.

Here's a study that looks at how we connect a social identity to tribal politics: Political Partisanship as a Social Identity - Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics

From the study:

Social identity theory provides a strong foundation for the study of partisanship and political involvement. A social identity involves a subjective sense of belonging to a group, which is internalized to varying degrees, resulting in individual differences in identity strength, a desire to positively distinguish the group from others, and the development of ingroup bias (Tajfel, 1981). Moreover, once identified with a group, or in this instance political party, members are motivated to protect and advance the party’s status and electoral dominance as a way to maintain their party’s positive distinctiveness (Huddy, 2001). In developing the theory, Tajfel and Turner (1979) placed key emphasis on this need among group members “to differentiate their own groups positively from others to achieve a positive social identity” (Turner et al., 1987, p. 42).
.

I think it is more simplistic. Divide and and conquer. Seperate people as much as possible, white vs black, male vs female, straight vs gay, then mix it up. White gay male vs straight black male, transgender female vs lesbian, What makes me laugh is that I just played 18 holes of golf with a black guy, as a white guy, just like I do every Friday. And tomorrow I'm cooking dinner for a gay couple that are family. And as a conservative, I'm divisive? What I just can't get through to leftists is that I didn't play golf with a black man, I played golf with Greg. And I'm not cooking dinner for a gay couple, I'm cooking dinner for Taylor and Pablo. Get over it..

Binary thought patterns are a fundamental symptom of this. For more and more people, if you're not 100% with me, you must be 100% against me.

Those who have a vested professional interest in promoting that kind of thinking are definitely getting their way right now.
.

 

[sartre play]

ITs getting very difficult to stay above the fray, no safe haven, when even the people you respect as level headed & smart seem to have caught a case of the crazy's.

 

[candycorn]

Here is something that most people don’t know….

Gee, I wonder if knowing this will change anyone’s mind on abortion?

 

[MarathonMike]

Here is something that most people don’t know….

View attachment 260400

Gee, I wonder if knowing this will change anyone’s mind on abortion?

As in most statistics, the devil is in the details. Most women die in pregnancy or shortly after because they are very unhealthy and cannot withstand the stress of pregnancy. But that is not why women choose abortion.
Moms die in about 17 out of every 100,000 U.S. births; most deaths are preventable

 

[candycorn]

Here is something that most people don’t know….

View attachment 260400

Gee, I wonder if knowing this will change anyone’s mind on abortion?

As in most statistics, the devil is in the details. Most women die in pregnancy or shortly after because they are very unhealthy and cannot withstand the stress of pregnancy. But that is not why women choose abortion.
Moms die in about 17 out of every 100,000 U.S. births; most deaths are preventable

Are you female?