The problem with modern western society is that our people often think in an either-or dichotomy; it's either empathy or rationality; but you need both to work TOGETHER to get a well-functioning individual. Empathy makes you understand the other person's thoughts and feelings intimately; rationality tells you to then take a step back from the other's pain/feelings to reflect on the situation without bias. So, two sides of the same coin; you need both mechanisms to be a well-rounded individual.

@Seullesileceestgrand

5 жыл бұрын

Empathy has nothing to do with 'understanding' it's about feeling what others feel. It implies you have to relate to someone's story and feelings, at least to a certain extent, in order to take action and be good to them and that means, what matters most in here is yourself since the only thing that got you acting, or at least what affected you most, is feeling personally concerned. Isn't that oddly close to egocentrism ?

@lau-guerreiro

5 жыл бұрын

it's also a bit "either or" to say that the solution is that you need both. What does both mean? It sounds like you're saying that it is either all rationality, or all empathy, or equal amounts of both. Are you eliminating the possibility that it could be 95% rationality and 5% empathy?

@toucan012

5 жыл бұрын

Empathy, as you are describing it, falls more along the lines of what he referred to as cognative empathy. Which he says he says at the beginning of the talk he is not against. He isn't against trying to understand how people feel. The concern is more with the emotional aspect of empathy.

@AntifascistAllDay

3 жыл бұрын

Empathy can be debilitating though, compassion allows one to understand and want to help others without being overwhelmed by feeling their pain.

@ivandafoe5451

2 жыл бұрын

@@Seullesileceestgrand Egocentrism is considered as a pathology while empathy is a natural set of emotions. Wrongly conflating them puts empathy into a category were it doesn't belong. However, to your allegation...mimicking empathetic behaviors for personal gain is indeed used as a tactic by all sorts of people, in all levels of society. But the same can be said for the exploiting and misuse of ALL of our human emotions...can't it?

in my experience, prolonged empathy is a recipe for burnout. just look at brene brown's flawed example...i mean, what good are two people in a pit? i'm sorry, i don't want my therapist joining in on my depression. not to mention how insufferable it is when self referential people try to become helpers...they're the fucking worst at it.

I was brought here by a guy from my job and I now know understand it's a sad time to be alive if empathy is stripped away

Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs, thank you for opening this discussion to the rest of us in KZread Land.

Love this. Way too much empathy leads to victim mentality

The crowd is really having a case of Cognitive Dissonance .. and I love it. That generation really need their "beliefs" shaken up. Great talk.

Fascinating perspective but "Against Empathy" is unecessarily provocative. A more accurate descriptor would be "The Limits of Empathy" but that wouldn't draw as much attention.

@BurntPuff

22 күн бұрын

But he IS against empathy?

The arguments look like arguing about whether knife is a bad or good, the answer depending on the context.

I think it is "transcendent love" that is the ideal. The term compassion is IMO, a subset of transcendent love which includes those we do not feel compassion for.

Compassion is inclusive empathy is exclusive. Paul is correct, to use empathy as a guide for morals is irrational and driven by personal values, instincts and lack of awareness. Empathy is a useful tool, however a tool that works without the skill of a craftsmen isn't much good for anything. Humans have powerful measuring devices, however in many cases these devices work without awareness or skillful application. The devices are not the problem, its that most people haven't developed the capacity to put these devices to use and take an objective and impersonal view, they are driven unconsciously by their devices and hence have limited free will to act usefully.

@myuw91

7 жыл бұрын

It is easy to be emotionally stirred to listen to his arguments, much like the psychiatrist in the audience unconsciously was too since he was simply defending his profession for 'using and teaching empathy'. Paul was simply making a case for us to not take our feelings for granted, whether it is the so-called empathy or anger etc. Instead, we should critically assess our emotional reaction towards a situation / person and find a solution to the problem. The psychiatrist is a common example of how people tend to defend their practice just because they 'think' it is what they are doing and it has worked thus far, without realising that their meaning of 'empathy' may well be compassion instead. I graduated with MBBS and I sometimes doubt the physicians' understanding of the word 'empathy'. It has gained popularity among this profession and very few take the time to critically assess its meaning and functionality, or even study it for evidence. "We believe it's important, therefore you must learn it" a common phrase, which is humorous because they do not even know how to guide us with simple definitions / examples.

he is making a very specific point that is easy to misunderstand...in everyday life empathy and compassion are used interchangeably but they are two related but separate terms.

I really liked the guy's comment at 42:40 and think he made a really good point. "With Trump, is it not possible to confuse his empathy with the fact that he shares or manipulates their anger. Those are two different things."

@chenoatruth4847

3 жыл бұрын

Who cares about Trump my God! LOL the fact that someone thinks about Trump that much is a joke. They are the over empath type that leads to the down fall of society

Brilliant lecture... thumbs up. I just felt Jonathan Ross had some enunciation issues....very hard to hear sometimes.

A compelling argument which is equally nebulous relative to the deeds of those who act upon blind empathy.

I understand what you’re saying - but it’s not the presence of empathy in tourists for child beggars (as the example), it’s the LACK of empathy that exists in the people running those crime rings (and likely their experiences in their upbringings).

A nurse says this patient had this vaccine and developed a lot of pain and redness in the injection site that took a week to go away! It was so bad that Im going to report it as a serious reaction and need the regulatory agency to tell me if we can give a second dose! Well, her empathy resulted in irrational judgement which clogs up the reporting system with an already known non-serious report. Do you really think that is as serious as someone that had died??

But isn’t empathy also connected with understanding? Being able to understand a different point of view? So while it might not have direct moral benefits, it may be necessary to battle dogmatism and have a more open minded approach. No?

@BurntPuff

22 күн бұрын

Empathy is a natural instinct, to feel how other similar people to you feel. You cannot empathise with people that you are so different from. But understanding is finding out why how what.

As the western world turns from God, society must find a new basis for morality. Empathy, either directly or indirectly, is that new basis. The new thinking is that if you have an empathetic reaction, then you are a good and moral person. I'm sure that Prof. Bloom's book will continue to be "controversial", i.e. anathema to many.

@noahlenten8360

2 жыл бұрын

no one thinks that having an empathetic reaction equates to being a good or moral person, except some imagined caricature a religious zealot has of an aetheist. if that were the case we'd all fail to distinguish between a psychopath and someone with autism

Too much empathy is spiritual bypassing

@user-ur2wd8du4z

Жыл бұрын

Omg yes

If you are empathetic and go against empathy you will only feel guilt in the end

Empathy is responsible for vigilantism and mob justice. Empathetic people often take justice in their own hands, instead of letting law enforcment and judges, attornes and prosecutors to deal with criminals.

@trentmoore6947

2 жыл бұрын

As we know, justice always win and is never flawed in it self. And empathy has been responsible for police saving victims, normal everyday people saving people they didn’t have to or cops. It’s not like most of time, criminals tend to get away things they shouldn’t have gotten away with in the first place, it’s not like plenty of empathetic people have save those who needed it most.

It wasn’t in Ann Coulter’s view. The stories about which she wrote in her book were based upon actual events.

You are confusing the exploitation of empathy for empathy itself. Empathy is a personal emotion that allows people to understand that people suffer and if one can help ease that suffering it make both people feel more connected and in this together feelings lead to a raising of consciousness for both.The fact that bad actors take advantage of other's kindness doesn't negate empathy. What it suggests is that the public should demand better oversight of humanitarian aid. Rational thought processes when viewing the emotional lead to this faulty thinking. It can also lead to a cost/benefit analysis which can make people less charitable towards other's. A "what's in it for me mentality". Sorry I can't agree with the rational view of empathy.

@WARVROOM55

2 жыл бұрын

You just made the point that just because empathy can be manipulated and used to exploit people doesn’t mean we should negate empathy then followed it up by negating his proposal because it can have bad outcomes. The point is there is objectivity in one and there isn’t in the other.

So, he says that politicians use emapthy as a tool for influence, meanwhile, he is hypocritically using the same strategy to gather sympathy points by starting his speech by presenting himself as someone who is mocked (everyone knows how it hurts and emphatize with him), then he says he's the opposite of the happiest man alive (everyone is familiar with sadness and suffering), et cetera. He's got a point, but being a hypocrite, weakens it. Dunno if you can trust a man who presents himself as a proponent of love and compassion, while engaging in manipulatation.

@PrimePhilosophy

2 жыл бұрын

But his ideas on empathy came before the mocking, not as a result of it. And the mocking is a great example of the irrational emotional responses that come from empathy when it lacks of logic and rationale. Reagrdless of whether it's hypocritical in the specific context you described, it validates the broader context of his point.

Empathy is a social construct.

It's a problem of language and lazy thinking

10:44 Kids parents and friends who now can live another day, would notice the lack of gun violence.

@peterorsmond2624

5 жыл бұрын

I don't know if that's a valid criticism. Bloom is arguing the proportional insignificance of mass shootings as they relate to firearm death overall. So, if we judge the value of mass shootings in the context of how many lives have been saved as a consequence of the finger snap, then we are obligated to apply this logic to the broader narrative (i.e. murder as a whole). Now, if we quantify the value of eliminating the standard murder with consideration for those whose lives would be saved, as we've just done for mass shootings, then we are effectively discussing the entire American populous. So the proportional significance is preserved. Applying a transformation to the length of one side of a triangle doesn't destroy the image if the transformation must also be applied to the other sides.

So... Don't just feel and not think?

Empathy has nothing to do with good or bad or right or wrong or negative or positive. Empathy is everything to do with emotions.

Show me the data.

Can anyone spot the logical fallacy? Anyone?

@OscarWrightZenTANGO

4 жыл бұрын

yes to a degree however this "distinction without a difference" may lead to good

@nahal8403

3 жыл бұрын

Which logical fallacy?

@god5535

2 жыл бұрын

@@nahal8403 "Rational compassion"... oxymoron.. contradictory

what Hitchcock movies does he sit down and watch with his children Jesus Christ man?!?!

@god5535

2 жыл бұрын

lmao!!

Paul Bloom's argument is wrong. the doctrine of weaponization means you can take value against it’s intended people it was design to protect like empathy or rationality. if the end justify the means as a strategist. you can sabotage your opponent by using rationality or empathy and turn it against them. this as fallows can be weaponized against freedom of speech. you can weaponize rationality against your opponent to justify injustice, hate, murder, and war crimes. the art of weaponization trump all means to have any moral compass, a clear sense of right and wrong for our society. empathy is the most important strategy for society to define itself but count on our human frailty to weaponize against our own by any strategist. so too with rationality. you should not let the world manipulate you to lose empathy or rationality to any degree for it is true that others have it’s own interest at heart. defend your sense of empathy or rationality and let history decide. there are always saboteur ready to weaponization and destroy your true intention. one must come to term with the collective human frailties. our need to manipulate other for our selfish gain shouldn't get us to give up our moral compass, our sense of right and wrong, our empathy or rationality. you should take pride in defending it. wear it on your sleeve. let other mock you for caring. defend your sense of humanity for being human.

@johnharvey1845

6 жыл бұрын

Said like a true bleeding heart lol. The point is that empathy is easily manipulated by bias. You can have two different people on different sides of an issue with equal empathy. The abortion debate is one like that. The poor woman with no choice or the poor baby with no choice. It makes way more sense to look at facts and stats before you choose a side.

This is too monotonous . I give up aber 3 minutes.