Re: Empathy

On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 5:23 PM, Rami Rustom <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 5:19 AM, hibbsa <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > --- In [email protected], Brett Hall <brhalluk@...>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On 17/12/2012, at 19:22, "hibbsa" <asbbih@...> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --- In [email protected], Elliot Temple <curi@>
> >> > wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > On Dec 16, 2012, at 11:15 AM, hibbsa <asbbih@> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Something that might be helpful to a discussion about empathy
> >> > > > would be
> >> > > > if particapants disclose whether they personally consistently
> >> > > > experience
> >> > > > what they assume must be meant by 'empathy'. Not everyone does.
> >> > >
> >> > > Stop trying to invade people's privacy.
> >> > >
> >> > > -- Elliot Temple
> >> > > http://fallibleideas.com/
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > Voluntary disclosure doesn't involve any kind of invasion that I can
> >> > see. So the question would be the relevance/importance to the discussion of
> >> > what is suggested.
> >> > About that I would say that, if you don't experience the sensation of
> >> > empathy, and never have...then you about as useful to people that do or have
> >> > as a blind man is to a discussion about the visual sensation of colour.
> >> >
> >> Is this what emotions are like? Is empathy, poorly defined as it is, a
> >> quale like the perception of some colour?
> >>
> >> Brett.
> >>
> >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >>
> >
> > From what I can make of it, empathy is linked in with social instinct
> > (Or call it social static memes if you prefer...in the end once 'static
> > memes' have been worked through to their consequences I suspect there aren't
> > going to be that many differences)
>
> What does "worked through to their consequences" mean?

For example, if a 'static meme' is similar enough, ubiquitous enough,
and in the population long enough, and makes itself useful enough,
then any mutations in the brain that improve the execution of that
meme would become positively advantageous, thus natural selection
kicks in. And I think DD does say static memes came first and were
around a long long time. That's one example.
>
>
> > Not everyone has it. Psychopaths don't get empathy. Autism/Asperger's
> > have less empathy which may be part of the reason for the tendency to be
> > socially isolated, unable to grasp social cues and so on.
>
> Those concepts are not any good. We have better ideas to explain what
> you're trying to explain. Those concepts explain that genes have a
> causal role, but they don't.

It's fine by me for you to regard psychopaths and autistic/asperger's
in the way that you do. Underlying causality can be put to one side.
E.g. you may assume every time I say "psychopath" what I mean is
"people with socially different ideas and behaviour such that they
would be high on the psychopath checklist"

>
> When psychologists refer to someone as having a "psychopathy", what's
> really going on is that that person has evil ideas,

But does a psychopath have evil ideas? Typically they would probably
agree with Rand, agree with the ideas against altruism, agree with the
ideas about putting oneself first absolutely without compromise.

So what are these evil ideas you have in mind?


> ideas that he uses
> to kill and hurt innocent people. And I guess the psychologists assume
> that having those evil ideas *must* be due to a physical illness, but
> that's false. Horrible experiences during childhood (plus his
> understanding about them, i.e. his choices) is sufficient to causing
> one to have evil ideas.

The reason I am personally convinced there is a genetic component is
because I have seen scientific evidence in the form brain imaging. If
you are interested you could look into that.

>
> When psychologists refer to someone as having "Autism/Asperger's",
> what's really going on is that that person has ideas that are not
> socially accepted, ideas that he uses while playing and talking to
> people and whatever else. And the psychologist is assuming that having
> these socially unacceptable ideas *must* be due to a physical illness,
> but that's false.

Again the reason I see it differently is because I have looked at
scientific evidence that I find compelling. I'm not concerned whether
you agree with the evidence or have ever seen it or even know about
it. I am content that if you are interested you can easily look into
it yourself. You may or may not find it compelling.
>
>
> > What is the difference and similarity between psychopathy and autism
> > spectrum disorders would be of potential interest.
>
> Well, a similarity I see, using my ideas above, is that having evil
> ideas about killing and hurting innocent people (aka "psychopathy") is
> a special case of having ideas that are socially unacceptable (aka
> "Autism/Asperger's"). But, a few hundred years ago, it was socially
> accepted to kill people who had socially unacceptable ideas (referring
> to the killing of "witches"). Would you call those witch-killers
> psychopaths? If so, how do you explain why there were so many more
> psychopaths back then than compared to today?


I don't really agree that psychopathy is equivalent to having ideas
about killing/hurting people.