Re: Empathy

On Dec 21, 2012 5:23 AM, "a b" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 8:37 PM, Rami Rustom <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Dec 20, 2012 1:23 PM, "a b" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > 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.
> >
> > They do or they don't? Are you assuming that?
> >
> > I bet you're assuming that someone whose not willing to sacrifice
> > one's preferences necessitates sacrificing someone else's preferences,
> > right?
>
> I know about finding common preferences

Ok. Do you agree with it? Do you agree that every interaction between
people can involve common preferences such that no one gets hurt (i.e.
no one sacrifices)? And for that reason, its bad to sacrifice one's
own preferences and its bad to sacrifice another person's preferences?


> > I reject that. Every single interaction between two or more
> > people can be a win/win situation, such that both people get what they
> > want -- meaning that no one sacrifices. This is Rand's view. Why do
> > you think that having this idea is psychopathic?
>
> You are assuming a lot of things. What about the possibility
> psychopathy is an unfairly maligned condition?

I don't know why you're saying I'm assuming things. I'm trying to
understand *your* position. And since I don't understand it yet, I'm
rephrasing your position as best as I understand it and I'm expecting
you to tell me if I understood your position correctly. If you say I
don't understand your position, then I expect you to explain which
part I'm misunderstanding.

Judging from what you just said, I think you mean this: Maybe
"psychopathy" *is* a disease *but* that its not one that causes a
person to have evil ideas or commit evil acts. Is that what you mean?
I don't agree that there is such a thing as psychopathy. Either there
is a disease in a body part, in this case we're talking about the
brain, or there is no disease at all. Thats what disease means -- and
the suffix -pathy means disease.


> >
> > > So what are these evil ideas you have in mind?
> >
> > By that I meant wanting to kill someone, or torture them, or rape
> > them, things like that.
>
> There's nothing about psychopathy that necessarily means wanting to do
> that stuff. You have to be drawn to the ideas of [gratuitous] torture,
> rape, murder, in the first place. It's unlikely that many psychopaths
> are at all interested in doing that sort of thing.

What do you think a "psychopath" is? How do you recognize one?


> >
> >
> > >
> > > > 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.
> >
> > Please link the article here.
>
> I meant I've physically seen the process/evidence.

So you mean that you read articles that explain that there is a
genetic component that plays a causal role in... what?


> I could probably
> find something for you...but I worded things here carefully so as to
> not leave myself with that obligation. You can easily find it
> yourself. It typically needs more than one document anyway. When I
> look into something I end up with 20 or 30 pages open (follow links,
> googling names, etc). So it's really something one has to do for
> oneself.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > I don't really agree that psychopathy is equivalent to having ideas
> > > about killing/hurting people.
> >
> > What is it then?
> >
> > -- Rami
>
> Well...there's an evolving understanding. There's a lot of recent
> theorizing suggesting that while psychopaths are disproportionately
> represented in prison, the same is also true in boardrooms.
> Maybe they have recieved an unfairly bad press? Maybe they are more
> like heros of good philosophy. Uber -rational beings with special
> analytical powers as the result of possessing brains innately
> unclutered by empathy, fear, fear of pain, etc.

Why do you think any of those things are inborn?

A newborn does not know fear nor empathy.

Did that research that you read involve brain imaging of newborns and
then they tracked those people throughout their lives?

Or was the brain imaging only done in adulthood? If so, how do you
know that people's differing ideas are not the cause of the
differences in brain images? (Note that our ideas are instantiated
physically in our brains as neural connections.)


BTW, what you're saying about empathy and people labeled with
Autism/Aspergers having less empathy is wrong.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/18/health/fearing-a-stigma-for-people-with-autism.html?_r=3&

> In a widely circulated defense of the empathic powers of her 11-year-old son, who has an Asperger diagnosis, Emily Willingham, a science blogger, wrote that “he can’t bear to watch people crack tree nuts, like pecans, because being something of a tree nut himself, he feels pain on behalf of the nuts.”

So empathy is about ideas. This person has the false idea that pecans feel pain.


Also from that article:

> His own flat affect, he explained, does not mean that he has no feelings: “Our emotions don’t naturally show on our faces,” he wrote. “This is perhaps the most frustrating part of the Asperger experience, because people think you’re not feeling when you may be feeling even more strongly than they are.”

Seriously? Because a person doesn't do the social vibrations that most
people do when they have certain emotions, he's deemed not having
emotions? Thats stupid. Emotions are private. By not making those
social vibrations, one can keep his emotions private. And if he wants
to let others know about his emotions, he can talk to certain people
about them. Why broadcast to the whole world about one's emotions?

Consider the really bad emotions, like anger. When a person gets
angry, should he show that on his face? First of all, anger is a bad
emotion. Its about wanting to hurt someone. So if someone knows that
anger is bad, why would he want other people to know that he's
currently having the anger emotion? He'd be stupid to do that.
Furthermore, if a parent got angry and then let the anger show on his
face, his kids are liable to learn to do the same. Why would the
parent want to teach his kids to react to things with anger?

-- Rami


------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Fabric-of-Reality/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Fabric-of-Reality/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    [email protected] 
    Fabric-of-Reality-fullfeatured-hHKSG33TihhbjbujkaE4pw@public.gmane.org

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    Fabric-of-Reality-unsubscribe-hHKSG33TihhbjbujkaE4pw@public.gmane.org

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/