When asked what I am working on, I often say I am writing a book about empathy. People tend to smile and nod, and then I add, “I’m against it.”Why? He goes on to explain from a famous example.
Hannah sounds like a good therapist, and it seems as if she would also be a good mother to young children.So it has a cost for her. But not just for her: because it is emotional and unstoppable, it is unreasonable and unreasoning. Something must be done, whether it is the right thing or not. If it makes the problem worse in the long run, but provides a moment of relief from this intense emotional pressure, it must be right. Those who conflate empathy with goodness, or non-evilness, are thus committing to a vision of the good that is thoughtless, careless, and sometimes reckless.
But consider what it must be like to be her. Hannah’s concern for other people doesn’t derive from particular appreciation or respect for them; her concern is indiscriminate and applies to strangers as well as friends. She also does not endorse a guiding principle based on compassion and kindness. Rather, Hannah is compelled by hyperarousal—her drive is unstoppable. Her experience is the opposite of selfishness but just as extreme. A selfish person might go through life indifferent to the pleasure and pain of others—ninety-nine for him and one for everyone else—while in Hannah’s case, the feelings of others are always in her head—ninety-nine for everyone else and one for her.
It is no accident that Baron-Cohen chose a woman as his example. In a series of empirical and theoretical articles, psychologists Vicki Helgeson and Heidi Fritz have explored why women are twice as likely as men to experience depression.
Nor is that the only reason to be against it! You may find it worthwhile to read the rest.
How does this explain empathy as being a critical skill set for interrogators, serial killers, and assassins?
ReplyDeleteHow does one predict what a target is doing if they don't understand the target's motivations and emotions on a day to day, second by second, chain check?
I'm not sure he was trying to explain that aspect of the question, Ymar.
ReplyDeleteI mean, give the guy a break -- he's writing a whole book on the subject. He can't fit everything pertaining to empathy in a few hundred words for the Boston Review!
ReplyDeleteI think his research should have hit upon it sooner or later, given Rory Miller's experience in jails coupled with this author's psychological research interest in criminology. The psychology of crime, at least.
ReplyDeleteIt's probably not what the editors of the online print would have allowed though. That's real "scary territory" then.
Well, he does talk about psychopaths and empathy. That should interest you.
ReplyDeleteI read that part. However, years ago I wrote and researched a little on this topic, so this a bit old hat to me.
ReplyDeleteInteresting read. I didn't have time to read all the responses, but I actually thought it was important to read his rebuttal to the responses. It's a working exploration, not a neatly rolled up theory- not yet anyway. Subjects as difficult to define and yet simultaneously loaded as 'empathy' are tough to have productive discussion about, but it seems to me he's making good observations, and which are leading to good questions, which is a good start.
ReplyDeleteOf course, as someone who isn't seen as the most empathetic person (at least outwardly), maybe I'm just looking for validation of my position...
His concern seems to be not so much empathy as the phenomenon of letting any feeling drive us like a whip. At the end he say, "I would want to ensure that anger is modified, shaped, and directed by rational deliberation. It would occasionally spur action, but it would be subservient to the capacities for rationality and compassion. If we were all constituted in this way, if we could all put anger in its place, ours would be a kinder and better world." You could substitute empathy, sadness, passionate love, or any other emotion in that sentence for anger and have a good model for behavior.
ReplyDeleteI think where we often get into trouble is in positing a stark choice between lack of emotion and emotional heedlessness. Better to feel deeply but still do right. I don't want a surgeon who flinches from cutting into me, but I do want one who considers my suffering and well-being from the same moral position from which he would consider his own.
I liked the Cicero bit: friendship doubles joy and halves grief in the sharing.