Empathy

[Manee]

Was just having a think to myself today and thought that the idea of empathy in terms of stepping into somebody else's shoes, looking through somebody else's eyes, is quite a ludicrous one. I suscribe to Hume's Bundle Theory of Self* (as well as modern views that note the self as a fiction) and to live any particular life is infinitely different to any other. The way people respond to you and thus the way people respond to you is affected by how you look, as a crude example. Psychologists tend to estimate that first impressions take about ten seconds and that is a purely physical impression. Here, you have to think that if people respond to you differently on how you look, you have a different view of people from anyone who physically differs from you. The idea of different people having vastly different experiences, if you suscribe to such a view of self, is pretty self explanatory - the way that it can affect something like your view of humanity and, of course, much more subtle aspects of life means that it is nigh on impossible to 'put yourself in somebody else's shoes', so to speak, as the world is so vastly different to any other given person that it exceeds human comprehension. Motives are the particular thing which I find hard to discern, especially in modern life. In the jungle, if I may oversimplify, you kill an animal for food, you climb the tree to escape the predator, but the greater intricacies of modern life surely make things much more complex, to an incomprehensible degree, I argue...

Thoughts?

*In short, we are a bundle of our experiences just like objects are bundles of their properties (a cube is a bundle of equal length, height and width, if you change one, it becomes a cuboid). There is no self, just a bundle of experiences that we percieve to have a consistency that is not really there.

Don't really expect anyone to care (would be pleasently surpised if someone did), just fancied airing some thoughts.

 

[Marcuss]

Not entirely sure either way for my money, I could've misunderstood which would then deem this respose completely irrelevant but for me empathy is about attempting to understand how another person feels abotu a certain issue. As you said each and every person is different due to the fact that we're shaped by our own experiences. So when I attempt to put myself in Person A's shoes, I may see or experience something different to you when you out yourself in the same person's shoes. Yet both of us are empathising with that person, my feelings may be a more accurate reflection of said person's but that doesn't maen that you are not empathising with him/her. Whether it means I have a greater ability to epathise than you or whether all it means is that my experiences are more similar to that persons than yours is another contentious points.

 

[andyc]

I understand how you feel, Manee.

 

[nightprowler10]

I agree with your definition of self Manee but I never quite saw empathy as simply putting yourself in someone's shoes. To me its always been a case of thinking along the lines of 'how would I feel if this happened to me?' rather than pondering about the other person's feelings.

I understand how you feel, Manee.

Haha.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Motives are the particular thing which I find hard to discern, especially in modern life. In the jungle, if I may oversimplify, you kill an animal for food, you climb the tree to escape the predator, but the greater intricacies of modern life surely make things much more complex, to an incomprehensible degree, I argue...

Thoughts?

*In short, we are a bundle of our experiences just like objects are bundles of their properties (a cube is a bundle of equal length, height and width, if you change one, it becomes a cuboid). There is no self, just a bundle of experiences that we percieve to have a consistency that is not really there.

Don't really expect anyone to care (would be pleasently surpised if someone did), just fancied airing some thoughts.

I like this part, I think I remember reading in social psych or some such subject that we categorise different things that happen in our lives and process them according to our previous experiences. We tend to do this quickly and based upon a cue we've taken from something that has happened previously that was similar. Obviously it'd be impossible to think about every single incident in our lives independently, so we're often quick to decide something is this that or the other.

I think this is the consistency your statement addresses. The consistency is more due to the way we organise our thoughts and make decisions on what something is or isn't than an actual consistency in real life.

I think the fact our lives are so complex means we have to do this to stay sane.

Then again, I may have spent too much time at the cafe at uni and not enough time in class.

 

[Matt79]

I think 'empathy' is not nearly as hard as you make it out to be in that argument. Yes, we all experience the world differently, and those differences inform how we respond to stuff. But there are often as many, if not more, similarities than there are differences. Those similarities mean that if you try you can form a reasonable estimation of how another person might be feeling in a given situation.

 

[Top_Cat]

I like this part, I think I remember reading in social psych or some such subject that we categorise different things that happen in our lives and process them according to our previous experiences. We tend to do this quickly and based upon a cue we've taken from something that has happened previously that was similar. Obviously it'd be impossible to think about every single incident in our lives independently, so we're often quick to decide something is this that or the other.

I think this is the consistency your statement addresses. The consistency is more due to the way we organise our thoughts and make decisions on what something is or isn't than an actual consistency in real life.

I think the fact our lives are so complex means we have to do this to stay sane.

Then again, I may have spent too much time at the cafe at uni and not enough time in class.

Tisk, tisk. They're called schemas.

It's alright, I hated social psych too.

 

[Son Of Coco]

Tisk, tisk. They're called schemas.

It's alright, I hated social psych too.

They're the ones...

Our social psych lecture was a complete and utter prick.

 

[Manee]

I agree with your definition of self Manee but I never quite saw empathy as simply putting yourself in someone's shoes. To me its always been a case of thinking along the lines of 'how would I feel if this happened to me?' rather than pondering about the other person's feelings.

Surely trying to think how something would happen to you is putting yourself in their shoes as the occurance of pretty much any event depends entirely on the people involved.

 

[Manee]

I think 'empathy' is not nearly as hard as you make it out to be in that argument. Yes, we all experience the world differently, and those differences inform how we respond to stuff. But there are often as many, if not more, similarities than there are differences. Those similarities mean that if you try you can form a reasonable estimation of how another person might be feeling in a given situation.

But I think the estimation will far too often be too far from the truth. I think the differences far outweigh the similarities when it comes to people's personalities.

 

[Manee]

Not entirely sure either way for my money, I could've misunderstood which would then deem this respose completely irrelevant but for me empathy is about attempting to understand how another person feels abotu a certain issue. As you said each and every person is different due to the fact that we're shaped by our own experiences. So when I attempt to put myself in Person A's shoes, I may see or experience something different to you when you out yourself in the same person's shoes. Yet both of us are empathising with that person, my feelings may be a more accurate reflection of said person's but that doesn't maen that you are not empathising with him/her. Whether it means I have a greater ability to epathise than you or whether all it means is that my experiences are more similar to that persons than yours is another contentious points.

I am not disputing the possibility of attempting to empathise with a person, of course it is possible to try and is in our genetic nature to make simple personality judgements on such a system. I am noting that the sheer inaccuracy involved means that it is a futile exercise.

Perhaps the point I wished to make was more about everybody being different with empathy as a mere example. The point about everybody being different is not merely of sentimental value either, it applies greatly to political ideologies. Most political systems start off with the "people are like this" assertion - people are individualistic or people are collectivist, whereas no two people (with the possible exception of identical twins who have lived identical lives) are even remotely similar, nevermind an entire population.

Attempting to find what binds people together as one species is an equally futile exercise, imo. As, regarding personalities, I feel the relationship is like a family resemblance at best. (This is not an example which I have thought up, but one which I read and for the life of me cannot remember the source). In a family portrait of the Smiths, the Grandfather has a lot of defining features which are noticable throughout the family. Father Smith has the Smith nose, Son Smith has the Smith cheek bones and Daughter Smith has the Smith mouth - alas, Son Smith and Daughter Smith have no resemblance, as the derived features (the clear parallel with evolution) are spread differently through different people.

 

[Manee]

I like this part, I think I remember reading in social psych or some such subject that we categorise different things that happen in our lives and process them according to our previous experiences. We tend to do this quickly and based upon a cue we've taken from something that has happened previously that was similar. Obviously it'd be impossible to think about every single incident in our lives independently, so we're often quick to decide something is this that or the other.

Yeh, I'd agree with that.

I think this is the consistency your statement addresses. The consistency is more due to the way we organise our thoughts and make decisions on what something is or isn't than an actual consistency in real life.[/QUOTE]

I have thought up a similar idea myself. But even our tools of rationality are liable to rash change, such as when somebody has had too much to drink. I'd happily note that the thoughts which I have are consistent with the sober Manee, but the rationality and filtering mechanism has certainly been altered. Here, there may be a degree of long term consistency, but not short term consistency.

I think the fact our lives are so complex means we have to do this to stay sane.

Definitely. As I noted in a talk I did a few weeks back at school, if somebody asks you "Who are you" and you cannot answer with 100% certainty, your mental stability would have to be brought into question.

 

[cover drive man]

Although this is a selfish thing to say I feel it applies to many people, when I feel empathy I feel it from the sense of how I would feel if I'd been upset, I literally think of it as me rather than them. You could argue empathy is a selfish motive, yet it often commits an entirely unselfish (as it would appear) act.


Anyway, how would you guys feel if we made this "The Official CW Philosophy Thread"?

 

[alternative]

Oh please no!

SS would not shut up if this was a Philosphy thread.

 

[G.I.Joe]

Surely trying to think how something would happen to you is putting yourself in their shoes as the occurance of pretty much any event depends entirely on the people involved.

Not necessarily. You could stay in your own shoes and transfer their experience onto yourself and surmise that what you're then feeling is what they're feeling too.

 

[Flem274*]

SS shuts up?

Did I miss something?

 

[PhoenixFire]

Always thought it's really important to walk a mile in someone elses shoes.






That way, you have their shoes and you're a mile away from them.

 

[G.I.Joe]

SS shuts up?

Did I miss something?

He's got his manners. He doesn't talk with his mouth full of cow.

 

[benchmark00]

Not necessarily. You could stay in your own shoes and transfer their experience onto yourself and surmise that what you're then feeling is what they're feeling too.

What if they're wearing sandals of some description?

 

[G.I.Joe]

What if they're wearing sandals of some description?

Then you daydream about the beach.