jeff_r
Login to Send PM
I saw this and thought of at least a few people on the board who might be interested (TomOver, Manatee, Red Sun Rising, etc.).
Author Jeremy Rifkin makes the case for extending our empathic drive beyond traditional social constructs.
| Get the Video Widget |
buckeyenation
Downtown C-bus
Login to Send PM
Excellent video. Thanks for posting.
It amazes me how humans, despite so much that we hold in common and a shared ancestry, have historically chosen to focus on the few little things that make us different, rather than the majority that we hold in common.
Despite some of the politics I witness, I hold the hope that it is at least a possibility that we can be more empathetic towards one another on a large scale.
jeff_r
Login to Send PM
buckeyenation said:
Excellent video. Thanks for posting.It amazes me how humans, despite so much that we hold in common and a shared ancestry, have historically chosen to focus on the few little things that make us different, rather than the majority that we hold in common.
Despite some of the politics I witness, I hold the hope that it is at least a possibility that we can be more empathetic towards one another on a large scale.
What's interesting to me is the idea that the empathic relationships that often feel so fixed to us (race, national identity, religion, etc) are actually quite malleable. It gives me hope that we can, as Rifkin suggests, extend our empathetic reach even further.
rus
Login to Send PM
Pretty sure RSR has posted this before.
As to this:
buckeyenation said:
have historically chosen to focus on the few little things that make us different, rather than the majority that we hold in common.
What do you mean "historically"?
Get to a point where someone else is doing something you[1] don't like and can't understand, but that's OK with you; you don't have to legislate a "solution" to that "problem" nor does this other expect you to support their choice and those differences will matter less.
[1]not you specifically buckeyenation...
TomOver
herenowbeyond.org
Login to Send PM
@Jeff R: You're right. I relate to this thread. For me, striving for common ground is a way to get more enjoyment from life.////Maybe it's a paradox in that I pursue my self-interest thru altruism. Being filled w/ empathy on a gut and cognitive level, there seems less room in my pysche for self-pity and insecurity.//// Also it seems to improve my attitude about whatever the future might bring--to me individually and to society or civilization in general.
TomOver
herenowbeyond.org
Login to Send PM
I'm open to suggestions from Rifkin or anyone here for ways to expand my empathy. But it seems each person's capacity for empathy is finite.///There is a limit to my capacity for empathy, just as there's a limit to how long I can go w/o sleep, water, food, or oxygen.////I've noticed feeling threatened physically or pyschologically detracts from my capacity for empathy.//// I'll speculate : evolution may have sort of hard-wired that response in the aggregate of our species while giving us a few geniuses of empathy as rare exceptions.////But even people w/ an extraordinary capacity for empathy (and I'm not one of them) have limits, just as, for example, a math genius has limits to her abilities in that area.
TomOver
herenowbeyond.org
Login to Send PM
Sorry I'm sending out posts from this old phone w/o referring to what others may be saying. ////But this thread calls to mind how major religions deal w/ empathy and our lack of it./////When it's not finding ways to justify our tendency to mistreat each other, organized religion attritbutes our lack of empathy to our evil nature which can only be fixed by God thru some process of salvation.///// IMHO, a more rational or scientific approach is to look upon the limits to our empathy as something we must come to terms w/---not to justify it, but to understand and manage it better.////By doing that, we can make the best of an imperfect human condition.////Thru science we may get a better sense of how or why human beings create, comply w/ and resist oppressive systems, along w/ a better sense of why we aren't always nice to each other on an individual to individual level.//////In at least some ways, this sort of research can be similar to how we, for example, might study the mind of a serial killer.//// That serial killer ought to be looked upon as an example of pathology, not evil. Similarly, break downs in our empathy on a societal level can be viewed as pathology and/or as sort of "engineering challenges.'//// I suggest thinking of the term 'social engineering' as perhaps being something positive, at least as an experiment in thinking.
buckeyenation
Downtown C-bus
Login to Send PM
rus said:
Pretty sure RSR has posted this before.As to this:
What do you mean "historically"?
Get to a point where someone else is doing something you[1] don't like and can't understand, but that's OK with you; you don't have to legislate a "solution" to that "problem" nor does this other expect you to support their choice and those differences will matter less.
[1]not you specifically buckeyenation...
Rus, by historically I mean that throughout human history there have been wars fought over our differences. There have been centuries of wars fought over religious differences. Rather than focusing on how much many religions hold in common, we have seen bloodshed and animosity throughout history over the differences. Slavery existed by dehumanizing those that were enslaved. There is too often an "us" vs. "them" mindset, rather than an "us" together.
We are more alike than we are different. I feel that we are seeing this right now with the conversation on Gay Marriage. There are people dedicated to prohibiting gay couples to marry. From my own perspective, I cannot imagine how anyone could be against allowing a fellow human being to have the right to pursue happiness through a committed relationship. I believe that this exists because people put others in categories of "not like me" by focusing on how they are different.
TomOver
herenowbeyond.org
Login to Send PM
@Buckeyenation: in terms of finding common ground, recently I've been wondering about the politically transformative power of non-elite conservatives and non-elite progressives finding common cause, and extracting ourselves from being pawns in a game of divide-and-conquer.
jeff_r
Login to Send PM
TomOver said:
I'm open to suggestions from Rifkin or anyone here for ways to expand my empathy. But it seems each person's capacity for empathy is finite.
This is an interesting thought, and reminds me of the research that compares the idea of a fixed mindset with the idea of a growth mindset.
In short, people who lean toward the idea of a fixed mindset see talents and abilities as permanent or fixed. They tend to describe abilities more as traits; i.e. "I suck at math", "I'm no good at public speaking", "I have no sense of rhythm" etc.
By contrast, people who have a growth mindset believe that talents and abilities function more like muscles. They believe they can be built up over time through practice and concentrated effort.
Chip and Dan Heath touch on this subject in their book "Switch: How to Change Things When Change is Hard". They, in turn, rely heavily on the work of Carol Dweck at Standford University. She's an expert on fixed mindset/growth mindset research and actually coined the terms. Dweck's book, "Mindset: The New Psychology of Success" is the distillation of this research. As the Heath's point out, Dweck makes a convincing case for the proposition that a growth mindset is requisite for anyone who wants to reach their full potential.
In that regard, maybe the first step toward expanding empathy would be to try and view empathy as something you can develop and grow, rather than something that's finite or fixed.
rus
Login to Send PM
buckeyenation said:
Rus, by historically I mean that throughout human history there have been wars fought over our differences. There have been centuries of wars fought over religious differences. Rather than focusing on how much many religions hold in common, we have seen bloodshed and animosity throughout history over the differences. Slavery existed by dehumanizing those that were enslaved. There is too often an "us" vs. "them" mindset, rather than an "us" together.We are more alike than we are different. I feel that we are seeing this right now with the conversation on Gay Marriage. There are people dedicated to prohibiting gay couples to marry. From my own perspective, I cannot imagine how anyone could be against allowing a fellow human being to have the right to pursue happiness through a committed relationship. I believe that this exists because people put others in categories of "not like me" by focusing on how they are different.
Guess the snide comment didn't come through. When I asked what you meant, I was trying to imply there's nothing historical about current events.
Your gay marriage example is the sort of thing I was thinking of, but it's hardly the only one. Atheists who bitch about religious people ( subset, perhaps ), hoplophobes, eco-whackos... the list goes on of those who wish to impose their will on others.
Also, seems much more complex than just empathy.
buckeyenation
Downtown C-bus
Login to Send PM
Rus, I hadn't understood the sarcasm. You are right, this continues in current events. This is certainly more complex than just empathy, but it's a good starting point. I think that once you find common ground with somebody, it makes you more tolerant of the areas where you may differ.
Jeff_R, Very interesting stuff about fixed mindset vs. growth mindset. I think that most things can be developed with practice, including empathy.
TomOver, good point about two of the sides of the political conversation finding common ground (Conservatives and Progressives). Even better, would be adding a third or fourth perspective to the political arena, but that's another discussion for another time.
jeff_r
Login to Send PM
buckeyenation said:
Very interesting stuff about fixed mindset vs. growth mindset. I think that most things can be developed with practice, including empathy.
Agreed. The practice of getting outside oneself and becoming more mindful of others (which is more or less what Rifkin is talking about) is addressed in a wide range of disciplines, from religious studies and spirituality to psychology, self-help, and sociology.
Speaking to that, I still find the Kenyon College commencement address given by David Foster Wallace to be one of the most powerful pronouncements on the subject. His remarks to the graduates and their families provide an articulate justification for increasing our sense of empathy while also acknowledging that such a shift must ultimately be a deliberate choice. It's a choice that's made all the more challenging by the fact that it goes completely against our default settings.
TomOver
herenowbeyond.org
Login to Send PM
jeff_r said:
This is an interesting thought, and reminds me of the research that compares the idea of a fixed mindset with the idea of a growth mindset.In short, people who lean toward the idea of a fixed mindset see talents and abilities as permanent or fixed. They tend to describe abilities more as traits; i.e. "I suck at math", "I'm no good at public speaking", "I have no sense of rhythm" etc.
By contrast, people who have a growth mindset believe that talents and abilities function more like muscles. They believe they can be built up over time through practice and concentrated effort.
Chip and Dan Heath touch on this subject in their book "Switch: How to Change Things When Change is Hard". They, in turn, rely heavily on the work of Carol Dweck at Standford University. She's an expert on fixed mindset/growth mindset research and actually coined the terms. Dweck's book, "Mindset: The New Psychology of Success" is the distillation of this research. As the Heath's point out, Dweck makes a convincing case for the proposition that a growth mindset is requisite for anyone who wants to reach their full potential.
In that regard, maybe the first step toward expanding empathy would be to try and view empathy as something you can develop and grow, rather than something that's finite or fixed.
Jeff, saying my capacity for empathy is finite is not the same as saying I'm not capable of further expanding it.
But I think your point is that we often place limits on ourselves unnecessarily. I agree. But as for traits-versus-skills we may develop, is it one way or the other ?
How about a middle ground between having a helpless, victim mentality, on one extreme, and, on the other extreme, over-emphasizing the importance of our attitudes ? Each of us, depending on our station in life, are somewhere between being victims of fate and being masters of our destiny.
It's possible to over-emphasize our power to choose, such as claiming, for example, hundreds of thousands of people (including children) starve to death every year in Third World countries because that's the fate they choose.
Striking the right balance between these extremes, we get a more efficacious sense of our personal freedom and our responsibility for our lives (and our responsibility for the well-being of others).
No doubt about it. With a right attitude we can take at least some degree of control (and responsibility) in situations that involve factors beyond our choice.
For example, I can't change the fact I will die sooner or later. But I have a meaningful degree of control over my attitude toward dying, and over how to prioritize my time and energy while I'm alive.
rus
Login to Send PM
jeff_r said:
Speaking to that, I still find the Kenyon College commencement address given by David Foster Wallace to be one of the most powerful pronouncements on the subject. His remarks to the graduates and their families provide an articulate justification for increasing our sense of empathy while also acknowledging that such a shift must ultimately be a deliberate choice. It's a choice that's made all the more challenging by the fact that it goes completely against our default settings.
Doesn't seem like it helped him much.
buckeyenation
Downtown C-bus
Login to Send PM
TomOver said:
It's possible to over-emphasize our power to choose, such as claiming, for example, hundreds of thousands of people (including children) starve to death every year in Third World countries because that's the fate they choose.
Dave Chappelle did a great commentary on this in one of his stand-up performances.
| Get the Video Widget |
TomOver
herenowbeyond.org
Login to Send PM
Manatee said:
Thanks for posting, this is great! I have been thinking a lot about this kind of thing lately, particularly in the context of different movements in the history of science.Very engaging.
Yeah Jeff, it's cool that you're posting links to, and discussing what seem to be scholarly works. And again, positive thinking is a big factor, no doubt about it.
IMHO, each of us has SOME control over our lives (and more of it than we realize or would like to admit, given how taking more responsibility might push us out of our comfort zones.)
But if I manage---thru having a growth mentality or some other type of positive thinking--- to take more responsibility for my own happiness, I would like to think doing so would sharpen my social conscience.
I’d prefer that my emphasis on individual freedom and responsibility leads me to have more of a belief in the dignity and potential competence of those I perceive as less fortunate than me. I don't want to use it as an excuse to be indifferent and hostile toward them.
In terms of public discourse and policy regarding poverty, crime, and socio-economic inequality, some liberals may have over-emphasized the role social systems such as slavery and segregation have played.
Conservatives may have over-emphasized the importance of personal responsibility, paying inadequate attention to how each individual exists within social systems that involve phenomena such as racism.
Maybe those who've achieved self-actualization thru their fight against oppression have done so by (1) taking personal responsibility for (2) changing or adapting to those social systems. In other words, they made the most of their finite choices in situations they could not entirely control.
This is not to say that every enslaved person who wasn't a Frederick Douglas or Sojourner Truth had a victim mentality. My guess is that many of the tens of millions who lived and died enslaved and in obscurity, took responsibility for their lives by making things as good as was feasible --for themselves and for their loved ones--- in situations of severely constrained personal choice.
jeff_r
Login to Send PM
I'm reading the Fringe-ology by Steve Volk. In it, and among other things, Volk discusses the the Overview Effect. The Overview Effect was popularized by Frank White in his book by the same name (The Overview Effect: Space Exploration and Human Evolution).
The book starts from the premise that many astronauts who have seen the earth from outer space have been profoundly affected by the experience. One of the persistent themes of the Overview Effect is the realization that earth is really a small place and we really are all one people. As astronaut Michael Collins observed, "I think the view from 100,000 miles could be invaluable in getting people together to work on joint solutions, by causing them to realize that the planet we share unites us in a way far more basic and far more important than differences in skin color or religion or economic system".
It's easy to imagine that the kind of empathic civilization that Jeremy Rifkin envisions could be increased as more people are exposed to the Overview Effect. In Fringe-ology Volk points out this could be one of the real and lasting benefits of space tourism and continued human exploration of space.
You must log in to post.
Launched in August 2010, TheMetropreneur.com is a local online resource devoted to small business development and entrepreneurship. Its aim is to tell the stories of Central Ohio's business community, foster regional economic development and assist entrepreneurs with its resource-heavy focus. Click here to visit TheMetropreneur.com.
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
YouTube
