Mr. Bloom, a Yale Professor of Psychology, isn't exactly against empathy. He is against it being presented ad nauseam as a panacea for all human problems, and because of this myopic viewpoint, better solutions have been relegated to the background. His erudite wrangling with many a fervent opponent—the intellectual equivalent of Houdini wriggling out of chains while underwater—is thorough, gracious, and derived from a well-honed perspective which has been worked on since September 11, 2001.
However, is it possible for the offered alternative trio of compassion, self-regulation, and reasoning to reach critical mass as to move humanity in a better direction? Just as empathy, selected by Mr. Bloom from available definitions to signify the ability to feel what others are feeling, can be set at different points on a spectrum because of the varying influence of genes and environment, so can be compassion, self-regulation, and reasoning. Additionally, can these cooler skills override the hyperarousal one of empathy?
Reasoning is the cornerstone. With that, compassion and self-regulation will tag along. So is reasoning the real deal? While detractors insist on viewing it from a low level of functioning, that is, at the neuronal level and therefore rife with determinism and glitches, he counters with: It turns out that every demonstration of our irrationality is also a demonstration of how smart we are, because without our smarts we wouldn't be able to appreciate that it's a demonstration of irrationality.
Reasoning works to solve problems in your everyday life, not necessarily in a broader sense. For example, you can be irrational at a ballgame, screaming insults at the opposing team, but rational when cooperating with others via carpooling to get home. Also this approach will not result in an utopia where there is no violence, but rather where violence is used sparingly, as in self-defence. But it will give to moral decisions a more fair, just, numerate edge than empathy which is based often on bias.
But what to do with those who don't have much empathy or compassion or reasoning or self regulation? Excluding people who have organic diseases or incapacities, the problem with the rest of this group is that their high-conflict social interactions are egosyntonic, that is, their antagonistic style satisfies the drives of their ego. Compassion, for you and for them, that is, understanding that you must set boundaries on how you are treated and understanding that they are stuck in a non-reciprocal position may just be what the doctor ordered. Experiments showed that when the part of the brain correlated with compassion fires, there is a centred calmness that is present contrasted when the part of the brain correlated with empathy fires. It seems that having a cooler interaction will feel better, therefore setting in motion a climate of deceleration. Mr. Bloom said that one of the reasons why he prefers compassion over empathy is because it doesn't burn you out.
Though the alternatives to empathy are better for creating a more moral universe, we can not live on morality alone. A nice dose of empathy here and there is pretty wonderful.
À la prochaine!
OTHER BOOK REVIEWS
Book Review / The Tulip by Anna Pavord
Book review / The Asshole Survival Guide: How to Deal with People Who Treat You Like Dirt by Robert I. Sutton
Book Review / Florike Egmond's An Eye For Detail: Images of Plants and Animals in Art and Science, 1500-1630
EXTERNAL LINKS
Paul Bloom at Twitter
Against Empathy at Amazon
Paul Bloom's Introduction To Psychology at Coursera (Starts Nov. 29, 2018)
Paul Bloom's Moralities Of Everyday Life at Coursera (Starts Nov. 29, 2018)
However, is it possible for the offered alternative trio of compassion, self-regulation, and reasoning to reach critical mass as to move humanity in a better direction? Just as empathy, selected by Mr. Bloom from available definitions to signify the ability to feel what others are feeling, can be set at different points on a spectrum because of the varying influence of genes and environment, so can be compassion, self-regulation, and reasoning. Additionally, can these cooler skills override the hyperarousal one of empathy?
Reasoning is the cornerstone. With that, compassion and self-regulation will tag along. So is reasoning the real deal? While detractors insist on viewing it from a low level of functioning, that is, at the neuronal level and therefore rife with determinism and glitches, he counters with: It turns out that every demonstration of our irrationality is also a demonstration of how smart we are, because without our smarts we wouldn't be able to appreciate that it's a demonstration of irrationality.
Reasoning works to solve problems in your everyday life, not necessarily in a broader sense. For example, you can be irrational at a ballgame, screaming insults at the opposing team, but rational when cooperating with others via carpooling to get home. Also this approach will not result in an utopia where there is no violence, but rather where violence is used sparingly, as in self-defence. But it will give to moral decisions a more fair, just, numerate edge than empathy which is based often on bias.
But what to do with those who don't have much empathy or compassion or reasoning or self regulation? Excluding people who have organic diseases or incapacities, the problem with the rest of this group is that their high-conflict social interactions are egosyntonic, that is, their antagonistic style satisfies the drives of their ego. Compassion, for you and for them, that is, understanding that you must set boundaries on how you are treated and understanding that they are stuck in a non-reciprocal position may just be what the doctor ordered. Experiments showed that when the part of the brain correlated with compassion fires, there is a centred calmness that is present contrasted when the part of the brain correlated with empathy fires. It seems that having a cooler interaction will feel better, therefore setting in motion a climate of deceleration. Mr. Bloom said that one of the reasons why he prefers compassion over empathy is because it doesn't burn you out.
Though the alternatives to empathy are better for creating a more moral universe, we can not live on morality alone. A nice dose of empathy here and there is pretty wonderful.
À la prochaine!
OTHER BOOK REVIEWS
Book Review / The Tulip by Anna Pavord
Book review / The Asshole Survival Guide: How to Deal with People Who Treat You Like Dirt by Robert I. Sutton
Book Review / Florike Egmond's An Eye For Detail: Images of Plants and Animals in Art and Science, 1500-1630
Book Review / Hot Bread Kitchen Cookbook: Artisanal
Baking From Around The World by Jessamyn Waldman
Rodriguez with Julia Turshen
Book Review/The Confidence Game: The Psychology Of The Con And Why We Fall For It Every Time By Maria Konnikova
Book Review / The Faith of a Writer: Life, Craft, Art by Joyce Carol Oates
EXTERNAL LINKS
Paul Bloom at Twitter
Against Empathy at Amazon
Paul Bloom's Introduction To Psychology at Coursera (Starts Nov. 29, 2018)
Paul Bloom's Moralities Of Everyday Life at Coursera (Starts Nov. 29, 2018)