Friday, November 14, 2014

Against Empathy

Paul Bloom writes:



He explain his argument in a New Yorker article last year, and this one is part of an online debate with experts.

His critics argue that without empathy, we would be just like Hitler killing the Jews, or just like the Israeli Jews killing the Gaza Arabs. You know someone's argument is probably weak if he has to make Nazi analogies. One says “Dead babies are not an argument.”

Definitions of empathy vary, but it is means something different from sympathy and compassion.

As a rule, women are more empathic, and men are more analytical. Psychologists tend to be effeminate and empathic.
I thought that this would be true, but it has not been my experience. I have seen babies completely ignore a fellow baby who is screaming in pain.

Here is a description of a high-empathy woman, from a psychologist who believes that empathy is a universal good that solves all interpersonal problems:

I would say that Hannah has a personality disorder. I have known people like that, and they always have an assortment of personal problems stemming from their inability handle straightforward communication and apply cold reason.

Empathy is also crucial for leftist politics. Nobody votes for Barack Obama based on results. They somehow get convinced that he has more empathy, even tho he is not particular high empathy. But he has some effeminate personality traits that some people confuse for empathy.

As an example, here is an argument against the recently failed N. Dakota Measure 6 for shared parenting:
Sometimes the heart takes precedence to the head

It's an easy no on Measure 6, because North Dakota judges already act in the best interests of the children without having an untenable law that ties their hands. ...

It is hard to argue with the philosophy behind Measure 6, the shared parenting initiative.

Proponents believe the interests of children are best served when they grow up loving and being loved by both of their parents.

The reality is that children would be best served in families where there are two loving parents. ...

In our state, most custody cases are resolved by mutual agreement, not by knockdown drag-outs.
This is leftist female empathy thinking, from a man. He seems to recognize that shared parenting is superior, that the ballot measure does that, and that a rational vote would favor the measure. But it does not give the judge the opportunity to make an empathy-based decision after a contested trial. So he votes no.

Here was the ballot summary:
This initiated measure would amend section 14-09-06.2 of the North Dakota Century Code to create a presumption that each parent is a fit parent and entitled to be awarded equal parental rights and responsibilities by a court unless there is clear and convincing evidence to the contrary
Here is a lawyer opposing the measure on TV, and he argues that divorce lawyers do not profit from child custody disputes, but they will make more income if the measure passes, so they have funded the attack ads against the measure.

Yeah, that does not make any sense. But that is what he says.

No rational person would be convinced by such nonsense. Only self-interested lawyers, stupid people, and leftist-feminist-pro-empathy folks who don't believe that parents have any rights to their kids. The measure essentially says that parents have a right to their kids, unless proved unfit.

What the measure would have eliminated are the knockdown drag-out fights over who is the better parent, or who is in the best interest of the kids. So N. Dakota parents, and parents in the other 49 states, are always subject to the second-guessing of a judge about the BIOTCh.


HeligKo said...

I really hate when I hear that most child custody is decided by mutual consent. Mine will be on that list. I have a choice to go to trial and spend money that I don't have and have the GAL tell the judge that I should have no time with my kids or accept what she is offering. Since I can't really afford to go to trial, and knowing I will lose, I have to go with take the offer. This is like agreeing to eat a pile of dog crap of my own volition, knowing that if I don't I am going to be forced to eat the pile of cow crap over there and be shot in the head when I am done. Everyone can say I chose to eat the dog crap, but the truth is I had very little choice in the matter.

George said...

Yes, that's right. Lawyers like to brag that they got a settlement with the agreement of all parties, as if everyone is happy.

George said...

This is an important point, so I will post more tomorrow.