>" in their rush to be kind to one group, they overlook how callous they’re being to the other. "
I used to be all in for "empathy", believing it's largely what makes humans worthwhile as a species (to offset some of their other tendencies). I encouraged all forms of empathy.
But more recently, I've noticed that there are meaningful diffe…
>" in their rush to be kind to one group, they overlook how callous they’re being to the other. "
I used to be all in for "empathy", believing it's largely what makes humans worthwhile as a species (to offset some of their other tendencies). I encouraged all forms of empathy.
But more recently, I've noticed that there are meaningful differences in the flavors of different examples. As a shorthand, I distinguish between "tribal empathy" and "universal empathy".
In tribal empathy, there are in groups and out groups; professing empathy for the ingroups is mandatory and lack thereof can be sinful; but professing empathy for anybody in an out group is socially punished as disloyalty to the tribe. People are trained to numb out any human empathy for members of "the other side". This kind of empathy is endemic and goes back to our prehistoric roots. (Perhaps, in less complex form, to pre-human roots; male chimpanzees groom and stroke other males who will fight with them against other bands).
By contrast, there is a flavor of empathy which arises spontaneously (not by command) and which can cross tribal boundaries to find a fragment of understandable humanity even in some in another tribe. This can be transcendant and transformative, and is closer to the inspiration for my original respect for empathy (which I still have, albeit in more nuanced form).
The former kind of empathy (tribal empathy) is just the "us" subset of an overall "us vs them" proclivity in humans. It can sometimes feel like a weaponized mutation of universal empathy but it's probably more primeval that the latter.
So nowadays when I see somebody advocating compassion for X, I ask myself whether the empathy energies are inherently tied to prescribed numbing of human empathy for a different group - or whether it's more universal (or individual).
In the present case, trans activism is definitely deep into tribal empathy - using mandatory (not emergent and inspired, but required) empathy for the feelings of trans folks, but inherently also prescribing a numbing of empathy for anybody else who may feel harmed. And the other side can do the same thing. People caring about both sides, and trying to find a nuanced compromise as respectful as feasible for everybody's needs - tend to be a small subset. For others, compromise is a dirty word, because it implies that other humans might have legitimate needs to be balanced against their own desires. Hence the prescribed numbing of empathy.
I want to note that a number of the trans folks I've known DO have empathy for the needs of cis women, and act accordingly. For every trans athlete entering women's sports, there are others who (mostly silently) abstain because it doesn't feel fair to them. But most of the personality type which is differentially attracted to trans activism seems to be amazingly unempathetic towards cis women's feelings and needs and highly entitled to have their own feelings and needs centered. This gives a distorted perspective to those who only encounter the louder activists and think them typical of all trans folks.
"But more recently, I've noticed that there are meaningful differences in the flavors of different examples. As a shorthand, I distinguish between "tribal empathy" and "universal empathy"."
Yeah, I'm not even sure that I'd describe the rush to be kind to one group as empathy. I think it's exceedingly self-serving in nature. It's the same kind of thing that leads people to lie when asked "Does my bum look big in this?"
There's a calculation taking place of "what will be the fallout if I give the 'honest (but "wrong")' vs 'affirming (but false)' answer?" And right now, without a doubt, the easiest thing to do is affirm all the insanity. After all, sticking your head above the parapet and saying what you really think will almost certainly have meaningful social consequences and may well affect your employment.
Whereas, even amongst women, most of them aren't athletes or in prison, and rates of sexual assault in bathrooms and changing rooms are low enough that they can afford to roll the dice.
Most people have bought into the oft-repeated lie that any pushback on trans issues is born out of hatred. And because they aren't aware of the implications of self-ID, they just go along with the dogma. There was a BBC poll that laid this out quite well recently (https://comresglobal.com/polls/bbc-scotland-gender-recognition-act-poll-17-february/).
Baseline support for trans people was high, as you'd expect, but that changed when it came to issues like whether males should compete with females in sport or males being housed with females, the numbers were very different.
I want to add a link my partner just passed to me, to some research which shows that people scoring higher in empathy are associated with more polarization and out-group hatred. I suspect that the scales are reflecting the effects of what I call "tribal empathy", which seems far more prevalent today, presumably also within representative test subjects.
The strong empathetic emotional connection to an ingroup, along with politics which highlight harm to that in-group, can lead more empathy driven people to have more negative emotions about the "harmful" out-group. Or in my own framing, tapping into us/them dynamics to generate weaponized (tribal) empathy will lead to a net increase in overall hostility. Empathize with a few anecdotal stories of harm, then demonize huge groups of people with the emotional rebound.
>" in their rush to be kind to one group, they overlook how callous they’re being to the other. "
I used to be all in for "empathy", believing it's largely what makes humans worthwhile as a species (to offset some of their other tendencies). I encouraged all forms of empathy.
But more recently, I've noticed that there are meaningful differences in the flavors of different examples. As a shorthand, I distinguish between "tribal empathy" and "universal empathy".
In tribal empathy, there are in groups and out groups; professing empathy for the ingroups is mandatory and lack thereof can be sinful; but professing empathy for anybody in an out group is socially punished as disloyalty to the tribe. People are trained to numb out any human empathy for members of "the other side". This kind of empathy is endemic and goes back to our prehistoric roots. (Perhaps, in less complex form, to pre-human roots; male chimpanzees groom and stroke other males who will fight with them against other bands).
By contrast, there is a flavor of empathy which arises spontaneously (not by command) and which can cross tribal boundaries to find a fragment of understandable humanity even in some in another tribe. This can be transcendant and transformative, and is closer to the inspiration for my original respect for empathy (which I still have, albeit in more nuanced form).
The former kind of empathy (tribal empathy) is just the "us" subset of an overall "us vs them" proclivity in humans. It can sometimes feel like a weaponized mutation of universal empathy but it's probably more primeval that the latter.
So nowadays when I see somebody advocating compassion for X, I ask myself whether the empathy energies are inherently tied to prescribed numbing of human empathy for a different group - or whether it's more universal (or individual).
In the present case, trans activism is definitely deep into tribal empathy - using mandatory (not emergent and inspired, but required) empathy for the feelings of trans folks, but inherently also prescribing a numbing of empathy for anybody else who may feel harmed. And the other side can do the same thing. People caring about both sides, and trying to find a nuanced compromise as respectful as feasible for everybody's needs - tend to be a small subset. For others, compromise is a dirty word, because it implies that other humans might have legitimate needs to be balanced against their own desires. Hence the prescribed numbing of empathy.
I want to note that a number of the trans folks I've known DO have empathy for the needs of cis women, and act accordingly. For every trans athlete entering women's sports, there are others who (mostly silently) abstain because it doesn't feel fair to them. But most of the personality type which is differentially attracted to trans activism seems to be amazingly unempathetic towards cis women's feelings and needs and highly entitled to have their own feelings and needs centered. This gives a distorted perspective to those who only encounter the louder activists and think them typical of all trans folks.
"But more recently, I've noticed that there are meaningful differences in the flavors of different examples. As a shorthand, I distinguish between "tribal empathy" and "universal empathy"."
Yeah, I'm not even sure that I'd describe the rush to be kind to one group as empathy. I think it's exceedingly self-serving in nature. It's the same kind of thing that leads people to lie when asked "Does my bum look big in this?"
There's a calculation taking place of "what will be the fallout if I give the 'honest (but "wrong")' vs 'affirming (but false)' answer?" And right now, without a doubt, the easiest thing to do is affirm all the insanity. After all, sticking your head above the parapet and saying what you really think will almost certainly have meaningful social consequences and may well affect your employment.
Whereas, even amongst women, most of them aren't athletes or in prison, and rates of sexual assault in bathrooms and changing rooms are low enough that they can afford to roll the dice.
Most people have bought into the oft-repeated lie that any pushback on trans issues is born out of hatred. And because they aren't aware of the implications of self-ID, they just go along with the dogma. There was a BBC poll that laid this out quite well recently (https://comresglobal.com/polls/bbc-scotland-gender-recognition-act-poll-17-february/).
Baseline support for trans people was high, as you'd expect, but that changed when it came to issues like whether males should compete with females in sport or males being housed with females, the numbers were very different.
I want to add a link my partner just passed to me, to some research which shows that people scoring higher in empathy are associated with more polarization and out-group hatred. I suspect that the scales are reflecting the effects of what I call "tribal empathy", which seems far more prevalent today, presumably also within representative test subjects.
The strong empathetic emotional connection to an ingroup, along with politics which highlight harm to that in-group, can lead more empathy driven people to have more negative emotions about the "harmful" out-group. Or in my own framing, tapping into us/them dynamics to generate weaponized (tribal) empathy will lead to a net increase in overall hostility. Empathize with a few anecdotal stories of harm, then demonize huge groups of people with the emotional rebound.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/how-empathic-concern-fuels-political-polarization/8115DB5BDE548FF6AB04DA661F83785E