• horsescorpion@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      So every time someone stubs their toe, every other human would feel the pain? Everyone would be completely overwhelmed by all kinds of feelings all the time.

      • southsamurai@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        Apparently, the word empathy isn’t as well understood as I thought.

        Under typical usage, it refers to emotions, not full sensory input. Think Deanna Troi from star trek.

        I’ve never actually heard/seen it used to refer to sensory input.

        And, yes, even if it’s “only” emotions that are picked up, it would be distracting. This would radically change human society. That’s the entire point of the question in the post. It would be even more of a change with full sensory input though.

        Imagine a world where that guy that’s creeping along on the highway isn’t just making people angry, because everyone that gets close knows that he’s grieving so hard he can barely function. You feel that grief yourself. Or, if you prefer your interpretation of empathy, you can feel his bowels cramping and realize that he’s going slow because he’s looking for an exit.

        Now, this doesn’t automatically mean that everyone is going to act with kindness. But it does mean that none of us could ever again just dismiss someone else’s state of being. We would know that the other person is a feeling being and that makes being cruel an entirely different proposition. Whe we would feel, just like it were our own pain, what our actions cause, it’s gong to make people slow down and think before acting.

        • teawrecks
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          If people are only able to respond in a socially appropriate manner as a result of literally feeling others’ feelings, doesn’t that mean they still only care about others to the extent that it affects them? Wouldn’t such a response still be rooted in self-centeredness?

          Wouldn’t actual selflessness mean accommodating someone else’s emotional state specifically when you don’t/can’t identify with them? (Maybe more like sympathy than empathy?)

          • southsamurai@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Sure, but the net effect is still the same. Giving everyone true empathy wouldn’t eliminate psychopaths and sadists entirely, I’m sure. But for the average person, that barrier to spite and cruelty would be enough.