Mine was a comment on that thread of the conversation, yes, but particularly on what you said here (sorry, I should have made that clearer):Steve3007 wrote:In my experience, most of childhood, at least early childhood, consists of hugging, laughing, playing, singing and generally learning empathy. My own interactions with my kids when they were young were similar to the interactions that I had with my parents and that most other parents and children have. They were largely those sorts of activities. Lessons in schools are a relatively small part of it. As children get older those lessons do indeed tend to involve a lot of learning of facts and the analysis of those facts. But for younger children they're more similar to parent/child interactions.
I was just taking issue with you saying that as kids we get pretty much only facts. I was just pointing out that the experience of being a kid isn't just the experience of being in school. It isn't even mostly that. So even if in school we get only facts, that doesn't mean that's all we get as kids.chewybrian wrote:I could not agree more. As kids, we get pretty much only "facts", without much attempt to attach meaning to them, and no training on how to decide how they should impact us. We get shown the world as if it is objective, pretty much ignoring the reality that our experience, our existence in the world, is subjective. We should be studying philosophy and psychology all along, being shown how to be happy and to contribute to the happiness of others, which is a lot more valuable than much of what we are taught in school.
No, I wasn't saying they don't need to be taught it in school. I was just pointing out (as you have) that school isn't the only place where we learn things.chewybrian wrote:Well, you seemed to be saying that most children get adequate education in empathy at home, and therefore don't need to be taught about it in school.
Yes, I take that point. I agree we probably should be taught more about empathy at school. But as I said, one thing I've noticed is that when kids first go to school (kindergarten and primary/elementary school) their relationships with teachers are much more similar to a parent/child relationship than when they get older. There are hugs and laughs and "patty cake patty cake" and all that. And there are the lessons in empathy when the kids get into conflicts with each other - perhaps their first experience of having to get by with lots of other people with different wants and needs to them. There are the "How would you like it if Jane did that to you George? Play nicely together!" kinds of things. As they progress through school the relationships with teachers tend to get more formal and the gradually increasing emphasis on learning facts, and the analysis of facts, reflects that. Maybe it shouldn't.I gave the example of my grandmother, who was a willing and excellent English teacher for me. I could have learned all I needed to know from her if needed. Yet, I can see that this is something of an exception, and that many kids could not pick up enough to get by at home without studying English at school. I think the same might be said of your experience of learning empathy at home, in that many other kids could benefit from a better teacher at school.
I guess it would be a rare and lucky person in general who gets all of the education they need and becomes a perfectly well balanced adult. I guess we all have our emotional scars from the university of life and the school of hard knocks! I know I do!Also, the point to which I think you were responding was about emotional intelligence, which is bigger than just empathy. I do agree that most of us learn something about empathy at home, but it would be a rare and lucky child who learns all they need to know about emotional intelligence.
Will the human trait you're describing here ever change? Isn't it a fundamental part of human nature, to at least some extent? When there's a tragedy - a famine or a war - on the other side of the world, look at the ways in which we're persuaded to care about it. It's not by telling us how many thousands or millions have been affected. It's by showing us individual, personal, relatable tales of suffering. It seems to me that's how empathy works. As Joseph Stalin, of all people, once said: "A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic.". I wouldn't want to hold up Stalin as a paragon of wisdom, but that's perhaps a snappy way to summarize a general human tendency and a point about how empathy works. We can't empathize with numbers, even if numbers rather than anecdotes give us a fuller picture of the scale of a tragedy.I agree that most parents would have a tribal type of empathy and do care about their children. But, it seems obvious that many of us lack a broader empathy, as the folks in the other comments around us are saying. Parents may love their children but support killing a thousand miles away in a war. They may care for their family but be unaware or unconcerned about people starving or lacking basic human rights across the globe. They may enjoy processed meats and consumer goods and be in denial about the suffering or extinction of animals that go along with these things. In short, it seems that people have a lot to learn about empathy, so it follows that they won't make good teachers for their children.
Fair point. Trouble is, that kind of thing can be self-perpetuating. As the poet Philip Larkin memorably wrote:I think the same can be said more broadly about emotional intelligence on the whole. We certainly can't assume that parents can provide enough guidance about how to avoid or deal with anxiety or depression when so many of them cannot even deal with their own problems along these lines. We can't assume that parents can and will teach their children proper ways to cooperate and have good relationships when they can't cooperate with each other and so many of their relationships are unhealthy and/or failing.
"They f**k you up, your mum and dad.
They may not mean to, but they do.
They fill you with the faults they had
And add some extra, just for you."
I agree.So, it brings me back to the point to which I thought you were responding, which is the idea that emotional intelligence should be taught in school. We should teach kids about respect, empathy, kindness, mental illness, cognitive distortions and biases, conflict resolution and such. I think there is a tradition that says we have to stay out of peoples' religion, and let morality be taught at home. But, these issues don't have to be lumped in with religion or even morality. These are just ways to resolve problems and live better, no matter what moral or religious baggage you might carry along.
