Why is emotional empathy so rare?

[Steve3007]

I'm sorry you don't agree, and I apologise for any offence I have (inadvertently) offered.

Don't worry. You haven't caused me any offence. We just disagree.

[Pattern-chaser]

Here's the expansion from just one of the proverbs. [Refer to the link to examine the others.]

“You’ve made your bed now lie in it.”
Once again, this proverb communicates a value on individual efforts.
Independence and autonomy are prized characteristics.

Even if, based on some proverbs, we did see the valuing of individual effort as archetypally American, how do we get from that to: "From the outside, American society and culture appear barbaric, uncaring, violent and profit-driven."?

Sure, we can have debates about things like the pros and cons of the profit motive and the free market. And those debates happen a lot here. But in my view, calling an entire culture "barbaric, uncaring, violent and profit-driven" just because it contains those things is a stretch, to say the least. If that's the case, then we in the UK are also "barbaric, uncaring, violent and profit-driven". By that argument, anybody who ever buys or sells something for a price agreed between the buyer and seller is uncaring and profit-driven. Too black-and-white for my taste.

Last first: the UK does resemble America, in a lesser way, as our overt culture is very heavily influenced by American culture, and this increases, day by day. Consider how, all of a sudden, we embraced libertarian politics in the recent past. There was no particular reason for this to happen, except absorption of American cultural values.

This is a topic about empathy, considering the thoughts and feelings of others. Associated concepts include sympathy, community, charity, and so on. The primary values of American culture contrast strongly with this. The document from which the proverbs came is educational material, offered to American children to exemplify the positive (in the view of the American authors) aspects of American values and culture. They do not emphasise, as I did, the negative aspects. One could summarise the document, and thereby American cultural values, as "if you don't get it yourself, you don't get it." The contrast with empathy, and the like, is stark.

To me, this seems "black and white".

[Steve3007]

Last first: the UK does resemble America, in a lesser way, as our overt culture is very heavily influenced by American culture, and this increases, day by day. Consider how, all of a sudden, we embraced libertarian politics in the recent past. There was no particular reason for this to happen, except absorption of American cultural values.

Mmm, I'm not sure about this. Now it's my turn to be a smug Brit and point out that we invented free markets before the Americans. We had the first stock markets (in coffee shops) didn't we?

[Steve3007]

This is a topic about empathy, considering the thoughts and feelings of others. Associated concepts include sympathy, community, charity, and so on. The primary values of American culture contrast strongly with this...

Leaving aside for a minute the document from which you quoted (because I haven't had time to assimilate it yet). I suspect a lot of Americans, with a variety of political views, would strongly dispute that concepts like sympathy, community and charity are not central to American culture. Strongly free-market supporting Americans might well say that charity is key to a libertarian, low taxation society. (I've heard them say it.) We might disagree with people like GE Morton on these kinds of things, but I've always considered it a red herring to think we disagree because we're empathetic and charitable and they're cold and uncaring. I think the disagreement is over the method of how to achieve a society which allows its citizens to realize their needs and desires, not the aim.

[Pattern-chaser]

This is a topic about empathy, considering the thoughts and feelings of others. Associated concepts include sympathy, community, charity, and so on. The primary values of American culture contrast strongly with this...

I suspect a lot of Americans, with a variety of political views, would strongly dispute that concepts like sympathy, community and charity are not central to American culture. Strongly free-market supporting Americans might well say that charity is key to a libertarian, low taxation society. (I've heard them say it.) We might disagree with people like GE Morton on these kinds of things, but I've always considered it a red herring to think we disagree because we're empathetic and charitable and they're cold and uncaring. I think the disagreement is over the method of how to achieve a society which allows its citizens to realize their needs and desires, not the aim.

There are individual Americans and Brits who are strongly empathetic (etc), and those who are not. I am referring to the cultural values of nations, not individuals. We Brits are not very forthcoming about the cultural values that express Britishness. Americans are not so restrained. And the values they, er, value are centred on the individual, self-reliance, self-defence (NRA/guns/etc); in general they centre on "self", and thereby also oppose such things as community, and consideration for others. Their strong antipathy toward socialism and communism is a good (political) example. This contrasts strongly with empathy (etc).

[Steve3007]

There are individual Americans and Brits who are strongly empathetic (etc), and those who are not. I am referring to the cultural values of nations, not individuals. We Brits are not very forthcoming about the cultural values that express Britishness. Americans are not so restrained. And the values they, er, value are centred on the individual, self-reliance, self-defence (NRA/guns/etc); in general they centre on "self", and thereby also oppose such things as community, and consideration for others. Their strong antipathy toward socialism and communism is a good (political) example. This contrasts strongly with empathy (etc).

OK, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree about this. I don't see things like, for example, strong antipathy toward socialism and communism as opposing such things as community, and consideration for others. As I said, I see the disagreement being over method not aims.

[OneGeist]

From the outside, American society and culture appear barbaric, uncaring, violent and profit-driven."?

As a reluctant American I would have to agree. Speaking on the Actions of our government alone (and a good portion of citizens support of) America is a disgrace to the democratic system. It is anything but, it was founded as a republic not a democracy. Now it's dog eat dog capitalisms. Until the wheels fall off. Earlier Steve said brits think of Americans as happy go lucky. In the 80's or 90's I would agree. Something has happened over the last 2 decades. Americans no longer think everything will work out. Most have completely lost faith in government. (for good reason) For me it was the whole UN debacle. I think maybe we killed the Brazilian guy Sergio I think his name was. When a bomb went off outside the un headquarters in Iraq.. He was very out spoken against us and the war. As any decent human would have.

I have completely turned away from all media from disgust. They run every faction of this country and soon will own all the land. The corona BS wiped out most small mom n pop businesses to make way for Amazon or who ever. It's a corporate oligarchy with no signs of even the ability to turn things around any time soon. Unless this next gen drops some fn balls.

[Steve3007]

As a reluctant American I would have to agree.

Just checking: Who do you consider yourself to be agreeing with there?

[OneGeist]

Here....umm last person I voted for was Ralph Nader No one in our 1 party with 2 heads system. I would like to have seen Noam Chomsky run but that was never even a possibility.

[Steve3007]

The corona BS wiped out most small mom n pop businesses to make way for Amazon or who ever.

To be honest, I think this kind of comment shows the downslide of throwing out the baby with the bathwater by turning away from all media in disgust. If you do that, where, apart from word of mouth, do you get information about what's going on in the wider world?

[Steve3007]

I meant downside.

[OneGeist]

There is nothing about this system I agree with anymore. I am a socialist. This country goes against pretty much everything I believe in or stand for. I do not understand the mind set of most Americans. How they still defend a system that has turned it's back long ago.

by Steve3007 » 7 minutes ago

where, apart from word of mouth, do you get information about what's going on in the wider world?

I do not, if it's that important I will here about it and go search for an honest news story from another country. Here I wouldn't get the truth anyway. Just more fear educing propaganda. I don't know about there, but for someone with compassion understanding and the ability to understand what is going on. The news here is really depressing. Night after night negativity. It gets me down, I don't need that **** it in my life. Honesty what truly affects me in the world happens within a few miles of wherever I am. I have no true input in anything else. Why get upset and go through all that. I did the whole Social libertarian thing through my 20's and into my 30's. I am tired of it. I read my books, play poker. Look for new science articles or whatever. I am not interested in the American media's view point on anything.

[OneGeist]

lol hear

[chewybrian]

To be honest, I think this kind of comment shows the downslide of throwing out the baby with the bathwater by turning away from all media in disgust. If you do that, where, apart from word of mouth, do you get information about what's going on in the wider world?

That is an interesting subject for a thread in the philosophy of politics forum. I think it's safe to say that a lot of folks get their news through social media these days, or from sites that skew hard to one side or the other of the political spectrum. On social media, the sites are often subtly skewed one way or another, and also often manipulated from within or without to form an effective echo chamber.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... tings.html



When it comes to actual alleged news sites, there is a wide spectrum in the slant attached to the news they are spitting out.

https://www.martyduren.com/2018/03/02/t ... ate-ep-26/



I suspect you can look at the chart and see few if any surprises in the characterization of these sources. Yet, lots of folks are fully committed to smelling their own farts. They simply latch onto their preferred message as "truth", and convince themselves that the other sites are lying or twisting the facts.

Here in the states, we have a long tradition of reverence for the free press, and it certainly has merit, or at least potential merit. But, the great irony is that we got a lot more truth when there was a measure of government control in the output of the media. The fairness doctrine was put in place to make certain that special interests could not gain monopoly power or near monopoly power over media in a given area, controlling the narrative and spinning the "truth" to their own benefit. So, we had rules about carving out time for the public interest and giving equal time to candidates and such. You can see in the chart that the big three networks are square in the middle, and I don't think that is much of a change, if any, from where they were when the fairness doctrine was in place. Back then, most of us got the same message and it was not badly slanted toward either side.

Reagan decided that with the advent of cable tv, people had access to enough different sources that we no longer needed the protection of the fairness doctrine. The result was that sources like fox news sprung up, and they could spew their slanted take on reality all day long with no relief. Sadly, not enough of us are wise enough to be able to step back and look at the world objectively. We hear a message that fits our prejudices and preconceptions and matches what we would like to be the truth of the world. We may simply accept it as truth, and get reinforcing messages over and over. When a different take is presented to us, we then see it as propaganda, lies, etc. I think it would take a generation or two to break that cycle, though we are not making any effort to do so. If neither side can see any truth from the other side of the aisle, there is little room for compromise and therefore little room for progress.

To answer your question, I prefer the BBC. When something is important enough, I try to look at a couple different stories on the subject and see how they differ and try to decide what seems to be the truth of the matter. I don't think I am immune to prejudice, and the BBC does in fact match my own perception of where I stand, so maybe I am in a bit of an echo chamber there myself. I also learn about some events through social media, and only sometimes try to verify or disprove what I learn.

[Steve3007]

I think it's safe to say that a lot of folks get their news through social media these days, or from sites that skew hard to one side or the other of the political spectrum...

Yes, it's an interesting subject isn't it. I'm sure we've discussed aspects of it in a few topics before.

OneGeist makes the point, among others, that he's only interested in what happens within a few miles of where he is. I can understand that view, and the idea that news stories about conflicts far away are about something we can't do anything about so there's no point getting ourselves wound up about them. But, of course, the trouble is, things that happen far away frequently do end up on our doorstep. Covid being a case in point. His talk of "all the covid BS" really rang alarm bells for me.

Anyway, that chart you've provided looks really interesting. I love things like that. My wife was recently bought a book on statistics by her brother with loads of stuff like that in it.