On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 11:06 AM, Dave Cottlehuber <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 8:59 AM, Jan Lehnardt wrote: > > > > > Empathy is the capacity to recognise emotions of others. > > > > > > > This is not a capacity. Just a feeling that you are able to. A > behaviorist > > assumption by the way. > > Empathy could also be defined as the action of attempting to understand the > perspective of the other person. Presumably this then results in a more > effective > discussion. I’m not sure what behaviourist is, but I will read up on it > later. > > I’m reasonably comfortable assuming that empathy, however you choose to > define it, > is not an English language construct. In the few languages I’m familiar > with, it > seems quite consistent in usage, enough for us to use it in this CoC. > In the few language I know (i admit to only know 4) it is also consistent in what I defined even in english. Take the merriam webster definition for example, or the larousse one or the other reference dictionaries. And it is definitely a psychological term. > > > I'd like for this community to be the baseline of interaction: looking > out > > > for each other in order to avoid misunderstanding and help to resolve > > > conflict amicably. > > +1 an admirable objective. > > > > One can very well be emphatic towards total strangers. For example, > notice > > > how we treat people differently, when they post here for the first > time. We > > > take into account, that they haven't been accustomed to how things work > > > around here. That's empathy in action, unambiguously. > > > > > > The fact that empathy is harder to practice in a written, electronic > > > medium makes me want to put empathy front and centre into culture even > more. > > > > > > I like your point about trust and best intentions and that's worth > > > capturing, if we don't have it yet, but that's a separate point and > can't > > > replace empathy. > > I wholeheartedly concur, +10^23. > > > I don't see why you have to use the term "empathy" and why it has to be > > there. Why do you want to use a psychological term only use by a group of > > the population in a code of **conduct**? Last proposal I did define what > > you seems to expect from the others without either using the term of > trust > > or empathy. I don't see any reason about using a vague term known to be > > conflicting in its resolution. A code of conduct should only be a > framework > > for the community, not a way to transform it in a club. > > > > - benoit. > > I think we’ve reached the limit on discussing further in this thread. We > seem > to have 1 repeated dissenting opinion about the precise usage of empathy, > and > about 6 others who are content with the current phrasing. > > Either we use alternate wording, or we stick with what we’ve got. Where to > next? > Well i din't have any reaction on my last proposal. Neither you answer to my question. ie: Why you have to use the term "empathy" and why it has to be there. Why a description of what the expected behavior from the member of the community isn't enough? Also you and other keeps forgetting to answer how a conflict based on "lack of empathy" will solved. Who will be the more empathetic? I strongly suggest to have a neutral code of conduct. Not something that looks like a political agenda trying to impose the usage of some conflicting terms. - benoit
