The Code of Conduct defines what we mean by empathy, so we don’t need to get hung up on alternate definitions.
> This Code defines empathy as "a vicarious participation in the emotions, > ideas, or opinions of others; the ability to imagine oneself in the condition > or predicament of another." Hopefully this is both unambiguous and unobjectionable to you, Benoit? I think we’re all clear that the call to be empathetic is not a call to be clairvoyant. Finally, I’m unsure how a code of conduct can be "neutral" or not "political" since we are defining acceptable and unacceptable behavior. B. On 27 Jul 2014, at 10:25, Benoit Chesneau <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
