Re: [silk] Empathy
On 04/05/2020 16:49, Thaths wrote: > On Sat, May 2, 2020 at 5:39 AM Udhay Shankar N wrote: > >> Empathy isn't easy. >> > > When my (almost invariably economically and socially left-leaning) friends > who are venting about how awful everything (Trump, Biden, Facebook, Fox > News, Amazon, the Democratic party establishment, Republican party, Sangh > Parivar, Modi, Boris Johnson, Brexit, ...) is, I have gotten into the habit > of saying that I agree with them that the world is polarized. I then say > that one way to counter polarization is to build bridges and change minds. > I then ask them to list just one thing that their bete noir, The Other > Side, is right about. I've found it hard that a lot of vocal people theoretically behind causes I support - women's rights, trans rights, general inclusiveness, etc - have become increasingly polarized. I'm sick of taking flack from "my own side" for attempting to debate people, for instance :-( I find it hard to give up on somebody as "irredeemably awful", especially if the consequence of that is to badmouth them in public while ignoring/blocking anything they say in response... it just seems like such an arrogant approach, and one that's almost *guaranteed* to make anybody who has any sympathy for them decide you're definitely the bad person :-( I think that an important consideration, when a debate with somebody gets difficult, so "What will witnesses who are undecided about this topic make of this debate?"... -- Alaric Snell-Pym (M7KIT) http://www.snell-pym.org.uk/alaric/ signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [silk] Empathy
On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 7:11 PM Heather Madrone wrote: > In game theory terms, it's great if everyone cooperates, but you need a > strategy to cope with serial defectors, too. > A few years ago, Dyson and Press published a paper[1] that showed that generosity and extortion are finely balanced in populations. There were a bunch of visualisations and simulations from various perspectives: cynical, optimist, stoic and this one[2] which was widely shared at the time, mainly because it looks nice. It basically explores tit-for-tat strategies. This reminds me of Ian Stewart's column in the Scientific American from May 1999: The logic of mathematics sometimes leads to apparently bizarre conclusions. The rule here is that if the logic doesn't have holes in it, the conclusions are sound, even if they conflict with your intuition. In September 1998 Stephen M. Omohundro of Palo Alto, Calif., sent me a puzzle that falls into exactly this category. The puzzle has been circulating for at least 10 years, but Omohundro came up with a variant in which the logic becomes surprisingly convoluted. First, the original version of the puzzle. Ten pirates have gotten their hands on a hoard of 100 gold pieces and wish to divide the loot. They are democratic pirates, in their own way, and it is their custom to make such divisions in the following manner: The fiercest pirate makes a proposal about the division, and everybody votes on it, including the proposer. If 50 percent or more are in favor, the proposal passes and is implemented forthwith. Otherwise the proposer is thrown overboard, and the procedure is repeated with the next fiercest pirate. All the pirates enjoy throwing one of their fellows overboard, but if given a choice they prefer cold, hard cash. They dislike being thrown overboard themselves. All pirates are rational and know that the other pirates are also rational. Moreover, no two pirates are equally fierce, so there is a precise pecking order-and it is known to them all. The gold pieces are indivisible, and arrangements to share pieces are not permitted, because no pirate trusts his fellows to stick to such an arrangement. It's every man for himself. What proposal should the fiercest pirate make to get the most gold? For convenience, number the pirates in order of meekness, so that the least fierce is number 1, the next least fierce number 2 and so on. The fiercest pirate thus gets the biggest number, and proposals proceed in reverse order from the top down. Full column here[3]. Footnotes: [1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22615375/ [2] https://ncase.me/trust/ [3] https://omohundro.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/stewart99_a_puzzle_for_pirates.pdf
Re: [silk] Empathy
Coming from a different perspective, I'm suffering from empathy fatigue. When you are (usually) empathetic to other people, you (usually) give others the benefit of the doubt, you (usually) try to see things from other people's point of view, you (usually) try to meet people halfway, you can run into some other issues. Other people can expect you to always be the adult in the room, always make allowances for other people, and always take the high road while not expecting themselves to do any of those things. After a time, you can come to feel that they are taking advantage of you, are, in fact, playing you for a fool. And you can decide that it is time to set some pretty firm boundaries, to stop being so accommodating and understanding, and not to always take the high road. There are people who are operating in bad faith and whose views are genuinely morally repugnant. Trying to find common ground or common cause with them, will, alas, cause you to cede ground to them that you ought, for common decency, to stand firm on. While I cannot approve of either physical or verbal violence, there does come a time when we have to stand up for our values. There is undoubtedly good in every human being, but some people actively seek to do harm. Opposing them might be more important than understanding and trying to work with them. In game theory terms, it's great if everyone cooperates, but you need a strategy to cope with serial defectors, too. Alaric Snell-Pym wrote on 5/21/20 2:44 AM May 21, 2020: On 04/05/2020 16:49, Thaths wrote: On Sat, May 2, 2020 at 5:39 AM Udhay Shankar N wrote: Empathy isn't easy. When my (almost invariably economically and socially left-leaning) friends who are venting about how awful everything (Trump, Biden, Facebook, Fox News, Amazon, the Democratic party establishment, Republican party, Sangh Parivar, Modi, Boris Johnson, Brexit, ...) is, I have gotten into the habit of saying that I agree with them that the world is polarized. I then say that one way to counter polarization is to build bridges and change minds. I then ask them to list just one thing that their bete noir, The Other Side, is right about. I've found it hard that a lot of vocal people theoretically behind causes I support - women's rights, trans rights, general inclusiveness, etc - have become increasingly polarized. I'm sick of taking flack from "my own side" for attempting to debate people, for instance :-( I find it hard to give up on somebody as "irredeemably awful", especially if the consequence of that is to badmouth them in public while ignoring/blocking anything they say in response... it just seems like such an arrogant approach, and one that's almost *guaranteed* to make anybody who has any sympathy for them decide you're definitely the bad person :-( I think that an important consideration, when a debate with somebody gets difficult, so "What will witnesses who are undecided about this topic make of this debate?"...
