Re: [silk] Empathy
> In game theory terms, it's great if everyone cooperates, but you need a > strategy to cope with serial defectors, too. Serial[0] defectors should[1] be a small (and relatively powerless) fraction of society. Therefore the strategy for individual serial-D players is to be like water, and flow/route around[2] them? -Dave [0] rare strategic defections are much more dangerous; cue discussion of "Diplomacy" tactics [1] maybe I got lucky; I landed in a high-C society on the first attempt at voting with my feet [2] were "not play" not an option, see [1] > Trying to find common ground ... will ... cause you to cede ground to them > that you ought ... to stand firm on. I understand that feeling, but have you found anywhere I ceded ground on my attempts at empathy upthread? Homo sapiens being the rationalising animal, it's not uncommon to find that people who start from horrid policy still manage to work backwards to reasonable goals.
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?"...
Re: [silk] Empathy
On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 3:14 PM Alaric Snell-Pym wrote: 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?"... > The reddit formulation of AITA or "Am I The Asshole?" is a useful question to ask oneself in this context. Udhay -- ((Udhay Shankar N)) ((udhay @ pobox.com)) ((www.digeratus.com))
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 Mon, May 18, 2020 at 6:44 PM Alok Singh wrote: > What you have said is unobjectionable, though I am not entirely sure if you > are making an argument or stating a tautology. I was trying to say that however much one might believe (rightly or wrongly) that one has empathy, the act of perspective taking shifts things from a domain of belief to practice. I do not have anything productive to add to this thread and I am afraid I might end up repeating myself. Thaths > I understood it as > - empathy is a skill that can be developed > - local maxima are not Truth > > The mental processes that underpin empathy are the ones I use to manipulate > or otherwise "convince" someone of something. I see it as a mechanism that > can used to various ends my myself or by others on me. Something like > hunger or lust. So in this sense, I do not see it as a skill that can be > improved by practice. > > Lastly, local maxima are all we have. I see this as a consquence of Arrow's > impossibility theorem. One can move from one to the other and I can't tell > if this is in anyway different than if I never change. > -- Homer: Hey, what does this job pay? Carl: Nuthin'. Homer: D'oh! Carl: Unless you're crooked. Homer: Woo-hoo!
Re: [silk] Empathy
> I mean, the “other” is not the opposite, but the constitutive complement. That suggests exploring the viewpoints of multiple potential others, not only: - the traditional other but also: - a (hypothetical?) other which would advocate in both parties interests - a disinterested other which cares for neither parties interests -Dave an interesting symmetry between dance and martial arts: traditionally both are movement games in pairs, but in the former one tries to communicate intent and stabilise one's partner, and in the latter one tries to hide intent and destabilise one's opponent.
Re: [silk] Empathy
On the topic of empathy - an observation that is really an invitation to hear what others think of this “problem”. Context: Am working these days in the areas of conflict resolution towards social change by bringing together business-govt-society interests Empathy is often presented as the cornerstone of a dialogue based on interests and not positions, and it is expected to narrow rational and emotional divides amongst parties. Yet, I am presented with a fundamental problem that the very notion of “empathy” is based on (possibly reduced but still present) sense of “othering” - which I find counterintuitive to the notion of empathy. Would love to hear your thoughts on this perceived dissonance. Warm wishes and stay sa/n/f/e, Krishna PS. Loud thinking: Is this a Derrida-esque constitutive-other kind of situation. I mean, the “other” is not the opposite, but the constitutive complement. How does that redefine our thinking of empathy, though?
Re: [silk] Empathy
What you have said is unobjectionable, though I am not entirely sure if you are making an argument or stating a tautology. I understood it as - empathy is a skill that can be developed - local maxima are not Truth The mental processes that underpin empathy are the ones I use to manipulate or otherwise "convince" someone of something. I see it as a mechanism that can used to various ends my myself or by others on me. Something like hunger or lust. So in this sense, I do not see it as a skill that can be improved by practice. Lastly, local maxima are all we have. I see this as a consquence of Arrow's impossibility theorem. One can move from one to the other and I can't tell if this is in anyway different than if I never change.
Re: [silk] Empathy
On Sun, May 17, 2020 at 10:01 PM Alok Singh wrote: > My problem with empathy, I have found, is believing I have it. > This is specifically the reason why I proposed the question "What are things my bête noire is correct about". The act of finding positive things to say about The Other involves perspective taking, and in that perspective taking one shifts from the local maxima that one has been marooned on. In other words, believe what you may about how much empathy you may have, putting yourself in someone else's shoes is empathy in practice that works irrespective of whether you think you have a lot (or a little) of empathy. Thaths > > Example 934 of the problems arising from believing my own propaganda. > > On Sun, 17 May, 2020, 21:30 Dave Long, wrote: > > > OK, if I have to come up with a bête noire to see all of yours, I shall: > > > > Advertising: can produce slick content for lifestyle spots > > > > -Dave > > > > (unfortunately while true for print and video, it doesn't seem to extend > > to web advertising. Gresham's law at work?) > > > > > > > -- Homer: Hey, what does this job pay? Carl: Nuthin'. Homer: D'oh! Carl: Unless you're crooked. Homer: Woo-hoo!
Re: [silk] Empathy
My problem with empathy, I have found, is believing I have it. Example 934 of the problems arising from believing my own propaganda. On Sun, 17 May, 2020, 21:30 Dave Long, wrote: > OK, if I have to come up with a bête noire to see all of yours, I shall: > > Advertising: can produce slick content for lifestyle spots > > -Dave > > (unfortunately while true for print and video, it doesn't seem to extend > to web advertising. Gresham's law at work?) > > >
Re: [silk] Empathy
OK, if I have to come up with a bête noire to see all of yours, I shall: Advertising: can produce slick content for lifestyle spots -Dave (unfortunately while true for print and video, it doesn't seem to extend to web advertising. Gresham's law at work?)
Re: [silk] Empathy
I try not to dwell on bêtes noires, so I hope you don't mind if I take yours (often based of a quick Google, because the list is pretty anglophone-centric): Trump: the US should fix its own issues before sweeping in front of its neighbours' doors. Biden: we all do *better* when we *all* do better Facebook: Musk is being selfish with premature push to reopen Fox News: fired a Covid-denier Amazon: things which are more efficient to tackle at scale should be the Democratic party establishment: politicians should pay their dues in their party Republican party: every child should have an equal opportunity to get a great education Sangh Parivar: it takes all kinds to make a world Modi: locked down, preventing exponential community spread Boris Johnson: NHS needs more funding Brexit: Airstrip One belongs to Oceania, not Eurasia -Dave
Re: [silk] Empathy
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 am surprised by how much people struggle to list just one thing. I find it impossible to list the positives of some (Trump, Brexit, Sangh Parivar), and relatively easy to list one or two positives of others (Republican party, Modi, Boris Johnson). What is your bete noir? And what is one thing that they are right about? Thaths -- Homer: Hey, what does this job pay? Carl: Nuthin'. Homer: D'oh! Carl: Unless you're crooked. Homer: Woo-hoo!
Re: [silk] Empathy
> Empathy isn't easy. OK, I'll try: "those of us who voted for Trump believe the US would be better served by import substitution industrialization than by attempting to extract Pax Americana rents" -Dave (I will try to dig up the reference to a book I read long ago about building empathy between conflicting groups — the two things I remember from it were that (a) legislating morality is much more effective than one would think, perhaps because it gives people on the fence an excuse among their in-group for treating out-group members reasonably, and (b) it does wonders if people from competing groups can undertake common projects with each other)
Re: [silk] Empathy
Tangentially... Check out this job at Ashoka: Chief Entrepreneur for Empathy https://www.linkedin.com/jobs/view/1800952314 Ingrid Srinath > On 2 May 2020, at 18:09, Udhay Shankar N wrote: > > I was listening to a podcast with Penn Jillette and one of the things he > said stuck in my head. > > As background, he said, notwithstanding Godwin's Law [1] I would say that > the line about 'the worst thing about Hitler is that he turned his enemies > into him ' definitely applies to Trump. > > As an experiment, he decided to stop using the term 'them'. Specifically, > instead of using the term 'Trump voters', he replaced it with the term > 'those of us who voted for Trump'. What struck me the most about this story > was his recollection of just how hard this was to do. Empathy isn't easy. > [2] > > Udhay > > [1] As an aside, perhaps one of his various friends here could invite Mike > to silk? > > [2] One reason why "assume goodwill" needs to be an explicit rule. > > -- > ((Udhay Shankar N)) ((via phone))
