"Politics v. Empathy"

[Lootifer]

Interesting article that describes how perceiving another's political outlook leads to an inability to empathize with another person. Sounds like common sense, but it's not really put into practice by many people. ( I assume that for many people even if they were aware of this common sense, they'd still fall victim to it. This is what tends to happen in these fora too.)


Anyway, good read; thought I should share:

http://bigthink.com/the-moral-sciences-club/politics-vs-empathy


It's a step in the right direction to understanding other people's viewpoints. I think Lootifer tends to avoid painting himself with a particular political view in order to dodge this negative effect. I suspect he's an evil communist. This is why I don't like labeling myself. People apply labels and then arrive to conclusions without considering the actual content of the (perceived) opposition's message.

Lol. /tiphat

In other news I am pretty proud of NZ's economic freedom stats

Regarding the article: I wanted to read it, I really did, but FFS people; it's 2012 no excuse for lack of plain english in articles of that nature... I'll keep reading but sweet jesus I hate having to wade through crap just because the author wanted to sound smarter... edit: im referring to the references, not the article itself, ole will wilkenson can write pretty well.

[Dukasaur]

But the Pirates suck.

You're on effing glue. In their 130 year history the Pirates have won more than TEN THOUSAND games. They have an overall win percentage of .508, which may not seem that spectacular, until you realize just how overwhelming are the odds that in a 20,000 1v1 game history you will average out to .5 overall, so that even .501 is notable and .508 is amazing.

Baseball fans still talk about Mazeroski's 1960 home run, and nothing beats the 70's Pirates for pure cool. There's nobody else like Bill Madlock, or Chuck Tanner for that matter. Granted, they've been going downhill since '85, but pretty much all of civilization has been going downhill since '85, so you can't hold that against them.

[Army of GOD]

Dukasaur, you need to learn what present tense means.

[Dukasaur]

Dukasaur, you need to learn what present tense means.

[BigBallinStalin]

Interesting article that describes how perceiving another's political outlook leads to an inability to empathize with another person. Sounds like common sense, but it's not really put into practice by many people. ( I assume that for many people even if they were aware of this common sense, they'd still fall victim to it. This is what tends to happen in these fora too.)


Anyway, good read; thought I should share:

http://bigthink.com/the-moral-sciences-club/politics-vs-empathy


It's a step in the right direction to understanding other people's viewpoints. I think Lootifer tends to avoid painting himself with a particular political view in order to dodge this negative effect. I suspect he's an evil communist. This is why I don't like labeling myself. People apply labels and then arrive to conclusions without considering the actual content of the (perceived) opposition's message.

Lol. /tiphat

In other news I am pretty proud of NZ's economic freedom stats

Regarding the article: I wanted to read it, I really did, but FFS people; it's 2012 no excuse for lack of plain english in articles of that nature... I'll keep reading but sweet jesus I hate having to wade through crap just because the author wanted to sound smarter... edit: im referring to the references, not the article itself, ole will wilkenson can write pretty well.

I take it the word "visceral" and "dissimilar" confounded you?

[BigBallinStalin]

Also, I wouldn't say this only works for politics. This is definitely true for religious beliefs as well.

Agreed. Just say you're an atheist to a devout Christian, and then the fun begins.

Define "devout"

I am a Christian and I don't have a problem with atheists. It's each persons responsibility to think and make decisions for themselves. If I am wrong I face the consequences, if they are wrong, then they face theirs. That's life.

"devout" means "being a doo doo head"

[kentington]

Also, I wouldn't say this only works for politics. This is definitely true for religious beliefs as well.

Agreed. Just say you're an atheist to a devout Christian, and then the fun begins.

Define "devout"

I am a Christian and I don't have a problem with atheists. It's each persons responsibility to think and make decisions for themselves. If I am wrong I face the consequences, if they are wrong, then they face theirs. That's life.

"devout" means "being a doo doo head"

I hate doo doo. It's unnatural. Hopefully, I'm not lumped into that category.

[Lootifer]

Interesting article that describes how perceiving another's political outlook leads to an inability to empathize with another person. Sounds like common sense, but it's not really put into practice by many people. ( I assume that for many people even if they were aware of this common sense, they'd still fall victim to it. This is what tends to happen in these fora too.)


Anyway, good read; thought I should share:

http://bigthink.com/the-moral-sciences-club/politics-vs-empathy


It's a step in the right direction to understanding other people's viewpoints. I think Lootifer tends to avoid painting himself with a particular political view in order to dodge this negative effect. I suspect he's an evil communist. This is why I don't like labeling myself. People apply labels and then arrive to conclusions without considering the actual content of the (perceived) opposition's message.

Lol. /tiphat

In other news I am pretty proud of NZ's economic freedom stats

Regarding the article: I wanted to read it, I really did, but FFS people; it's 2012 no excuse for lack of plain english in articles of that nature... I'll keep reading but sweet jesus I hate having to wade through crap just because the author wanted to sound smarter... edit: im referring to the references, not the article itself, ole will wilkenson can write pretty well.

I take it the word "visceral" and "dissimilar" confounded you?

If you dont think that first bolded section, while accurate, isnt a load of old jargon filled bullocks then you have some pretty low standards

It was cool in the late 90's and early 00's to use buzzwords and over-complicated jargon; but I, and the small slice of the rest of the world I am exposed to, have little tolerance for it these days.

[Phatscotty]

Interesting article that describes how perceiving another's political outlook leads to an inability to empathize with another person. Sounds like common sense, but it's not really put into practice by many people. ( I assume that for many people even if they were aware of this common sense, they'd still fall victim to it. This is what tends to happen in these fora too.)


Anyway, good read; thought I should share:

http://bigthink.com/the-moral-sciences-club/politics-vs-empathy


It's a step in the right direction to understanding other people's viewpoints. I think Lootifer tends to avoid painting himself with a particular political view in order to dodge this negative effect. I suspect he's an evil communist. This is why I don't like labeling myself. People apply labels and then arrive to conclusions without considering the actual content of the (perceived) opposition's message.

This happens to me all the time. I barely ever do it to anyone else though.

[BigBallinStalin]

If you dont think that first bolded section, while accurate, isnt a load of old jargon filled bullocks then you have some pretty low standards

It was cool in the late 90's and early 00's to use buzzwords and over-complicated jargon; but I, and the small slice of the rest of the world I am exposed to, have little tolerance for it these days.

I want to agree with you, but since you're a dirty Economic Freedom supporter, I must refuse.

I mean, sure, the laypeople lack the relevant knowledge, so they need terms translated for them, but should their ignorance prohibit us from using the jargon like "dynamic stochastic general equilibrium" between each other? Of course not, and neither should the writers of the articles write in layman terms because that article is intended for the consumption of those who possess the relevant knowledge to understand it.

Jargon is useful; it's a commonly understood language among a group of people. It's a lower cost strategy for the researchers to follow because it avoids the higher costs of using more ambiguous and lengthier terms, which is less costly to laypeople--but tends to lack the full meaning of the translated terms.

[patches70]

If you dont think that first bolded section, while accurate, isnt a load of old jargon filled bullocks then you have some pretty low standards

It was cool in the late 90's and early 00's to use buzzwords and over-complicated jargon; but I, and the small slice of the rest of the world I am exposed to, have little tolerance for it these days.

I want to agree with you, but since you're a dirty Economic Freedom supporter, I must refuse.

I mean, sure, the laypeople lack the relevant knowledge, so they need terms translated for them, but should their ignorance prohibit us from using the jargon like "dynamic stochastic general equilibrium" between each other? Of course not, and neither should the writers of the articles write in layman terms because that article is intended for the consumption of those who possess the relevant knowledge to understand it.

Jargon is useful; it's a commonly understood language among a group of people. It's a lower cost strategy for the researchers to follow because it avoids the higher costs of using more ambiguous and lengthier terms, which is less costly to laypeople--but tends to lack the full meaning of the translated terms.

Spoken like a true economist!


A mathematician, an accountant and an economist apply for the same job.

The interviewer calls in the mathematician and asks "What do two plus two equal?" The mathematician replies "Four." The interviewer asks "Four, exactly?" The mathematician looks at the interviewer incredulously and says "Yes, four, exactly."

Then the interviewer calls in the accountant and asks the same question "What do two plus two equal?" The accountant says "On average, four - give or take ten percent, but on average, four."

Then the interviewer calls in the economist and poses the same question "What do two plus two equal?" The economist gets up, locks the door, closes the shade, sits down next to the interviewer and says, "What do you want it to equal"?

[Neoteny]

I agree with BBS, and not because of economists. The first rule of effective writing is knowing your audience. Using jargon for publications within one's field saves huge amounts of time. Anyone that will actually read it will likely understand it. The bolded text was a direct quote from Psychological Science. When you are writing for a top journal in your field, you expect a certain familiarity with the topic. The article BBS linked to converted it to more layman terms. The audience was different, so the writing was different. To be honest, science journalism and science blogging have made science much more accessible to the non-scientist, while allowing the scientists to maintain standards of efficiency.

In other words, quitcha bitchin'.

[BigBallinStalin]

If you dont think that first bolded section, while accurate, isnt a load of old jargon filled bullocks then you have some pretty low standards

It was cool in the late 90's and early 00's to use buzzwords and over-complicated jargon; but I, and the small slice of the rest of the world I am exposed to, have little tolerance for it these days.

I want to agree with you, but since you're a dirty Economic Freedom supporter, I must refuse.

I mean, sure, the laypeople lack the relevant knowledge, so they need terms translated for them, but should their ignorance prohibit us from using the jargon like "dynamic stochastic general equilibrium" between each other? Of course not, and neither should the writers of the articles write in layman terms because that article is intended for the consumption of those who possess the relevant knowledge to understand it.

Jargon is useful; it's a commonly understood language among a group of people. It's a lower cost strategy for the researchers to follow because it avoids the higher costs of using more ambiguous and lengthier terms, which is less costly to laypeople--but tends to lack the full meaning of the translated terms.

Spoken like a true economist!


A mathematician, an accountant and an economist apply for the same job.

The interviewer calls in the mathematician and asks "What do two plus two equal?" The mathematician replies "Four." The interviewer asks "Four, exactly?" The mathematician looks at the interviewer incredulously and says "Yes, four, exactly."

Then the interviewer calls in the accountant and asks the same question "What do two plus two equal?" The accountant says "On average, four - give or take ten percent, but on average, four."

Then the interviewer calls in the economist and poses the same question "What do two plus two equal?" The economist gets up, locks the door, closes the shade, sits down next to the interviewer and says, "What do you want it to equal"?

The following is a dramatization of any economist after completing any research:

show