Regarding the arguments against empathy in the CWT: I've always understood your main objection against empathy is that it is used inappropriately in big picture arguments like how to design a city or pass a law or approve a drug treatment whereas it is still appropriate in family or friendship situations. Did I get you wrong? Is empathy always bad?
I don’t know if Paul is still checking these comments, but I imagine he would say that empathy is mostly good, but Against Empathy is an argument for people who think that empathy is *always* good. E.G. an empathetic person is unlikely to be a doctor because they would witness a lot of suffering.
I actually think that, in the moral domain, empathy has all sorts of problems, and we're better off with compassion. Might write a future post where I return to these ideas.
It'd be interesting to try trace the limits to the "it's never as monumental as it feels" heuristic. Covid is a good example, also other genuine black swan type events perhaps? There's also the opposite ("boiling the frog") problem of course in politics or social relationships: imperceptible because very gradual erosion of rights, chipping at confidence, deterioration of living or working conditions.
Agreed. When is something REALLY BAD or PERSISTENTLY bad that requires reflection and change (say getting drunk and smashing your car) or not much to worry about (like being distracted and getting a one time traffic ticket). My nervous system seems to treat these the same. The art of living is achieving perspective - which I have not attained - but I am alot better than me decades ago.
Re: flattery - Jonathan Last of the Bulwark argues that JD Vance is very good at flattery. He says it explains why Amy Chua encouraged him to write a memoir (and introduced him to an agent), Peter Thiel backed him in his Senate bid, and Trump picked him for VP.
I wonder if Cal Newport is upset about Nic Bostrom's book title. I'd bet money Cal has ' write Deep Utopia' scribbled into a block on his 2028 calendar.
Paul, your rejection of my Primer movie recommendation sent me down a psychotheraputic rabbit hole, in which I confronted dark feelings about my mother's third husband's (she has had 4) rejection of historical films I recommended.
I was absolutely convinced that Trump was a shoe in after the assassination attempt. Only he could mess it up - which he did. He only needed to be or at least appear more humble (and mostly keep his mouth shout). I think there is a universal message that I often heard in AA meetings when I attended decades ago. That message is GET OUT of YOUR OWN WAY.
Regarding the arguments against empathy in the CWT: I've always understood your main objection against empathy is that it is used inappropriately in big picture arguments like how to design a city or pass a law or approve a drug treatment whereas it is still appropriate in family or friendship situations. Did I get you wrong? Is empathy always bad?
I don’t know if Paul is still checking these comments, but I imagine he would say that empathy is mostly good, but Against Empathy is an argument for people who think that empathy is *always* good. E.G. an empathetic person is unlikely to be a doctor because they would witness a lot of suffering.
I actually think that, in the moral domain, empathy has all sorts of problems, and we're better off with compassion. Might write a future post where I return to these ideas.
It'd be interesting to try trace the limits to the "it's never as monumental as it feels" heuristic. Covid is a good example, also other genuine black swan type events perhaps? There's also the opposite ("boiling the frog") problem of course in politics or social relationships: imperceptible because very gradual erosion of rights, chipping at confidence, deterioration of living or working conditions.
Agreed. When is something REALLY BAD or PERSISTENTLY bad that requires reflection and change (say getting drunk and smashing your car) or not much to worry about (like being distracted and getting a one time traffic ticket). My nervous system seems to treat these the same. The art of living is achieving perspective - which I have not attained - but I am alot better than me decades ago.
"...and I won’t give away whether the ending is different." Which, of course, you just did :)
did I?
Really enjoyed the Tyler Cowen interview.
Re: flattery - Jonathan Last of the Bulwark argues that JD Vance is very good at flattery. He says it explains why Amy Chua encouraged him to write a memoir (and introduced him to an agent), Peter Thiel backed him in his Senate bid, and Trump picked him for VP.
Completely agree on Tyler Cowen. He is a nerd’s nerd, and when he gets with the right interviewee, it’s magic. Looking forward to listening.
Kahnemann would've done little damage to that sentence's meaning if he'd just said: "Behave like Paul Bloom during podcast appearances."
I appreciate your book recommendations. You were right on the money with Kat Rosenfield’s “No One Will Miss Her.”
I wonder if Cal Newport is upset about Nic Bostrom's book title. I'd bet money Cal has ' write Deep Utopia' scribbled into a block on his 2028 calendar.
Paul, your rejection of my Primer movie recommendation sent me down a psychotheraputic rabbit hole, in which I confronted dark feelings about my mother's third husband's (she has had 4) rejection of historical films I recommended.
I was absolutely convinced that Trump was a shoe in after the assassination attempt. Only he could mess it up - which he did. He only needed to be or at least appear more humble (and mostly keep his mouth shout). I think there is a universal message that I often heard in AA meetings when I attended decades ago. That message is GET OUT of YOUR OWN WAY.