> If you don't want to distinguish between empathy and understanding

I said "This seems to artificial separate empathy and understanding" not that they had the same meaning, or that empathy is used only for one meaning

The artificial separation in Bloom's definition I quoted above because it removes or ignores aspects that are common to definition of empathy. After those parts are removed ignored and argument is constructed against the commonly recognized worth of empathy. Of course the commonly recognized value of empathy is based on the common definition not the modified version presented by Bloom. Also artificial because it does not obviously form a better basis for understanding reality or dividing up human cognition. There is only so much you can get from a wikipedia article, but what is in this one does not layout any good arguments that make me go "I need to pick up that book and learn more to better my understanding of the world."

▲

gausswho 5 days ago | parent [-]

I've read about half the book. I stopped because I got the impression it'd run out of steam.

With that caveat, I do recommend it. In particular your comment indicates you would like it, if you're willing to accept the terminologies the author spends right away defining. He's very explicit that he's not trying to map to the colloquial definition of empathy. Which is the correct approach, because people's definitions vary wildly and it's important to separate from the value-loaded components to come to a fresh perspective.

The author makes a strong case that empathy, of the kind he defines, is often harmful to the person having empathy, as well as the persons receiving empathy.

▲

davorak 5 days ago | parent [-]

> He's very explicit that he's not trying to map to the colloquial definition of empathy. Which is the correct approach, because people's definitions vary wildly and it's important to separate from the value-loaded components to come to a fresh perspective.

I read the prologue/introduction and Bloom says the inflammatory/proactive claims first then clarifies with his modified definition. That is going to hooks some people and throw some people off. So not above saying something misleading to hook some people more strongly, not an uncommon writing tactic but so often used and misused that it is off-putting to me.

> With that caveat, I do recommend it. In particular your comment indicates you would like it, if you're willing to accept the terminologies the author spends right away defining.

The wikipedia article seems to well match the intro of the book. Bloom in the intro does the same artificial separation I talked about above at least in implication.

> The notion of empathy that I’m most interested in is the act of feeling what you believe other people feel—experiencing what they experience. This is how most psychologists and philosophers use the term. But I should stress that nothing rests on the word itself. If you’d like to use it in a broader way, to refer to our capacity for caring and love and goodness, or in a narrower way, to refer to the capacity to understand others, well, that’s fine. For you, I’m not against empathy.

This statement only makes sense when "the act of feeling what you believe other people feel..." is separate/independent from "the capacity to understand others". There is no explicit claim that "the act of feeling what you believe other people feel..." does not enable or a part of "the capacity to understand others" only implicit.

That claim is a large one though and without evidence. I would not except these are independent cognitive functions and Blooms arguments seem to depend on them being mostly independent.

If we assume they are not mostly independent cognitive functions, against Bloom's implicit claim, then discouraging "the act of feeling what you believe other people feel..." will also discourage "the capacity to understand others". It is easy to come up with arm chair reasons for why these would be linked and enhancing each other to some reasonable extent.

From the writing in the intro I would assume Bloom does not dig on this issue to his premise and worry I would mostly collect more premises with unaddressed flaws if I continued to read the book. If you think there something in particular that is interesting to dig down on let me know.

After the intro, and skimming chapter 1, I have the same impression that I have to similar speculative works, that getting to the bottom of questions like these likely requires original and rigorous neurological or physiological research.

▲

gausswho 4 days ago | parent [-]

I think I'm not the person who replied to you re the quote you make.

One of the powerful points the author makes is at the heart of what you are resisting. Feeling and understanding are substantiatively different things. We can feel when misled. Or driven from intuition. Understanding can come through reason or just an acceptance. One of the powerful takeaways I had was how empathy can be a tool to retain tribal strength, regardless of efficacy.

I agree with your conclusion and won't push further that you should read the book. But I do find it it is important to dwell on this separation between feeling and understanding.

	▲	davorak 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		> I think I'm not the person who replied to you re the quote you make. I quoted you twice, but then I quoted the book: > The notion of empathy that I’m most interested in is the act of feeling what you believe other people feel—experiencing what they experience. This is how most psychologists and philosophers use the term. But I should stress that nothing rests on the word itself. If you’d like to use it in a broader way, to refer to our capacity for caring and love and goodness, or in a narrower way, to refer to the capacity to understand others, well, that’s fine. For you, I’m not against empathy. Sorry for not making that more clear, if that is the source of confusion at least. > But I do find it it is important to dwell on this separation between feeling and understanding. This is not radical, at least the circles I travel, and in general understood as true, but by itself is not a comment on empathy or strengthen an argument against empathy, even Bloom's definition of empathy.