empathy or the lack thereof
 

http://health.usnews.com/health-news...k-empathy.html

Question: what is the cause of this stripping raw the connections between human beings? Is it really caused by media saturation, specifically types of media that promote violent and/or shallow micro interactions between people?

Is it the ethics/values of the parents that raised them?

Or are they just twats who are more than happy to swim in the factory model of education administered by corporate educational systems on behalf of other corporations?

or is it flouride in the drinking water?

how important is empathy?

ah right. the meds...

Re: empathy or the lack thereof
 

I think that generalising a complete generation is hardly a sound foundation upon which to have an argument about ethics or connections between people. Usually such sweeping generalisations are made by people who do not belong to the generation which they are describing and undoubtedly when they themselves were college students, the generation before them had a negative generalising nickname for them too. Certainly you could argue that people have become more individualistic (in developed countries) but then the collectivism of the past was hardly often something that was pushed on people anyway (by the state, the church for instance). I think liberalism and freedom for the individual is a great thing, even if not everyone uses this freedom in the best or most positive way.

Re: empathy or the lack thereof
 

I'd say that's a perfectly reasonable point to make. Although I'm willing to take the scientific validity of the study at face value because 1. I think its totally possible to make generalizations about groups of people as long as they are presented and managed as nothing more than generalizations and 2. I happen to believe that empathy *is* dwindling in western society, so this study proves something I've long felt to be true. Which raises the question: why?

That is a classic misconception that goes back to Ayn Rand and her followers (cult members) from the 50's onward: that individualism is diametrically opposed to empathy, or that collectivism is a model of human organization that promotes more empathetic relationships.

Both her detractors and supporters have been proven wrong by strong evidence. Individualism, far from sterilizing human bonds, has shown to be *necessary and sufficient* for empathetic and ethical actions, so long as the individualism in question is inherent in other people as much as oneself. It is the process of dehumanization (de-individualization) of the victim that allows the aggressor ethical exceptions to appropriate behavior. In this sense, of course I agree freedom and liberalism is a good thing.

In other words: by all means be individualistic. just make sure you make others' individuality commensurately real and valuable, otherwise all sorts of mischief ensues. Which is the point of the article and the study. Kids are getting part of it right. not the whole thing.

Re: empathy or the lack thereof
 

I'm so unqualified to answer that, all I'm able to do is hand you a big bag of words and phrases....... capitalism, consumerism, selfishness, advertising, narcissism, internet, anonymity, freedom, 'name on a screen', no boundaries, everything can be mocked, nothing off limits, affluence, improvements in health (in other words, less misfortune)......... with a vague sense that some complex interaction between all these things and more is what could be contributing to the trend towards dwindling empathy. (The complexity and deep-rootedness is what makes it so difficult to alter.)

One other connection I might draw is between the lack of empathy you're writing about, and location. I notice a marked difference both nationally (between local semi-rural areas and cities) and internationally (between modern affluent societies, and those less well off) in respect of the attitudes of people I meet.

Incidentally, I clicked on this today (BBC News) ...

Wigan pond death Facebook group hit by 'vile' comments

Wednesday, 2 June 2010 10:13 UK

Friends of a suspected murder victim have hit out at anonymous users who bombarded a Facebook tribute group with offensive comments and pictures. The page was set up hours after 17-year-old Dylan Aaron's body was found in a pond in Hindley, Wigan, on Sunday. But tributes to the teenager were soon swamped with comments and pictures mocking his death ... Dylan died in the early hours of Sunday after apparently being assaulted and disappearing into the pond off Ladies Lane, Hindley.

Tell me I'm not just turning into some fist-waving "Kids of today!!"-grumbling old fart by noticing (and lamenting) a rise in this kind of behaviour? Bunches of youths torturing a cat to death; schoolgirls punching a granny in the face and recording it on their phones; that sort of thing.

Not even stuff as physical as that. Often it's just the impression you get when you read what passes for 'comment' on the internet. Or more general behaviour. ("Stephen Fry suffers from manic depression? Haha, I'm going to tweet him that he's a smug bore who should just kill himself and get it over with. Me, guilty? No - it's a laff, innit?")

The risk is always of falling into a Daily Mail worldview which is distorted and sanctimonious for the sake of it. But I can't see how anyone can not notice the trend. It's not just those comments that appear below the fold on YouTube. It's more mainstream and supposedly more adult discussion areas.

Very interesting. Question is, how the heck do we do that?