Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I try to evaluate things rationally.

Just as I give both Timothy (who had spent 13 summer living among bears) and this girl (who as the article says was an old time /b/ user) the benefit of the doubt, that they rationally knew the extreme dangers that existed.

There's already enough tragedy that happens in this world - due to pure circumstance and things out of our control.

I only have a limited amount of energy and time on this planet. My empathy is better spent on the latter individuals than on those who knowingly put themselves in direct danger of being harmed.



Ethical and emotional matters are typically seen as separate from rational concerns. Empathy is not something that healthy people have a short supply of. Time and energy is another thing, but a person being eaten generally makes people feel bad.


But I didn't say I don't feel bad when people get killed by bears in a general sense. Context is really important.


I think empathy is more of an experience you feel when confronted with a situation or story, rather than something you grant to people after a process of logical judgement.


I disagree that empathy can only be the result of an emotional response and not rational thought.


But that's how it's generally defined, e.g. wikipedia:

"Empathy is the capacity to recognize feelings that are being experienced by another sentient [...] being." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathy


Although tempting, debating the meaning of empathy is probably not a beneficial contribution to this HN thread.

But I will say, the initial emotional response (for ex. feeling sad someone was harmed) is largely out of our control. But spending time feeling bad after the fact is a controllable state, and is the basis of a large amount of psychological and behavioral therapy.


Although tempting, debating the meaning of empathy is probably not a beneficial contribution to this HN thread.

Surely, given the subject, it is extremely relevant.


But it's beside the point dmix is making and distraction from the central point of this thread. This sort of distraction, subtle changes of topic, is a common way discussions fail. If done deliberately it's also a way to appear to have won an argument.


My current view on it is that empathy isn't specifically an emotional or a rational response, but is more a sensory mirroring of the state of another entity real or imagined, and I am not sure that you can pick apart the strands into one realm or the other.

It can be influenced by conscious thought and logic, sure, but as it is primarily experiential in nature, I usually have an experience that I then rationalise about, rather than rationalising what my experience will be beforehand.


I won't debate your comment, it sounds reasonable. But as with my previous comment, I'll repeat "context is important".

In the documentary, I watched footage of him sitting 5ft from grizzly bears by himself for 15-20 minutes before they discuss his death.

In this article it explains how the girl teased 4chan repeatedly for 3-4 paragraphs before they described the attacks against her.

My emotional/empathetic response after hearing what happened to both of them was heavily influenced by rational thought beforehand.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: