Podcast Summary
Exploring the Limitations of Empathy in Moral Judgments: Paul Bloom, a psychologist at Yale University, critiques the overemphasis on empathy in moral decision-making, arguing that it can limit our ability to make objective and fair judgments. He is writing a book, 'Against Empathy,' to explore this idea further.
Learning from this conversation between Sam Harris and Paul Bloom is that Paul Bloom, a renowned psychologist and professor at Yale University, is currently exploring the limitations of empathy in shaping moral judgments and actions. He is writing a book, "Against Empathy," which critiques the overemphasis on empathy in moral decision-making. Bloom's research career has spanned various topics, including language learning, religious belief, pleasure, and morality. His recent focus is on how we can be the best moral individuals and make the best moral judgments. This led him to examine debates on reason and our capacity for it, compassion, and empathy. Although they share an interest in the scientific understanding of morality, Harris and Bloom may not totally agree on the role and limitations of empathy in moral cognition. If you're interested in this topic, consider checking out Paul Bloom's work and engaging in the conversation on social media or through iTunes reviews.
Science of child-rearing is not definitive: Despite being a developmental psychologist, the speaker acknowledges limited impact of her field on her parenting and expresses skepticism towards psychologists' advice. She believes kids are resilient and emphasizes the importance of parental love.
Despite being a developmental psychologist, the speaker's understanding of the human mind in this context has not significantly influenced her parenting. She acknowledges that there are some useful techniques and facts, but the broader question of how to raise a happy, successful, and healthy child remains largely unanswered by science. The speaker expresses skepticism towards psychologists' advice on child-rearing and believes that kids are resilient, as long as parents love them and don't do anything harmful. She also emphasizes that psychology is a more complex field than other sciences, and we are still in a preliminary phase of understanding the human mind in truly scientific terms.
Our intuitions about the world can be deeply misleading: Despite our common sense, the truth in areas like quantum mechanics, cosmology, morality, and social problems is often counterintuitive. Our cognitive toolkit has not been constrained by reality, and we should be skeptical of explanations that align with our intuitions.
Our intuitions about the world, whether in psychology or physics, can be deeply misleading. Jerry Fodor's first law of cognitive science, that the more intuitively interesting something is, the less we know about it, highlights this idea. Our common sense intuitions have evolved for a certain domain, and when we venture into areas like quantum mechanics, cosmology, or the human mind, we often find that the truth is counterintuitive. Max Tegmark, a physicist, emphasizes that this is not surprising if we take evolution seriously. Our cognitive toolkit has not been constrained by the way reality is, and we should expect the truth to be deeply counterintuitive. This applies not only to areas like quantum mechanics and cosmology but also to areas like morality and social problems. We have evolved to function well in small groups, but not in large, complex societies. So, while we have made significant progress in understanding the physical world, we have not made equivalent progress in understanding the human mind or large-scale social phenomena. This discrepancy may be due to the inherent complexity and challenges of these areas, and we should be distrustful of explanations that mesh well with our common sense.
Instinct blindness and psychological explanations: It's challenging to accept psychological explanations for natural phenomena due to instinct blindness, but exploring these questions is essential for understanding human behavior and the world around us.
Our intuitions and sacred beliefs can make it challenging for people to accept psychological explanations for natural phenomena, such as love or morality. According to evolutionary psychologist Leda Cosmides, this is due to instinct blindness, where we may not see the need for explanation when something feels psychologically natural. People may even find it morally repellent to delve into these questions, especially when it comes to spiritual or religious matters. As a result, it takes significant effort to get people to understand that these are contingent facts and that things could have evolved differently. Despite the potential discomfort, it's essential to explore these questions to gain a deeper understanding of human behavior and the world around us.
Why are some topics more sensitive to questioning than others?: Recognize the importance of questioning beliefs in all areas of inquiry, even if it feels uncomfortable or challenging, as it leads to deeper understanding and growth.
While there is no significant resistance to the pursuit of explanations in physics and other natural sciences, the same cannot be said for subjects like love, religion, and morality. The latter topics carry moral implications and can evoke strong emotional responses, making them more sensitive and potentially contentious areas of inquiry. In the realm of science, questioning the status quo may not be seen as an insult, but in other contexts, it can be perceived as challenging deeply held beliefs and values. This dynamic can lead to a lack of reflection and exploration on why people hold certain beliefs, particularly among liberal groups who may dominate certain fields of study. Ultimately, it's essential to recognize that all areas of inquiry, including the most personal and seemingly untouchable ones, deserve thoughtful examination and questioning, even if it may initially feel uncomfortable or threatening.
Empathy's Dark Side: Understanding Its Nuances: Empathy, though often linked to good, can have a harmful side. Understanding its nuances is crucial for navigating moral situations effectively.
Empathy, a term often associated with good things like compassion, care, and morality, can have a darker side. Empathy, as some use the term, refers to understanding another person's thoughts and feelings, and it's morally neutral. However, it can also be used by harmful individuals, such as bullies and psychopaths, to manipulate and hurt others. The form of empathy that allows us to feel what others feel, called sympathy, is what most psychologists and philosophers mean when they use the term. While empathy can be beneficial, it can also be harmful, and it's essential to understand its nuances to navigate moral situations effectively. The speaker's research challenges the common belief that empathy is always socially and psychologically beneficial, proposing instead that it can sometimes be detrimental. This controversy, which may not be widely known, raises important questions about the role of empathy in our moral lives.
Identifiable victim effect: Focusing on individual cases can overlook larger issues: Empathy can be biased and shortsighted, leading us to focus on individual cases and overlook larger issues affecting many people (identifiable victim effect). Awareness and balance are crucial to effective compassion and concern for others.
Empathy, while a powerful emotional connection, can be biased and shortsighted. Empathy can cause us to focus intensely on individual cases, often leading us to overlook larger issues affecting many people. For instance, we may feel deeply for a person in pain or distress, but neglect the suffering of a larger group. This phenomenon, known as the "identifiable victim effect," was famously studied by psychologists like Dan Batson and Paul Slovic. Their research shows that we care more about a single person than about a larger group, even when the group includes someone we care about. This finding challenges our rational judgment and can lead us to misdirect our resources and attention. It's essential to be aware of this bias and strive for a more balanced approach to compassion and concern for others.
Bias in moral judgments due to empathy: Empathy can lead to biased moral judgments, but recognizing these mistakes and implementing changes like technology or policy can help minimize their impact and create a fairer society.
Our emotions, particularly empathy, can sometimes lead us astray in moral judgments, just as they can in other areas like visual illusions. We may intuitively favor one person over many, or make biased decisions based on emotions rather than reason. These mistakes are similar to the cognitive errors documented by researchers like Daniel Kahneman. However, recognizing these mistakes is not enough – we need to find effective ways to correct for them. One approach is to use technology or policy changes to minimize the influence of empathy on decisions. For example, symphony orchestras addressed their bias against female applicants by auditioning musicians behind screens. Similarly, eliminating victim statements in court could reduce the impact of empathy on sentencing decisions. These are just a few examples of how we can work to minimize the influence of empathy on moral judgments and create a more consistent, fair, and rational society.
Use of victim impact statements in trials and their influence on sentencing: Empathy can introduce bias when applied in emotional contagion form during sentencing, making the process less objective. Constitutions and social institutions serve as checks and balances to prevent hasty and potentially harmful decisions, encouraging thoughtful consideration and the 'thinking slow' approach.
The use of victim impact statements in trials is a common feature due to the belief that it provides closure and allows victims and their families to express their grievances. However, the influence of these statements on sentencing can introduce bias and make the sentencing process less objective. It is important for laws and social institutions to encourage deliberative and analytical reasoning to create fair and unbiased outcomes. Empathy, while important, can be subjective and introduce bias when applied in emotional contagion form. Constitutions and social institutions serve as checks and balances to prevent hasty and potentially harmful decisions, and encourage thoughtful consideration and the "thinking slow" approach.
Empathy vs Compassion: Understanding the Difference: Empathy is feeling others' pain, while compassion is alleviating suffering. Empathy can lead to burnout, while compassion is sustainable and effective.
Empathy and compassion are often used interchangeably, but they are distinct concepts. Empathy, or sentimental compassion, refers to feeling other people's pain and getting into their heads, while compassion, or great compassion, is more distant and focused on alleviating suffering. The distinction between the two has been explored in Buddhist teachings and through scientific research using neuroimaging techniques. While empathy can be beneficial in intimate relationships, it can also lead to burnout and sadness. Compassion, on the other hand, is a more sustainable and effective response to suffering, both for ourselves and for others. Despite some misconceptions, it's important to recognize and distinguish between these two emotions to better understand their roles in our lives and relationships.
Compassion vs Empathy: Compassion, feeling deep care and commitment to alleviate others' suffering, is a superior attitude to empathy, which can lead to harmful actions.
While empathy, or feeling another's pain, can be effective in some situations, it may not be the most beneficial attitude to have towards others' suffering. Instead, compassion, or feeling deep care and a commitment to alleviating others' suffering, is a superior intellectual and sentimental attitude. This doesn't mean we have to imagine or feel their pain to care for them, as demonstrated by actions like giving to charity, helping a friend, or saving a life. Empathy can also have a dark side, leading us to do harmful things, while compassion motivates us to do good. So, in summary, compassion is a more effective and beneficial attitude towards others' suffering than empathy.
Supporting the Making Sense podcast through listener donations: The Making Sense podcast is ad-free and relies solely on listener support, allowing for in-depth discussions on complex topics without commercial interruptions.
The Making Sense podcast, hosted by Sam Harris, is an ad-free production that depends solely on listener support. This means that unlike many other podcasts, there are no commercial interruptions during the episodes. Instead, the podcast's existence and continuation is made possible by the financial contributions of its listeners. This unique model allows Sam Harris to delve deep into complex and thought-provoking topics without worrying about sponsor agreements or maintaining a specific format to accommodate advertisements. It also fosters a strong sense of community among listeners, as those who value the content are able to directly support its creation. To show your appreciation for the podcast and ensure its future, consider becoming a supporter by visiting samharris.org and making a donation. Your contribution, no matter the size, will help keep The Making Sense podcast thriving and accessible to all.
