How much empathy should we have in debates?

[MysterionMuffles]

When we put forth philosophical arguments with people in our lives--be they strangers or close relationships--how much empathy should we have for them? How much should we empathize with where they're at in their thinking, and how much should we care about them taking offense to what we argue for?

 

I'm a little confused from recent call-in shows where Stef pointed out to a caller that simply calling soldiers murderers on his Twitter feed was bound to get a negative reaction from a woman who is married to a veteran, but then went on a rant about how the human species used to be more ballsy as to not care about the offense taken by the masses when small groups of people fought against the commonly held irrational beliefs. 

 

If I could remember which podcast that was, I would relisten to it and timestamp what I'm talking about, but for now I just want to put that question forward.

 

If we want people to be more open to our arguments, I agree that we do have to meet them where they're at in their current state of knowledge (or lack therof), but then at what point do we simply not care if they are offended from the truth? 

 

Also, how important or unimportant is the delivery of criticism and arguments? Does it matter if someone is right, but arrogant and intentionally feeding their ego investment--or if someone is horribly wrong, but at least respectful in their delivery? My preference obviously is respectful and right, but right and wrong becomes hard to define, at least in my experience, when the delivery is laden with an "I'm better than you and I am absolutely right," attitude to it.

[neeeel]

If we want people to be more open to our arguments, I agree that we do have to meet them where they're at in their current state of knowledge (or lack therof), but then at what point do we simply not care if they are offended from the truth? 

 

 

Depends what you mean by the truth. If you mean a truth like "you are evil" or "you are an abuser" or "you are a murderer" then I dont see any benefit in telling someone that, and its not necessarily even "the truth". They are only going to get defensive, and are more likely to stick to their entrenched position.

If by facts you mean, for example, "children in 2 parent families generally do better", then I dont see how anyone can be offended by that. They might not agree with it, though, and you can then show them the studies or whatever.

I dont think negatively labelling is useful.

[Better Future]

When we put forth philosophical arguments with people in our lives--be they strangers or close relationships--how much empathy should we have for them?

 

This is one of the most vital questions that could ever be asked.

 

My understanding of reality results in me having complete empathy for everyone. By this I don't mean that we should hold back truth in order save the feelings of others. I mean that we should understand why others act and respond in the ways they do. We should have empathy for the unique paths that individual lives take. 

 

When we see a mother hitting her child we should not respond in anger, we should respond with empathy. The mother is also a victim. A victim who victimises. We should understand that when we intervene in such a case, the mother is very likely to respond in an irrational and angry manner due to her dysfunctional brain structure.

 

This understanding is very helpful because it allows us to intervene in ways that are more likely to effect positive change.

 

I could scream, "The Bible is bullshit! Evolution is real!" in church but it would most likely have the opposite effect of what is intended.

 

Changing an individuals world view is like molding clay. Children are wet clay, adults are drier/dry clay. It is generally very easy to change the views of children. It can be impossible to change the views of adults as the brain structure is well and truly set. Sometimes open-mindedness can be part of the brain structure in adults and that is very fortunate.

 

Take age into account when attempting to change a persons views. It will generally indicate how hard your task is going to be. Causing offense with the truth is generally counterproductive, definitely try to avoid doing that. Individuals generally settle into a world view in the first few decades of life and then stick with it. Sometimes their views will change due to very influential events in their lives. An irritating conversation with someone who holds opposing views would not be a very influential event I think.

 

To alter an adults views it really helps if they like you a lot. In that case they value what you have to say. If debating with a stranger, be empathetic, kind and respectful when stating the truth. Maybe what you say will strike a chord with that person, depending on the individuals brain structure at the time.

 

For people in this forum, criticism and logical argument are quite influential. We are open minded and value truth. Most people are not like that unfortunately.

[somebody]

I agree with neeel. Negative labeling is rarely useful, but neither is false positive labeling.

 

Arguments are most effectively made when your 'opponent' is led to draw their own conclusion based off of the the facts and logic you have layed out. 

 

enabled change is sustainable. 

[Troubador]

I cannot think of a scenario where bringing more empathy to the table would result in a less beneficial outcome. It's true it may fail to improve a scenario, but it cannot make it worse.

 

Quite aside from improving the possibility of getting your ideas across, it may also enable you to view your own perspectives from different angles and hence to greater depths.

[MysterionMuffles]

 

This is one of the most vital questions that could ever be asked.

 

My understanding of reality results in me having complete empathy for everyone. By this I don't mean that we should hold back truth in order save the feelings of others. I mean that we should understand why others act and respond in the ways they do. We should have empathy for the unique paths that individual lives take. 

 

When we see a mother hitting her child we should not respond in anger, we should respond with empathy. The mother is also a victim. A victim who victimises. We should understand that when we intervene in such a case, the mother is very likely to respond in an irrational and angry manner due to her dysfunctional brain structure.

 

 

This  is so difficult to grasp, but I feel this is jampacked with truth. Thanks for your thoughts!