Scan barcode
in_and_out_of_the_stash's review against another edition
2.0
This had been on my TBR for a long time (obviously, as it was published in 2016); having read Sensitive recently I thought it would be a good idea to visit this one. Like many books written by academics this seemed all over the place and without a clear conclusion.
Also I hate sloppy editing, is it all done by machine? Hillary Clinton's first name is spelt with two "l"s, when something as obvious as that appears I then question what other things are incorrect.
Also I hate sloppy editing, is it all done by machine? Hillary Clinton's first name is spelt with two "l"s, when something as obvious as that appears I then question what other things are incorrect.
meg_sm's review against another edition
2.0
The basic argument here is one that I can certainly get behind: We should strive for more cognitive empathy, but less emotional empathy. Our decisions and policies should be driven primarily by rational evaluation of how we can do the most good with our resources, rather than exhausting our resources through the avenues that tug most on our heartstrings.
I had a few major problems, though, too. In the end, Paul Bloom and I fundamentally disagree in our worldviews. This manifested in three particular ways throughout the book:
1) As a white, straight, male, affluent, American Yale professor, Bloom writes from a place of EXTREME privilege...and he makes virtually no effort to even acknowledge this, let alone compensate for it. Many of his points were weakened for me by the fact that they wouldn't hold up if the privilege was removed.
2) Bloom is, by his own admission, not a sincere advocate of making personal sacrifices for the common good. He writes, "I could never take seriously people who refuse to take long flights to see those they love because of worries about contributing to climate change. Or even those who put their children into a public school that they know to be terrible even though they can easily afford a private school, just out of a broader principle of common good. Even when it comes to charity, I am not a good utilitarian." As a Gryffindor and a 1 on the Enneagram, this is not just foreign to me, it's repulsive.
3) I couldn't get past the feeling that a lot of this book was written out of semantic quibbling between the scholarly elite. The sensationalist title soon gave way to a core position that, while it made sense, was less revolutionary than one might expect.
All in all, I'm still grateful to this book. The fact that I disagreed with certain points and favored others was a helpful exercise in critical reading. I was motivated to think deeply while reading and came out with a much more nuanced understanding of empathy and my associated beliefs. I'm not at all suggesting that others shouldn't read this book -- but if you do read it, just make sure you do so through a critical lens.
I had a few major problems, though, too. In the end, Paul Bloom and I fundamentally disagree in our worldviews. This manifested in three particular ways throughout the book:
1) As a white, straight, male, affluent, American Yale professor, Bloom writes from a place of EXTREME privilege...and he makes virtually no effort to even acknowledge this, let alone compensate for it. Many of his points were weakened for me by the fact that they wouldn't hold up if the privilege was removed.
2) Bloom is, by his own admission, not a sincere advocate of making personal sacrifices for the common good. He writes, "I could never take seriously people who refuse to take long flights to see those they love because of worries about contributing to climate change. Or even those who put their children into a public school that they know to be terrible even though they can easily afford a private school, just out of a broader principle of common good. Even when it comes to charity, I am not a good utilitarian." As a Gryffindor and a 1 on the Enneagram, this is not just foreign to me, it's repulsive.
3) I couldn't get past the feeling that a lot of this book was written out of semantic quibbling between the scholarly elite. The sensationalist title soon gave way to a core position that, while it made sense, was less revolutionary than one might expect.
All in all, I'm still grateful to this book. The fact that I disagreed with certain points and favored others was a helpful exercise in critical reading. I was motivated to think deeply while reading and came out with a much more nuanced understanding of empathy and my associated beliefs. I'm not at all suggesting that others shouldn't read this book -- but if you do read it, just make sure you do so through a critical lens.
allie_booknerd's review against another edition
2.0
I found his arguments repetitive and not backed by sound reasoning. Additionally, the point that was being made in this book is not a new one, it is just using different, more aggressive language than previous authors. Overall, I found this book to be pointless to read. A better alternative would be The Undoing Project, which addresses more completely the reasons behind Paul Bloom's argument, and consists of better data and explanations.
bahfox's review against another edition
3.0
Bloom has some valid arguments. If nothing else read the Chapter called Doing Good. We could all be well served by thinking rationally when doing good.
laurapk's review against another edition
3.0
Reading it a second time and will write a review afterward. Interesting point, but I feel at the end it started to unravel a bit. Will see how I feel after the second (audio) read
ashcomb's review against another edition
4.0
Who would go against empathy? As the writer points out, it makes us feel all cuddly and happy. It is something that is an integral part of our relations with others. Without it, who is to say we wouldn't be tearing each other apart? But is it so? Paul Bloom writes that empathy isn't all cut out for what it is marketed for. Because of it, we make foolish decisions, sacrificing the multitude in the face of one. It skews our thinking, and we end up ignoring facts, drawing up plans, or getting rid of them because we cannot differentiate one unfortunate incident from a good policy that might and would help the many. Bloom goes beyond showing empathy can lead to cruel and unusually violent acts. Yet, we seem to come embedded with it, to some degree at least. It might be something that makes human relations work and our survival more likely.
So what does Paul Bloom suggest using as a guideline for our actions: rational compassion, as the title already gives away. He argues that rational compassion can be seen as the next level of empathy. It helps us make logical decisions without focusing on the one or getting ourselves burned in a helping profession (therapists and whatnots.) He might be right there. With rational compassion, there is functionality. Empathy can cloud our thinking. He convinced me. Yet, in a way, the foundations of his argument are utilitarian. Utilitarianism has its fault. No ism can live up against reality. Circumstances matter. Thought viewing through rational compassion doesn't mean individuals and circumstances don't matter. I'm not trying to say that. Still, clearly, the foundation of the argumentation lies in the utilitarian view of making actions. The author goes even on to state that John Rawls's theory of "justice as fairness" could be seen as a foundation for how rational compassion works at the national level. For those of you who have read their Rawls, you know about the veil of ignorance and deciding behind it. That precisely removes the individual and circumstances. But then again, Rawls argued about policy making; on that level, many should outweigh the few. Yes?
The utilitarian heavy foundation (I could be mistaken) was the only thing that irked me in the book. Okay, there was also the fact, as the author stated himself, that we could critique his theory by cherry-picking studies to make his arguments valid. Nothing new under the sun. And we can use that argument to invalidate almost everything we say. Impartiality is a tough nut to crack.
I liked the book. Paul Bloom's argumentation is something we all should consider and then take a look at our actions through his lenses. Of course, we can and should disagree with him as a theory like this is hard to prove and even harder to make bulletproof.
Thank you for reading! Have a great day <3
So what does Paul Bloom suggest using as a guideline for our actions: rational compassion, as the title already gives away. He argues that rational compassion can be seen as the next level of empathy. It helps us make logical decisions without focusing on the one or getting ourselves burned in a helping profession (therapists and whatnots.) He might be right there. With rational compassion, there is functionality. Empathy can cloud our thinking. He convinced me. Yet, in a way, the foundations of his argument are utilitarian. Utilitarianism has its fault. No ism can live up against reality. Circumstances matter. Thought viewing through rational compassion doesn't mean individuals and circumstances don't matter. I'm not trying to say that. Still, clearly, the foundation of the argumentation lies in the utilitarian view of making actions. The author goes even on to state that John Rawls's theory of "justice as fairness" could be seen as a foundation for how rational compassion works at the national level. For those of you who have read their Rawls, you know about the veil of ignorance and deciding behind it. That precisely removes the individual and circumstances. But then again, Rawls argued about policy making; on that level, many should outweigh the few. Yes?
The utilitarian heavy foundation (I could be mistaken) was the only thing that irked me in the book. Okay, there was also the fact, as the author stated himself, that we could critique his theory by cherry-picking studies to make his arguments valid. Nothing new under the sun. And we can use that argument to invalidate almost everything we say. Impartiality is a tough nut to crack.
I liked the book. Paul Bloom's argumentation is something we all should consider and then take a look at our actions through his lenses. Of course, we can and should disagree with him as a theory like this is hard to prove and even harder to make bulletproof.
Thank you for reading! Have a great day <3
rbogue's review
Who could be against empathy? Isn’t it a good thing? Don’t we need it to relate to one another? How could someone, Paul Bloom, write a whole book about why empathy is bad? The answer is a surprising journey into what we mean when we say “empathy” and the negative side of what is seen as a wholly good response. In Against Empathy: The Case for Rational Compassion, Bloom decomposes what we mean when we say “empathy” and suggests that we should focus on only the “good” parts of empathy while finding ways to side-step the problems.
Read more
Read more
branch_c's review against another edition
3.0
Bloom is a thoughtful guy, and I’ve enjoyed his conversations in podcasts with Sam Harris and the Very Bad Wizards. I’m on board with his premise in this book, but it’s not nearly as radical as the title suggests, and he takes pains to point this out often.
Basically, he’s against empathy in its narrowest possible sense: “...feeling what you believe other people feel - experiencing what they experience.” (p. 3) Bloom is completely in favor of being compassionate and kind; he just doesn’t think that’s best achieved by trying to put oneself in the place of another. I agree, and I think the case could have been made in an even shorter book than this, which comes across as repetitive in places.
There are some worthwhile insights here, including that our feelings of concern are innumerate: we care more for the suffering of one recognizable individual than for a multitude of anonymous people. “To the extent that we can recognize that the numbers are significant when it comes to moral decisions, it’s because of reason, not sentiments.” (p. 89)
But in places where the book does try to be more radical, it seems to me Bloom gets some things wrong, or at least fails to explain himself well. After recounting the classic comment on genetics attributed to J. B. S. Haldane (that he wouldn’t be willing to give his life to save his brother, but that he would for two brothers, or eight cousins) Bloom concludes that “...selfish genes create altruistic animals, motivating kindness toward others.” (p. 169) But this misses the point of the story, which is that it motivates kindness not just toward anyone, but toward _kin_, and only then in the numbers appropriate to genetic relatedness.
Later, Bloom compares and contrasts violence and cancer, suggesting that either can be considered to be a “glitch in the system”, but if cancer could be “eradicated tomorrow, the rest of human life would remain happily intact.” Violence, meanwhile, is “an essential part of life”, and “needed to rein in our worst instincts.” (p. 179) This is not convincing, to say the least. There’s also an attempt to equate political opinions with being a fan of a sports team, on the grounds that these views “don’t really matter.” (p. 247) Again, I have to disagree.
So while I’m sympathetic (!) to Bloom’s thesis, I think it could have probably been equally well-stated in a brief essay, and the book length defense tended to trip over itself by going further afield than was needed to make the basic point.
Basically, he’s against empathy in its narrowest possible sense: “...feeling what you believe other people feel - experiencing what they experience.” (p. 3) Bloom is completely in favor of being compassionate and kind; he just doesn’t think that’s best achieved by trying to put oneself in the place of another. I agree, and I think the case could have been made in an even shorter book than this, which comes across as repetitive in places.
There are some worthwhile insights here, including that our feelings of concern are innumerate: we care more for the suffering of one recognizable individual than for a multitude of anonymous people. “To the extent that we can recognize that the numbers are significant when it comes to moral decisions, it’s because of reason, not sentiments.” (p. 89)
But in places where the book does try to be more radical, it seems to me Bloom gets some things wrong, or at least fails to explain himself well. After recounting the classic comment on genetics attributed to J. B. S. Haldane (that he wouldn’t be willing to give his life to save his brother, but that he would for two brothers, or eight cousins) Bloom concludes that “...selfish genes create altruistic animals, motivating kindness toward others.” (p. 169) But this misses the point of the story, which is that it motivates kindness not just toward anyone, but toward _kin_, and only then in the numbers appropriate to genetic relatedness.
Later, Bloom compares and contrasts violence and cancer, suggesting that either can be considered to be a “glitch in the system”, but if cancer could be “eradicated tomorrow, the rest of human life would remain happily intact.” Violence, meanwhile, is “an essential part of life”, and “needed to rein in our worst instincts.” (p. 179) This is not convincing, to say the least. There’s also an attempt to equate political opinions with being a fan of a sports team, on the grounds that these views “don’t really matter.” (p. 247) Again, I have to disagree.
So while I’m sympathetic (!) to Bloom’s thesis, I think it could have probably been equally well-stated in a brief essay, and the book length defense tended to trip over itself by going further afield than was needed to make the basic point.