Scan barcode
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.
gongyo64's review against another edition
4.0
Analisi a volte troppo ricca di deduzioni affrettate e poco dimostrate. Molti riferimenti ad altri campi della conoscenza su cui io lettore dovrebbe avere delle basi per potersi fare un'opinione più solida. In generale ho apprezzato l'idea di fondo, condivido l'apparente provocazione e vi ho trovato molti spunti interessanti
modeislodis's review against another edition
3.0
Interesting hypothesis . One that I believe Bloom did a good job proving, so long as you remember the very narrow definition of “empathy” that he is working with. I liked his voice - this didn’t read like a lit review, per se - but my goodness things got repetitive.
moniponijabloni's review against another edition
3.0
Do you know the concept of "this meeting could have been an e-mail"?
Well, this book could have been an e-mail. Or a longish article.
The arguments the author makes are valid, in my opinion. The resources he offers for becoming more rational and better at doing good are amazing. However, his stance is clearly "clickbait"-y. Also, there's no need to write hundreds of pages from a dozen different angles for an argument that's pretty much common sense for most people.
Well, this book could have been an e-mail. Or a longish article.
The arguments the author makes are valid, in my opinion. The resources he offers for becoming more rational and better at doing good are amazing. However, his stance is clearly "clickbait"-y. Also, there's no need to write hundreds of pages from a dozen different angles for an argument that's pretty much common sense for most people.
amber_lea84's review against another edition
2.0
If you're in the market for a book that excessively quotes Peter Singer boy do I have the book for you.
So this book is very specifically about the kind of empathy where you take on the feelings of others and feel them as if they're your own. And I feel like most people don't need to be told why that's bad? And if you know someone who doesn't know that's bad (I mean, we all know that ONE person, right?) I feel like this book isn't going to convince them. Because the kind of people who take empathy way too far aren't exactly rational, OR they're super narcissistic and using it as a manipulation tactic so good luck reasoning with that. Both of these types of people are just going to hate you if you start spouting what you read in this book or try to give them a copy. So who is this book for? People who need to be told what they already know?
So much of this book is just the author going, "And I don't mean this, or this, or this. I'm not talking about this. You might think I mean this but I don't." To me it comes across like the author is trying to fill pages. Because he already explained what he's talking about, I don't know why he keeps explaining. It's like he doesn't trust you to get it, which if that's the case he should have rewritten it to be clearer instead of rambling.
My reaction to this book was mostly either disagreement or being like, "Yeah, duh, obvs." Also, this is a very good example of a book that could have been an article. Every point it had to make could have been made in like five pages.
All you really need to say is that constantly taking on the feelings of others hurts your ability to actually be helpful and objective and it will cause you to emotionally burn out and avoid people who need your help. BAM, that's why empathy is bad. Saved you like three hours. The book makes other points but they're kinda stupid or a little off topic so I don't really feel the need to repeat them or refute them.
So this book is very specifically about the kind of empathy where you take on the feelings of others and feel them as if they're your own. And I feel like most people don't need to be told why that's bad? And if you know someone who doesn't know that's bad (I mean, we all know that ONE person, right?) I feel like this book isn't going to convince them. Because the kind of people who take empathy way too far aren't exactly rational, OR they're super narcissistic and using it as a manipulation tactic so good luck reasoning with that. Both of these types of people are just going to hate you if you start spouting what you read in this book or try to give them a copy. So who is this book for? People who need to be told what they already know?
So much of this book is just the author going, "And I don't mean this, or this, or this. I'm not talking about this. You might think I mean this but I don't." To me it comes across like the author is trying to fill pages. Because he already explained what he's talking about, I don't know why he keeps explaining. It's like he doesn't trust you to get it, which if that's the case he should have rewritten it to be clearer instead of rambling.
My reaction to this book was mostly either disagreement or being like, "Yeah, duh, obvs." Also, this is a very good example of a book that could have been an article. Every point it had to make could have been made in like five pages.
All you really need to say is that constantly taking on the feelings of others hurts your ability to actually be helpful and objective and it will cause you to emotionally burn out and avoid people who need your help. BAM, that's why empathy is bad. Saved you like three hours. The book makes other points but they're kinda stupid or a little off topic so I don't really feel the need to repeat them or refute them.
smpaul's review against another edition
2.0
This book was longer than it needed to be because the author spent too much time on topics unrelated to empathy.
emp2707's review against another edition
4.0
Finishing this book has definitely left me questioning the importance we place on empathy, so I guess Bloom has achieved his goal in that sense. The examples were easy enough to understand for a non-academic whilst opening the door to further reading.
I hadn’t considered the biases implicated in using empathy as a decision making tool on a larger scale, nor how our own lived experience limits the range to which we can ourselves be empathetic.
I think it is important to point out (as Bloom does) that his attack on empathy is to a very specific definition (ie. he’s not some amoral non-compassionate guy). I appreciated the time spent making the distinction between types of empathy, and morality. Whilst I don’t think there is anything particularly groundbreaking as the title would suggest - Bloom does put forward an interesting argument for why we should perhaps skip the default and think more rationally in terms of how we react to situations.
I hadn’t considered the biases implicated in using empathy as a decision making tool on a larger scale, nor how our own lived experience limits the range to which we can ourselves be empathetic.
I think it is important to point out (as Bloom does) that his attack on empathy is to a very specific definition (ie. he’s not some amoral non-compassionate guy). I appreciated the time spent making the distinction between types of empathy, and morality. Whilst I don’t think there is anything particularly groundbreaking as the title would suggest - Bloom does put forward an interesting argument for why we should perhaps skip the default and think more rationally in terms of how we react to situations.
bootman's review against another edition
5.0
I put off reading this book for a long time because I thought it’d be some cynical perspective on empathy, but holy wow it was good. Bloom makes incredible arguments against empathy but for compassion. As someone who has worked with drug addicts and those suffering with mental illness for years, I absolutely loved this book.
2nd read:
I kept hearing people bring up empathy, so it made me want to give this book from Paul Bloom another read. I’ll keep this short and sweet. As the title suggests, Blook presents a case for compassion while arguing against empathy. I love books that make you feel uncomfortable by dropping some truth, and that’s what this book does. When I tweeted that I was reading this book again, I instantly thought, “Damn. Those who have no clue what this book is about will think I’m a psychopath.” And that’s exactly what Paul dealt with when telling people he was writing this book. But Paul is an extremely compassionate person and explains a lot of psychology and philosophy behind empathy, its pros and cons, and how we need to change how we view empathy and its uses.
2nd read:
I kept hearing people bring up empathy, so it made me want to give this book from Paul Bloom another read. I’ll keep this short and sweet. As the title suggests, Blook presents a case for compassion while arguing against empathy. I love books that make you feel uncomfortable by dropping some truth, and that’s what this book does. When I tweeted that I was reading this book again, I instantly thought, “Damn. Those who have no clue what this book is about will think I’m a psychopath.” And that’s exactly what Paul dealt with when telling people he was writing this book. But Paul is an extremely compassionate person and explains a lot of psychology and philosophy behind empathy, its pros and cons, and how we need to change how we view empathy and its uses.