Scan barcode
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.
skybalon's review against another edition
4.0
Really more like 3.5. Like his last book (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/17380034-just-babies), this one has a provocative title that almost immediately turns into something less than it purports. The author is against Empathy, but not all empathy or at least only empathy that is defined in a way that he wants it to be. He has a reasonable definition but it may not be what most people think of as empathy. Ultimately he has a point, but again, like the last book, he refers to a rationalism that he puts forward with almost a religious furor. It is still worth reading for some good thought-provoking ideas.
fiveredhens's review against another edition
i tried, i really did, but i couldn't finish this pedantic tortuous POS after this incomprehensible fucking argument:
Note first that one can be cruel without dehumanization. In fact, there is a sense in which the worst cruelties rest on not dehumanizing the person. To see this, consider the first chapter of [David Livingstone] Smith’s book Less Than Human, which begins with these words: “Come on dogs. Where are all the dogs of Khan Younis? Son of a bitch! Son of a whore!”
These turn out to be taunts from a loudspeaker mounted on an Israeli jeep, directed toward the Palestinian side of the Khan Younis refugee camp. Smith gives this as an example of how individuals in conflict portray their enemy as nonhuman animals. But it’s a strange example. Sure, the Palestinians are literally described as dogs. But this taunting would be odd behavior if the Israelis actually did think of them as dogs because, really, what would be the point? It would be one thing if the soldiers in the jeep casually described their enemies as dogs in conversations with one another—this could be pure dehumanization—but to use the description as a taunt implies the opposite, that you believe they are people and wish to demean them.
is it though? is it really? is it that fucking hard to imagine that they don't literally think of them as dogs, but some other thing, nevertheless subhuman but believing that they are human? you're saying this never occurred to him?
this book is yet another entry in a long tradition of psychologists using truisms to justify their existing beliefs
this book is yet another entry in a long tradition of psychologists using truisms to justify their existing beliefs
Content Warnings
Graphic: Islamophobia
Moderate: Ableism
mdrenen's review against another edition
2.0
Interesting hypothesis, but he says everything that needs to be said in Chapter 1, so the rest of the book is redundant.