Scan barcode
A review by amber_lea84
Against Empathy: The Case for Rational Compassion by Paul Bloom
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.