All Activity

She is on a mountaintop somewhere and you are not?

Her perspectives are much HIGHER than mine? What does that even mean? I am in conformity with the general scientific consensus which consist of lots of people that have perspectives that are presumably HIGHER than mine and disagree with Judith Curry. So if you are appealing to her authority I can appeal to over ten times as much authority to say you are wrong. So why would you make this an appeal to authority? That is really a dumb move. Especially when the things she said don’t match with what you said she said. Are you having a stroke? Also, nice pivot to avoid engaging what I said. Probably wise. What you said about Judith Curry saying climate change was a hoax was indefensibly wrong and stupid so you are now pretending you were actually just saying that this one person has credentials. Galaxy brained move. Does it work well in your neck of the woods? Just tell outrageously ignorant falsehoods and then when called out start talking about something else? And another pivot to a right-wing rag that thinks teaching science in a *checks notes* science class is “indoctrination”. More whataboutism. The chosen defense of people who do bad things and want you to instead focus on the (often imagined) bad things that other people are doing. The special favorite of Soviet propagandists. Good job Comrade!

Oh, you meant in that poll. I was thinking there are much more conservative religious groups out there but they aren’t in that poll. Apologies.

Yup, exactly. Regarding the most conservative religious groups, it's definitely white evangelicals and LDS: https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/04/09/party-identification-among-religious-groups-and-religiously-unaffiliated-voters/

Not sure if they are the two most conservative groups. Maybe though. And yeah, the propagandists are fascists and are working the fascist playbook. Empathy and compassion are for the in-group. You focus entirely on the (often imagined) crimes of the out group against the in-group. Then you allow the out group a human capacity for planning in a kind of hive mind way and deny them individuality or basic human emotions. Thus the Jews or the trans people or the illegal immigrants or the Muslims or the liberals or the communists or the gays or women become a solid bloc that has advanced nefarious plans that they are trying to execute to harm the in-group. Since the in-group are the victims they are justified in defending themselves but you deny individual personhood to the out-group so empathy for them or compassion or giving them legal due process is pointless. They are the enemy. It is the moral disengagement hypothesis. It is how you create terrible humans willing to be cruel and unjust while setting up mental defense mechanisms within them that shut down any attempt at self-reflection or wondering if this has gone too far. You end up with someone that values civil liberties but thinks that different people don’t deserve them or have to meet an arbitary moral standard to earn or deserve them “he was no angel”, who thinks peace is a great ideal but it perpetually at war with all the out-groups, and imagines they haven’t changed at all when they are advocating for obvious and unnecessary cruelty.

Thanks Eschaton and Seeking Understanding. I wasn't aware of this public discourse which seems to pit anti-empathy against pro-empathy. It appears to me to be more nuanced than presented by the poll, or the NCR article which baited them into foolishly arguing against something called empathy, but which demands more than is prudent or reasonable. It made them look like terrible people, but if we have empathy, we will try to understand them better. I said that "I do not know of a single person who publicly argues that it is imprudent or immoral to try to understand and appreciate motives and feelings of everybody." It seems to me that what is bolded and italicized is not the same as the "empathy" that the conservatives are opposing. If they are all really against what I described as empathy above, they have not declared themselves against that. Do either of you take issue with how I have described empathy? The NCR article begins as follows: "There's a growing movement, among some conservatives, pushing back against traditional notions of empathy. What's behind it, and what might it mean, especially for Christian conservatives?" From what I could see in the subsequent article, the conservatives were accepting a new definition of "empathy" which views those who are against unlimited immigration as lacking in the same. Hopefully not. Many of us can't accept a novel kind of empathy that is certainly not traditional, and which requires us to accept as good and moral everything that anyone with whom we empathize believes or does. To empathize with someone does not traditionally require agreement with all of their beliefs and actions. However, to empathize with those with whom we disagree is a very traditional Christian virtue. It is natural and easy to empathize with those with whom we agree. How much merit is there in that? I am afraid I don't see much empathy on the non-conservative side either, beyond those with whom they already agree about morals and law. I did like a lot of what you said SeekingUnderstanding above. I certainly wouldn't include you among those who paint the other side in the worst possible light. I appreciate that while you are probably what is called pro-choice, you do not approve of calling a fetus, a clump of cells. I am what is called pro-life, but I have to recognize that pro-choicers do not believe as I do, that God imparts the immortal soul of a human person at conception. How can it be a crime if the fetus is no more human at the start than is a mouse full-grown? I disagree with anyone who thinks empathy should be the supreme rule by which civilization should be governed. Hyperbolic comments against the word by conservative commentators are unfortunate. But if those who are against the conservatives in this debate wanted to empathize with the conservatives, they would see that they are not against traditional ideas of empathy. They are only against empathy if it requires them to try to coherently accept the beliefs and behaviors of everybody they disagree with at once. Even Elon Musk was quoted as saying that empathy is good in its proper place: "Empathy can be good, but it's too often weaponized to persuade well-meaning people to support bad ideas." No one said anything against trying to "understand and appreciate motives and feelings of everybody."

Careful, you are getting dangerously close to agreeing with smac97! 😁 I jest. I quite agree with your statement. In some ways I'm pleased to see how strongly the LDS respondents valued the idea God's truth (which, for us, would absolutely include being empathetic for others).

No, it does not measure how much they value empathy, only possibly whether they are more concerned about misuse. It’s sloppy work, don’t be sloppy in how you use it too. I thoroughly condemn how it’s become a political talking point among some conservatives. I do think there is an actual danger of devaluing empathy because of such language. This survey question does nothing significant to demonstrate that, imo. The result may be an artifact of propaganda devaluing empathy. It may not. Impossible to tell given the poor choice made to measure it. Which is unfortunate because if it is happening (and I wouldn’t be surprised if it was), we need solid evidence to work with, not something that can be legitimately dismissed as agenda or biased (because of setting those up as if they were opposites or on the same scale so to speak when they are not). What I would like to see are comparisons of past and present charitable activities, volunteering and donations. Preferably what types and for whom, but at least whether donations and volunteering for those outside one’s community has decreased, stayed the same, or risen. Measuring actual behaviour rather than language is more accurate in my view, though language has a massive impact on behaviour. Sometimes though we make the wrong assumptions of what that impact will be, so that is why I prefer behavioural measures.

While it's not comprehensive, it's enough to show a trend away from empathy as a value amongst the two most conservative American religious groups. Empathy gets in the way of the aims of the wicked, so they propaganize their adherents to harden their hearts against human kindness. Propagandists are eager to have their abuses tolerated by the American public, hence the anti-empathy campaign.

I envy you not having heard of it, but it's real: https://www.npr.org/2025/03/22/nx-s1-5321299/how-empathy-came-to-be-seen-as-a-weakness-in-conservative-circles

The wounds I would have caused would have been to lead men astray in the least matter concerning the Gospel. As Alma (Jr) said, to lead men astray is to murder them. Yea, and I had murdered many of his children, or rather led them away unto destruction; yea, and in fine so great had been my iniquities, that the very thought of coming into the presence of my God did rack my soul with inexpressible horror. - Alma 36:14 Now, this is not to say that I have murdered anyone in such a fashion, only that I might have. Because I think it's better to be safe than sorry in the things of God, I'm trying to reach anyone that would have heard / read my words concerning the Gospel, that they may be disabused of my pretensions to knowledge, or hypocrisy, as I believe the word is meant in the scriptures. I don't want to come up into the presence of God with anyone's blood upon my garments. Because I am as yet spiritually blind, if spirits even exist, having never beheld the things of God with my eyes, I literally don't know what I'm talking about, and wish to be free from the guilt of their blood - if that's even a thing. I believe it is a thing. There is of course another reason as well. I suspect I am not the only spiritually blind person, if spirits exist, who has undertaken to teach about the things of God, thus potentially leading men astray and murdering them. There are very few who openly claim to have seen God, to have knowledge of that which they speak. Joseph Smith was one, and I believe him. Those who have not seen God literally don't know what they're talking about, and are blind leaders of the blind, for the sighted have no need of any man to teach them. If my fellow blind people desire, as I do, to at least do no harm to anyone, and to guarantee that they do no harm in this realm, then maybe they also might rethink their approach to the things of God. Confession, as they say, is good for the soul. Kind regards, Jared "Log" Livesey

https://www.npr.org/2025/03/22/nx-s1-5321299/how-empathy-came-to-be-seen-as-a-weakness-in-conservative-circles

Is this why you came back here, you think you may have caused some wounds, thus the confession or is there another reason?

I think the best way to determine what was taught is by looking at what people who lived in that era believed and understood. By your own reckoning apostles were teaching that it was required. The belief it was required was wide spread and must have come from somewhere. Lorena entered into it soley based on that belief: And yet she married a Norwegian immigrant farmer. He left a year after their marriage and left Lorena and her sister wife to provide for themselves while he returned to Norway on a mission. Later they struggled immensely as Bent (her husband) went to prison (for plural marriage), they lived underground, and eventually Lorena raised her kids as a single mother as she was the second wife. Bent Larsen (her husband) was not well to do or a pillar of the community. He was not a man of means. Just a man who had unquestioning faith (not using that in a derogatory sense) in what he was taught. Understanding what they were willing to sacrifice and why is undermined by downplaying their belief as local leaders simplifying the message.

I challenge these contentions. You say that "we all know certain extremists..." I am not familiar with a single person who publicly argues that it is imprudent or immoral to try to understand and appreciate the motives and feelings of everybody. Has everybody here heard of this phenomenon except me? For those who are in the know about this ugly phenomenon, with empathy, maybe you might see these "certain extremists" in a more favorable light? Maybe you have misunderstood them? I cannot possibly see someone who disapproves of empathy having so much influence over a population in such a short time. You call it "slow poison"? This would have to be one of the swiftest acting social poisons ever if you were even correct in your theory. Regarding your opinion about White Evangelicals...Do you know a lot of them, other than through the internet? Besides this poll, what leads you to find them so deep in anti-empathy as to be "probably a lost cause at this point"? Are there any other categories of people in the world that in your opinion are "probably a lost cause at this point"? I am confident that the evangelicals I have known, even the white ones, if they knew you, would be empathetic about your view of them. They have much good in them as do you. Everyone alive has good nature as a foundation upon which God's grace can build a virtuous and loving person, another Christ! I do not know your background, but I know God loves you, in spite of it and because of it. We are all the same in that regard. We all have some bad and some good in us. God does not consider anybody a "lost cause" and neither should His children. That alone is enough truth for empathy with our fellows in the same condition. There are reasons, almost entirely hidden from us, that have shaped the characters of those who we are tempted to despise the most. As your brother in the God-Man Jesus Christ, I admonish you to try to understand everybody, all of our brothers and sisters in Jesus. We can't give up on any one, and certainly not an entire group of Jesus' brothers and sisters as "a lost cause", not at any point. I am happy to note that you qualified your comment with "probably". I say definitely NOT...a lost cause! I am a former white Evangelical and minister, who will always be thankful for their help as God's instrument in a beginning of a life in Jesus many years ago. I have firm hope that He that willed a beginning of His life in me, through these white Evangelicals, will continue it in me until the day of Christ Jesus. 3DOP

Then my belief this survey is faulty is even stronger after thinking more about it. One question that only measures priority between two things at best does not measure absolute value. These statements are not mutually exclusive or even on a spectrum, they deal with two different things that may or may not have something to say about the other.e By absolute value I mean how much they value the position on its own, independently of the other position. Someone might just not see empathy as relevant or necessary, so not view it be as much of a foundational principle of Christian behaviour, but also think it’s silly to call it dangerous, so they get measured as valuing empathy when that’s not accurate, they just don’t see it as dangerous. Not saying this is true for enough that it invalidates the findings completely, but with only one question, how can they eliminate that possibility from confounding the results. A more likely possibility that screws up the ability to draw any such conclusion from that question is even if one might view the misuse of empathy as dangerous, one can still value the appropriate use very highly and/or see it as a crucial foundational principle of Christianity, it is just that the concern is more intense. In case that seems unlikely….think about another situation where one might view medication as an essential part of a good treatment for pain management to the point of fighting with doctors to ensure they got effective care, but also even more strongly view misuse of pain meds as dangerous because experiences due to mismanagement by doctors or something else, like addiction experiences. We have a situation like that in my own family where my daughter is suffering because insurance will only cover 2 pills a day while she needs 3 of a very expensive drug based on past treatment when they were covered, but one of the reasons she needs a stronger dose than typical is because her first doctor to treat her anxiety messed up and gave her the wrong drug at too high of a dose, which made her RLS severe rather than moderate. So I see drugs as adding much to life, but so easily destroying it as well. “Do no harm” needs to be of primary purpose. One might very strongly view empathy as a foundational principle of Christianity and try to use it constantly with everyone in their life, but still have a massive concern with misuse because they experienced suffering in their lives because someone applied it incompletely…perhaps a sibling had physical and mental limitations and their parents spent so much time advocating for their sibling’s needs, supporting that sibling with so much of their time and attention, ensuring that sibling was able to fulfill their hopes and dreams while they were left to fend for themselves because the parents were so overwhelmed by the fear of their one not as capable child not having a quality life, that it didn’t occur to them that their other ‘normal’ or healthy child might need their help as well. The parents’ empathy for their sibling was very important and not misplaced, but it was not enough. Their other child needed it too. Focus on one person or group’s needs so strongly that another is neglected is not uncommon from what I see. In a world of limited resources, it’s understandable and we need to be careful not to become so concerned with one demand that other demands we are responsible for fall unattended. The question only measures whether one feels more strongly about it being a foundational principle than they see it as potentially dangerous. Saying that LDS or white evangelicals value empathy less than others do because they more often rated the danger higher based on this one question is unfounded because the question doesn’t provide that type of information, which is how strong they feel about empathy. One also might not feel that strongly about the statement empathy is a foundational Christian principle because for them empathy isn’t viewed as tied to religion, but tied to humanity while the other statement is a closer approximation of their beliefs. If they are being accurate and not trying to figure out what the question is trying to measure, they might choose the dangerous statement as closer to their position even though they would rate the statement “empathy is of primary importance in the lives of all humans” higher. I don’t see this as happening much, it’s more of an issue with the methodology and not seeing them take the time to avoid potential confusions. It is always disappointing to see large scale studies that could provide very meaningful data screw up. What a wasted opportunity. And unfortunately many will see it as justifying labeling white evangelicals and LDS in general as not valuing empathy…which means that is going to become the focus with arguments over whether this is true or not rather than how empathy is best applied.

This is exactly the point I was trying to (inadequately) make.

When immigration status is the topic or associated with the topic, I think referring to illegal aliens as such is descriptive, not pejorative. Are you okay with references to "Illegal aliens," but not "illegals?" Thanks, -Smac

Yes I believe that's right

I value empathy. The opponents of Christ and traditional Christianity do not. Do you value empathy Kenngo?

There are fundamentalist evangelicals for sure, but not every evangelical is a fundamentalist.

The Covenant Christians have omitted mention of my talk on their "permanent record," https://restorationarchives.com/events/general-conferences , though they left up the youtube of it: As for my confession being performative, or, as I understand it, hypocritical, indeed not. I am indeed blind, having never seen, and cannot serve as anyone's guide in matters pertaining to the gospel. I'm trying to make the bandage as big as the wound I may have caused. Even the talk I delivered there is merely but to repeat the words of Christ, as I believe them to be, with minimal introductory statements or contextualizing, coupled with an invitation to be baptized that is in response to another directive I believe to be from Christ. I figure I can do no harm by repeating the words of Christ, as I believe them to be. Composing that talk was an interesting and learning experience; it took 45 days. However, I feel the need to clarify: I am absolutely NOT proselytizing anyone within range of this thread to join the Covenant Christians. That would be by my standards a no-no. I refuse to be a foolish and blind guide. Kind regards, Jared "Log" Livesey

Hmmm. With due respect, I wonder ... does anyone have a mirror handy that Eschaton can borrow?

Just to be clear, it appears there was only one question on empathy. The other questions were on different topics, correct? I found what I think is their database, but 2026 hasn’t been added yet. Nor can I find anything resembling this empathy question. https://ava.prri.org/?_gl=1*1k13v1y*_gcl_au*MTc5NTEwNjEwMi4xNzkyNTY2NjM2*_ga*MTMzMDA3Njk4My4xNzkyNTY2NjM2*_ga_0B2WQXPZMT*czE3OTI1NjY2MzYkbzEkZzEkdDE3OTI1NjcwODIkajMkbDAkaDA.

"The Puzzle of monogamous marriage" barely even touches Mormon polygamy. It talks about how the government was able to impose monogamy and that changed the number of available males and females for marriage. And then it mentions the Heath & Hadley article. So, not a really great source about Mormon Polygamy. The Heath & Hadley article "Dichotomous male reproductive strategies in a polygynous human society" is interesting. It focuses on wealth and how that impacts the number of kids and how many survive. It shows that poorer fathers had more kids per wife (they included poor polygamous fathers in this group) and had more that reached the age of 15. That looks like it would be a great source for the site's statement except the fact that it shows that a poor polygamous household also did better than a wealthy polygamous household. So, if we want something that says "polygamy bad, monogamy good", that source is not it. It just says "wealthy fathers bad, poor fathers good". So, no, I don't find this to be a source for the websites statements.