
An experiment shows how to rebuild human compassion - dnetesn
http://nautil.us/issue/72/quandary/can-we-revive-empathy-in-our-selfish-world
======
sgeisler
> Imagine telling someone they have the chance to spend an hour inside the
> world of a refugee. Who would agree, and who would avoid it? Chances are,
> people who don’t want to empathize wouldn’t want to enter an “empathy
> machine” at all.

Isn't avoiding such unpleasant situations one of the main reasons why people
try to make more money, move into nicer neighborhoods, etc.? I'm not sure
there is such a big market for "entertainment" that makes you feel bad.

Personally I see such devices as manipulative and a threat to rational
thinking (like all dark patterns that prey on our instincts). Thus I'd try to
avoid exposure to them.

~~~
sametmax
People watch horror movies, practice violent or dangerous sports and have
painful sexual practices for fun.

I wouldn't be surprised if such a machine would become popular, not as way to
build your empathy, but as entertainment.

We are weird creatures.

~~~
maxxxxx
A lot of dangerous, stressful or painful experiences are fun as long as you
know you are getting out Ok on the other side. People would probably enjoy it
much less if there was a chance that they may get killed in that machine.

~~~
harperlee
Relatedly, a lot of funny anecdotes only seem funny in hindsight - but were
not very pleasant during them.

------
ltbarcly3
I don't like how articles like this beg the question and assume that it's
morally wrong for people to accrue wealth while simultaneously there exists
homelessness nearby. I certainly don't think there is any kind of consensus on
this ethical question, and I would even say that it's quite tricky and the
answer isn't at all clear to me either. That's not to say it's certainly OK,
morally, to have huge concentrations of wealth and homeless people existing on
the same city block, but I can't imagine it's decided that it's certainly not
OK, especially when the people living outside refuse the help available and
refuse treatment for their addiction and/or mental illness, so 'helping' them
would require stripping them of their rights and 'helping' them by force.

~~~
danaris
Except that a significant percentage of the homeless in America are not
chronically mentally ill and/or drug-addicted: they are people who were
getting by paycheck to paycheck, and then some catastrophe happened (medical
emergency, tornado struck, got sued by the RIAA for more money than they make
in a lifetime, got laid off, etc), and suddenly they could no longer maintain
their house. And without a house, they lost the ability to find a better job
or make a down payment—or even the first-and-last-months-up-front for a
rental.

And even for those who _are_ chronically mentally ill and/or drug-addicted,
far from all of them outright refuse treatment. For many, either no treatment
is available, or the treatments that are available are either ineffective for
them, or are so unpalatable for them that they would rather suffer.

So please don't try to excuse those making tens of millions of dollars a year
their societal responsibility to care for their fellow man by trying to paint
everyone who is destitute as somehow deserving their fate.

~~~
slx26
I agree with your comment, I just want to add a thought regarding "social
responsibilities". Sometimes I think about it, and I believe the first problem
is that a lot of people fail to even help themselves, to be responsible, at
least in some aspects, for their own lives. And when I reflect about this (and
I think this happens to people regardless their wealth levels), I just can't
expect people to realistically "respond" to social responsibility in a way
that would match our moral ideals.

------
cheerlessbog
Now how to build compassion for those online with different political outlook?
So much derision and belittling to be found. Nobel Peace Prize to anyone that
solves that.

------
wiofuhwi
It is disturbing to read different comments seeing this as manipulative or a
threat.

Probably well written books, or movies were in similar boats when they were
original.

They're mechanisms through which to tell stories in more effective ways. If
you're scared of what society has done to these people and unwilling to
recognize it and reflect on it I don't know if I can call you a human being.
I'd say you're not quite there yet, but keep striving and maybe one day you'll
get there.

------
ttonkytonk
I kinda skimmed this article but noticed it seemed to depend on presenting
"understandable" examples of homelessness, but shouldn't _every_ example be
understandable to the extent that there is a reason for everything? Why do
people want to make exceptions? To justify ignoring the plights of others in a
world where we _cannot_ survive without the cooperation of others?

------
Jeff_Brown
Anybody feel like summarizing the experiment and results? The article doesn't
seem to get to the point quickly ...

------
kqr2
Short video documentary on the Hotel 22 bus:

[https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2015/01/28/opin...](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2015/01/28/opinion/hotel-22.amp.html)

------
dfilppi
Empathy is expressed by action, not voting. Voting is a means of imposing your
values on those that dont share them. Another flaw is treating all homeless as
interchangeable. Circumstances vary and so do people.

------
jwfodnpmhl
No.

------
krtkush
Off topic but this seems to be the best place to ask.

Is nautilus worth subscribing to? Are their articles accurate and
scientifically sound?

~~~
r3bl
Note: this isn't about accuracy, but you may want to read this first:
[https://nwu.org/an-open-letter-from-freelancers-at-
nautilus-...](https://nwu.org/an-open-letter-from-freelancers-at-nautilus-
magazine/)

And a top comment here:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14227337](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14227337)

