This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Is there a value for anti-empathy?
David Kelly observes how we can overcome even pre-born phobias (snakes .. spiders etc)
He outlines a therapy that involves guided convergence with release from phobia that opens access to more avenues of creative existence.
Now .. it has been demonstrated that phobia of spiders, snakes, large animals, long-drops .. etc, is a primal inherent .. but .. yet it can be overcome by external guidence.
My question is:
Is the basic mechanism for mutual convergence (i.e. the gregarious convergence of teh social animal homo sapiens)
Does this result in a kind of thermal brain death that requires the total competitive psychopath to correct?
Or is the psychopath an aberation of pre-global tribal competition that results in pre-global survival?
And if teh psychopath is a pre-global imperative, what do we do with the psychos that now threaten the total extinction of the human genome?
Is this acceptable, or do we have a path forward?
Closing Statement from Mitch SMith
Heya Bernard.
Unfotunatley, the TED comment and cmment/edit facility has fallen victim to the anti trust that destroyed the value Bill Gates tried to give us at the turn of the century .. fer have any idea what happned there - needless to say, humanity was set back a thousand years .. hey ho .. goes on all the time.
So as a result of that destruction of uity, the TED interface is made up of grains of programming that do not fit - and .. in his instance prevent my operating system from recogising the edit component in these little windows that allow us to join.
Man - you were not there .. I was.
Since then .. ah well, we do as best we can.
Bernard - you are going to have to reveal more - you cannot simply blurt stuff out and expect anyone to accept your assertions.
I have proposed that the psychopath has no more value in a non-tribal global society.
Prove to me that you are more than a victim of your own brain.
Then we can go foreward.
Feyisayo Anjorin 50+
What could be harmful to community is uneccessary quest for change and new things as if one hopes to 'correct' nature.We should live in harmony in our community and in the world,and that is a function of overcoming selfishness. Emphatising with people does not mean we have to accept their ways;it means we have to accept their differences as a justifiable state of another human being. Despite the numerous human differences,we are still united in the similarity of experience.So, if we are not selfish in our view of the world we will be more tolerant of diversity.
Bernard Seremonia
At the very root, people with anti-empathy is exist to face someone with anti-empathy and also to fulfill the lack of anti-empathy on the other side of people with empathy.
For practice, since people with anti-empathy tends to use more ego compared to people with empathy, then, as long as anti empathy can be educated properly, they can be useful to handle such critical condition on leadership that needs direct order with less prejudice.
Anti-empathy is not a bad things. Since everything that exists must interact with something else, then by studying the relationship between anti-empathy with others, we will be able to know, when anti-empathy can have a certain use value.
Less or more ...
Comment deleted
Bernard Seremonia
Answering your questions in general, that the anti-empathy can be beneficial in the best condition, and at worst is no guarantee that we can avoid the bad behavior through genetic engineering and others. Since we do not know exactly how to prevent something while maintaining harmony.
But we are moving in two directions. The first direction is to study and try to prevent deterioration in the future and raise awareness in their respective environments.
We should be aware, but do not let the ugliness that happens to us has been so giving a seal (permanent stereotype) to a person or community.
There is nothing permanent. We may be prejudice, but do not let it make us act without a thorough consideration. This is to avoid not to be going wrong guess, and we lose the potential of a stereotype.
Less or more ...
Mike Robinson