This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
How does the presenter impact the reaction to a talk? So how might people's reactions to my talk be different if I was retired military?
I'll be live between 1:00 - 3:00 pm EST. After that I'll jump on each do to react to some of the posts and threads.
ADMIN EDIT: Sam requested we keep this conversation open after the end of his live chat. He will be checking in on this thread over the next couple of weeks to respond and comment.
Joseph Nemeth
Everyone has an axe to grind.
We tend to assume that the axe people grind has to do with their group identification. What makes us sit up and take notice is when someone grinds what we think is the wrong axe.
There was an article on HuffPo some months ago about a judge who claimed the Drug War was a disastrous mistake, and there have been numerous articles in the press in which police chiefs and beat cops have come out against the Drug War. The fact that such an article appeared on HuffPo was a big yawn: everyone expects HuffPo to grind the left side of the axe. The fact that it was judges and policemen, generally categorized as right-leaning, who condemned the drug laws caught a lot more interest. It makes one think that maybe, just maybe, there really is something wrong with the drug laws if even their "natural" supporters speak against them.
I suspect you would have more credibility and impact with your talk as a retired military officer than as a sociologist in academia for exactly this reason. It has nothing to do with your presentation, and everything to do with expectations of the audience.
Debra Smith 200+
I am hoping you will generate a new direction or a boosting question for this thread because there is a whole lot of energy still here and it has spilled out into a variety of other threads.
Lead us forward Sam! Challenge us some more!
Sam Richards 10+
Lindsay Newland Bowker 50+
Dean Doherty
Interesting anectdote. I was watching a movie where the astronauts are sent to destroy an asteroid hurtling toward earth and they have failed. But at the last moment (about 1 1/2 hours into the film, of course), they realize that with the one remaining nuclear weapon on board, they can fly into the tail of the comet and detonate the weapon thereby breaking up the asteroid enough so the remaining pieces will simply burn as they hit earth's atmosphere thus saving humanity. The only 'catch' is that they will have neither the fuel nor the time to escape the explosion, thus dying in the process. I was watching this movie on TV with my then 11 year old daughter when I made a comment to the effect of 'Blow yourself up or allow all life on earth to end? What are you going to do?". And she responded without hesitation in the most matter of fact way, "blow yourself up".
One can choose to focus on the appropriateness of watching such a movie with an 11 year old. My point is that empathy was clearly present in her comment. But does that empathy then translate to the experience of a radical Muslim suicide bomber? What about 'self' directed empathy and the perception of who the 'other' is?
Debra Smith 200+
Sam Richards 10+
Remember, the Founding Fathers were considered to be "terrorists" by the British.
So this leaves me to wonder what it is that I am missing in my trek through the world. I never expect to see the world as they do, but I am still going to try to get close to it because only by doing that can I begin to fully understand my own actions. What would I do in THAT situation? What AM I DOING in my current situation that I don't understand.
I like your thoughts on empathy, by the way.
Lindsay Newland Bowker 50+
"Remember, the Founding Fathers were considered to be "terrorists" by the British."
..this goes a very very very very long way to explaining radical empathy to the resolutely " I don't even wan tto think about it " crowd. perfect.!!!
Jim Moonan 30+
Given the crossroads that we are at as a nation, this idea that we take the time and care to listen closely, think deeply and share our own ideas in a constructive, respectful way seemed to me to be the "insurance" that we needed to make the right decisions. If some people are under the impression that change would come easily and quickly they are mistaken.
I remember that the speech included the premise that our constitution was to insure that we form a "more perfect union" - not a "perfect" one. Just one that was better than the one we inherit. The message was that in a democratic society such as ours there was plenty of room for debate, disagreement, etc., but without a willingness and a resolve to negotiate through our differences and reach compromises that we all can live with, progress towards a "more perfect union" would be in jeopardy.
Many comments below reflect that kind of inclusive, open-minded, mature thinking. It's a good feeling just to read them!! As a community of thinkers (TED) with many different perspectives, we need to continue to express our ideas where they can be heard to be included in the process of finding the right "more perfect" solutions to our problems, no matter what.
The polarizing "us vs. them", "It's either black or white", "my way or the highway" kind of rhetoric has been deafening. It's time to walk away from it.... For the poetically inclined, read Mary Oliver's poem entitled, "The Journey".
Abby Hofman
Many Muslims are good, maybe 80%, just not the ones who kill people for changing religion and not the ones who want non-muslins to be forced to live under Sharia Law (Even in Europe they are pushing for this!), Not the ones who are burning down churches and beating or killing Christians for trying to go to church on Sundays in counties like Indonesia, and Malaysia; Countries which have never had a war with the USA. They Freak-out of their minds at the burning of a single Koran or at the making of a cartoon, while throwing a party for the burning of churches! But if Christians complain to the world, the world says they are not P.C. enough.
The war in Afghanistan is to stop countries in which one can go to jail for life, or be stoned to death for saying that Jesus is God. (I do not believe that Jesus is God, but I will die to preserve the rights of those people to say that he is. And, Hell, I even invite Mormons into my home to chat about their Jesus. I don’t agree with them when they leave my house, but I don’t try to kill them either.)
While that represents only about 20%, (Not factual statistical number, but a workable one.), of Muslims, it is still an enormous and dangerous number of people. And to allow them to kill just one such person and do nothing to prevent them from doing it again is a gross criminal neglect of our brother and sister humans.
The war in Afghanistan is to stop Sharia Law form killing innocent people who want to practice their religion freely, in peace and in their own way; to stop them from pulling people from their homes kneeling them down and shooting them in their heads in front of their wives and children, without a trial mind you, for not agreeing to practice Talibanic Islam, I stood with a friend at Newark Airport and listened on the phone as his cousin had just been pulled out of his house and shot in the head in from of his wife and children for letting his daughter go to school, my friend was weeping, (in PRE-American intervention times mind you.) That was my introduction the words “Taliban in Afghanistan” I tried to console my friend; He latter, as an Afghan, joined the America army as a interpreter to fight with the USA to save Afghanistan.
The war in Afghanistan is to stop the beating of women with sticks every time they leave their home without an escort, as if they were little children, or putting woman in jail for riding a bicycle or uncovering their faces in public; Were are all of the Feminist in this? Are they fighting against that USA or the Muslim misogynists?
The war in Afghanistan is to stop the flow of BLACK TAR HERION from flowing out of that lawless land of Afghanistan like water into places like Russia and Europe. Russia’s only complaint about the war is that it hasn’t done enough to stop the flow of heroin into Russia; enough black tar heroin is flowing out of Afghanistan to build a four lane high way from Moscow to Minsk each year. That is the number one reason Russia attacked Afghanistan in the 1970’s not some land grab. Russia is talking about going in there again if the heroin does not stop. I as an American support the Russian effort if it remains necessary.
Disclaimer; I belong to no religious group. And I wish moderate Christian and moderate Muslims, or Jews to be able to practice freely; but only moderates.
PS: how would you feel if you were wearing your Grandmother’s wedding ring which had been handed down to you as a wedding gift, changed into the shape of a cross to wear around your neck, and while you were on a trip to the Maldives for your Honeymoon, and at the airport they confiscated it as a symbol of and outlawed religion? Same for a Bible, Talmud, Gehta, or many non-Muslim religious items
Bet you didn’t know about that when you hear the Radical Muslims whining about headscarves in Europe.
But where are the so called moderate Muslims who stand up against al of this! There aren’t enough, if there were, this would have been over almost as soon as it began.
Sam Richards 10+
As to your 80 percent number, please recognize that you pulled that number out of thin air and that it's better used when sitting on a bar stool in Topeka, Kansas than in your comments above. I say that because you make some good points and actually raise some very disturbing issues here -- about radical religious fanatics and their extremist beliefs (all of which I strongly denounce). But don't start out with that 80 percent number.
As to Sharia law, it's really not a black and white legal document. Imagine trying to construct a legal system based on the New Testament. Impossible, of course, and as few as two people would fight about the project forever. Now imagine an entire society trying to figure out how to do it -- what to leave in, what to leave out. And also recognize that if Mother Theresa was doing it, that legal system would look very different than if Pat Robertson was undertaking the final editing. "Christian Law' could be pretty evil....or it could be very loving. This is my way of saying that you might want to read about what some moderate and loving Muslims say about what Sharia Law would mean to them. You'll get some very complex answers, needless to say, and it won't be so easy to say "These people are nuts," as many of us do.
Abby Hofman
As to religious law. Point is NO religious law should have any part in any government law and should not recognize by the legal system of any nation. Not one nation. Not any religion.
Rat Robertson, Very Foulsmell et al, included. And also the Mother Theresa, good as she was.
And when I say, “where are the moderates”, I mean that may of them know where most of the dangerous ones are and do not turn them in. Their sympathies run too high.
Two moderate Muslims that I roomed with at school said, “Well… I wouldn’t do it, but the Ayatollah Khomeini had the right to order the death of Salmon Rushdi! And I hope someone gets him!
And in most ways these guys were very moderate Muslims.
At times like that, one has to wonder what a moderate is?
And to repeat: To allow them to kill just one such person and do nothing to prevent them from doing it again is a gross criminal neglect of our brother and sister humans.
And, please don’t tell me what or to whom I am listening, I know more Muslims than I can count.
Sam Richards 10+
As to religion and politics/government, I'm with you in spirit. My point is just that Sharia Law is complex because every Muslim has a different perception of what it does or would mean in practice. I just want people to acknowledge that. And on another note, there are only so many moral codes available to create a moral order such that there is inevitable overlap between religious doctrines and governing rules. So your wish to have "no religious law...having any part in any government" will never come true. I'm just speaking as a sociologist here. At best, and I'm with you here, is to not give the fanatics assess to the judicial and legislative chambers. But politics and religion will always overlap for moderates.
Don't believe me? Think about this: The idea of treating people as one wants to be treated is a cornerstone in every major religious thought system. AND it seems to be one critical strata of the foundation upon which Western legal thought is based. Overlap. So if some judge stands up and says, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, Mr. Jones," she sounds like a Christian extremist judge. But if she says, "Mr. Jones, how would you like it if someone broke into your home and stole your TV?" most of us would likely think that it's a reasonable question to ask a thief.
Ed Schulte 50+
the title of this thread would have read “How does the presenter’s PRESENCE impact the reaction to a talk?” it would, perhaps, yield a fruitful branch topic Re: Empathy
This continuation does give me a deeper acquaintance with Professor Richards. For that I am thankful.
My first reaction, to the original talk, was “Shock and Awe, comes to TED in the name of empathy.”
Yes its did include the word ‘radical’ in the title. But I do ask, is this method of teaching College students in the USA common? It is an acceptable method to promote “THINK”?? (…or is it as JonnyGun implies, take it, get the makes and get out fast?) This method is common in past War mentality, Medial mentality, Religious mentality so it works for college subjects to?
Yes Debra, it did make me “pause” , and if it “stops the knee jerk reaction of HATE” as you say, isn’t that achieving empathy by way of the old “Fighting fire with fire”? And if so, do you expect, “sanity will reign.”??
now JonnyGun
re: yer “anybody??” and "A week without God".....why sure..
I trust that yar invit is ALSO fer a few sips of thatthar cornbrew ya got hid under the table.:-) And where ya put that thar “week without God” petition?? I want to sign up!! ..Heck and why shucks!!! up har in O’Kanada (an great Oprah geoghaffy master piece ;-)) we take Two months off from God. It’s called the “LORD Stanley Cup play offs”
Debra Smith 200+
The idea of fighting fire with fire is that you create a zone in the face of a great fire where there is insufficient food for the, in this case, fire of war to continue to burn. I am not sure that radical empathy does exactly that but I think it might have the potential to just cause enough challenge in the heart of a genuine person that they pause before they endorse the next gun shot against a faceless enemy. Saving a even a couple of lives or leaving the engines of war unstoked for a few minutes is, for me. progress toward refocusing for greater sanity.
Ed Schulte 50+
Ok ty I see/feel/hear better now into your approach ..indeed some cultures do practice controlled burns to keep the hate fuels from piling up preventing the BIG fire in their Families/territories etc. I am all for that, but unfortunately, not a common practice in western culture. I also see the Devils’ Advocate as a similar method at work this way too, BUT, these methods require that BOTH side to beware of / and agree on it use/ before hand.
I appreciate that this thread has regenerated and stayed alive (like a vine seeking light). I included “Presence” in my past comment noticing now that it resonates with Professor Richards’ s “noticing how elementary empathy can be so quickly set aside for base instinctual reactions “. That “noticing” is what implied with “Presence.” And now a question, is this similar to your pointer, “in the heart of a genuine person”?
Closing off comment….It is becoming common to refer to the “instinctual reactions” as the behavior of the Pain Body, which is an accumulation of past fear/hurting/shaming etc etc. Its has its own cleverness and it is always looking for an external event or ““those people” out there”, to react to. War is its ultimate release.
post note: the state of "noticing" is what I am implying is a "State of Presence"
Debra Smith 200+
We do have to deal with the built up agonies of people and their pain bodies- in fact i had to deal with my own just today in another exchange- but it is not necessary nor would Tolle suggest that it has to be mutual. A great first step - and the only step anyone can take is the one with their own two feet and one mind.
Sam Richards 10+
Andrea Morisette Grazzini 30+
Regards your Q of your talk being critiqued as elementary thinking. Perhaps. Meaningless? No! Elementary thinking rarely is.
I would broaden the definition of your talk from elementary theory to social science elegance. The definition of elegance I'm using is about applying simple concepts to address a complex problem and communicate a solution with catalyzing and common vernacular.
What is catalyzing and common about your vernacular is what I like to think of as engaging "hidden humanity." This being the universal characteristics all people posses but which are rarely evident in contexts of superficial social norms.
Your talk illuminates contrary realities all people share but which often remain hidden. The first, most comfortable of these is the common understanding your talk seeks to coax: empathy. The second, less comfortable to accept is apathy. Third, even harder to face -- the capacity to harm. Finally -- most difficult of all -- the possibility of complicity.
So, here is the elegance of your talk: Empathy is far more complicated then understanding others through their eyes. The full expression of empathy calls on insight into complicated and difficult parts of self. Empathy, then, requires a good hard look at ones "hidden humanity." The good, the bad and the ugly.
Higher order emotional and social intelligence reflects the truth of our own less flattering realities equally as much as it amplifies the difficult realities of others -- which, hard as it is to contemplate, our inability to previously conceive might have, in truth, to be interpreted in commensurate measure to our possible complicity in their problems.
The antidote your talk offers, in my view, is to reanimate common "elementary" empathy by reflecting back to viewers far more complex "hidden humanity" and in revealing it, catalyzing humane action.
Why, I'd say -- it's an elegant social science solution.
Andrea
Sam Richards 10+
Thanks for taking the time to construct that very thoughtful response to the issue and to the talk. I think you've captured what the talk has the power to do -- to get inside of us and shake us up at multiple levels and in unseen ways. The other day I heard about some great horror being committed somewhere (place doesn't matter) and my knee jerk reaction was that someone needs to kill "those" perpetrators. I didn't even know the full story but I had this reaction. And so I stopped myself and thought, Wow...where's my empathy? It may be that if I learned the full story I could come to the same conclusion, but the point is that there is something deep within me that leads me to turn against humanity and trying to see different sides to issues.
Mind you, sometimes there is no time to sit down and ponder and reflect and then ask people engaged in horrific behavior to explain themselves. This isn't what I'm saying. Rather, I'm just noticing how elementary empathy can be so quickly set aside for base instinctual reactions.
Andrea Morisette Grazzini 30+
Empathy, as you point out, takes reflection and thought. While base instincts don't.
An essay I wrote relates to these themes in ways that I think might interest you; http://dynamicshift.org/archives/from-bipartisan-blame-to-civilized-change
It connects, of all odd mixes, how impulse-driven social contagions lead to lack of empathy in places like a Minnesota high school basketball game, what they have to do with the assassinations in Arizona in January and how Robert Gates’ defense strategy of calling out Congress for impulse-driven defense spending that puts buying bigger-better equipment well-above soldiers' emotional development and well-being.
Overlaying your knee-jerk reaction about "those perpetrators" and Gates points, one gets a glimpse of how soldiers base-instincts can prevail over their empathy.
Which, perhaps, brings this somewhat back to a Q you asked earlier about how your TEDTalk might be differently perceived if you were retired military. Which I'm still pondering. Perhaps my choice of Gates suggests at least a partial answer. Though the piece was written to engage cross-partisan thinking and when I wrote it I was unaware of your talk.
Andrea
Colleen Steen 500+
I feel that empathy is a very base instinct, which we often don't recognize in ourselves. Perhaps it takes reflection and thought to reconnect with it. However, when we engage in that thought/reflection/feeling/remembering process enough, empathy can be practiced as a base instinct. The more I realize the interconnectedness of everyone and everything that "is", empathy becomes a more dominant practice.
Comment deleted
Debra Smith 200+
Comment deleted
Debra Smith 200+
You make the point that you were prepared to make life decisions on the basis of the 'rightness' of the wars you were or could have been faced with participating in. If WWII was a just war- what would you have termed the invasion of America by 100,000+ troops with superior weaponry (God forbid)?
It is in the extreme interpretations that we gravitate to that we lose the merits and the original intent of the speaker.
Lucy Baker
i.e. When noone around you is listening to you then what else do you do apart from shout louder? But then someone turns round and tells you that you're shouting too loud, and you protest that if you were listened to in the first place then you wouldn't have been shouting.
No, I don't condone their tactics, and I suspect many Iraqis don't either. But if we can start to listen now (i.e. try to empathise) then I think that support for these extremists will start to drop away. There will always be extremists, but without support around them they become less strong. To empathise with your enemy is not to be weak, and it also does not make you a traitor (rather in a democracy where you have any say in making decisions for the country it makes your country that little bit stronger, as you are more educated when it comes to casting your votes).
Comment deleted
Debra Smith 200+
Sam Richards 10+
It's not an issue of bravado, of course, because I fully understand and appreciate my ability to deliver this lecture here in the U.S. People have critiqued this, mind you, as though it's a reason to not give the talk. In other words, "You wouldn't say that (about North Korea) if you lived in North Korea." Yes, well, correct, I would not say these things. And so because there are regimes that trample on the right to speak freely we should all remain silent about the governments that do not?
I teach in the area of race relations and I will say that I rarely come across white people who are as critical of people of color as I am often found to be. And so just because this talk has a particular slant, it does not mean that I don't take opposite positions.
I'm an iconoclast and so I poke at the things that people most cherish and value. Perhaps I ask students, "Why do you salute the flag?" WHY, I ask them. If they say "because I'm proud" then I ask, "What are you proud of?" If they say, "I don't know...I'm just proud" then I have them where I want them -- against the ropes where they they have to think about what they're doing and why. My message would be for them to go ahead and salute the flag BUT know what they're doing and why so that when they're saluting they can really appreciate the act, they can really feel the experience. Think, I say.
So go ahead and support the war in Iraq, I tell people, whether it's about oil or some other reason. But think about the ramifications of your actions and beliefs. I thought about that long and hard when I put this talk together and this is the talk that I delivered. I really wrestled with how to do it and that's all I can ask of myself.
JohnnyGun Pistole
Debra Smith 200+
Sam Richards 10+
Debra Smith 200+
Can you imagine such a thing in the USA? (for anyone who is too concrete int heir thinking - we want to be reminded of these things so we never do them again,)
Sam Richards 10+
Debra Smith 200+
Don't forget to check out the link I edited into my last post. It will really help you see a cultural difference between the nations.
Alicia Gradson
For Americans and Canadians: According to the comic Jim Carrey: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ic3xNfEP_oltural difference and
and
Perhaps for Canadians only RIck Mercer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yi1yhp-_x7A
Debra Smith 200+
Gotta watch out for those flying hockey puck- Canada's version of armed forces! eh?
Big Hug from Niagara Falls!
Della Post
http://www.ted.com/talks/sam_harris_science_can_show_what_s_right.html
To truly understand empathy it does require self reflection but if working to change the world you must reach down to the eight grade level and teach them self reflection. An everyday citizen in this country is focusing on how to make ends meet at the end of the month and never realizes how they got to living from paycheck to paycheck in the first place. This message needs to be presented to the ones that would understand the basic message or "elementary thinking" and not dissect it and dismiss it.
Abby Hofman
They were ecstatic that he was gone.
I guess their shoes are a different size than SR tries to get us to believe they are.
God bless Iraq and God bless the Iraqis! The ones whom we can see in action!
Phil Klein 500+
Chung Truong Thanh 50+
Sabin Muntean 30+
firstly, thank you for taking the time to start this conversation and answer the questions!
I'd like to start by repeating what I posted in your talk's thread - in my opinion your main goal here is to promote empathy and not to demonize US military actions in Iraq, but on the other hand you seem to try a bit too hard with your thought experiment.
It is a fact that you are omitting details and facts on purpose in order to create the thought experiment, which is at least questionable.
Furthermore, I'd like to raise another question, not what the impact would have been if you were retired military, but what it would have been, had you chosen Libya and not Iraq.
Can any of us understand and step into the shoes of a rebel currently fighting for the control of say Misrata? Can we on the other hand do the same for a soldier or a volunteer doing the same on Gaddafi's side?
The answer to both - at least the one I suspect is true for a large majority - is a clear "no".
As such, what gives the US or any European country like France or Great Britain the right to interfere and target government bases and weapons?
From our moral highground it is easy to say we are supporting the right side by helping the rebels, however coming back to your talk - does anyone know that?
I am aware the post is not on-topic, still I would very much appreciate it if you would take the time to post a reply. Thanks!
Sam Richards 10+
Christy Philyaw
Zdenek Smith 100+
Helping people to gain their freedom because we emphasize with them is, I think, the right thing to do. However at the same one has to worry about the bad intentions others involved might have?
Sam Richards 10+
Will True 200+
Carol Anne Benoit
Carlos Guzman
Sam Richards 10+
Ayan Mukhopadhyay
Sam Richards 10+
Doug Newburg
Colleen Steen 500+
What I discovered, is that we are all more the same than different. We all want to love and be loved, we are sad, happy, frightened, content, etc. to various degrees at different times. We are all people in this earth school together, and there are too many wounded people in our world.
I LOVE that in addition to your insightful talk, you are actively engaging in the discussion:>)
Sam Richards 10+
adrian oesch
one advice for all of you, interested in this topic. a awesome video about "an empathic civilisation" by jeremy rifikn for rsa. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7AWnfFRc7g
Ian Rosenberger
Sam Richards 10+
Muzaffar Muhtar
Sam Richards 10+
Donna White
I don't personally need answers that I'd find most helpful. I'm irrelevant in this matter. I do believe that the drugs which are being foisted onto a largely unresisting public might have had some genetic impact on the number of sociopaths being produced, but I have no knowledge on the subject.
When you look up the word 'sociopaths' on the TED website, there is no result to match the query.
Sam Richards 10+
Colleen Steen 500+
Sam Richards 10+
Laurie Mulvey
Ian Rosenberger
Sam Richards 10+
Heidi Wall
It is probably up for debate whether or not is is possible to have the kind of fundamentalist truth view / ideology that is actually consistent with a kind of ultimate truth. Regardless of the status of the answer to this question, I hold that even if people do have the 'right' ideology, if they are closed to ideas that do not support it, their rightness is pale at best. You loose the depth that truth has to offer when you make it black and white.
Joanna Calvin
JohnnyGun Pistole
I thnk if they would drop religion as I have dropped mine, the world would be a safe place. So I don't give sny credit from being born into something.
Let's start a movement. Drop God Week! It should be a yearly event like internation smoke out day!!!
Yu csn have her back at the ned of the moth!!!!
Hey I tnk this could ctch on!!!
Sam Richards 10+
Will True 200+
Sam Richards 10+
Meredith Askey
I most often find myself practicing my empathy after the fact, once I'm past a situation and trying to make more sense of it, which is at least useful for calming myself down and feeling less angry or upset; however, sometimes it also makes me feel upset and frustrated for a different reason: because I know that the other person is certainly not giving me the same courtesy, and furthermore I lose credibility with both "sides" because (as others have discussed above) I'm not willing to completely dismiss nor espouse either one.
Practicing empathy, especially in emotional situations (whether it's a religious war or someone cutting you off in traffic), is such a difficult skill to incorporate into your everyday life that we really need to start teaching it in preschool and every grade on up, not start in college sociology classes. Little kids are great at mental experiments: it's called "Story Time" and "Role Playing." This is why we teach History and Social Studies, so I think it would be amazingly effective if we kept the same fact-based curriculum (needed to pass standardized tests), but instead of teaching it with memorization of facts, teach it using thought experiments and role-playing! Then we might learn the lessons of history instead of just the facts of history, and we might all be a lot better at practicing empathy every day.
Colleen Steen 500+
You're on to something....practice. We don't ever really know what the other person is doing/thinking/feeling. How about assuming they are doing the same thing we are doing...practicing?
Debra Smith 200+
Ms. Solomon
I wish it were elementary thinking. It should be. But it isn't.
Sam Richards 10+
Gerry Phibbs 20+
Sam Richards 10+
Ben Lillie 500+
So, while it may be correct that we can all easily understand the proposition: "Our enemies have reasons for what they do", it takes effort and training to get to a place of real understanding.
Sam Richards 10+
Mark Meijer 100+
See also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amygdala_hijack
And a talk by Daniel Goleman on the subject (who is actually also a TED speaker):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hoo_dIOP8k
Sam Richards 10+
Mark Meijer 100+
Whether there is an actual imminent bodily threat out there, or whether you're just imminently regurgitating some imagined threat that really only exists in the abstract, the amygdala doesn't care either way, in terms of how it affects other functions of the brain when it gets hair-triggered.
Suzie Wagner
Corvida Raven 100+
Replace Iraqis with anyone and you'll find plenty of people who don't WANT to empathize, but they absolutely can and should. The thought of empathizing seems elementary, but I think it takes more courage and honesty than most are willing to give. The media and more tell us in so many ways that we shouldn't empathize anyway. Not unless they're "one of us".
Colleen Steen 500+
Austin R 20+
Deepa Natarajan
Second, if you stood up and pointed out what you consider to be gross ignorance and lack of empathy from a military and christian point of view, I feel you are all the more entitled as an American to do it ... Assuming you are an American ... Second, let's face it ... The US has invariably put its feet in other politics for a long time, but why would they feel shy if they are criticized ? Their entry into the Indo-Pak issue was a catalyst to globalizing this issue out of a molehill ... I am sharing this as a civilian ... Why would a country be interested in Indo-Pak issues unless it has selfish interests ? You know, its time, that people start appreciating criticism as an adult ... I was very young when this happened but I never saw the Indian press making a deal until the US came in the scene. Now who wants to take responsibility?
Finally, I feel, if you like to empathize with an Iraqi, I feel you are right ... If the US infiltrates my country (India) and bombs my country, what would I do ... pick dead flowers and watch people falling dead like nine pins ... ofcourse, this develops hatred and animosity in me to retaliate in big and small ways ... C'mon, its time that their country is handed over to them and let them deal with their 'internal' issues themselves ... If this makes me anti-America, then that's really parochial in my opinion ...
Infact one of the forgiveness program I had participated back in India, talks on how we must not only take stands to how much hurt we received but also how much we GAVE others ... Doesn't that make us a better person ... Thanks Sam.
Eric Hiatt
When something is taught, someone has to point out that they've already thought of it, that it's too obvious or easy, that someone else does it better, that the teacher has some issue, etc. I've wondered if it's a form of validation seeking and/or defensive posturing, but I don't have the models to analyze it. It's an irritating phenomenon, but perhaps empathy can help me puzzle it out.
Matthew Palsson
Della Post
When I viewed your talk I began thinking of another talk I view on ted.
http://www.ted.com/talks/sheena_iyengar_on_the_art_of_choosing.html
Even if the perspective you presents is "elementary thinking" couldn't this be the answer to reach the majority of the public. When we have so many choices and so much information coming at us from all forms of media; how could anyone understand much less comprehend all the information from one topic. Then as academia's we have to break down and analyize everthing else so that it is even more confusing for the general public that holds an eight grade education, according to statistics. We can analyze all we want but if we cannot relay that message to the population then we condemn ourselves to the same mistakes of the past wouldn't we?
Anna Reynolds
I hope that I am able to let a message speak for itself without letting my prejudices blind me to good information, but I also think that the context is inevitably a part of the message. In order to "let a message speak for itself" I believe we must consciously choose to ignore the filters we have installed in our personal evaluation protocols. This take awareness and energy--work.
I go to TED for inspiration and enlightenment and more often than not I am not disappointed. I also appreciate the TED staff for peppering the forum with some controversial (for the brand) voices.
I am the product of my experiences and perceptions; where else would i get my opinions? However, more than once I have had the experience of being positively impressed by someone whose persona is something from outside of my comfort zone, I hope that this helps me to listen with open ears. All the while keeping in mind Kathryn Schultz's observation that all of us are wrong much of the time.
Cheers.
Christiaän Keaton
Sam Richards 10+
Sam Richards 10+
I notice that whenever I'm involved in a divisive issue, the people involved cannot even imagine that I could actually support the truth that exists on both sides of the conflict. The "warring" parties want to force me to take sides. And if I don't, they'll assume that I'm on the opposite side of them. It's as if we have no model, no ideal type that would allow us to recognize this category of person or perspective who can see beyond their own interests. I think that's part of the trouble some people have with Sam's talk.
Suzie Wagner
The tricky thing is that the process of remaining in this perspective, especially when you are surrounded by others that are actively trying to pull you in, is EXHAUSTING. But, think of the world of diplomacy - they do it all day long! Conflict resolution folks try to do it all the time, too. I try it with friends and family all the time, and in situations of real conflict, it can be difficult. But we do have models for it, and I'd be happy to gather some resources if you'd like them.
Laurie Mulvey
Sam Richards 10+
Laurie Mulvey
Andrea Morisette Grazzini 30+
I agree with Sam it's tough to hold middle ground, but also with Laura, sometimes it's not. To Susie's point about diplomats, I'd say practice--lots--likely helps ease the exhausting effect of holding perspective. My experience is it can help to occasionally clap hands over ears when it gets to be too much and let all rant away for a bit.
Hardest for me is accepting the impossibility to know in full granularity all sides of any conflict as it unfolds. Though hindsight often illuminates fuller pictures.
The days I sense I've touched a useful nerve are those I've defended both Republicans accused of being shadow progressives AND Democrats accused of being shadow conservatives. Though these are times I feel a bit dizzy from the back-and-forth--seems to me if the accusations on both sides hold truths it might be a good sign non-paritasan progress is happening, after all!
Will True 200+
I think it's a detriment to our society that many try so hard to paint things black and white, right or wrong. Be it politics, social issues, what have you, if you haven't attempted to understand the other side of an issue or argument then you haven't thought it through.
Laurie Mulvey
Marla Mitchnick 200+
Colleen Steen 500+
Empathy is not the same as feeling sorry for someone, pity clouds real empathy, is a condescending stance, and prevents a real connection with an individual. We simply cannot put ourselves in another's shoes, and try to relate to them if we are putting them down by feeling sorry for them.
I agree that it is the black/white/right/wrong mind set that prevents understanding the other side of an issue. Real empathy requires us to consider all information without judgement.
Ozge Ozdemir
Maybe the best thing to do is to help them eliminate the negative emotions they associate to the conflict, and then show them that a neutral figure in a dispute can be of more help than someone who supports blindly his/her side..
Sam Richards 10+
Colleen Steen 500+
We can be respectful of people having an opinion without agreeing with it. I agree with Nafissa, that people often interprete this as us not being able to decide, not having an opinion, or not taking a stand. I also see life as a process, an exploration or adventure, and it is much more interesting for me to listen carefully to ideas, thoughts, feelings and opinions.
Debra Smith 200+
Sam Richards 10+
Debra Smith 200+
Amy Rorke
As adults shaped by culture, putting aside fear, the natural human tendency to resist change, to separate from our peers and embrace difference - now that's the hard part!
Good on you Debra :)
Debra Smith 200+