Yes, it is probably true that “some part of them knows what they need to do.” This does not mean all of their options are clearly laid out before them and they constantly make the conscious and informed decision that you would be able to make in their situation, and think “yes, I will choose the obviously worse option, because I’m just that self-destructive and lazy.”
It means something more like “they are trapped in a cognitive whirlpool of suffering, and the set of options in their head is not enough to swim out of it.” Importantly, a complete sense of empathy must be recursive, where you recognize that the mental motions you would easily make to fix the situation (or to fix the inability to fix the situation, etc.) are not available to them.
If this feels too exculpatory: imagine your friend now has a device built into their head that gives them an electric shock every time they try to do math. The device also has an ejection mechanism, but they also get a shock every time they think about the device or how to remove it. (For whatever reason it’s impossible for anyone else to forcibly remove the device from your friend’s head.) Not only that, but thinking about “building up the willpower to withstand electric shocks” also gives them an electric shock!
Seeing a person in this situation would make me feel deeply sad, not disgusted. The part of them that wants to do math and the device in their head are in direct conflict, and at least in the current equilibrium there is no way for them to come to an agreement. Not only will they be unable to reap the many benefits of doing math, they will get a bunch of needless shocks every time they encounter a situation where math is needed—they will attempt to do math, get a shock, think about the stupid device, get another shock, think about the device again, get another shock… If they want to avoid being shocked, the most “rational” option available to them is to avoid math entirely, which is itself a pretty terrible and sad solution.
Having previously argued the other side of this, I’ll now say: I think the next question is “what useful thing is John’s disgust doing?”. It’s probably within John’s action space to (perhaps effortfully) switch from feeling disgust to feeling sadness here for these reasons.
Realistically, this is not near the top of John’s priorities regardless, but if I were John and if this were reasonably cheap, my crux would be “does making this change cost me something important/loadbearing”. (I guess in the worlds where it’s cheap to change aesthetics here, it’s probably not very costly, and if it’s expensive it’s because this is woven through a lot of other important decisionmaking processes for John)
((I’d bet it’s at least theoretically achievable to make that switch without John losing other things he cares about except the rewiring-time, but, nontrivial))
I think a lot of people automatically connect empathic-kindness to a ‘this is fine’ stance, I see a lot of it in how people phrase things in the comments of this post, and I notice it in myself because I, well, empathize with John because I have similar feelings at times even if seemingly not as strong.
So, it can feel risky to get rid of that, because in a way it is part of how I keep my standards up. That I desire/require more from people, that I dream for both myself and them to be better, and some amount of disquiet or even disgust is a useful tool there. I’m still polite, but it serves as a fuel.
It is certainly possible to get around without that. However I look at various people I respect that have high standards and they seem to have some degree of this though perhaps they don’t conceptualize it as related to empathy, and then I look at others who I do see lowering their standards and being more wishy-washy over time due to pure ~positive-tinged empathy.
Sadness at their faltering is a more passive drive in a lot of ways, disgust helps both in pushing oneself to improve and also in my experience with convincing friends of mine to try for more. Though, of course, I am going to be helpful and friendly even as I find their faltering disquieting.
So it feels like to deliberately switch in such a way risks part of the mind that maintains its own standards.
and if it’s expensive it’s because this is woven through a lot of other important decisionmaking processes for John
that is very interesting claim! why you believe it? my experience is that my aesthetics are part of ,y preference—not choose by me, almost impossible to change. I don’t feel disgust, but i don’t think i can switch easily if i decided so. in the same way i can’t decide mechs are cool, or dragons are uncool.
Yes, it is probably true that “some part of them knows what they need to do.” This does not mean all of their options are clearly laid out before them and they constantly make the conscious and informed decision that you would be able to make in their situation, and think “yes, I will choose the obviously worse option, because I’m just that self-destructive and lazy.”
It means something more like “they are trapped in a cognitive whirlpool of suffering, and the set of options in their head is not enough to swim out of it.” Importantly, a complete sense of empathy must be recursive, where you recognize that the mental motions you would easily make to fix the situation (or to fix the inability to fix the situation, etc.) are not available to them.
If this feels too exculpatory: imagine your friend now has a device built into their head that gives them an electric shock every time they try to do math. The device also has an ejection mechanism, but they also get a shock every time they think about the device or how to remove it. (For whatever reason it’s impossible for anyone else to forcibly remove the device from your friend’s head.) Not only that, but thinking about “building up the willpower to withstand electric shocks” also gives them an electric shock!
Seeing a person in this situation would make me feel deeply sad, not disgusted. The part of them that wants to do math and the device in their head are in direct conflict, and at least in the current equilibrium there is no way for them to come to an agreement. Not only will they be unable to reap the many benefits of doing math, they will get a bunch of needless shocks every time they encounter a situation where math is needed—they will attempt to do math, get a shock, think about the stupid device, get another shock, think about the device again, get another shock… If they want to avoid being shocked, the most “rational” option available to them is to avoid math entirely, which is itself a pretty terrible and sad solution.
Having previously argued the other side of this, I’ll now say: I think the next question is “what useful thing is John’s disgust doing?”. It’s probably within John’s action space to (perhaps effortfully) switch from feeling disgust to feeling sadness here for these reasons.
Realistically, this is not near the top of John’s priorities regardless, but if I were John and if this were reasonably cheap, my crux would be “does making this change cost me something important/loadbearing”. (I guess in the worlds where it’s cheap to change aesthetics here, it’s probably not very costly, and if it’s expensive it’s because this is woven through a lot of other important decisionmaking processes for John)
((I’d bet it’s at least theoretically achievable to make that switch without John losing other things he cares about except the rewiring-time, but, nontrivial))
I think a lot of people automatically connect empathic-kindness to a ‘this is fine’ stance, I see a lot of it in how people phrase things in the comments of this post, and I notice it in myself because I, well, empathize with John because I have similar feelings at times even if seemingly not as strong.
So, it can feel risky to get rid of that, because in a way it is part of how I keep my standards up. That I desire/require more from people, that I dream for both myself and them to be better, and some amount of disquiet or even disgust is a useful tool there. I’m still polite, but it serves as a fuel.
It is certainly possible to get around without that. However I look at various people I respect that have high standards and they seem to have some degree of this though perhaps they don’t conceptualize it as related to empathy, and then I look at others who I do see lowering their standards and being more wishy-washy over time due to pure ~positive-tinged empathy. Sadness at their faltering is a more passive drive in a lot of ways, disgust helps both in pushing oneself to improve and also in my experience with convincing friends of mine to try for more. Though, of course, I am going to be helpful and friendly even as I find their faltering disquieting. So it feels like to deliberately switch in such a way risks part of the mind that maintains its own standards.
that is very interesting claim! why you believe it? my experience is that my aesthetics are part of ,y preference—not choose by me, almost impossible to change. I don’t feel disgust, but i don’t think i can switch easily if i decided so. in the same way i can’t decide mechs are cool, or dragons are uncool.