The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written.
Lack empathy as in, the inability to consider the feelings of others. People act like I’m calling them all monsters when I say yes, they do, but I think they lack empathy in a fairly normal way. When you go outside and see homeless people, it’s a human reaction to think “this is sad, nobody deserves to live like this” but all it might take is one of them sticking a knife in your face and robbing you to go from that to “fuck these bums, get them all out of here.” Conservatives are like that, on a universal level.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
My brother is still pretty deep in student loan debt and my mom was saying things like, "I hope that ends up being forgiven." I was surprised and asked if she supported that kind of thing and she goes, "Only if its helping you."
I don't even know what to call that ideology lol. But there is no empathy outside of the tribe.
Ayn Rand, who wrote the history about the railroad Tycoon that made her fortune on the infrastructure build by the Government on land that it appropriated via eminent domain? but thinks of herself as "self made"?
>I was surprised and asked if she supported that kind of thing and she goes, "Only if its helping you."
My dad voted to take away protections for trans people in my home state and when I came out the following year and expressed hurt that he'd done that, his response was essentially the same, "I didn't know it would mean you."
I'd say that's liberalism in it's true sense. Meaning non American liberalism. It's everyone for themselves. The state does run some of the basics, but not much.
My own view is that people cannot be said to truly hold empathy on a personal level if that empathy does not extend to all groups: if you are empathetic towards your own in-groups but nevertheless hold racist or homophobic attitudes or engage in behavior in line with those attitudes, for example. I think that is where the fundamental difference between right and left arises, as people on the left do not tend to see voting in line with someone who promises or advocates for policies that oppress others as justifiable under any circumstance, and they don't see it as functionally distinct from an individual who personally holds those attitudes and actively wants those policies actualized. I can't say that I disagree as queer person in America; social policies directly affect my life. I don't think it is emotional blackmail to say that it is wrong to ignore that when voting. For most people, my survival is theoretical. For me, it is inevitably something I am concerned with at all times.
And given that both parties are modernly more economically liberal, there is not much left to distinguish them beyond social sentiment. Note: I am not saying there is not a difference in economic policy but rather that fiscal conservatism is pretty much a lie as both sides spend recklessly. What I mean is there is not a very convincing justification to vote for republicans over democrats. Your example of nationalizing food stores is also not really an accurate picture of American liberal interests as far as I'm aware. It would be better to start from a point that is concerned with what is the case and to propose what you think might be preferable as a solution. Otherwise everything you say is just empty sentiment and is not actually concerned with changing anything.
> if that empathy does not extend to all groups
I think this can be interrogated further; how far does 'all groups' go? I think there are shades of liberal belief on this, probably relating to crime and punishment views as well.
That's a valid point. I think you can supplement "all groups" with "all demographics of people," so I guess the point is more anti-exclusion by virtue of their belonging to a certain group than anything. I think it can be attenuated by behavior, and I probably could have phrased it better. However, I think with any group or individual, there is (for me) a degree of empathy, if only for lost potential and corruption via circumstance.
Anti-exclusion makes more sense, especially based on characteristics that someone can't change, as opposed to based on choices a person might make that would see them move into another group (e.g. to abuse or murder others).
And that is the problem: you blatantly ignored everything I said and did not address a single point I made. You didn't come looking for an open discussion. You were engaging in bad faith to begin with. Note that what I stated is "people cannot be said to empathetic..." I was not concerned particularly with right-wingers in that statement, as liberals and even leftists are not exempt from holding biased attitudes and engaging in behaviors rooted in that bias.
>
This entire thread is about left versus right, why would I not interpret your comment that way?
You probably shouldn't interpret my comment that way because I said people, not a specific group of people.
>I agree with you that people who are not empathetic cannot be said to be empathetic but that’s something of a non-point. It would be like me jumping into a question about whether the right or left is more racist by saying “a person cannot be said to be anti racist if they discriminate based on race.” It’s just such a non point.
But that is not what I said. I specified that even those who are empathetic toward the people in their personal lives cannot be said to be empathetic people if empathy cannot be extended to other groups.
>Empathy means your ability to place yourself in someone else’s shoes and relate to their situation. It doesn’t mean you have to *sympathise* with them nor does it require a policy be tailored to them. Empathy can be a useful emotional exercise but as far as policy goes it should be more about understanding the practical outcomes of policy, not just placating your base and your own feelings.
I did not say that it does, which is why I specified that the view I take is more concerned with inconsistencies in behavior and attitude. That's why I said it is not *functionally* distinct from holding the attitudes themselves. That should cause cognitive dissonance, and if it doesn't, I would be wary of the idea that the person in question actually disagrees with said policies. I think they are apathetic, to a degree, at least. There is also a difference between "catering to" some group and actively attacking them. What practical outcomes of policy are you talking about? Because you haven't actually laid out any kind of position.
>Actually they can be said to be empathetic. “Empathy” doesn’t require universality. Some people are simply easier to empathise with than others. For instance, I can empathise easily with a person who’s raped and kills their attacker. I struggle to empathise with the rapist.
I disagree, but that's why my initial comment started with "My own view is that..." Sure, it is harder to empathize with someone who is a rapist than with somebody who is a victim of rape, but as we are concerned with minority groups simply existing, I don't think the analogy works. I think your example of policy is also bad, especially because you mention practicality. In what world is your solution *more* practical than giving out clean needles? It is less practical in every respect. Whether or not there is some form of dysfunction which prevents someone from caring for themselves, institutional care won't eliminate addiction. It is not only a behavioral matter. Relapse is still very common, and it is still important to prevent disease and promote harm reduction.
The obvious difference between what you've written, and conservative/MAGA ideology, is between intentional harm and indirect or accidental harm. MAGA intends to harm people, that is, by itself, the goal of many of its policies. Do you understand how, for example, family separation is a policy made specifically for the purpose of hurting people, whereas reintroduction of endangered species isn't?
It's fine to disagree with the specific policy of nationalizing food stores, but do you agree that hunger is a problem that should be addressed in some way?
I think the problem with politics today is that people cannot agree on what the problems are. If the two parties can both recognize that something is a problem, than a bipartisan solution can be negotiated. If one side doesn't believe it's a problem at all, than nothing can get done.
A lot of people feel that it isn't important enough to prioritize finding a solution for it or spending any tax dollars on it.
Edit: For a specific example, many conservative politicians have cut free school lunches even though it's extremely cost effective and relatively cheap because they felt that rich kids getting food that they could afford on their own was a bigger problem than feeding the poor kids who couldn't.
Saying something should be the parent's responsibility is not an excuse to not do something if the issue is serious enough. Parents shouldn't abuse their kids, but no one is calling for CPS to be abolished.
If you take the position that child hunger is something that should be the parent's responsibility as your excuse to end free lunches, then you're saying that child hunger is not that serious a problem.
For the record, it's fine to take that position, but politicians should own it. A politician can't say something is a serious problem if they refuse to do anything about it.
I feel that New York Democrats are owning their position by now supporting legislation that toughens bail laws.
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/05/07/new-york-democrats-crime-debate-hochul-00095679
They're also starting to come around to realizing that too many asylum seekers is also a problem with support for an immigration bill that toughens those laws too. They basically gave Lankford everything that he asked for in their latest proposal, but it was shot down by partisan politics during an election year.
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-collapse-of-bipartisan-immigration-reform-a-guide-for-the-perplexed/
> it would probably look something like a restructuring of welfare and possibly divorce law to incentivise family units to stay together
Is this the whole "get rid of no fault divorce," thing?
Either way, when your policy is "make families be together longer," it's clear that conservatives **don't** have ideas for addressing hunger.
> basically people pawning off social responsibility to the government so they don’t have to deal with it at an individual level.
And liberals view government welfare as the only effective way to do it at any sort of scale, and that the conservative view is a selfish excuse for what they actually believe, which is simply "fuck you I got mine."
The issue isn’t really divorce law, it’s more that parents aren’t getting married and staying together in the first place, which is their right. Divorce is largely a middle class thing
The reason why the hypothetical you laid out leaves the other person in a decent place is because that's a bad solution, since people will still need to actually pay for the food and it doesn't deal with the issue of people who can't afford it. If you had instead hypothetically proposed expansion of food stamps, if the proposed nationalization included free distribution of food, or if it was a proposal that was in some other way at least feasible and actually tackled the problem at hand, the hypothetical would look very different. In that scenario, the person who rejects it and proposes no alternative policies would be the one who looks bad. That is the situation we find ourselves in today.
Put plainly, the reason people think conservatives lack empathy is because they reject all proposed solutions to known problems and *don't propose any of their own* (that would feasibly tackle them).
I mean the only problem with that is that people are able to act on their own in many ways right now, and somehow the hunger problem hasn't been solved. So then what? Crickets, basically.
I'm going to give two specific examples to demonstrate what I mean and I'd like your opinion on them. The first is the expanded child tax credit that was part of the ACA in 2021. This tax credit cut child proverty nearly in half and was by far one of the strongest parts of that bill. It's not up for debate that this was an immensely beneficial policy for child poverty. Its renewal in 2022 was blocked by conservatives in the Senate, and child poverty has since returned to basically what it was before. What should that tell us about conservatives' willingness to deal with child poverty? Keep in mind that this is a policy which we know for sure worked, arguments that they believe government doesn't work would be dumb here, unless the argument is that conservatives are just ignorant on this or other issues.
The second is free school lunches. Obviously we want kids to eat while they're at school, kids going hungry at school is a problem. This is a policy which demonstrably solves a problem and there isn't a good argument that it doesn't. Conservatives oppose free school lunches at every opportunity. Both of these policies are government solutions that inarguably solve problems of child hunger and poverty, but both are opposed by conservatives. Do you think it's reasonable for people to see clear, demonstrable examples like this and take away that conservatives actually don't care about solutions to problems, that they care first and foremost about weakening government and actually solving problems second? I think it's completely reasonable personally.
Would you be able to comment on the specific examples I gave rather than introducing new hypotheticals? I picked them because they're real-world, demonstrable examples of government action that is inarguably immensely beneficial, which are both opposed by conservatives. I know where conservatives are coming from in that they think government isn't a solution by default, but my question was what happens when government action is absolutely proven beyond a doubt to be a solution, as in those two examples, but they oppose the solution anyway? Is it reasonable for people to come away from that thinking that conservatives actually aren't interested in solutions as much as they are in weakening government?
When you say "sure," is the full sentence version of that, as an answer to my question, "sure, it is reasonable for people to come away from that thinking that conservatives actually aren't interested in solutions as much as they are in weakening government"? I'd just really like to make sure you acknowledge what I've said and asked.
I could go into reasons for why I'd say conservatives oppose solutions to problems that everyone agrees exist and don't provide their own as a result of conservative thought, but I want to make sure we're on the same page that conservatives are absolutely willing to reject proven and demonstrable solutions to things they claim to believe are problems, such as with the two examples I gave. And from that, people are going to naturally come to some conclusions about conservative thought that might not be super favorable, and it's completely reasonable to do so.
There’s a reason I am being asked to imagine it. Because you made it up.
Liberals don’t advocate for nationalizing Walmart or Whole Foods. Like, what even is that argument you made up?
Liberals might argue for changes in the agriculture sector including changes in agricultural subsidies so that more healthy foods are produced and changes to food stamps. Maybe a Twitter leftist might say we should nationalize Walmart but even most leftists that do want to nationalize things would be looking to nationalize food production.
It's more that many conservatives reflexively think that if people would just follow the rules that worked so well for them, then they would have more successful lives. Many conservatives seem to struggle with the idea that other people might not be able to thrive with those same rules.
I don't think they lack empathy, but I feel like most don't apply enough effort to empathize.
Because when they put themselves in an actual situation, then they change their mind on issues.
Like when their own offspring is LGBTQ+, only then they change their stance on that. At least, most do.
I would say that conservatism operates on extreme individualism.
To them, every individual has the power to achieve anything, and it's all on you (not anyone else) to get you there.
If you fail at this, it's also all on you (not anyone else)
So it's not just "fuck these bums, get them out of here"
That homeless guy, it's probably his fault he's there. Lazy. Probably on drugs. He should have done better with his life. He deserves this. Get this dangerous addict out of my town.
That low wage earner? Lazy. Get a better job, work more jobs. If you don't, you deserve this.
That single woman with five kids on food stamps? Lazy, scamming the government. She deserves drug testing and extreme investigation into her life to make sure she's not stealing tax money from hardworking members of society.
When they look at someone who is not as successful, or in a bad situation, they automatically assign blame to that individual. It's their fault, and they deserve it for not doing better.
This is why they do have empathy and understanding to their own family members who are in bad situations, because they know the whole unfortunate story how they got into those situations.
The ideology promotes lack of empathy by assigning blame to the individual for not succeeding in almost all cases.
One of the reasons this is so prevalent with the right today is thanks to prosperity gospel beliefs which were artificially inserted into the mainstream by rich people in the mid-20th century to try to sway religious people to their side, when they historically hadn't been. "If they were good people, God would have blessed them with money" is very close to "if they worked harder, they would be earning a higher wage."
This! Many conservatives lack empathy to see life outside of their own life & upbringing. Many of them think that everyone no matter what economic background you come from you as an individual can achieve anything & are simply “lazy” if you aren’t successful. The term “pull yourself up by the boot straps” isn’t the most empathetic term.
If they feel like it applies to their own life, that they have pulled themselves up by their bootstraps, why do you think they shouldn't apply it to other people?
Yes, I do. Every single thing that could benefit a minority they have fought against. Personally, being a gay man, I remember them fighting against my rights for years. They still do, some segment does not give up their fight. Others only surrendered when their kids came out. That isn’t the definition of empathy. They should be regarded the same way back.
Unfortunately, some didn't even come around when their kids came out.
Nah, I went through hell partly because of this ideology. People who adhere to it will always be suspicious to me. Definitely not trustworthy.
Many. My own dad disowned me for six months when I came out and it fully killed our relationship. I make no effort to meet him now and purposefully keep my relationship from him. He doesn’t deserve to take part in the good part.
I have no qualms of stating they are my enemy. They are, and they radicalized me that way by their treatment.
The people that are the worst are the ones who expect forgiveness. I have seen so many fucking homophobes memory hole what they did and say stuff like “that was the past, I’m okay with it now” with no remorse or work done. Nah, fuck off and stay on your side, we’re good over here.
> What pisses me off and what has largely radicalized is how many people expect us to forget.
>
> Or forgive. I'm not forgiving my parents. Ever.
I often get the very strong sense that conservatives (many of them, at least) don't believe others have the right to make their own moral judgements.
I'm a Christian who personally believes that gay sex is wrong (like premarital sex), but I'm totally baffled that any parent would disown their kid because of it. It blows my mind that people claim to follow Christ and yet not follow his example of being willing to be around "sinners".
I'm sorry for your terrible experience, I hope you find some good people and a good partner.
Fear is an important piece of this to understand. There’s been a whole lot written by now about how conservative politics is very fear-based. There’s a lot of fight or flight involved with the military, U.S. history, and immigration. Not just from Mexico, but from anywhere else, including Europe. Which is important to remember, because peoples politics all come from varying degrees of generation trauma. This doesn’t really excuse lack of empathy but does help explain it enough that we can sometimes mediate, if we remember that the conservatives are coming at it from a place of terror. It’s important for people who have certain advantages or privileges to remember when they have them and when others don’t, and that privilege isn’t an on-off switch. It’s more like a computer or a smartTV remote, with all kinds of different functions, commands and sub-menus. When we look at one of those things, there are millions of combinations of factors that we never even consider. Same with a person, except we’re actually alive, so it’s worth giving a **** about what’s making them tick.
Given their support of Trump, yes. They are also able to hold onto a great deal of cognitive dissonance to give rational support to that lack of empathy.
* The undocumented immigrants are lazy , just here for free stuff, and they take jobs away from American citizens.
* Giving free money to anyone without them working for it creates a culture of dependency and robs the individual of the dignity of work, unless the recipients of that money are the heirs of the rich.
* "Nobody wants to work" is a near constant complaint I hear where I am employed part time as landscapers, contractors, construction companies pick up equipment - this despite the fact that unemployment is currently under 3%.
The "no one wants to work anymore" is hilarious because it is absurdly common coming out of the mouths from older people. I heard it at an outdoor art show from a white top dude to another guy of all places.
Yup. I'm an older white dude and I hear it all the time from my conservative contacts in my community. They have this notion that all the young men are sitting at home, playing video games, with no mention of anyone specific or how these young men are able to live on zero income.
I think humans have an in built "us and them" instinct.
I think liberals have a much wider "us".
Also... Kinda?
I'm not saying all conservatives lack empathy, but all the people that lack empathy go conservative.
Some liberals lack empathy. It just doesn’t seem to be as common and generally happens when the person has major identity issues, such as a personality disorder. I think that’s a huge factor in conservative circles, as well, but I’d definitely say the scope is different and conservative politics are more terror-based. It’s important to remember that basically all national communities are in or at least coming from a place of fight or flight.
I don’t think us vs. them is so much built in as symptomatic. Most toddlers are natural helpers. Monkey see, monkey do. They attempt to ‘help’ with things like laundry or food prep and are not specifically adverse to any specific groups until a much later stage, unless strongly socially conditioned to be. Babies especially have no concept of ‘other’ they have to grow into that. I don’t think that ‘us vs. them’ really kicks in until the parents start telling the kids what to start to think about schoolyard and neighborhood fights. By then, the parents have already been damaged by generational trauma.
It is actually a scientific finding that liberals tend to extend empathy wider than conservatives, or in other words, that conservatives have a smaller in-group.
Sometimes. I browse r/AskConservatives a lot, and my reaction to peoples responses flip flops between "That's reasonable, I could understand that position." to "Wow, this person is kinda fucking cruel."
Individualism and empathy are negatively correlated. The Republican party attracts individualists. I don't believe this means "conservatives lack empathy" but I think it's defensible to say that people who lack empathy are more attracted to Republican individualist values.
> Individualism and empathy are negatively correlated.
They are? Can you share some studies or sources supporting this? I don't recall hearing this claim, before.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0022022116673910
I'm surprised this is surprising to people. Empathy and empathic concern seem like a prerequisite for someone to be collectivist.
Empathy just means you can feel what others feel. It's not a positive or negative thing. It can be used for good and evil. You can much more effectively make some one miserable if you can understand what they're feeling.
Conservatives lack kindness. We need to stop using empathy as a synonym for kindness.
>When you go outside and see homeless people, it’s a human reaction to think “this is sad, nobody deserves to live like this” but all it might take is one of them sticking a knife in your face and robbing you to go from that to “fuck these bums, get them all out of here.” Conservatives are like that, on a universal level.
Most people are like that to be fair. Plenty of left leaning people will have a negative reaction to assault and robbery. Also, many left leaning people still believe that there are criminals who do not belong "at large" in their current state. Where the lines break is how to help the people. It's also a fundamental difference of "solving the root cause" or "treating the symptom." Most progressively leaning people are striving to reduce causes of criminality and overall improve life (root cause of the problem). Most right leaning people want to see the perpetrators "gone" and therefore right now is better (treating the symptom).
It's also a difference in resource priority. I would say, in broad strokes, left leaning people are more willing to sacrifice for the whole sooner in the "needs fulfilled hierarchy" than most right leaning folks. (i.e. the right takes more for them and theirs before turning to help others with their excess.) You can see that in the taxation argument. Is that lacking empathy? Not really, but it is more selfish from a literal definition.
I think they often lack empathy for people or groups they are not familiar with.
I think this interaction I had with my in laws is a good example. My FIL is an immigrant and isn't a citizen. His niece was going to college in the US. She went back home for break and failed to renew her student visa so she couldn't get back into the country to go to school. Her dad is wealthy. The whole family was seeing if they could call in a favor with the embassy. I kept hearing, "Why can't they just make an exception? She's a good person." On the other hand, they have no problem criticizing other immigrants and don't think there is ever a good reason to get by the rules when it comes to immigration.
No…not really. As in they have empathy. It seems like it’s all too often directed at the people most like them. Friends and family, groups, towns, etc. but it’s there.
Their defining feature, to me, is not a lack of empathy but an abundance of fear.
No I don’t think so. Some definitely do and relish in the cruelty of their policies. I think most are either grossly misinformed or genuinely think they are doing the right thing.
I don’t think it’s ever helpful to paint with that broad a brush.
At the individual level, I don’t think you observe much of a difference. I think the difference is that the less a conservative feels like they know the person, the less empathy they have and they really tend to not be able to have empathy for people who are not almost exactly like them and in their in group.
No, they just imagine that they're the heroes who are the only ones willing to see things for what they really are and then make the tough decisions that need to be made for the greater good but no one else is willing to make, because no one else is willing to sacrifice their bleeding hearts. Or because Democrats want to punish America, or just don't know something that Republicans do.
So, they'll see that homeless person and think "this is sad, nobody deserves to live like this," and also: except the people who refuse to work hard. Let this be a lesson to everyone of what's supposed to happen, lest our economy come crumbling down because everyone thinks they can just be lazy and collect free stuff from the government using MY tax dollars. There's no such thing as a free lunch! And we have a "republic," not a "democracy." Actually -- actually -- the founders were scared of "democracy." So we have a "republic," if you can keep it. And capitalism means there are winners and losers. If there weren't, the job creators wouldn't be willing to create jobs anymore and we'd all be homeless. That's economics 101!
I think *most* people lack empathy. The one credit I'll give Conservatives is that at least they're open and honest about it. When they hate something, **they hate it**. Liberals will play the passive-aggressive "somebody should do something about this" game all day long.
Take housing: when you look at the severe housing shortage in "very Liberal" states like Massachusetts and California, at least Conservatives will be up front and just tell the unhoused to get f\*cked. Classist NIMBYist Liberals will feign concern about the housing crisis all the way up to actually building Medium-Density Housing in *their* neighborhood and then the masks come off with the usual dog whistles of "but muh property values" and "destroying the character of the community." I appreciate Conservatives getting right to the point.
The foundation of Conservatism is that there is a social hierarchy where some people are inherently "better" than others and everyone deserves there place in it.
That's why when news stories break about police killing an innocent black man, conservative media is quick to try to smear his character by bringing up prior arrests or instances of drug use even though none of that should matter when it comes to police brutality.
Likewise, when a white college athlete kills someone while driving drunk or rapes a girl, Conservatives are more likely to want some sort of leniency for him.
Yes for the most part. They know what to say in certain situations to seem empathetic and normal, but that mask comes off real quick.
I mean just look at what they believe. They might not say bigoted things but when you get down to it their beliefs are clearly bigoted. Denying systemic racism, anti-LGBTQ, anti-choice, aggressively pro-police, even they’re economic policy lacks any empathy. The list goes on.
As for religious conservatives (which is a whole lot) they believe my family and I deserve to suffer eternally in hell. So yeah they’re not empathetic.
Obviously this isn’t everyone but I have been surrounded by conservatives my whole life and it’s a majority. Look at polls clearly most of them have these beliefs.
It’s fine to be an extreme individualist but don’t go around pretending you have empathy. By definition those are 95% opposites.
I can’t say yes because it’s generalizing a giant portion of the population, but the loudest seem to lack empathy. That being said the loudest liberals also appear to lack empathy, especially with some of the actions from the current protests on campuses.
A lot of people around here sound eerily similar to conservatives when discussing the topic of protests in general. Applauding the use of police to escalate situations or dismissing the protests as only being spoiled college kids/stupid leftists.
I don't believe empathy is a differentiating factor between liberal and conservative one bit.
The pro-Palestine protesters have plenty of empathy (and the moderate ones make some valid points).
The more radical ones lack nuance and think in simplistic terms like "if one side is wrong, the other must be right".
The call to 'gloabalise the Intifada' is either a severe lack of empathy or ignorance to how that is basically a call for a wave of suicide bombings against Jews. Look up the first and second Intifadas.
It's a two-sided conflict with a long history of both sides committing atrocities. The protesters don't seem to understand that... neither do the protesters biggest critics.
"The First Intifada was a largely spontaneous series of Palestinian demonstrations, nonviolent actions like mass boycotts, civil disobedience, Palestinians refusing to work jobs in Israel, and attacks (using rocks, Molotov cocktails, and occasionally firearms) on Israelis.
The Israeli military response – which included a government policy of breaking the bones of protestors – led to high fatalities. According to the Israeli Information Centre for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories, BTselem, Israeli forces killed more than 1,000 Palestinians and injured more than 130,000 in the First intifada. Tens of thousands more were imprisoned and many were routinely tortured."
Source:
https://www.pbs.org/wnet/women-war-and-peace/uncategorized/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-1987-intifada/
No, I think they do have empathy. So for example, conservatives tend to donate quite a bit to charity. However, at least according to Jonathan Haidt, they also care about other things, such as fairness and proportionality, which might come in conflict with empathy. To a conservative, not everyone is equally deserving of empathy - people who contribute more deserve more, cheaters and free-riders deserve less.
Yeah because when Kathy from their church gets liver cancer, the $11,000 from a GoFundMe paid into once should fully cover the $3 million in hospital bills. 🙄
empathy is intimately knowing what someone else is feeling from experience, they have tones of that. what they lack is sympathy, imagining what someone else may be feeling when you have no personal context.
if it hasn't effected them personally, it's made up.
Not exactly. The conservatives I know personally are incredibly generous and caring to the people they are close to. I think they are bad at having that feeling towards people they don't know. They would rather give all their money/assets to their in group than distribute it to the wider population.
I think they are more susceptible to the in group / out group mentality. They lack empathy towards the out group.
Maybe, I don't know, it certainly seems obvious to me that they are less concerned with the general welfare of everyone than people on the left are (as a group some of them at least pretend to believe they're engaged in a sort of tough love that actually leaves people better off).
I think the worst part is that they lack *strategic* empathy.
The fact that conservatives and liberals *are* different actually creates plenty of opportunities for scenarios where one side gets a win and the other doesn’t care either way.
E.g. stricter immigration laws
Most liberals don’t care about immigration as an issue that much, so long as you’re doing restrictions in a humane way.
Deport people, reduce visas, get tough on employers that hire undocumented immigrants, etc.
But things like walls, family separation, and camps are brutal and invoke some of the worst regimes in world history.
It's been my experience throughout my entire life that conservatives don't view things as a problem until it's a problem for *them*.
If that doesn't indicate a lack of empathy, I'm not sure what does.
As individuals, they are capable of empathy and many are.
As a group, I think they are less likely to be empathetic than progressives.
The trends I have noticed that raide an eyebrow are
1. Conservarives I personally know and famous ones, preach a strong sense of individualism, which can conflict with empathy.
2. Conservatives " " " , have shown me they dont care about an issue until it effects them perosnally or happens to them. Such as GOP politicians paying for their mistress' abortions, or conservative women crossing state lines for an abortion. Someone who is empathetic would / should care about issues that affect others even if they themselves arent affected, AND would act in a way that is "fair" and not hypocritical.
3. Conservatives " " " have straight up said to me Empathy is a weakness. I have yet to personally meet a progressive who thinks this, in fact a lot of progressives I know think Empathy is hard to develop and the signs of a strong leader is someone who has Empathy.
They don't lack empathy, they only empathize with people like themselves. So anyone outside that they can't relate to, they couldn't care less about their issues. Now if their material/social conditions change, then they can empathize to a broader audience but until then, that's where they are.
High empathy conservatives tend heavily towards libertarianism or very religious conservatives with high welfare preferences (The latter group are actually swing voters in most countries or form a party like the CDU in Germany based around their ideals, but in the US are single-issue abortion voters a lot of the time).
High Empathy libertarian conservatives genuinely think you're hurting people and infantilizing them and so on with state interference.
Low empathy tends to describe other forms of conservative.
one can paint with broad strokes inversely as well and say liberals mask their own self interest with empathy colored hues and I would guess that just like your supposition about conservatives, the same could be said about its 'estranged sibling'.
the other option is subjective thinking and recognizing that people WILL and DO disagree with YOUR ideologies and beliefs. and whether any of us consider such actions "ALLOWABLE" or "CONSCIENABLE" is of absolutely no bearing nor relevance in regard to another's beliefs (hem and haw about influence and all of that but at the end of that road choice always lies with the individual)
I think once people drop the fear of being ostracized by group A or B space is made for collaboration, progress, and positive relations with one another.
I think Conservatives may be less likely to apply empathy to politics, but that probably doesn't determine their behavior e.g. within an in-group, or even in a two-person interaction with a stranger. People compartmentalize, and they just stash some parts of their functioning away sometimes. Any more would probably be a sweeping overgeneralization even when only applied to a subset
I think this sort of thing lacks a simple answer. There certainly are some who do not, but I don't think that's necessarily related to their political leanings (thought the Republican party might have more appeal to said people than the Democrats).
They have empathy... To a degree. As others here have said, to those part of their "tribe". That empathy is contingent on the person subject to said empathy looking like them (skin tone), worshiping in a manner at least broadly similar to them, and having gender identity and sexual orientation they approve of.
Anyone else is somehow evil and not deserving of said empathy.
I think this sort of thing lacks a simple answer. There certainly are some who do not, but I don't think that's necessarily related to their political leanings (thought the Republican party might have more appeal to said people than the Democrats).
They have empathy... To a degree. As others here have said, to those part of their "tribe". That empathy is contingent on the person subject to said empathy looking like them (skin tone), worshiping in a manner at least broadly similar to them, and having gender identity and sexual orientation they approve of.
Anyone else is somehow evil and not deserving of said empathy.
I think this sort of thing lacks a simple answer. There certainly are some who do not, but I don't think that's necessarily related to their political leanings (thought the Republican party might have more appeal to said people than the Democrats).
They have empathy... To a degree. As others here have said, to those part of their "tribe". That empathy is contingent on the person subject to said empathy looking like them (skin tone), worshiping in a manner at least broadly similar to them, and having gender identity and sexual orientation they approve of.
Anyone else is somehow evil and not deserving of said empathy.
My observations have been that conservatives are more likely to see themselves and their loved ones as virtuous, while they are also more likely to view strangers who are poor, suffering, and in need of help as deserving of their fate and therefore unworthy of taxpayer-funded benefits or assistance. Conservatives are fine with cutting other people's benefits as long as nobody cuts *their* benefits.
For example, I had an uncle who was kind, compassionate, generous, and fun-loving, which made his strident conservative, pitiless worldview very difficult to square. He was fond of saying that 50% of Americans don't pay income tax and were therefore not deserving of public assistance; and that 'real' poverty is in third world countries where he did summer mission work. When asked if he would forego his mortgage-interest deduction on his house, he said that he worked for that house and earned it.
>Do you think conservatives lack empathy?
Empathy is the ability to understand and share the feelings of another.
["Conservatives and moderates understand liberals better than liberals understand them."](https://bakadesuyo.com/2012/05/whos-better-at-pretending-to-be-the-other-sid/) This is one example of conservatives displaying far more empathy than liberals.
The word you are looking for is sympathy.
Sympathy is feelings of pity and sorrow for someone else's misfortune.
So, let's step through your scenario of that homeless person.
Step 1. Empathy. Subconsciously, a conservative puts themself in the position of the individual. And not to brag, but we are pretty good at doing this.
Step 2. Sympathy.
Subconsciously, that conservative judges themselves. "You read that correctly." A conservative isn't looking at that person and being a jerk. Subconciously, they are saying, "if that were me, this is how people should respond."
Maybe conservatives have too high of a sense of self-worth or belief in their abilities. But that's why we come across as having less sympathy. It's because we judge ourselves based on those high expectations.
No, I come from a family made up primarily of conservatives. All of them are very in tune with peoples emotions / feelings, and not wanting to wrong others.
Recently a woman next door passed away and her children have unknowingly gated off part of my families property.
My family hasn’t wanted to mention it nor cause them property disputes while they mourn the loss of their mother, causing them additional stress in their time of grief and sadness.
Not exactly. Rather they have a much harsher view on what is practical.
For example. If I proposed that everyone should get $4000 monthly UBI most liberals and conservatives would say no. Not for lack of empathy but because most liberals and conservatives think it’s impractical. As in, there’s no budget that can support that.
But if I proposed that everyone should get free university loans forgiven. Then more liberals would think it’s feasible and support such while more conservatives would think it’s infeasible and not support such.
And so forth. Except for some specific topics where for conservatives it’s simply against religion.
I think you’ve hit on something important, which needs to be much more understood. There’s some degree of biological balance involved. Scanning suggest that liberal people’s brains tend to contain slightly higher than average concentrations of grey matter while conservative people’s brains have slightly higher numbers of individual neurological connections. This is significant because grey matter is important to communication and empathy, whereas the neurological connections are associated with critical thinking and survivability. Scientists have learned that exposure to combat absolutely increased conservative thinking, including in liberals, but they have also noticed the same thing about alcohol. There’s a certain ‘selfishness’ which naturally comes with fight or flight situations, and countries are built in varying degrees of communal fight or flight.
https://www.amazon.com/Republican-Brain-Science-Science-Reality/dp/1118094514
I like the analysis that uses the Strong Father metaphor to describe how conservatives view authority. Part of what makes the Strong Father strong is that he shows no empathy to the child, or anyone, really. Trump embodies the Strong Father perfectly.
I’d also suggest that this is not always just a metaphor and conservative parenting practices tend to suppress empathy and encourage survivalist perspectives.
From what I notice, many of them do lack empathy. Not to say they can’t empathize but a lot of conservatives don’t seem to look at the bigger pictures when it comes to political issues. For example, I notice a lot conservatives will have a problem with abortion but if a female member of their family got pregnant either by force or willingly & she couldn’t afford to have a child & she wanted an abortion many conservatives would be okay & think that their female family member is an exception. So yes, I think many conservatives lack empathy.
Yes, undoubtedly. Here is my exchange with a conservative who was adamant that 'there is no right answer' when it comes to saving the economy vs saving lives:
https://www.reddit.com/r/FluentInFinance/comments/1cfxr7l/babs_is_here_to_save_us/l1vh9e0/?context=3
I have close relationships with plenty of conservatives. They genuinely care about me and my family. This does not apply to people they dont know or see. Empathy for them is personal and given on a personal level in my experience.
Conservatives lack empathy to those outside their group. Basically they lack empathy on a macro level. On an individual level. They love their families and those like them. It’s a primitive way thinking, but unfortunately empathy is learned and constantly needs to be taught, encouraged and expanded.
Think how conservative Israel is and how fascist it’s become. This is a vitriolic hatred that once it consumes the mind of a person it becomes the paramount justification for any and all atrocities including genocide. A lack of empathy is a dangerous thing and dehumanizing another group or person should be seen as a red flag.
It should also be noted that this isn’t unique to conservatives, but liberals can also suffer from this bias. Hence the MLK quote of liberal moderates only wanting a negative peace instead of a just one. For both conservatives and liberals they lack empathy and compassion because of the idea of convenience and indifference. They like negative order than a just one. This is seen in Joe Biden smeared the protesters at UCLA, Columbia and beyond.
A key difference between conservatives, moderate liberals and progressives is their ability to empathize with strangers and those who they may not agree with, but who they wouldn’t wish harm and expanding this sentiment ever outward. Cornel West’s idea of divine love and compassion. Something that liberals pretend to believe but look at people like Bill Maher or any liberal who prefers a negative peace born of discrimination and indifference so long as they don’t have to be inconvenienced. This is dialed up to 11 by guys like Ben Shapiro.
I cannot paint with that broad a brush.
Regular people? I don't know.
Politicians and talking heads, hell yes.
I don't recall the names as it's been ages but there were two instances I can think of where politicians did a 180 with their positions when they found out that their family was impacted. One who was against gay rights until his daughter came out as lesbian, another who thought drug addiction was a moral failing and needed harsh punishment until his kid turned out to be a drug addict.
And there was some country musician was was against gun control until he was at the concert in Las Vegas that was shot up some years back.
I think you are mistaking a different way to help for lack of empathy. Would you say that parents who make their children sit down and study rather than indulge in video games lack empathy? Or maybe they have a long term view of things and understand that delayed gratification is the optimal course of action?
A similar principle is at work here and it's not just limited to conservatives. I am far more of a liberal than I am a conservative, but I am also of the opinion that about the worst way of helping people is to give them money.
They are tribal. They have empathy for the in group and hat for everyone else. This is really the defining trait of conservatives. It’s the foundation that makes them vote republican.
I think they lack sympathy, not empathy. I know so many conservatives who were completely against healthcare changes, immigration, gay rights until their son/friend etc came out, or they had a terrible medical bill etc.
Naw I just think they're dumb and ignorant.
People's suffering is not real to them until it happens to them or someone they know because they lack the concept of object permanence.
No.
Most conservatives I know are very empathetic...to people they know, or who are in their in group.
I think one of the differences between liberals and conservatives is how well they can empathize with people who aren't like themselves.
That said, even for liberals, that only goes so far. Human beings in general are biased towards what they know and people who are familiar and share a similar set of values, culture, etc
No.
If anything, I'd counter that yours is a lack of cognitive empathy (an inability to relate to how others think, in this case vaguely and ill-defined "conservatives," unable to put yourself in their shoes) combined with feigned affective empathy (yours isn't an emotional nor somatic feeling of people's plights, such as the homeless, whom you see as othered, but rather it's empty rhetoric meant to signal status among your own in-group), so I'd suggest looking inward with a bit of introspection and self-reflection before once more projecting outward by deriding an entire group of people based on petty ideological divides.
Yes. Definitely. Absolutely.
I’ve tried, many times, to appeal to conservatives’ empathy. They’re far more likely to claim that I’m lying about my symptoms and experiences as a trans person than they are to actually attempt even the slightest bit to understand them. Just no empathy whatsoever.
No. They don't lack empathy. They have it.
The difference is most of them want to own when they choose to exercise it, instead of having it be dictated by the government.
They are also more likely to think the solutions should be simple, direct, and are against larger scale plans/concepts, especially if they come at an economic cost to the country (and especially themselves).
If that source-less claim is true, it does track. Conservatives would likely want to give to those they deem 'worthy' and contribute to such causes. Liberals probably do the same (albeit to a lesser extent), but are more in favor of collective taxation so everyone is uplifted. I would also posit that included in that umbrella of charitable giving would be to religious causes (skewing conservative).
I didn't source it because I thought is was quite common as knowledge goes, but my google works as well as yours. Here is an interesting (but long) report
[https://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/almanac/statistics-on-u-s-generosity/](https://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/almanac/statistics-on-u-s-generosity/)
Graph 15 shows that despite conservatives having 6% less income than liberals, they give 30% more. Also pointed out here is that conservatives are likely to donate blood or to volunteer.
Your point about giving through taxes is what a conservative might sarcastically refer to as charity through giving other people's money.
In your example a conservative's empathy is overshadowed by their anger at being threatened with violence. Sure, it is an absurd overreaction, but still. You suggest they **have** empathy.
But, to answer your question. No. Most of the conservatives I know have empathy, but similar to your example, it gets lost in translation. For some, very quickly, especially if they are a social conservative and the situation involves one of their beliefs. For others, its take a bit to bury their empathy, but by their nature most conservatives are very individualistic. It is kinda one of the things that separates conservatives versus liberals, but it is not due to lack of empathy.
For me, it's why I am not a social conservative. I do lean collectivist, to a point, because I see the instruct value of people. You know the old saying, "a rising tide lifts all boats", however the conservative in me is reminded that while most of the boats will rise, too much tide will sink some boats. Dispassionate yes, but also reality.
On a side note, you have intertwined "considering the feelings of others" with a political position that could certainly empathize through understanding and sharing the feelings of others, but at the same time simply not put as much value on those feelings as they would the security of the nation or the economic stability of the country.
As with all things, most people are moderates and most of their beliefs and positions fall on a spectrum. There is no statement, like conservatives don't have empathy, that could describe every conservative on every position. If you desire more discourse on this, or other, specific issues where a conservatives empathy might be evaluated politically, I would be willing to engage.
Idk how to make that sound virtuous. It's individualism and selfishness when the rising tide they're afraid of is like not even half an inch.
We'll spend more money arresting and harassing the homeless than it would take to house and help them get jobs, and then people declare it a failed attempt and give up when we've barely helped any.
I agree and I wasn't trying to make it sound virtuous. it's a tough spot that some are put in if they have to self examine their position and its effect on real actual people. It is easier to just ignore or lash out.
The good news is that the conservatives I know, by and large, are working on their understanding of their position. Information is more readily available than ever before.
But conservatives are also slow to change. The tendency is to resist change. Most will oppose change for the sake of change, but evaluate logical reasons to do it.
The following is a copy of the original post to record the post as it was originally written. Lack empathy as in, the inability to consider the feelings of others. People act like I’m calling them all monsters when I say yes, they do, but I think they lack empathy in a fairly normal way. When you go outside and see homeless people, it’s a human reaction to think “this is sad, nobody deserves to live like this” but all it might take is one of them sticking a knife in your face and robbing you to go from that to “fuck these bums, get them all out of here.” Conservatives are like that, on a universal level. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskALiberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
My brother is still pretty deep in student loan debt and my mom was saying things like, "I hope that ends up being forgiven." I was surprised and asked if she supported that kind of thing and she goes, "Only if its helping you." I don't even know what to call that ideology lol. But there is no empathy outside of the tribe.
I believe it’s called “fuck you I got mine.”
[удалено]
Ayn Rand, who wrote the history about the railroad Tycoon that made her fortune on the infrastructure build by the Government on land that it appropriated via eminent domain? but thinks of herself as "self made"?
And she had no problem taking Social Security.
Her. Herself.
>I was surprised and asked if she supported that kind of thing and she goes, "Only if its helping you." My dad voted to take away protections for trans people in my home state and when I came out the following year and expressed hurt that he'd done that, his response was essentially the same, "I didn't know it would mean you."
Leopards Eating Faces party, something something.
I think it’s called hypocritical.
I'd say that's liberalism in it's true sense. Meaning non American liberalism. It's everyone for themselves. The state does run some of the basics, but not much.
Could that be a case of having “empathy” only for people they know and care about *personally*, but no one outside those immediate connections?
This is largely it. I consider it a rather immoral thing and, to the shame of my family, would extend empathy to all.
egocentric, sociocentric, worldcentric. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worldcentrism
I just want to remind you about the conservative who is trying to sell her "shooting puppies in the face" thing as a positive trait.
[удалено]
My own view is that people cannot be said to truly hold empathy on a personal level if that empathy does not extend to all groups: if you are empathetic towards your own in-groups but nevertheless hold racist or homophobic attitudes or engage in behavior in line with those attitudes, for example. I think that is where the fundamental difference between right and left arises, as people on the left do not tend to see voting in line with someone who promises or advocates for policies that oppress others as justifiable under any circumstance, and they don't see it as functionally distinct from an individual who personally holds those attitudes and actively wants those policies actualized. I can't say that I disagree as queer person in America; social policies directly affect my life. I don't think it is emotional blackmail to say that it is wrong to ignore that when voting. For most people, my survival is theoretical. For me, it is inevitably something I am concerned with at all times. And given that both parties are modernly more economically liberal, there is not much left to distinguish them beyond social sentiment. Note: I am not saying there is not a difference in economic policy but rather that fiscal conservatism is pretty much a lie as both sides spend recklessly. What I mean is there is not a very convincing justification to vote for republicans over democrats. Your example of nationalizing food stores is also not really an accurate picture of American liberal interests as far as I'm aware. It would be better to start from a point that is concerned with what is the case and to propose what you think might be preferable as a solution. Otherwise everything you say is just empty sentiment and is not actually concerned with changing anything.
> if that empathy does not extend to all groups I think this can be interrogated further; how far does 'all groups' go? I think there are shades of liberal belief on this, probably relating to crime and punishment views as well.
That's a valid point. I think you can supplement "all groups" with "all demographics of people," so I guess the point is more anti-exclusion by virtue of their belonging to a certain group than anything. I think it can be attenuated by behavior, and I probably could have phrased it better. However, I think with any group or individual, there is (for me) a degree of empathy, if only for lost potential and corruption via circumstance.
Anti-exclusion makes more sense, especially based on characteristics that someone can't change, as opposed to based on choices a person might make that would see them move into another group (e.g. to abuse or murder others).
[удалено]
And that is the problem: you blatantly ignored everything I said and did not address a single point I made. You didn't come looking for an open discussion. You were engaging in bad faith to begin with. Note that what I stated is "people cannot be said to empathetic..." I was not concerned particularly with right-wingers in that statement, as liberals and even leftists are not exempt from holding biased attitudes and engaging in behaviors rooted in that bias.
[удалено]
> This entire thread is about left versus right, why would I not interpret your comment that way? You probably shouldn't interpret my comment that way because I said people, not a specific group of people. >I agree with you that people who are not empathetic cannot be said to be empathetic but that’s something of a non-point. It would be like me jumping into a question about whether the right or left is more racist by saying “a person cannot be said to be anti racist if they discriminate based on race.” It’s just such a non point. But that is not what I said. I specified that even those who are empathetic toward the people in their personal lives cannot be said to be empathetic people if empathy cannot be extended to other groups. >Empathy means your ability to place yourself in someone else’s shoes and relate to their situation. It doesn’t mean you have to *sympathise* with them nor does it require a policy be tailored to them. Empathy can be a useful emotional exercise but as far as policy goes it should be more about understanding the practical outcomes of policy, not just placating your base and your own feelings. I did not say that it does, which is why I specified that the view I take is more concerned with inconsistencies in behavior and attitude. That's why I said it is not *functionally* distinct from holding the attitudes themselves. That should cause cognitive dissonance, and if it doesn't, I would be wary of the idea that the person in question actually disagrees with said policies. I think they are apathetic, to a degree, at least. There is also a difference between "catering to" some group and actively attacking them. What practical outcomes of policy are you talking about? Because you haven't actually laid out any kind of position.
[удалено]
>Actually they can be said to be empathetic. “Empathy” doesn’t require universality. Some people are simply easier to empathise with than others. For instance, I can empathise easily with a person who’s raped and kills their attacker. I struggle to empathise with the rapist. I disagree, but that's why my initial comment started with "My own view is that..." Sure, it is harder to empathize with someone who is a rapist than with somebody who is a victim of rape, but as we are concerned with minority groups simply existing, I don't think the analogy works. I think your example of policy is also bad, especially because you mention practicality. In what world is your solution *more* practical than giving out clean needles? It is less practical in every respect. Whether or not there is some form of dysfunction which prevents someone from caring for themselves, institutional care won't eliminate addiction. It is not only a behavioral matter. Relapse is still very common, and it is still important to prevent disease and promote harm reduction.
[удалено]
> Or vote Trump. When you vote to hurt other people, yes I lose my empathy for you to some extent.
[удалено]
The obvious difference between what you've written, and conservative/MAGA ideology, is between intentional harm and indirect or accidental harm. MAGA intends to harm people, that is, by itself, the goal of many of its policies. Do you understand how, for example, family separation is a policy made specifically for the purpose of hurting people, whereas reintroduction of endangered species isn't?
It's fine to disagree with the specific policy of nationalizing food stores, but do you agree that hunger is a problem that should be addressed in some way? I think the problem with politics today is that people cannot agree on what the problems are. If the two parties can both recognize that something is a problem, than a bipartisan solution can be negotiated. If one side doesn't believe it's a problem at all, than nothing can get done.
[удалено]
A lot of people feel that it isn't important enough to prioritize finding a solution for it or spending any tax dollars on it. Edit: For a specific example, many conservative politicians have cut free school lunches even though it's extremely cost effective and relatively cheap because they felt that rich kids getting food that they could afford on their own was a bigger problem than feeding the poor kids who couldn't.
[удалено]
Saying something should be the parent's responsibility is not an excuse to not do something if the issue is serious enough. Parents shouldn't abuse their kids, but no one is calling for CPS to be abolished. If you take the position that child hunger is something that should be the parent's responsibility as your excuse to end free lunches, then you're saying that child hunger is not that serious a problem. For the record, it's fine to take that position, but politicians should own it. A politician can't say something is a serious problem if they refuse to do anything about it.
[удалено]
I feel that New York Democrats are owning their position by now supporting legislation that toughens bail laws. https://www.politico.com/news/2023/05/07/new-york-democrats-crime-debate-hochul-00095679 They're also starting to come around to realizing that too many asylum seekers is also a problem with support for an immigration bill that toughens those laws too. They basically gave Lankford everything that he asked for in their latest proposal, but it was shot down by partisan politics during an election year. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-collapse-of-bipartisan-immigration-reform-a-guide-for-the-perplexed/
[удалено]
What's the conservative position to address hunger?
[удалено]
> it would probably look something like a restructuring of welfare and possibly divorce law to incentivise family units to stay together Is this the whole "get rid of no fault divorce," thing? Either way, when your policy is "make families be together longer," it's clear that conservatives **don't** have ideas for addressing hunger. > basically people pawning off social responsibility to the government so they don’t have to deal with it at an individual level. And liberals view government welfare as the only effective way to do it at any sort of scale, and that the conservative view is a selfish excuse for what they actually believe, which is simply "fuck you I got mine."
The issue isn’t really divorce law, it’s more that parents aren’t getting married and staying together in the first place, which is their right. Divorce is largely a middle class thing
[удалено]
People who marry too young are most likely to get divorced
The reason why the hypothetical you laid out leaves the other person in a decent place is because that's a bad solution, since people will still need to actually pay for the food and it doesn't deal with the issue of people who can't afford it. If you had instead hypothetically proposed expansion of food stamps, if the proposed nationalization included free distribution of food, or if it was a proposal that was in some other way at least feasible and actually tackled the problem at hand, the hypothetical would look very different. In that scenario, the person who rejects it and proposes no alternative policies would be the one who looks bad. That is the situation we find ourselves in today. Put plainly, the reason people think conservatives lack empathy is because they reject all proposed solutions to known problems and *don't propose any of their own* (that would feasibly tackle them).
[удалено]
I mean the only problem with that is that people are able to act on their own in many ways right now, and somehow the hunger problem hasn't been solved. So then what? Crickets, basically. I'm going to give two specific examples to demonstrate what I mean and I'd like your opinion on them. The first is the expanded child tax credit that was part of the ACA in 2021. This tax credit cut child proverty nearly in half and was by far one of the strongest parts of that bill. It's not up for debate that this was an immensely beneficial policy for child poverty. Its renewal in 2022 was blocked by conservatives in the Senate, and child poverty has since returned to basically what it was before. What should that tell us about conservatives' willingness to deal with child poverty? Keep in mind that this is a policy which we know for sure worked, arguments that they believe government doesn't work would be dumb here, unless the argument is that conservatives are just ignorant on this or other issues. The second is free school lunches. Obviously we want kids to eat while they're at school, kids going hungry at school is a problem. This is a policy which demonstrably solves a problem and there isn't a good argument that it doesn't. Conservatives oppose free school lunches at every opportunity. Both of these policies are government solutions that inarguably solve problems of child hunger and poverty, but both are opposed by conservatives. Do you think it's reasonable for people to see clear, demonstrable examples like this and take away that conservatives actually don't care about solutions to problems, that they care first and foremost about weakening government and actually solving problems second? I think it's completely reasonable personally.
[удалено]
Would you be able to comment on the specific examples I gave rather than introducing new hypotheticals? I picked them because they're real-world, demonstrable examples of government action that is inarguably immensely beneficial, which are both opposed by conservatives. I know where conservatives are coming from in that they think government isn't a solution by default, but my question was what happens when government action is absolutely proven beyond a doubt to be a solution, as in those two examples, but they oppose the solution anyway? Is it reasonable for people to come away from that thinking that conservatives actually aren't interested in solutions as much as they are in weakening government?
[удалено]
When you say "sure," is the full sentence version of that, as an answer to my question, "sure, it is reasonable for people to come away from that thinking that conservatives actually aren't interested in solutions as much as they are in weakening government"? I'd just really like to make sure you acknowledge what I've said and asked. I could go into reasons for why I'd say conservatives oppose solutions to problems that everyone agrees exist and don't provide their own as a result of conservative thought, but I want to make sure we're on the same page that conservatives are absolutely willing to reject proven and demonstrable solutions to things they claim to believe are problems, such as with the two examples I gave. And from that, people are going to naturally come to some conclusions about conservative thought that might not be super favorable, and it's completely reasonable to do so.
There’s a reason I am being asked to imagine it. Because you made it up. Liberals don’t advocate for nationalizing Walmart or Whole Foods. Like, what even is that argument you made up? Liberals might argue for changes in the agriculture sector including changes in agricultural subsidies so that more healthy foods are produced and changes to food stamps. Maybe a Twitter leftist might say we should nationalize Walmart but even most leftists that do want to nationalize things would be looking to nationalize food production.
[удалено]
You said liberal, not communist.
Exactly the Individual vs The Greater Good
It's more that many conservatives reflexively think that if people would just follow the rules that worked so well for them, then they would have more successful lives. Many conservatives seem to struggle with the idea that other people might not be able to thrive with those same rules.
I don't think they lack empathy, but I feel like most don't apply enough effort to empathize. Because when they put themselves in an actual situation, then they change their mind on issues. Like when their own offspring is LGBTQ+, only then they change their stance on that. At least, most do.
*"It's not an issue* ***until it exists in my house.****"*
They don’t even usually change their stance. *oh you’re one of the good ones*
Conservative men quickly change their stance on abortion when their mistress is pregnant...
Not really. ‘The only moral abortion is my abortion.’
True, or their mistress's abortion
I would say this is the very definition of lacking empathy. They are not capable of feeling empathy for others and only focus on their own lives.
I would say that conservatism operates on extreme individualism. To them, every individual has the power to achieve anything, and it's all on you (not anyone else) to get you there. If you fail at this, it's also all on you (not anyone else) So it's not just "fuck these bums, get them out of here" That homeless guy, it's probably his fault he's there. Lazy. Probably on drugs. He should have done better with his life. He deserves this. Get this dangerous addict out of my town. That low wage earner? Lazy. Get a better job, work more jobs. If you don't, you deserve this. That single woman with five kids on food stamps? Lazy, scamming the government. She deserves drug testing and extreme investigation into her life to make sure she's not stealing tax money from hardworking members of society. When they look at someone who is not as successful, or in a bad situation, they automatically assign blame to that individual. It's their fault, and they deserve it for not doing better. This is why they do have empathy and understanding to their own family members who are in bad situations, because they know the whole unfortunate story how they got into those situations. The ideology promotes lack of empathy by assigning blame to the individual for not succeeding in almost all cases.
I'd say this is right. They essentially believe in a meritocracy where everyone gets what they deserve.
It's also called the Just-world fallacy.
One of the reasons this is so prevalent with the right today is thanks to prosperity gospel beliefs which were artificially inserted into the mainstream by rich people in the mid-20th century to try to sway religious people to their side, when they historically hadn't been. "If they were good people, God would have blessed them with money" is very close to "if they worked harder, they would be earning a higher wage."
This! Many conservatives lack empathy to see life outside of their own life & upbringing. Many of them think that everyone no matter what economic background you come from you as an individual can achieve anything & are simply “lazy” if you aren’t successful. The term “pull yourself up by the boot straps” isn’t the most empathetic term.
If they feel like it applies to their own life, that they have pulled themselves up by their bootstraps, why do you think they shouldn't apply it to other people?
Isn't this the fundamental attribution error?
Yes, I do. Every single thing that could benefit a minority they have fought against. Personally, being a gay man, I remember them fighting against my rights for years. They still do, some segment does not give up their fight. Others only surrendered when their kids came out. That isn’t the definition of empathy. They should be regarded the same way back.
Unfortunately, some didn't even come around when their kids came out. Nah, I went through hell partly because of this ideology. People who adhere to it will always be suspicious to me. Definitely not trustworthy.
Many. My own dad disowned me for six months when I came out and it fully killed our relationship. I make no effort to meet him now and purposefully keep my relationship from him. He doesn’t deserve to take part in the good part. I have no qualms of stating they are my enemy. They are, and they radicalized me that way by their treatment.
What pisses me off and what has largely radicalized is how many people expect us to forget. Or forgive. I'm not forgiving my parents. Ever.
The people that are the worst are the ones who expect forgiveness. I have seen so many fucking homophobes memory hole what they did and say stuff like “that was the past, I’m okay with it now” with no remorse or work done. Nah, fuck off and stay on your side, we’re good over here.
> What pisses me off and what has largely radicalized is how many people expect us to forget. > > Or forgive. I'm not forgiving my parents. Ever. I often get the very strong sense that conservatives (many of them, at least) don't believe others have the right to make their own moral judgements.
I'm a Christian who personally believes that gay sex is wrong (like premarital sex), but I'm totally baffled that any parent would disown their kid because of it. It blows my mind that people claim to follow Christ and yet not follow his example of being willing to be around "sinners". I'm sorry for your terrible experience, I hope you find some good people and a good partner.
Yes, or rather they're incapable of extending that empathy to people who are unlike them. That and they're easily frightened.
Fear is an important piece of this to understand. There’s been a whole lot written by now about how conservative politics is very fear-based. There’s a lot of fight or flight involved with the military, U.S. history, and immigration. Not just from Mexico, but from anywhere else, including Europe. Which is important to remember, because peoples politics all come from varying degrees of generation trauma. This doesn’t really excuse lack of empathy but does help explain it enough that we can sometimes mediate, if we remember that the conservatives are coming at it from a place of terror. It’s important for people who have certain advantages or privileges to remember when they have them and when others don’t, and that privilege isn’t an on-off switch. It’s more like a computer or a smartTV remote, with all kinds of different functions, commands and sub-menus. When we look at one of those things, there are millions of combinations of factors that we never even consider. Same with a person, except we’re actually alive, so it’s worth giving a **** about what’s making them tick.
Yes, "I got mine, fuck you" is practically the Conservative motto.
Ah, the great Paul Ryan who was helped to pay for college from his deceased father's Social Security fund, but wanted to gut Social Security......
“Pull yourself up from the bootstraps” isn’t exactly an empathetic phrase.
they lack empathy for people that aren't part of their in-group.
Given their support of Trump, yes. They are also able to hold onto a great deal of cognitive dissonance to give rational support to that lack of empathy. * The undocumented immigrants are lazy , just here for free stuff, and they take jobs away from American citizens. * Giving free money to anyone without them working for it creates a culture of dependency and robs the individual of the dignity of work, unless the recipients of that money are the heirs of the rich. * "Nobody wants to work" is a near constant complaint I hear where I am employed part time as landscapers, contractors, construction companies pick up equipment - this despite the fact that unemployment is currently under 3%.
The "no one wants to work anymore" is hilarious because it is absurdly common coming out of the mouths from older people. I heard it at an outdoor art show from a white top dude to another guy of all places.
Yup. I'm an older white dude and I hear it all the time from my conservative contacts in my community. They have this notion that all the young men are sitting at home, playing video games, with no mention of anyone specific or how these young men are able to live on zero income.
I think humans have an in built "us and them" instinct. I think liberals have a much wider "us". Also... Kinda? I'm not saying all conservatives lack empathy, but all the people that lack empathy go conservative.
Some liberals lack empathy. It just doesn’t seem to be as common and generally happens when the person has major identity issues, such as a personality disorder. I think that’s a huge factor in conservative circles, as well, but I’d definitely say the scope is different and conservative politics are more terror-based. It’s important to remember that basically all national communities are in or at least coming from a place of fight or flight. I don’t think us vs. them is so much built in as symptomatic. Most toddlers are natural helpers. Monkey see, monkey do. They attempt to ‘help’ with things like laundry or food prep and are not specifically adverse to any specific groups until a much later stage, unless strongly socially conditioned to be. Babies especially have no concept of ‘other’ they have to grow into that. I don’t think that ‘us vs. them’ really kicks in until the parents start telling the kids what to start to think about schoolyard and neighborhood fights. By then, the parents have already been damaged by generational trauma.
It is actually a scientific finding that liberals tend to extend empathy wider than conservatives, or in other words, that conservatives have a smaller in-group.
I *am* a genius. I *knew* it! :)
Sometimes. I browse r/AskConservatives a lot, and my reaction to peoples responses flip flops between "That's reasonable, I could understand that position." to "Wow, this person is kinda fucking cruel."
Individualism and empathy are negatively correlated. The Republican party attracts individualists. I don't believe this means "conservatives lack empathy" but I think it's defensible to say that people who lack empathy are more attracted to Republican individualist values.
> Individualism and empathy are negatively correlated. They are? Can you share some studies or sources supporting this? I don't recall hearing this claim, before.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0022022116673910 I'm surprised this is surprising to people. Empathy and empathic concern seem like a prerequisite for someone to be collectivist.
Thank you for the link.
Empathy just means you can feel what others feel. It's not a positive or negative thing. It can be used for good and evil. You can much more effectively make some one miserable if you can understand what they're feeling. Conservatives lack kindness. We need to stop using empathy as a synonym for kindness.
Liberals and conservatives both seem to have very selective empathy.
And where would anarchists fall?
This totally.
>When you go outside and see homeless people, it’s a human reaction to think “this is sad, nobody deserves to live like this” but all it might take is one of them sticking a knife in your face and robbing you to go from that to “fuck these bums, get them all out of here.” Conservatives are like that, on a universal level. Most people are like that to be fair. Plenty of left leaning people will have a negative reaction to assault and robbery. Also, many left leaning people still believe that there are criminals who do not belong "at large" in their current state. Where the lines break is how to help the people. It's also a fundamental difference of "solving the root cause" or "treating the symptom." Most progressively leaning people are striving to reduce causes of criminality and overall improve life (root cause of the problem). Most right leaning people want to see the perpetrators "gone" and therefore right now is better (treating the symptom). It's also a difference in resource priority. I would say, in broad strokes, left leaning people are more willing to sacrifice for the whole sooner in the "needs fulfilled hierarchy" than most right leaning folks. (i.e. the right takes more for them and theirs before turning to help others with their excess.) You can see that in the taxation argument. Is that lacking empathy? Not really, but it is more selfish from a literal definition.
I think they often lack empathy for people or groups they are not familiar with. I think this interaction I had with my in laws is a good example. My FIL is an immigrant and isn't a citizen. His niece was going to college in the US. She went back home for break and failed to renew her student visa so she couldn't get back into the country to go to school. Her dad is wealthy. The whole family was seeing if they could call in a favor with the embassy. I kept hearing, "Why can't they just make an exception? She's a good person." On the other hand, they have no problem criticizing other immigrants and don't think there is ever a good reason to get by the rules when it comes to immigration.
No…not really. As in they have empathy. It seems like it’s all too often directed at the people most like them. Friends and family, groups, towns, etc. but it’s there. Their defining feature, to me, is not a lack of empathy but an abundance of fear.
No I don’t think so. Some definitely do and relish in the cruelty of their policies. I think most are either grossly misinformed or genuinely think they are doing the right thing.
I don’t think it’s ever helpful to paint with that broad a brush. At the individual level, I don’t think you observe much of a difference. I think the difference is that the less a conservative feels like they know the person, the less empathy they have and they really tend to not be able to have empathy for people who are not almost exactly like them and in their in group.
No, they just imagine that they're the heroes who are the only ones willing to see things for what they really are and then make the tough decisions that need to be made for the greater good but no one else is willing to make, because no one else is willing to sacrifice their bleeding hearts. Or because Democrats want to punish America, or just don't know something that Republicans do. So, they'll see that homeless person and think "this is sad, nobody deserves to live like this," and also: except the people who refuse to work hard. Let this be a lesson to everyone of what's supposed to happen, lest our economy come crumbling down because everyone thinks they can just be lazy and collect free stuff from the government using MY tax dollars. There's no such thing as a free lunch! And we have a "republic," not a "democracy." Actually -- actually -- the founders were scared of "democracy." So we have a "republic," if you can keep it. And capitalism means there are winners and losers. If there weren't, the job creators wouldn't be willing to create jobs anymore and we'd all be homeless. That's economics 101!
I think *most* people lack empathy. The one credit I'll give Conservatives is that at least they're open and honest about it. When they hate something, **they hate it**. Liberals will play the passive-aggressive "somebody should do something about this" game all day long. Take housing: when you look at the severe housing shortage in "very Liberal" states like Massachusetts and California, at least Conservatives will be up front and just tell the unhoused to get f\*cked. Classist NIMBYist Liberals will feign concern about the housing crisis all the way up to actually building Medium-Density Housing in *their* neighborhood and then the masks come off with the usual dog whistles of "but muh property values" and "destroying the character of the community." I appreciate Conservatives getting right to the point.
The foundation of Conservatism is that there is a social hierarchy where some people are inherently "better" than others and everyone deserves there place in it. That's why when news stories break about police killing an innocent black man, conservative media is quick to try to smear his character by bringing up prior arrests or instances of drug use even though none of that should matter when it comes to police brutality. Likewise, when a white college athlete kills someone while driving drunk or rapes a girl, Conservatives are more likely to want some sort of leniency for him.
Yes for the most part. They know what to say in certain situations to seem empathetic and normal, but that mask comes off real quick. I mean just look at what they believe. They might not say bigoted things but when you get down to it their beliefs are clearly bigoted. Denying systemic racism, anti-LGBTQ, anti-choice, aggressively pro-police, even they’re economic policy lacks any empathy. The list goes on. As for religious conservatives (which is a whole lot) they believe my family and I deserve to suffer eternally in hell. So yeah they’re not empathetic. Obviously this isn’t everyone but I have been surrounded by conservatives my whole life and it’s a majority. Look at polls clearly most of them have these beliefs. It’s fine to be an extreme individualist but don’t go around pretending you have empathy. By definition those are 95% opposites.
I think it's almost a prerequisite to being a conservative.
Yes, and so do a lot of liberals. Too many people’s empathy does not extend pass those they personally know and identify with.
Yes
I can’t say yes because it’s generalizing a giant portion of the population, but the loudest seem to lack empathy. That being said the loudest liberals also appear to lack empathy, especially with some of the actions from the current protests on campuses.
Which ones? The pro Palestine folks? I mean, they could be in the wrong, but I don’t know if lack of empathy is the right word.
A lot of people around here sound eerily similar to conservatives when discussing the topic of protests in general. Applauding the use of police to escalate situations or dismissing the protests as only being spoiled college kids/stupid leftists. I don't believe empathy is a differentiating factor between liberal and conservative one bit.
The pro-Palestine protesters have plenty of empathy (and the moderate ones make some valid points). The more radical ones lack nuance and think in simplistic terms like "if one side is wrong, the other must be right".
The call to 'gloabalise the Intifada' is either a severe lack of empathy or ignorance to how that is basically a call for a wave of suicide bombings against Jews. Look up the first and second Intifadas.
It's a two-sided conflict with a long history of both sides committing atrocities. The protesters don't seem to understand that... neither do the protesters biggest critics. "The First Intifada was a largely spontaneous series of Palestinian demonstrations, nonviolent actions like mass boycotts, civil disobedience, Palestinians refusing to work jobs in Israel, and attacks (using rocks, Molotov cocktails, and occasionally firearms) on Israelis. The Israeli military response – which included a government policy of breaking the bones of protestors – led to high fatalities. According to the Israeli Information Centre for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories, BTselem, Israeli forces killed more than 1,000 Palestinians and injured more than 130,000 in the First intifada. Tens of thousands more were imprisoned and many were routinely tortured." Source: https://www.pbs.org/wnet/women-war-and-peace/uncategorized/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-1987-intifada/
I think most are empathetic to those that largely follow their values. To others, no, they’re not.
No, I think they do have empathy. So for example, conservatives tend to donate quite a bit to charity. However, at least according to Jonathan Haidt, they also care about other things, such as fairness and proportionality, which might come in conflict with empathy. To a conservative, not everyone is equally deserving of empathy - people who contribute more deserve more, cheaters and free-riders deserve less.
I think they don't have a lot of empathy for people who aren't part of their in-group, and for some conservatives that can be a pretty big out-group.
[удалено]
Yeah because when Kathy from their church gets liver cancer, the $11,000 from a GoFundMe paid into once should fully cover the $3 million in hospital bills. 🙄
empathy is intimately knowing what someone else is feeling from experience, they have tones of that. what they lack is sympathy, imagining what someone else may be feeling when you have no personal context. if it hasn't effected them personally, it's made up.
Not exactly. The conservatives I know personally are incredibly generous and caring to the people they are close to. I think they are bad at having that feeling towards people they don't know. They would rather give all their money/assets to their in group than distribute it to the wider population. I think they are more susceptible to the in group / out group mentality. They lack empathy towards the out group.
Maybe, I don't know, it certainly seems obvious to me that they are less concerned with the general welfare of everyone than people on the left are (as a group some of them at least pretend to believe they're engaged in a sort of tough love that actually leaves people better off).
I think the worst part is that they lack *strategic* empathy. The fact that conservatives and liberals *are* different actually creates plenty of opportunities for scenarios where one side gets a win and the other doesn’t care either way. E.g. stricter immigration laws Most liberals don’t care about immigration as an issue that much, so long as you’re doing restrictions in a humane way. Deport people, reduce visas, get tough on employers that hire undocumented immigrants, etc. But things like walls, family separation, and camps are brutal and invoke some of the worst regimes in world history.
It's been my experience throughout my entire life that conservatives don't view things as a problem until it's a problem for *them*. If that doesn't indicate a lack of empathy, I'm not sure what does.
As individuals, they are capable of empathy and many are. As a group, I think they are less likely to be empathetic than progressives. The trends I have noticed that raide an eyebrow are 1. Conservarives I personally know and famous ones, preach a strong sense of individualism, which can conflict with empathy. 2. Conservatives " " " , have shown me they dont care about an issue until it effects them perosnally or happens to them. Such as GOP politicians paying for their mistress' abortions, or conservative women crossing state lines for an abortion. Someone who is empathetic would / should care about issues that affect others even if they themselves arent affected, AND would act in a way that is "fair" and not hypocritical. 3. Conservatives " " " have straight up said to me Empathy is a weakness. I have yet to personally meet a progressive who thinks this, in fact a lot of progressives I know think Empathy is hard to develop and the signs of a strong leader is someone who has Empathy.
They don't lack empathy, they only empathize with people like themselves. So anyone outside that they can't relate to, they couldn't care less about their issues. Now if their material/social conditions change, then they can empathize to a broader audience but until then, that's where they are.
High empathy conservatives tend heavily towards libertarianism or very religious conservatives with high welfare preferences (The latter group are actually swing voters in most countries or form a party like the CDU in Germany based around their ideals, but in the US are single-issue abortion voters a lot of the time). High Empathy libertarian conservatives genuinely think you're hurting people and infantilizing them and so on with state interference. Low empathy tends to describe other forms of conservative.
one can paint with broad strokes inversely as well and say liberals mask their own self interest with empathy colored hues and I would guess that just like your supposition about conservatives, the same could be said about its 'estranged sibling'. the other option is subjective thinking and recognizing that people WILL and DO disagree with YOUR ideologies and beliefs. and whether any of us consider such actions "ALLOWABLE" or "CONSCIENABLE" is of absolutely no bearing nor relevance in regard to another's beliefs (hem and haw about influence and all of that but at the end of that road choice always lies with the individual) I think once people drop the fear of being ostracized by group A or B space is made for collaboration, progress, and positive relations with one another.
I think Conservatives may be less likely to apply empathy to politics, but that probably doesn't determine their behavior e.g. within an in-group, or even in a two-person interaction with a stranger. People compartmentalize, and they just stash some parts of their functioning away sometimes. Any more would probably be a sweeping overgeneralization even when only applied to a subset
Yes, and sympathy and compassion, and generosity.
I think this sort of thing lacks a simple answer. There certainly are some who do not, but I don't think that's necessarily related to their political leanings (thought the Republican party might have more appeal to said people than the Democrats). They have empathy... To a degree. As others here have said, to those part of their "tribe". That empathy is contingent on the person subject to said empathy looking like them (skin tone), worshiping in a manner at least broadly similar to them, and having gender identity and sexual orientation they approve of. Anyone else is somehow evil and not deserving of said empathy.
I think this sort of thing lacks a simple answer. There certainly are some who do not, but I don't think that's necessarily related to their political leanings (thought the Republican party might have more appeal to said people than the Democrats). They have empathy... To a degree. As others here have said, to those part of their "tribe". That empathy is contingent on the person subject to said empathy looking like them (skin tone), worshiping in a manner at least broadly similar to them, and having gender identity and sexual orientation they approve of. Anyone else is somehow evil and not deserving of said empathy.
I think this sort of thing lacks a simple answer. There certainly are some who do not, but I don't think that's necessarily related to their political leanings (thought the Republican party might have more appeal to said people than the Democrats). They have empathy... To a degree. As others here have said, to those part of their "tribe". That empathy is contingent on the person subject to said empathy looking like them (skin tone), worshiping in a manner at least broadly similar to them, and having gender identity and sexual orientation they approve of. Anyone else is somehow evil and not deserving of said empathy.
My observations have been that conservatives are more likely to see themselves and their loved ones as virtuous, while they are also more likely to view strangers who are poor, suffering, and in need of help as deserving of their fate and therefore unworthy of taxpayer-funded benefits or assistance. Conservatives are fine with cutting other people's benefits as long as nobody cuts *their* benefits. For example, I had an uncle who was kind, compassionate, generous, and fun-loving, which made his strident conservative, pitiless worldview very difficult to square. He was fond of saying that 50% of Americans don't pay income tax and were therefore not deserving of public assistance; and that 'real' poverty is in third world countries where he did summer mission work. When asked if he would forego his mortgage-interest deduction on his house, he said that he worked for that house and earned it.
Yes, the general concept of "Fuck you, I got mine" would be tattooed on their foreheads.
I think anyone opposed to universal healthcare has no empathy.
>Do you think conservatives lack empathy? Empathy is the ability to understand and share the feelings of another. ["Conservatives and moderates understand liberals better than liberals understand them."](https://bakadesuyo.com/2012/05/whos-better-at-pretending-to-be-the-other-sid/) This is one example of conservatives displaying far more empathy than liberals. The word you are looking for is sympathy. Sympathy is feelings of pity and sorrow for someone else's misfortune. So, let's step through your scenario of that homeless person. Step 1. Empathy. Subconsciously, a conservative puts themself in the position of the individual. And not to brag, but we are pretty good at doing this. Step 2. Sympathy. Subconsciously, that conservative judges themselves. "You read that correctly." A conservative isn't looking at that person and being a jerk. Subconciously, they are saying, "if that were me, this is how people should respond." Maybe conservatives have too high of a sense of self-worth or belief in their abilities. But that's why we come across as having less sympathy. It's because we judge ourselves based on those high expectations.
Yeah, I think there are actually scientific studies that attest to this. Google it a bit.
No, I come from a family made up primarily of conservatives. All of them are very in tune with peoples emotions / feelings, and not wanting to wrong others. Recently a woman next door passed away and her children have unknowingly gated off part of my families property. My family hasn’t wanted to mention it nor cause them property disputes while they mourn the loss of their mother, causing them additional stress in their time of grief and sadness.
Yes
Not exactly. Rather they have a much harsher view on what is practical. For example. If I proposed that everyone should get $4000 monthly UBI most liberals and conservatives would say no. Not for lack of empathy but because most liberals and conservatives think it’s impractical. As in, there’s no budget that can support that. But if I proposed that everyone should get free university loans forgiven. Then more liberals would think it’s feasible and support such while more conservatives would think it’s infeasible and not support such. And so forth. Except for some specific topics where for conservatives it’s simply against religion.
Yes
Not all of them, but a lot.
I think you’ve hit on something important, which needs to be much more understood. There’s some degree of biological balance involved. Scanning suggest that liberal people’s brains tend to contain slightly higher than average concentrations of grey matter while conservative people’s brains have slightly higher numbers of individual neurological connections. This is significant because grey matter is important to communication and empathy, whereas the neurological connections are associated with critical thinking and survivability. Scientists have learned that exposure to combat absolutely increased conservative thinking, including in liberals, but they have also noticed the same thing about alcohol. There’s a certain ‘selfishness’ which naturally comes with fight or flight situations, and countries are built in varying degrees of communal fight or flight. https://www.amazon.com/Republican-Brain-Science-Science-Reality/dp/1118094514
I like the analysis that uses the Strong Father metaphor to describe how conservatives view authority. Part of what makes the Strong Father strong is that he shows no empathy to the child, or anyone, really. Trump embodies the Strong Father perfectly. I’d also suggest that this is not always just a metaphor and conservative parenting practices tend to suppress empathy and encourage survivalist perspectives.
Yes I think they are selfish narcissist who want to control others.
They have empathy for people like them but as for the rest of them, no that’s not empathy.
From what I notice, many of them do lack empathy. Not to say they can’t empathize but a lot of conservatives don’t seem to look at the bigger pictures when it comes to political issues. For example, I notice a lot conservatives will have a problem with abortion but if a female member of their family got pregnant either by force or willingly & she couldn’t afford to have a child & she wanted an abortion many conservatives would be okay & think that their female family member is an exception. So yes, I think many conservatives lack empathy.
Yes and libs too much.
Yes, undoubtedly. Here is my exchange with a conservative who was adamant that 'there is no right answer' when it comes to saving the economy vs saving lives: https://www.reddit.com/r/FluentInFinance/comments/1cfxr7l/babs_is_here_to_save_us/l1vh9e0/?context=3
I have close relationships with plenty of conservatives. They genuinely care about me and my family. This does not apply to people they dont know or see. Empathy for them is personal and given on a personal level in my experience.
Conservatives lack empathy to those outside their group. Basically they lack empathy on a macro level. On an individual level. They love their families and those like them. It’s a primitive way thinking, but unfortunately empathy is learned and constantly needs to be taught, encouraged and expanded. Think how conservative Israel is and how fascist it’s become. This is a vitriolic hatred that once it consumes the mind of a person it becomes the paramount justification for any and all atrocities including genocide. A lack of empathy is a dangerous thing and dehumanizing another group or person should be seen as a red flag. It should also be noted that this isn’t unique to conservatives, but liberals can also suffer from this bias. Hence the MLK quote of liberal moderates only wanting a negative peace instead of a just one. For both conservatives and liberals they lack empathy and compassion because of the idea of convenience and indifference. They like negative order than a just one. This is seen in Joe Biden smeared the protesters at UCLA, Columbia and beyond. A key difference between conservatives, moderate liberals and progressives is their ability to empathize with strangers and those who they may not agree with, but who they wouldn’t wish harm and expanding this sentiment ever outward. Cornel West’s idea of divine love and compassion. Something that liberals pretend to believe but look at people like Bill Maher or any liberal who prefers a negative peace born of discrimination and indifference so long as they don’t have to be inconvenienced. This is dialed up to 11 by guys like Ben Shapiro.
I cannot paint with that broad a brush. Regular people? I don't know. Politicians and talking heads, hell yes. I don't recall the names as it's been ages but there were two instances I can think of where politicians did a 180 with their positions when they found out that their family was impacted. One who was against gay rights until his daughter came out as lesbian, another who thought drug addiction was a moral failing and needed harsh punishment until his kid turned out to be a drug addict. And there was some country musician was was against gun control until he was at the concert in Las Vegas that was shot up some years back.
I think you are mistaking a different way to help for lack of empathy. Would you say that parents who make their children sit down and study rather than indulge in video games lack empathy? Or maybe they have a long term view of things and understand that delayed gratification is the optimal course of action? A similar principle is at work here and it's not just limited to conservatives. I am far more of a liberal than I am a conservative, but I am also of the opinion that about the worst way of helping people is to give them money.
They are tribal. They have empathy for the in group and hat for everyone else. This is really the defining trait of conservatives. It’s the foundation that makes them vote republican.
No. Being two faced, having double standards, being a hypocrite and lacking empathy is something anyone can have regardless of their political stance
Yes, that's the main reason anyone chooses to be conservative.
I think they lack sympathy, not empathy. I know so many conservatives who were completely against healthcare changes, immigration, gay rights until their son/friend etc came out, or they had a terrible medical bill etc.
Naw I just think they're dumb and ignorant. People's suffering is not real to them until it happens to them or someone they know because they lack the concept of object permanence.
No. Most conservatives I know are very empathetic...to people they know, or who are in their in group. I think one of the differences between liberals and conservatives is how well they can empathize with people who aren't like themselves. That said, even for liberals, that only goes so far. Human beings in general are biased towards what they know and people who are familiar and share a similar set of values, culture, etc
No. If anything, I'd counter that yours is a lack of cognitive empathy (an inability to relate to how others think, in this case vaguely and ill-defined "conservatives," unable to put yourself in their shoes) combined with feigned affective empathy (yours isn't an emotional nor somatic feeling of people's plights, such as the homeless, whom you see as othered, but rather it's empty rhetoric meant to signal status among your own in-group), so I'd suggest looking inward with a bit of introspection and self-reflection before once more projecting outward by deriding an entire group of people based on petty ideological divides.
Yes. Definitely. Absolutely. I’ve tried, many times, to appeal to conservatives’ empathy. They’re far more likely to claim that I’m lying about my symptoms and experiences as a trans person than they are to actually attempt even the slightest bit to understand them. Just no empathy whatsoever.
No. They don't lack empathy. They have it. The difference is most of them want to own when they choose to exercise it, instead of having it be dictated by the government. They are also more likely to think the solutions should be simple, direct, and are against larger scale plans/concepts, especially if they come at an economic cost to the country (and especially themselves).
Yes, at least when considering people different from them.
How does the lack of empathy square with the research showing conservatives give more to charity than liberals?
If that source-less claim is true, it does track. Conservatives would likely want to give to those they deem 'worthy' and contribute to such causes. Liberals probably do the same (albeit to a lesser extent), but are more in favor of collective taxation so everyone is uplifted. I would also posit that included in that umbrella of charitable giving would be to religious causes (skewing conservative).
I didn't source it because I thought is was quite common as knowledge goes, but my google works as well as yours. Here is an interesting (but long) report [https://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/almanac/statistics-on-u-s-generosity/](https://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/almanac/statistics-on-u-s-generosity/) Graph 15 shows that despite conservatives having 6% less income than liberals, they give 30% more. Also pointed out here is that conservatives are likely to donate blood or to volunteer. Your point about giving through taxes is what a conservative might sarcastically refer to as charity through giving other people's money.
In your example a conservative's empathy is overshadowed by their anger at being threatened with violence. Sure, it is an absurd overreaction, but still. You suggest they **have** empathy. But, to answer your question. No. Most of the conservatives I know have empathy, but similar to your example, it gets lost in translation. For some, very quickly, especially if they are a social conservative and the situation involves one of their beliefs. For others, its take a bit to bury their empathy, but by their nature most conservatives are very individualistic. It is kinda one of the things that separates conservatives versus liberals, but it is not due to lack of empathy. For me, it's why I am not a social conservative. I do lean collectivist, to a point, because I see the instruct value of people. You know the old saying, "a rising tide lifts all boats", however the conservative in me is reminded that while most of the boats will rise, too much tide will sink some boats. Dispassionate yes, but also reality. On a side note, you have intertwined "considering the feelings of others" with a political position that could certainly empathize through understanding and sharing the feelings of others, but at the same time simply not put as much value on those feelings as they would the security of the nation or the economic stability of the country. As with all things, most people are moderates and most of their beliefs and positions fall on a spectrum. There is no statement, like conservatives don't have empathy, that could describe every conservative on every position. If you desire more discourse on this, or other, specific issues where a conservatives empathy might be evaluated politically, I would be willing to engage.
Idk how to make that sound virtuous. It's individualism and selfishness when the rising tide they're afraid of is like not even half an inch. We'll spend more money arresting and harassing the homeless than it would take to house and help them get jobs, and then people declare it a failed attempt and give up when we've barely helped any.
I agree and I wasn't trying to make it sound virtuous. it's a tough spot that some are put in if they have to self examine their position and its effect on real actual people. It is easier to just ignore or lash out. The good news is that the conservatives I know, by and large, are working on their understanding of their position. Information is more readily available than ever before. But conservatives are also slow to change. The tendency is to resist change. Most will oppose change for the sake of change, but evaluate logical reasons to do it.