Spirituality - Page 2

High empathy makes you good at manipulating people IMO. Since empathy is defined as your ability to put yourself in someone's shoes and feel what they feel. I always thought that con artists and demagogues (like Hitler) had high levels of empathy and that perhaps some celebrities did too. But the problem is a lack of sympathy. In the case of celebrities, many seem to be highly narcissistic.

Anyway, what studies are these?

Chapelle is the GOAT of comedy. His jokes are multi-layered and people that get triggered usually don't grasp even 20% of what he's saying. That said - his last special was quite dull compared to any other work he's done with Netflix. It was his way of making an apology and showing sympathy towards the LGBT, but since they're not communicating on the same level he got taken as an arrogant prick and I feel like he diminished the value of his comedy in order to 'make amends' with them. The result was a show that didn't really satisfy any of the two goals.

Then again the majority of the viewers praise the show so maybe I'm the one that's off.

On November 14 2021 03:27 Stroggoz wrote: High empathy makes you good at manipulating people IMO. Since empathy is defined as your ability to put yourself in someone's shoes and feel what they feel. I always thought that con artists and demagogues (like Hitler) had high levels of empathy and that perhaps some celebrities did too. But the problem is a lack of sympathy. In the case of celebrities, many seem to be highly narcissistic. Anyway, what studies are these?

There are two kinds of empathy. One is cognitive, one is emotional. The cognitive part is the one that narcissists and other character-disordered individuals can use to their benefit. But they don't have emotional empathy. They don't have an emotional response to putting themselves into another person's shoes. Just a cognitive understanding of what they may be feeling.

Research "money-empathy gap".
https://www.pnas.org/content/109/11/4086
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-wealth-reduces-compassion/

On November 14 2021 19:26 Spitfiree wrote: Chapelle is the GOAT of comedy. His jokes are multi-layered and people that get triggered usually don't grasp even 20% of what he's saying. That said - his last special was quite dull compared to any other work he's done with Netflix. It was his way of making an apology and showing sympathy towards the LGBT, but since they're not communicating on the same level he got taken as an arrogant prick and I feel like he diminished the value of his comedy in order to 'make amends' with them. The result was a show that didn't really satisfy any of the two goals. Then again the majority of the viewers praise the show so maybe I'm the one that's off.

1A = Pryor, 1B = Carlin

I thought about it. Chappelle isn't even top 10 for me.

Personally I found nothing that he said triggering and I laughed a couple times. I just think he's very stupid on this topic and it's a cash cow and an ego issue, nothing more. It's like imagining Louis CK coming back with a special where he jokes and justifies why he likes to jerk off in front of girls without their consent and pretends to have a social message behind it. Not very convincing.

I find it amusing that they had to test 4-way intersections to prove rich people arn't compassionate. If you buy a luxury car, it automatically shows that you don't care about people, just based on emissions from luxury cars alone, which are very high. You don't need to do any further testing, because they are needlessly contributing to droughts in Somalia. By my standards they basically proved a tautology. Also it shows they spent money on a luxury car, instead of buying a normal car and spending the rest on some form of charity.

The meta-conclusion that I gain from this study, is that the researchers don't think at all like me-they think that making a choice to be ultra-consumerists instead of helping people at a very small cost doesn't necessarily show a lack of compassion.

Doesn't have to have to do with consumerism and morality. I remember there were studies where they had people look at different faces from people. Some faces were in distress, and we have evolved to be able to recognize them. The rich people were unable to recognize those facial cues.

https://www.livescience.com/8978-read-emotions-helps-poor.html

Possibly it's because rich people havn't seen many people in distress in their life, so there is a bit of a 'poverty of the stimulus' going on there.

The conclusions from these science news sites kinda reminds me of this comic lol: https://phdcomics.com/comics/archive_print.php?comicid=1174. They are prob far more overconfident in what it proves than what the actual researchers say.

I don't think I have a shot at dog-walking here. The top 20 walkers are all women and the number 1 walker maybe makes $30,000/yr but probably less.

I do need to branch out though. It's not like there is an influx of remote game tester jobs. Variance can be annoying.

Now is a terrible time for a move. I have to adjust some medications and don't have enough cash for travel. The only way I could do foreign English is if I had travel expenses covered and some sort of bonus in cash upfront or bonus contingent on staying for 2 years or w/e.

All of these self-employed private contractor jobs seem hellishly saturated. I'd rather just buck up and get a job. Uber probably being one of the worst of them all in a small city off-tourist season. At least with Uber I could have conversations with people. Delivery they need to just automate already and cut us a check. So frustrating.

On November 14 2021 21:25 Loco wrote: Personally I found nothing that he said triggering and I laughed a couple times. I just think he's very stupid on this topic and it's a cash cow and an ego issue, nothing more. It's like imagining Louis CK coming back with a special where he jokes and justifies why he likes to jerk off in front of girls without their consent and pretends to have a social message behind it. Not very convincing.

Oh I didn't imply you were triggered. Would've expected you to deem it of poor taste, which it is indeed. Now that I think about it, it really does sound like it was an hour-long rant of shit he doesn't understand.

Also true, Carlin is better. The dude predicted our current society 20 years ago, how disappointing

I've noticed a lot of top comedians are getting sucked into these twitter culture wars. Goat for me is bill hicks. I don't see any layers in his comedy but his delivery is amazing, and he is a solid social critic as well.

On November 16 2021 22:11 Spitfiree wrote: Show nested quote + On November 14 2021 21:25 Loco wrote: Personally I found nothing that he said triggering and I laughed a couple times. I just think he's very stupid on this topic and it's a cash cow and an ego issue, nothing more. It's like imagining Louis CK coming back with a special where he jokes and justifies why he likes to jerk off in front of girls without their consent and pretends to have a social message behind it. Not very convincing. Oh I didn't imply you were triggered. Would've expected you to deem it of poor taste, which it is indeed. Now that I think about it, it really does sound like it was an hour-long rant of shit he doesn't understand. Also true, Carlin is better. The dude predicted our current society 20 years ago, how disappointing

Oh there's no doubt about that. He barely scratched the surface of the topic and he used JK Rowlings as an appeal to authority to get himself out of the mess he created (she sold the most books ever, this bitch knows what it's like to be a woman!).

Carlin and Hicks are legit street philosopher types. Just happened to be hilarious too. Their message was completely unambiguous and they didn't fuck with people who didn't deserve to be fucked with. Hicks especially is my GOAT, he never strayed from his roots and he never got the mainstream recognition because he was so raw. I've never followed Chappelle so I don't know what he was like at his peak but he fails to have a positive social critique from what I've seen. He should have done a much better job of criticizing cancel culture than he did there.