There was a great article on this a while ago, talking about a concept of the monkeysphere. Essentially - there is a hard limit on the number of people you can conceptualise as being actual real people who you empathise with, and that this is why an earthquake disaster killing hundreds in China isn't as tragic as a tornado in the US killing less than a seventh of that number. While I think that the concept is too black-and-white - there are levels of emotional investment, not 'all' vs 'none', it's a compelling argument.
Ask yourself that question as you try to empathize with a slug instead of a human being.
To some extent - everything else being equal - one should empathize more with people of your own race than people that aren't. That's genetics at work - genes trying to make as many copies of themselves as possible. As I also said earlier, modern society has over-ridden that to some extent, though anyone who's aware of racism knows it's not gone completely. On average white Americans probably do relate easier to white Americans than black Americans and vice versa. There tend to be large sub-cultures in a country as big as ours. But I'd still bet most white Americans relate easier to black Americans than they do white Germans.
You said "depend on them being like you". I gave you a concrete example of trying to empathize when it isn't like you. I take it I made my point?
Yes, I'm aware of that but that doesn't change the "average", which I specifically included in my statement.
You're looking at it from a rational point of view. I'm not, as my opening post shows, "I think if we're all completely honest with ourselves ..." That includes being emotionally honest, not just rational. Our emotions will tend to side with our genes.
It's not a ridiculous example, it highlights the point. I tried the more simple examples earlier and you rejected them without cause.
Of course there's an average. Every large data set has an average of some kind, in this case, genes - in the modern vernacular, alleles. There are a lot of alleles that go into making up the human face and build and are more shared inside the same race. I can't easily tell the difference between Japanese and Korean - but they can, or so I've been told.
Our genes are the starting point and you can't change that. Nature and nurture go hand in hand, however, so to some extent our emotions come from nurture, which is the cultural aspect of empathy. You asked for the connection, you just provided it.
Being polite has little to do with what we feel. This thread isn't about how we should act, it's about how we feel and do act. Value doesn't come strictly from rationality. If that were true our economy (consumer spending) would be radically different than it is.
Exactly! How much more unalike would you prefer?
That's not exactly true. In general, genetisists will tell you that because the common definition of race does not apply. However, there are subsections of the human genome where people tend to fall. I tend to fall in with northwestern Europe, for example. Asians tend to fall into northern and southern. Blacks are all over the map because of the varying lineages in Africa.
Being able to empathize easier with people who are like you doesn't preclude understanding others.
I haven't said anything about right or wrong, I've made no judgments. Only you seem to be doing that. I've been commenting on tendencies based on genetic and/or cultural similarities.
