Hacker News Reader

> If you ask me, "faking it" is really just as good as "actually" being a more helpful or empathetic person.

It is important to make the distinction between this and what Linus actually said, which was "fake it *until I make it" (emphasis added). The latter is essentially practice or exercise to develop empathy. The former is essentially how high-functioning psychopaths work.

> Let's say my brother calls me up on a Saturday morning. He needs help moving some furniture. Do I really feel like doing that? Fuuuuuuuuuck no. Will I say "yes" anyway? Probably, because even though I'd rather play tennis or sleep or play video games I want to help him. So I will consciously expend the effort to go do the good thing for him.

> Am I being "actually" good there or am I just "faking it"? I don't really think there's a difference. Nobody really wants to spend a day off moving furniture for free.

You haven't really made a comparison here, because you just say, "I want to help him." What is your motivation? You can definitely help him without having any empathy for him at all.

Empathy doesn't mean "being nice" or "being helpful". It means understanding, feeling, or experiencing the feelings of others. Being an empathetic person is largely orthogonal to being nice. It can help you be nice, because you understand how people feel. It can also help you be a huge asshole, because you understand how to really hurt people.

In this case, what's wrong with being a high-functioning psychopath?

    > It is important to make the distinction between this and what Linus actually said, which was "fake it *until I make it" (emphasis added). The latter is essentially practice or exercise to develop empathy. The former is essentially how high-functioning psychopaths work.

Wow. Psychopathy is not a formally recognized or defined term, so it's hard to talk about without being completely sidetracked by trying to define it.

While it's certainly possible to exercise all of the things we're talking about (empathy, kindness, etc) for nefarious purposes ("I'm going to figure out Mrs. Smith's feelings and try to understand them... so that I can get close to her and con her out of her life's savings!") I really don't think that's what we're talking about here.

    > You haven't really made a comparison here, because you just say, "I want to help him." What is your motivation? You can definitely help him without having any empathy for him at all.

I'm saying they're the same thing. If you want to contrast them because you want to convince me that they're different, sure! Go ahead! That's your job.

    > Empathy doesn't mean "being nice" or "being helpful".

Sure, absolutely. That's why I consistently mentioned them as being distinct things, ie "helpful OR empathetic." Seems like we're on the same page for this one.

Depends entirely on how good you are at faking it. That is, if it can be easily seen that you are faking; then no, it is not as good. Not even close.

Your brother scenario is silly. If someone calls and I don't want to help, but can. I'll be honest and make my own choice. If they ask if this is what I'd truly like to be doing, I'll always say no. However, in most cases, I don't actually care what I'm doing. Could I come up with something more fun? Maybe, but just being social in any way is typically its own ends.

On the far end of the scale, if you always answer, "Would you like to help us carry this heavy stuff down these stairs?" with "No, in fact I would loathe that, but I will comply in order to maintain the social bonds that are necessary to sustain my chemically-driven life functions for the long term."... then that will be problematic for your relationships.

I'm like you, I say yes often, and I'm honest about how excited I am to do it... but it comes at a social cost.

Sometimes its better to fake it and be nice, even when you're bad at faking it.

I think I misrepresented. Most people just ask, "can you come help?" To that I'll answer how long it would take me to get over there if I can, and start heading that way. Few people ask "would you like to help me" do anything. The answers really are different.

That is, you aren't faking it by being nice. You are just not bringing in extra crap to the discussion. Can you do dinner tonight? Yes or no. Not, I'd rather go do something with someone else, but if I have to be social with you, I can.

It is tough, because society is actually highly rewarding on bringing extra crap to the discussion many times. In humor situations, everyone actually enjoys it. And for situations where there is a jerk, society actually rewards it by putting up with it.

Linus has been a tough one. Often the community has relied on his behavior to help keep other jerks in check. People like to talk about how he is abrasive to nvidia, but they really are somewhat abusing the spirit of the crowd, as well. Problem seems to be that it is tough to know when to use a tool in your disposal.

     People like to talk about how he is abrasive to nvidia

That's a really good point. Overlooked in this discussion over Linus' manners are the times when he was abusive toward people who arguably deserved it, like nVidia who has historically not been a great community member.

To me the more important factor for whether “faking it” is adequate is what one’s motivation is. If it is merely as an act of fakery because other people expect something, then it’s a lot more like to be an act without merit. If it’s an integral part of striving towards being genuinely able to exhibit the behavior in question, then it’s a lot more likely to be received well.

I absolutely agree. If you're e.g. merely pretending to be nice to somebody in order to exploit them or harm them, that's obviously not a good thing.

I left angle that out of my original post because I really don't think anybody is doubting Linus' motives here.

I'm aware that some people think his attempt at self-improvement is misguided or silly, but I haven't heard a single person question whether his motives are negative.

> Your brother scenario is silly.

Sure, analogies are pretty flawed usually. I sort of regret typing it. Let's get back to Linus. What's the difference between:

  (a) A person staying respectful in their emails because it is natural and effortless for him

  --and--

  (b) Linus staying respectful in his emails because he's putting in conscious effort to stay respectful

I would argue that there's no difference! Because it's never 100% natural for anybody; it always requires some effort even if it's easier for some of us than others.

I think we would all agree that (b) would be creepy IF Linus was being deceptively nice for some sort of dubious or dishonest reason. Like a con artist trying to develop bonds so they can rob you or something. But, that doesn't seem to be the case. I'm taking him at his word here, but all indications are that Linus is just trying to get better at treating people respectfully because he thinks it's the right thing to do.

Bringing it back to Linus is easy. The times he stayed technical and on point, he gets things done very well. The times he chest thumped back at someone chest thumping to him, it actually worked decently. The times he just started chest thumping to a quiet person trying to help, that is just obnoxious.

That is, in this case, I'd argue he isn't "faking" it to not bring in outside crap. Just leave it out. Stay on point for the topic at hand and he does amazing. I'd go so far as to say I think he is a bit of a role model in those situations. Deservedly so.

The best part was the next sentence:

> Part of that 'faking it' is definitely going to be a filter on my outgoing emails

That's about 95% of what people asked for over the decades. You can get your point across without incendiary language and belittling comments, and merely scanning for sensitive words is enough for most cases

FWIW - I don't know if there are FOSS implementations, but beyond simple word scanning (which I agree could be pretty effective!) there are also sentiment analysis tools out there.