Hacker News Reader

The article is ridiculous really.

If anything, the "skills" demanded by the present economy are those of a high-functioning psychopath [1]. That is, total lack of empathy but with a modest ability to fake it.

[1] http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/09/10/1015320/-Why-High-F...

Feels "good" to see someone talk about this. It seemed more and more obvious to me but i never really found anything other than my own thoughts talking about it.

How do you deal with this?

a) Slowly turn into a psychopath to be able to rule the biggest portion of the world

b) Forget about all this and live in blissful ignorance.

c) Live a sad life where you know you're getting a$$ fked by psychopaths but you also know you're not "made" to become one.

Thanks for saying what I had on my mind. In fact I was perusing the thread to find more voices that agree with your sentiment, spot on.

The following is a comment of mine on HN from nearly an year ago. It was made in response to a post on what the author learned from Steve Jobs in matters of negotiation [a]. It stands true today as it did then. Every time the topic of empathy and its relevance to startup success or success at large comes up, I feel a strong need to revisit this comment. Sadly, I have a feeling I will be posting this for some time to come, in the foreseeable future because I think most people - if they are being genuine - seem to be under the false assumption that somehow there are ways to win in the valley or elsewhere by being anything but ruthless :

-- -- --

I think every time the issue of Steve Jobs's maniacal side comes up I feel obliged to bring this up:

Steve Wozniak on Steve Jobs:

   I was inspired by Stanford intellectuals like 
   Jim Warren talking this way at the club. Lee 
   Felsenstein wanted computers to help in things 
   like the antiwar marches he'd orchestrated in 
   Oakland and I was inspired by the fact that 
   these machines could help stop wars. Others in 
   the club had working models of this computer 
   before Jobs knew it existed. He came down one 
   week and I took him to show him the club, not 
   the reverse. He saw it as a businessman. It as 
   I who told Jobs the good things these machines 
   could do for humanity, not the reverse. I 
   begged Steve that we donate the first Apple I 
   to a woman who took computers into elementary 
   schools but he made me buy it and donate it 
   myself. [1]

The contrast in the personalities of Jobs and Wozniak could not be more clearer.

However I agree with first part of what toddmorey has said below:

  3. Most importantly, being an asshole may help 
  great ideas get powered through, but it's not 
  the only way.

The latter part, I'm unsure and circumspect about:

  The people I most admire have found
  success while still being amazing human beings
  to work beside.

In the valley and elsewhere, I think this is increasingly not the case.

I think we should stop telling kids that life rewards the passionate and the skilled.

By rewards I certainly do not mean some inner calm or contentment coming from indulging in what you love. I mean the conventional rewards of recognition, admiration and remuneration.

Life is rigged in favor of the opportunists. The schemers, hustlers and the witty-talkers. But certainly not the plainspoken and the adept.

This is what many kids who have grown up on the stories of Steve Jobs and the valley lore surrounding many other iconic founders, will take away as their guiding principles.

They will grow up thinking, "Life rewards the unabashedly ravenous, merciless and ruthless blokes among us. Life does not spare the dignified, the pleasant or the mild-mannered." There is nothing to suggest otherwise.

No matter how you dice it, your conscience tells you that this is more than a bit disenchanting if not unfair.

[1]

http://i.imgur.com/a1I9DTs.jpg

https://plus.google.com/+CarmsPerez/posts/GnVTvQNgvpf

-- -- --

[a] http://heidiroizen.tumblr.com/post/80368150370/what-i-learne...

I don't think I agree with your interpretation of that story or the conclusions you've drawn from it.

Not wanting to donate the first apple II or use it to "help stop wars" doesn't make Steve Jobs a bad person or demonstrate a lack of empathy. He could have easily understood exactly where Wozniack was coming from, but have drawn different conclusions about what was right. The things that people associate with being "good" aren't always the best indicators of morality or motivation. Someone can be a good person without ever giving money to charity.

And before we crush the dreams of children, it should be pointed out that musicians, artists and athletes are heavily rewarded for their passion and skill every day. So are many successful entrepreneurs. It's our responsibility to chose the right heroes, for ourselves and for the next generation. There's a Judas for every Jesus. We get to choose which one we want to be.

I'm no Steve Jobs fanboy, but describing him as "unabashedly ravenous, merciless and ruthless" is far beyond the pale. Don't let a few rumors and out of context stories color your judgement of an entire human life. Empathy, right?

I feel somewhat embarrassed to have put the situation in such a short and harsh fashion. If only it wasn't true.

I think we should teach our kids to build a world where life rewards the passionate, skillful and empathetic - but be very aware that we don't have that world yet.

Life as our society values it is rigged in that way. It doesn't mean that we need to hold those same values.

Those are the skills you need if you want to rule the world (or a significant portion of it). For the majority of us who don't want to rule the world empathy is one of the more important skills to build relationships and be happy with our lives.

I experience something similar. Besides having high scores on those online "EQ" quizzes, it's astoundingly easy for me to be liked if I make the effort to "turn it on," to the point where I feel completely undeserving and out of place being welcomed. The downside is that if someone is a skillful manipulator, they'll use my empathy against me(many confidence schemes involve some of this). And if I hurt someone I'll basically remember it forever, so I'm predisposed towards pacifism even at my most hyped up and aggressive.

Given all of that, I have gradually established certain "rules of engagement" that aim for noble uses of these various strengths and weaknesses - whom I am allowed to be involved with, and on what levels, in various situations, and what is a "good" way to be involved with someone. I subscribe heavily to Stoicism. I also think often on how socialization works elsewhere in nature, to realign my perspective on human society.

I have similar issues, and I've read scientific opinions [1] theorizing that people diagnosed with aspergers may actually have extreme empathy to the point where it paralyzes them.

I've been diagnosed with aspergers by one specialist. I had experience that sort of wreaked havoc on my life, so I've learned to carefully not conflate the term empathy with 'mind reading'. It takes a lot of practice, but you can actually learn to (not turn off, but subdue, I suppose is the best wording) the voice in your head that flags every face, body expression, tone of voice, topic of conversation, etc - to a more appropriate level, a more course granularity (depending on the relationship). If you want. I used to memorize conversations and attempt to predict what people were thinking/wanted/needed, and based my action and decision from this prediction. I was very unhappy. I felt like I had no self, my mind was just consumed with the needs of everyone else.

I am also a domestic abuse survivor, so I think my obsession with people behavior, feelings, and thoughts has been 'on alert', hypervigilant. At some point I had to decide that I wanted to study code and math more than I wanted a false sense of people security. I am less depressed because of it, but I also avoid close relationships. It is easy to fall into a black hole when others are suffering because it is so incredibly sad. But I just try to be strong and supportive now, because the world needs people like that too.

[1] - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2518049/

I'm similar.

If there's someone in the office having a confrontational phone call, I have to either feel their rage or isolate myself (loud music). Seeing other people's injuries (especially my son's) is overwhelming. I naturally do the 'Choose the other side' suggestion from the article - possibly due to an incorrect belief that other people act rationally, and so must have had some reason for being mean. I have to be really careful with emotive TV/films. They can screw me up for days.

There does seem to be a spectrum. The furthest extremes are very interesting with some people on the deeply empathetic end of the spectrum actually experiencing pain when they view other humans experiencing pain. That is to say the viewer's neurons literally fire and send signals that the viewer is in pain when in actuality it is another person falling, bumping into something or what have you. There was a fantastic story about one person who experiences this on NPR's new science podcast Invisibilia [1].

1. http://www.npr.org/programs/invisibilia/382451600/entangleme...

Most people tend to automatically reflect back at others the emotions projected towards them: someone gets angry at you, and you get angry right back at him. Being able to notice this in the moment and sidestep the reaction is a learned skill.

On the opposite end of the scale, there are "sponges" who receive and absorb others' emotions unconditionally, as you describe. I've known many people like this, and many seem to develop unusual health issues -- but it's equally possible to notice this process in the moment and modulate it.

In both cases, practicing mindfulness meditation is the most direct way to develop the necessary skills.

What you're describing may actually be indicative of very high functioning autism, depending on whether those skills came naturally to you at all times. I have the same problems and abilities but was clinically diagnosed with aspergers as a child (since early adulthood I no longer meet the clinical definition because of how much I've learned of socialization). Emotions come VERY strongly from other people. I'd suspect there are others who are extremely empathetic but have greater control over how strongly they internalize those emotions.

You have to learn to set boundaries and set some distance between yourself and that person.

There are lots of articles and books out there that probably cover this better than I can. This was an interesting read though.

http://blogs.psychcentral.com/balanced-life/2014/05/setting-...

Do you happen to have any books on hand that deal with setting boundaries. I never really developed this skill, but it seems really useful and I'm in a situation where I need it. My boundaries are clearly being crossed, but I don't know how consequences should be brought up, or how to actually go through with the consequences (I seem to cave pretty easily.)

as a person with severe depression, i am absolutely certain of one thing. feelings come first, then thoughts. it's impossible to think your way out of depression. it sounds like OP's empathy is a "deep" / low-level quality of how their mind works, in which case it's probably impossible for them to think their way out of it. IMO

Definitions (beliefs) -> Feelings.

Without definitions you'd have no feelings about anything:

youre_an_asshole - feels bad to you

im_an_asshole - feels better to you :)

erwqgg3resafd - no feelings invoked. no definitions about it exists.

i didn't explain what i was trying to get at with "feelings come first" well enough. i believe people are constantly associating their current emotional state with their current area of perceptive focus. for instance let's say you go through a bad breakup and drink chocolate milk every day for a week while crying into your chocolate milk. when you drink chocolate milk again months later, you're going to remember that association and have a twinge of sadness. i think this process goes on constantly (with much less intensity usually) with everything you do.

feelings come first. your associated emotions are the reasons you have the beliefs you have! they're the reason you have the goals you have, the fears you have, etc etc etc. the myriad tiny emotional associations you feel constantly are the low-level stuff on which the higher-level construct of thoughts is built. that is what i'm saying.

>> your associated emotions are the reasons you have the beliefs you have!

I agree that egg or chicken first problem worth argumenting about, but saying that omelet comes before an egg is a bit of a stretch to buy into :)

as a person with severe depression, i am absolutely certain of one thing. feelings come first, then thoughts.

Is it possible that this thought is the source of the depressed feelings?

nah. your assumption is that i feel depressed about something. it's just an ambient feeling that is constantly present when i'm conscious, that has a negativity-reinforcing effect on my thoughts and perspective. it has nothing to do with what i'm experiencing, although getting bummed out can certainly make it worse. the closest thing i can compare it to is chronic back pain. i also didn't explain the "feelings come first" thing very well but i elaborated in my response to the guy above you.

irishcoffee, you should listen to this http://www.npr.org/programs/invisibilia/382451600/entangleme...

Empathy is one of the greatest spiritual quality [0]. You should explore spirituality and who knows that you may progress faster than average individuals [1].

0] http://omswami.com/2014/12/seed-empathy.html 1] http://omswami.com/2014/10/if-truth-be-told.html

I learned to say to myself "my thoughts only, my emotions only" and it helped quite a bit in those rough times.