Feeling Bad for Someone Makes You Less Smart

[Daaaah Whoosh]

I think a better picture for this article would be good and bad Kirk fighting, rather than the alien that eats people from the Twilight Zone.

 

[Steve the Pocket]

Not looking forward to the reaction from Objectivists. "See? See? We were right! Science says so!" Ugh...

 

[FEichinger]

The thesis of analytical and empathetic thinking being mutually exclusive does raise interesting questions in terms of artificial intelligence. Our devices are intended to work similarly to the human train of thought, based on binary logic. If we now assume the human brain is unable to have empathy run properly alongside said binary logic, it might well be possible that artificial intelligence will be solely logical - which then again leads to machines being superior to humans and concludes with singularity causing the end of humanity.

Uhm ... QED?

Prove that logical reasoning is better then empathetic reasoning at all times then it might be QED, but otherwise the proof would be incomplete.

This depends on the definition of "better" - which in itself is a logical construct and thus lies on the side of the machines in the aforementioned scenario.
I'm mostly referring to "more efficient" here, however - which logical reasoning is, based on the fact that it is what is needed to make a machine execute any action - and thus the larger resulting capacity of the machines would enable them to execute more of these actions than the human brain occupied with other functions.

 

[LostintheWick]

I think that the moral compass for most CEOs has gone out the window a long time ago.

 

[gentlemanghost]

I haven't read the article, yet. I was laughing too much at the awesome "Twilight Zone" picture

 

[Azuaron]

I was in Baltimore for a conference a while back, and a guy walked up to me and said his car was towed, and he needed a twenty for the bus. I said, no, sorry, I don't carry cash (true statement), and went on my way. General puzzlement as to what bus costs $20, but whatever.

The next day, a different guy approached me and said his car was towed, and he needed a twenty for the bus. I said no, I don't carry cash, and went on my way.

By the end of the week, after hearing the exact same story from more than a dozen different guys, anytime someone approached me and looked me in the eye, I'd say, "Let me guess: your car was towed and you need a twenty for the bus." They'd smile, shrug, and keep walking.

 

[Azuaron]

The thesis of analytical and empathetic thinking being mutually exclusive does raise interesting questions in terms of artificial intelligence. Our devices are intended to work similarly to the human train of thought, based on binary logic. If we now assume the human brain is unable to have empathy run properly alongside said binary logic, it might well be possible that artificial intelligence will be solely logical - which then again leads to machines being superior to humans and concludes with singularity causing the end of humanity.

Uhm ... QED?

Prove that logical reasoning is better then empathetic reasoning at all times then it might be QED, but otherwise the proof would be incomplete.

This depends on the definition of "better" - which in itself is a logical construct and thus lies on the side of the machines in the aforementioned scenario.
I'm mostly referring to "more efficient" here, however - which logical reasoning is, based on the fact that it is what is needed to make a machine execute any action - and thus the larger resulting capacity of the machines would enable them to execute more of these actions than the human brain occupied with other functions.

This is such a ridiculous argument. The cyborgs will prevail because they can have all the benefits of each with none of the detriments.

 

[FEichinger]

This is such a ridiculous argument. The cyborgs will prevail because they can have all the benefits of each with none of the detriments.

Weeeell, now that is an interesting idea. I was keeping it simple with machines or humans, but of course, cyborgs are an entirely different league.

 

[shrekfan246]

Greg, quit thinking of game development as a 9-5 job; it isn't. It's contract work. You don't keep a roofer on your payroll for a few months after he's finished your new roof. If a problem arises, you call him in again, then he's off to some other contract.

Actually, wouldn't it be nice if game devs were held responsible for their work in much the same way as a roofer?

Except that many times development studios are wholly purchased by a publisher, who then gets to call all of the shots in how the game is made.

To extend your analogy here, if a roofer worked for a company who trained all of their workers to only ever do 40' by 60' roofs, would you hold the worker or the company responsible when he couldn't do a satisfactory job on your 60' by 100' roof?

OT: What if the kids just sucked at physics? I'm not that great at the sciences, even though I always had a fairly firm grip on math all the way up through Calculus. Regardless, it doesn't seem like this would have a long-term effect unless there's information that we're missing, so the title appears to be misleading.

 

[Yopaz]

Now I feel empathy for people in need, but I don't give them money. Now where do I stand?

I don't trust people I meet on the street to be honest with me, I don't let anyone borrow my phone, I don't give them money, but I do feel sorry for them and sincerely wish them the best. I am however aware of that I barely have enough to get by as it is so I'm not able to give them my money.

 

[Filiecs]

That doesn't make a lot of sense. In the long run, being an asshole or apathetic will only hurt you. If you're a nice and empathetic person, you get friends AND you feel happy. With friends, you get opportunities. With opportunities you are more likely to achieve success. There is a logic behind kindness.
Being nice may not make sense if you're looking for guaranteed short-term profit, but I've never seen a case where being greedy or being an asshole has payed off in the long run.

Also, the title is misleading. This study is only saying that empathy temporally impedes your reasoning, not make you "less-smart".
The only thing that can make you "less-smart" is some form of brain damage.

 

[antipunt]

I need to stop feeling bad about myself, but that's hardly news."

This is actually...really interesting..

Does feeling bad for -yourself- count as feeling bad? As in, over empathizing with yourself making you less smart, and able to correct your mistakes, because you're toiling too much in your sorrow, and it's like a vacuum, and you can't get out, and AHHHHHH :0

>_>

Also

"You want the CEO of a company to be highly analytical in order to run a company efficiently, otherwise it will go out of business," he said. "But, you can lose your moral compass if you get stuck in an analytic way of thinking.

Meanwhile, companies all around the world laughing their asses off twirling their money sacks "we care, derp derp"

 

[Helmholtz Watson]

Feeling Bad for Someone Makes You Less Smart

I don't know why but after reading this article I feel like this video is relevant....
At 50 seconds in....
Our knowledge has made us cynical, our cleverness hard and unkind. We think too much and feel too little. More than machinery, we need humanity. More than cleverness, we need kindness and gentleness. Without these qualities life would be violent and all would be lost.

 

[Beautiful End]

Huh!

I'M A FREAKIN' GENIUS!

I don't feel much empathy for people I cannot help. Call me evil but when I see a disaster strike a foreign land, I simply shrug. Sure, I send money to help but that's a long shot. How do you know your money IS getting there? There's a whole other aspect of trust in strangers involved.
At the same time, if I see a perfectly healthy hobo down the street, I don't feel bad. As an immigrant that comes from a country where getting a job is tough, I...just don't feel bad for them. Where there's a will, there's a way, right?

Anyway, I do feel empathy when I'm close to the person and I know there's something I can do to help.

 

[ElPatron]

>dat title

I bet that if an article says that global warming was 10% lower than predicted, the title will be "NO GLOBAL WARMING IN THE LAST 10 YEARS" or "10% CHANCE OF GLOBAL WARMING BEING A FRAUD".

Greg, quit thinking of game development as a 9-5 job; it isn't. It's contract work. You don't keep a roofer on your payroll for a few months after he's finished your new roof. If a problem arises, you call him in again, then he's off to some other contract.

Actually, wouldn't it be nice if game devs were held responsible for their work in much the same way as a roofer?

So game developers feel bad for roofers and get scammed?