I think you are cleverly capitalizing on the very human inclination to want to help on Other People's Projects. Tom Sawyer painting Aunt Polly's fence and rousing his friends to *want* to help is my favorite literary example and you channeled Sawyer's spirit nicely in your announcement. This WILL be fun!
an excerpt: "In a political debate you feel like the other side just doesn’t get your point of view, and if they could only see things with your clarity, they would understand and fall naturally in line with what you believe. They must not understand, because if they did they wouldn’t think the things they think. By contrast, you believe you totally get their point of view and you reject it. You see it in all its detail and understand it for what it is – stupid. You don’t need to hear them elaborate. So, each side believes they understand the other side better than the other side understands both their opponents and themselves."
I, as an active Catholic, will definitely look forward to your book. Pope Francis recommends that we become "polyhedra" which means having the ability to incorporate the grievances of people from all ends of the political spectrum. We don't have to share the grievance, only understand in a cognitive/emotional way (it's really quite difficult to completely separate the cognitive and emotional).
So, go for it! Then, I will share it with all my Catholic buds.
Go Bob! I hear that publishers like pre-orders. Let us know when we should release the wave. You've probably got a solid dozen right here among the commenters (assuming the global economy hangs together).
I wonder if William R Miller and/or Stephen Rollnick would be good podcast guests. They’re the originators of Motivational Interviewing (MI), one of the most evidence-based approaches to counseling people towards behavior change. It builds upon the work of Carl Rogers and, like his work, the cornerstone of MI is “Accurate Empathy.” Miller has written a shorter and less technical book called “Listening Well.” There is even a paper on an Evolutionary Psychology explanation for why MI works (by Abilio C. de Almeida Neto).
I'm excited by this experiment and look forward to being a reading part of it. I have a recommendation for your research (if you haven't already considered it): the role of empathy in Nonviolent Communication https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_Communication
I'm late out of the shoot, but since I read your post the other day, I've been kicking around ideas & questions that you might explore. So, for what they're worth:
1. Advocates of any position--attorneys, debaters, spouses, and even (ideally) politicians--should be able to state an adversary's counter-point as completely and accurately as the adversary. An ideal only rarely realized, but I think a longstanding ideal that's still worth pursuing.
2. Isn't "cognitive empathy," in one sense, the whole point of education?
3. Per R. G. Collingwood, the whole process of writing history--and "all history is the history is the human thought--requires us to "re-enact" the thoughts of those who come before us. (N.B., this is not limited to the "history of ideas," but thought entails all deliberate human actions as manifest in language, art, and "res gestae" (actions).) But you're writing about interacting with our contemporaries, you might object: yes, but all knowledge, all knowing, comes from the past, even if it's the immediate past. We learn nothing from the future, we can only imagine it. Re-enactment (Collingwood's term; I'd say "getting inside their heads") doesn't direct us to mimic those thoughts from the past, but starting there, we then can apply our current knowledge, our perspective (hindsight), to their thoughts (and resulting actions). (BTW, if "re-enactment" doesn't suit you--it reminds us too much of Civil War junkies dressed in blue or gray, or Monty Python's local ladies re-enacting the Battle of Hastings--feel free to use "re-construct" in lieu of "reenact." I do.)
4. You've already alluded to the difficulty of disentangling the cognitive & the emotional. This is a big deal! What Descartes rendered asunder (reason & emotion), no man should have done. We've been trying to restore and better appreciate the original union ever since. For instance, Antonio Damasio, Robert Solomon, Martha Nussbaum, Richard Sorabji (wrting about the Greco-Roman & early Christian thoughts in this issue), and Jon Elster, just to name some of those whom I've read on this issue, have done a lot to better appreciate this union. (Collingwood, too, is important on this topic.)
5. How would the Buddhist tradition address this issue? How does cognitive empathy intersect with the Buddhist concept of compassion? Right thought? Is "desire" (in the Four Noble Truths) defined by emotional and cognitive aspects? How do we apply cognitive empathy to ourselves and to others who are suffering?
Enough! As you can see, just the thought of such a book has triggered me! (In a good way.) I look forward to looking over your shoulder as you undertake this project, and I admire your bravery in inviting the readers to look over your shoulder as you do so.
This sounds like a great idea. My reading ritual the past week has been hot footing it from my pad on the north side of Chicago to the Bahai Temple in Wilmette and pulling my copy of Why Buddhism Is True. Thoroughly enjoying it.
I think more organizations should practice what you contemplate here. I suspect there are a lot of people like me (who doesn't?) who would like to participate in a project like this. By that I mean for free but on a pretty casual basis-- but some of the ideas may still be good (or at least useful in some way) even if not fully formed or researched.
Professor: for your project, I encourage to look at Jodi Halpern's book, From Detached Concern to Empathy, 2001, Oxford, 165. Halpern is a philosopher/physician and I've found the book immensely helpful as I put together courses for trainee physicians encouraging them to attend to the emotional needs of their patients. I hope you find this useful, Jonathan A Sugar, MD, Ann Arbor
I think you are cleverly capitalizing on the very human inclination to want to help on Other People's Projects. Tom Sawyer painting Aunt Polly's fence and rousing his friends to *want* to help is my favorite literary example and you channeled Sawyer's spirit nicely in your announcement. This WILL be fun!
I recommend making use of David McRaney's piece (https://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/08/21/the-illusion-of-asymmetric-insight/)
an excerpt: "In a political debate you feel like the other side just doesn’t get your point of view, and if they could only see things with your clarity, they would understand and fall naturally in line with what you believe. They must not understand, because if they did they wouldn’t think the things they think. By contrast, you believe you totally get their point of view and you reject it. You see it in all its detail and understand it for what it is – stupid. You don’t need to hear them elaborate. So, each side believes they understand the other side better than the other side understands both their opponents and themselves."
I, as an active Catholic, will definitely look forward to your book. Pope Francis recommends that we become "polyhedra" which means having the ability to incorporate the grievances of people from all ends of the political spectrum. We don't have to share the grievance, only understand in a cognitive/emotional way (it's really quite difficult to completely separate the cognitive and emotional).
So, go for it! Then, I will share it with all my Catholic buds.
Go Bob! I hear that publishers like pre-orders. Let us know when we should release the wave. You've probably got a solid dozen right here among the commenters (assuming the global economy hangs together).
This sounds great!!!
I wonder if William R Miller and/or Stephen Rollnick would be good podcast guests. They’re the originators of Motivational Interviewing (MI), one of the most evidence-based approaches to counseling people towards behavior change. It builds upon the work of Carl Rogers and, like his work, the cornerstone of MI is “Accurate Empathy.” Miller has written a shorter and less technical book called “Listening Well.” There is even a paper on an Evolutionary Psychology explanation for why MI works (by Abilio C. de Almeida Neto).
I'm excited by this experiment and look forward to being a reading part of it. I have a recommendation for your research (if you haven't already considered it): the role of empathy in Nonviolent Communication https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_Communication
I'm late out of the shoot, but since I read your post the other day, I've been kicking around ideas & questions that you might explore. So, for what they're worth:
1. Advocates of any position--attorneys, debaters, spouses, and even (ideally) politicians--should be able to state an adversary's counter-point as completely and accurately as the adversary. An ideal only rarely realized, but I think a longstanding ideal that's still worth pursuing.
2. Isn't "cognitive empathy," in one sense, the whole point of education?
3. Per R. G. Collingwood, the whole process of writing history--and "all history is the history is the human thought--requires us to "re-enact" the thoughts of those who come before us. (N.B., this is not limited to the "history of ideas," but thought entails all deliberate human actions as manifest in language, art, and "res gestae" (actions).) But you're writing about interacting with our contemporaries, you might object: yes, but all knowledge, all knowing, comes from the past, even if it's the immediate past. We learn nothing from the future, we can only imagine it. Re-enactment (Collingwood's term; I'd say "getting inside their heads") doesn't direct us to mimic those thoughts from the past, but starting there, we then can apply our current knowledge, our perspective (hindsight), to their thoughts (and resulting actions). (BTW, if "re-enactment" doesn't suit you--it reminds us too much of Civil War junkies dressed in blue or gray, or Monty Python's local ladies re-enacting the Battle of Hastings--feel free to use "re-construct" in lieu of "reenact." I do.)
4. You've already alluded to the difficulty of disentangling the cognitive & the emotional. This is a big deal! What Descartes rendered asunder (reason & emotion), no man should have done. We've been trying to restore and better appreciate the original union ever since. For instance, Antonio Damasio, Robert Solomon, Martha Nussbaum, Richard Sorabji (wrting about the Greco-Roman & early Christian thoughts in this issue), and Jon Elster, just to name some of those whom I've read on this issue, have done a lot to better appreciate this union. (Collingwood, too, is important on this topic.)
5. How would the Buddhist tradition address this issue? How does cognitive empathy intersect with the Buddhist concept of compassion? Right thought? Is "desire" (in the Four Noble Truths) defined by emotional and cognitive aspects? How do we apply cognitive empathy to ourselves and to others who are suffering?
Enough! As you can see, just the thought of such a book has triggered me! (In a good way.) I look forward to looking over your shoulder as you undertake this project, and I admire your bravery in inviting the readers to look over your shoulder as you do so.
Steve
This sounds like a great idea. My reading ritual the past week has been hot footing it from my pad on the north side of Chicago to the Bahai Temple in Wilmette and pulling my copy of Why Buddhism Is True. Thoroughly enjoying it.
I'm intrigued and excited.
We need more empathy of every kind in this world. Good luck with your endeavor. You also piqued my interest in your Why Buddhism is True book.
I think more organizations should practice what you contemplate here. I suspect there are a lot of people like me (who doesn't?) who would like to participate in a project like this. By that I mean for free but on a pretty casual basis-- but some of the ideas may still be good (or at least useful in some way) even if not fully formed or researched.
I will be interested to see how this goes!
Great plan/idea …looking forward to its unfolding!
Brilliant idea Bob
Ha, why do a feel like a lab rat?
(Just kidding, looking forward to the new book and this bold new experiment and the cheese treats).
My curiosophy is piqued!
Professor: for your project, I encourage to look at Jodi Halpern's book, From Detached Concern to Empathy, 2001, Oxford, 165. Halpern is a philosopher/physician and I've found the book immensely helpful as I put together courses for trainee physicians encouraging them to attend to the emotional needs of their patients. I hope you find this useful, Jonathan A Sugar, MD, Ann Arbor