To see the world clearly is to see nuance and contingency and ambiguity, descriptions that often clash with the normal sense of clarity. Humans crave clarity and we will invent clarity even when it does not exist.
I'm all for calling attention to the benefits of practising cognitive empathy, avoiding attribution error, and learning to separate feelings and emotions from one's thoughts and intentions. Where I part company is the idea that the Buddha's (or Buddhism's) goal is to better the world. It's not about making the world ("out there") a better place, it's about learning how to make peace with the fact that the world is not a perfect place and will never be. That's not to say that the Buddha (and Buddhists) has not endeavoured to create conditions more conducive to practice--safer, calmer, and supportive--but this was just a means, not the end.
I share your enthusiasm for Buddhist meditation practice. I share your perspective that we'd all do better if we had a less-clouded, more empathetic perspective on others, friends and enemies. But how will "cognitive empathy" (understanding the motivating thoughts & feelings of others) aid us beyond our current means? And how would "cognitive empathy" have helped leaders, such as Chamberlain, FDR--and even Stalin!--in dealing with Hitler? (To use a character whom, I believe, most of us would have a hard time "empathizing" with, although knowing his mind and drives and will would have been of the utmost value.) We can now say that same about Putin, or even Zelensky. Yet leaders surprise us. In a strategic interaction (IR, for instance), circumstances promote deception & unpredictability. Such incentives would thus interfere with any cognitive empathy exercised by anyone seeking to interact with another or influence the other's courses of action. Are we really in danger because we don't understand Putin? Or perhaps Putin doesn't give a hoot about our perspective or values and doesn't want or care for "empathy? In short, are we not wiser to say "this man (or woman) is no damn good" and isn't amendable to reasoned persuasion or appeals to the common good, if such is the case. (And not to get readers too fired-up, but I can think of some "leaders" in the U.S. who trigger the same response in me.) Sometimes there are deep & abiding conflicts that we can't bridge by negotiation or persuasion. Sometimes the balance of goodness & right clearly tip the scales of justice and our perception in these matters is a result of reasonably clear insight. In short, the absolute goodness of a Christ or a Buddha or any person of good will cannot overcome those who are committed to force, violence, and evil.
The standard critique of Chamberlain is that he failed to understand what was actually going on in Hitler's mind--that Hitler was intent on further aggression and that appeasement wouldn't stop him. Successfully employing cognitive empathy means understanding what's going on in people's minds. So Chamberlain (and the world) would have been better off if he'd been better at cognitive empathy, right?
Undoubtably! The "war monger" Churchill had a much keener appreciation of Hitler's motives and aims than did Chamberlain (and quite a few others). I suggest that the first law of cognitive empathy ought to be "Really pay attention--deep, careful attention--to what the other says, whether in words or in writing, if you want to gain a deep understanding of their thoughts and likely actions. I suspect WSC read MEIN KAMPF & that Chamberlain didn't.
"And how would "cognitive empathy" have helped leaders, such as Chamberlain, FDR--and even Stalin!--in dealing with Hitler? (To use a character whom, I believe, most of us would have a hard time "empathizing" with, although knowing his mind and drives and will would have been of the utmost value.) "
Are you asking about how those leaders would have deployed cognitive empathy? Because it sounds like you agree it's useful. If I understand you correctly, you're sold on the concept, but want more on how to execute it?
Yes, indeed! As an advocate (politics & law), I've been a student of persuasion for a long time now. And as a practitioner, I find persuasion (which I'd defined as a conscious reaching of consensus about an idea or course of action) to be of the highest value. But I'll be darned if I've ever discovered the secret sauce! I've looked into classical & contemporary rhetoric; neuroscience; logic; discourse analysis, as well as propaganda techniques, NLP, hypnosis, and even magic (a la Collingwood). So, if cognitive empathy is the secret sauce, then bring it on! But my current supposition is that there is no secret sauce; that persuasion is a form of trench warfare that is won or lost (persuasion successful or not) in small increments. I also hold that to persuade others one must be persuadable, and ethical persuasion requires raising the knowledge & consciousness (a loose term, I know) of those whom you intend to persuade. Persuasion seeks to create power, but (in my terms, following Hannah Arendt), political power is the opposite of force (or deception, I'd add). Power is the ability to gain the assent of others to act in concert toward a common aim. In other words, political power doesn't issue from the barrel of a gun (Mao), only coercion & violence do so (the antithesis of politics). True power is gained through persuasion conducted in a public space. Thus, if cognitive empathy as Robert conceives it furthers this goal (and goals of private action, too), then I'm all in. My skepticism is whether Buddhism, neuroscience, or evolutionary thought will have much new to help us in the endeavor of persuasion and human interactions. But I will be delighted to have my skepticism proven unfounded!
Agree. In dealing with the devil or Hitler or Trump or even (on a much more pleasant note), your loved ones, understanding their thinking & feeling (closely, closely related, I contend) is of the utmost importance. (And is “understanding” a fair synonym for “cognitive empathy?” I believe so, but stand ready for correction if justified.) And maintaining our own peace of mind, serenity, and clear-sightedness even when dealing with the most despicable of characters. But for all our insight into others and our own venerable self-control, how do we deal with those marked by various degrees of evil? Those who would sow chaos, lust for power, and are willing to prey upon and sacrifice the lives of others? I admit that I'm exploring the limits of what cognitive empathy can accomplish.
As to followers, the same applies. Since 2016 (and even before but with much less intensity & alarm), I've been seeking to better understand the feelings, thoughts, and motives of those who support--even if just to vote for--Trump. Trump, I believe, isn't “conservative” in any meaningful sense, and only libertine, not liberal; he is in some measure sui generis, at least in the role of president. And despite my attempts at understanding, compassion, and cognitive empathy, I still remain convinced that people who still support Trump and the Big Lie are just plain nuts (to put it in the politest way that I can). But for all my sympathy for the suffering & delusion many Trump supporters have suffered (which we must acknowledge; many Americans have real cause to feel ignore, left-behind, and dismissed), I will not stand by passively and watch as they & the demagogues who cater to them tear down the house of democracy & the rule of law. Sympathy and empathy can be justified & at times useful, but does compassion necessarily entail acceptance? I think not. It's a real balancing act that requires discernment and judgment. (I realize that in my comments I'm exploring the boundaries of cognitive empathy before Robert has made his case. So, the conversation has a long way to go.)
I’m interested in what you’ve said here… I’ve always understood that Buddhist meditation to be about an emptying of the mind, not a meditating ‘on’ something. I’ve recently been involved in publishing a book on Christian Mindfulness (https://amzn.to/3z0ehnC) and these practices are found throughout church history. They certainly involve the meditating ‘on’, rather than an ‘emptying of’. I would suggest that our encounter with the ‘ultimate other’ (God) in Christian mindfulness (the meditation of the psalms?) is what enables us to more deeply connect with those who appear ‘other’ to us, or who we are urged to ‘other’. Is there something specific to Buddhist meditation that you think is able to achieve something over and above what Christian mindfulness / meditation enables us to reach? You seem to imply that Buddhism has a monopoly on meditative practices, and therefore any attempt to separate cognition and emotion is Buddhist, which would mean Christian contemplation etc. is ultimately Buddhist. Is that what you’re suggesting? I’d be interested in your thoughts…
You may want to read Evan Thompson's Why I Am Not a Buddhist. He offers a thoroughgoing critique of what he terms "Buddhist exceptionalism." Bob is one of his interlocutors in the book, and both have a great discussion about their respective viewpoints here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=heSq98tNTlM
"Modern" Buddhism, based on recent translations of Buddhist text that are are usually diffracted through a Western lens, is great at articulating of what plagues us, i.e., why we suffer and seek conflict even in life circumstances that by most measures are very comfortable. But if one delves a little deeper into philosophy (and theology), one can see that Buddhist positions and contemplative approaches aren't all that different from, say, those of Christian, Jewish, and Muslim mystics (e.g., Meister Eckhart, Martin Buber, or Rumi).
It would be inappropriate to conflate all of these very rich traditions by saying that they're all the same thing--they're not, but they may offer different gates to get to the same place ultimately. We're very complex beings owing to our cultural heritages and that's reflected in this wonderful diversity.
These ideas seem so sensible and welcome that I start worrying that I'm inadvertently relaxing into a tribal affiliation (-: . But if so, I suppose the tribal label is "human," and its boundaries readily permeable to all -- with the possible exception of unwise extraterrestrials and poorly-programmed AI.
I am a longtime devotee of your teachings, so I will continue to follow your newsletter; however, one of my favorite aspects of your podcast was the analysis of current events from a perspective of both Buddhist thought and evolutionary biology. As we try to lead a compassionate life, it is so helpful to read your insights on how human behavior evolved - war, narcissism, and higher-order altruism recur throughout history despite such knowledge.
"One way to put one of Buddhism’s central claims is like this: The reason we suffer, and the reason we make other people suffer, is that we don’t see the world clearly."
This ties in nicely with what psychiatrist M. Scott Peck said in his seminal work "The Road Less Traveled": that mental health is a defined as "a dedication to reality at all costs."
So is one way to attain these goals that we properly invest in treating mental illness while supporting mental wellness?
Sometimes, as a pragmatist, I think sometimes the situation can boil down to Teddy Roosevelt's saying of "Speak softly and carry a big stick, and you will go far." I think the situation with Putin calls for the TR approach.
I do have an issue with this for example in Bob's piece (I have been a Bob follower for about 6 or 7 years now):
"For example: I’ve argued that doing a better job of exercising “cognitive empathy” toward Russian leaders over the past three decades—better understanding how they see the world, and pursuing America’s foreign policy goals in light of that understanding—could probably have prevented the Ukraine war. And I’ve argued that exercising cognitive empathy toward Putin right now could be in the world’s interest (helping us, for example, avoid nuclear war). "
I would say this part in particular "...could probably have prevented the Ukraine war." is at least arguable and at most I would have written "...could POSSIBLY have prevented the Ukraine war." I may be overcome with confirmation bias and attribution error in thinking still that this war is overwhelmingly caused by Putin's thoughts/beliefs and the dynamics generated by Russian culture, history and authoritarian government downsides. Given these factors in my thinking our (USA/NATO) while we have say contributing negligence in the matter, the majority of the causes lie in other arenas that all the cognitive empathy and non-attribution errors in place we still would be up against Putin as the problem generated out of his individual psychodynamics, the Russian history, Russian culture and the nature of authoritarian systems. Thus, even at the risk of Putin's first use of nuclear weapons we need to respond massively should he use nuclear weapons only with conventional means (like destroy the Baltic and/or Black Sea Russian fleets and maybe all Russian troops on the ground in Ukraine) and risk the ultimate of nuclear war. We do this out of believing that if we do not we won't stop Putin/Russia and will embolden any authoritarian government with nuclear weapons to prey upon their neighbors and/or eventually NATO/USA. Then I could be completely wrong he says with a smile.
To see the world clearly is to see nuance and contingency and ambiguity, descriptions that often clash with the normal sense of clarity. Humans crave clarity and we will invent clarity even when it does not exist.
I'm all for calling attention to the benefits of practising cognitive empathy, avoiding attribution error, and learning to separate feelings and emotions from one's thoughts and intentions. Where I part company is the idea that the Buddha's (or Buddhism's) goal is to better the world. It's not about making the world ("out there") a better place, it's about learning how to make peace with the fact that the world is not a perfect place and will never be. That's not to say that the Buddha (and Buddhists) has not endeavoured to create conditions more conducive to practice--safer, calmer, and supportive--but this was just a means, not the end.
I share your enthusiasm for Buddhist meditation practice. I share your perspective that we'd all do better if we had a less-clouded, more empathetic perspective on others, friends and enemies. But how will "cognitive empathy" (understanding the motivating thoughts & feelings of others) aid us beyond our current means? And how would "cognitive empathy" have helped leaders, such as Chamberlain, FDR--and even Stalin!--in dealing with Hitler? (To use a character whom, I believe, most of us would have a hard time "empathizing" with, although knowing his mind and drives and will would have been of the utmost value.) We can now say that same about Putin, or even Zelensky. Yet leaders surprise us. In a strategic interaction (IR, for instance), circumstances promote deception & unpredictability. Such incentives would thus interfere with any cognitive empathy exercised by anyone seeking to interact with another or influence the other's courses of action. Are we really in danger because we don't understand Putin? Or perhaps Putin doesn't give a hoot about our perspective or values and doesn't want or care for "empathy? In short, are we not wiser to say "this man (or woman) is no damn good" and isn't amendable to reasoned persuasion or appeals to the common good, if such is the case. (And not to get readers too fired-up, but I can think of some "leaders" in the U.S. who trigger the same response in me.) Sometimes there are deep & abiding conflicts that we can't bridge by negotiation or persuasion. Sometimes the balance of goodness & right clearly tip the scales of justice and our perception in these matters is a result of reasonably clear insight. In short, the absolute goodness of a Christ or a Buddha or any person of good will cannot overcome those who are committed to force, violence, and evil.
BTW, check out the vastly underappreciated political thinker & Buddhist meditation teacher on this topic. William (Patrick) Ophuls. My observations & thoughts on his work: https://sgreenleaf.substack.com/p/jesus-buddha-and-socrates-need-help-14-09-19.
I don't mean to discourage you, au contraire! But the hurdle is high. Good luck.
The standard critique of Chamberlain is that he failed to understand what was actually going on in Hitler's mind--that Hitler was intent on further aggression and that appeasement wouldn't stop him. Successfully employing cognitive empathy means understanding what's going on in people's minds. So Chamberlain (and the world) would have been better off if he'd been better at cognitive empathy, right?
Undoubtably! The "war monger" Churchill had a much keener appreciation of Hitler's motives and aims than did Chamberlain (and quite a few others). I suggest that the first law of cognitive empathy ought to be "Really pay attention--deep, careful attention--to what the other says, whether in words or in writing, if you want to gain a deep understanding of their thoughts and likely actions. I suspect WSC read MEIN KAMPF & that Chamberlain didn't.
You answered your own question:
"And how would "cognitive empathy" have helped leaders, such as Chamberlain, FDR--and even Stalin!--in dealing with Hitler? (To use a character whom, I believe, most of us would have a hard time "empathizing" with, although knowing his mind and drives and will would have been of the utmost value.) "
Are you asking about how those leaders would have deployed cognitive empathy? Because it sounds like you agree it's useful. If I understand you correctly, you're sold on the concept, but want more on how to execute it?
Yes, indeed! As an advocate (politics & law), I've been a student of persuasion for a long time now. And as a practitioner, I find persuasion (which I'd defined as a conscious reaching of consensus about an idea or course of action) to be of the highest value. But I'll be darned if I've ever discovered the secret sauce! I've looked into classical & contemporary rhetoric; neuroscience; logic; discourse analysis, as well as propaganda techniques, NLP, hypnosis, and even magic (a la Collingwood). So, if cognitive empathy is the secret sauce, then bring it on! But my current supposition is that there is no secret sauce; that persuasion is a form of trench warfare that is won or lost (persuasion successful or not) in small increments. I also hold that to persuade others one must be persuadable, and ethical persuasion requires raising the knowledge & consciousness (a loose term, I know) of those whom you intend to persuade. Persuasion seeks to create power, but (in my terms, following Hannah Arendt), political power is the opposite of force (or deception, I'd add). Power is the ability to gain the assent of others to act in concert toward a common aim. In other words, political power doesn't issue from the barrel of a gun (Mao), only coercion & violence do so (the antithesis of politics). True power is gained through persuasion conducted in a public space. Thus, if cognitive empathy as Robert conceives it furthers this goal (and goals of private action, too), then I'm all in. My skepticism is whether Buddhism, neuroscience, or evolutionary thought will have much new to help us in the endeavor of persuasion and human interactions. But I will be delighted to have my skepticism proven unfounded!
Agree. In dealing with the devil or Hitler or Trump or even (on a much more pleasant note), your loved ones, understanding their thinking & feeling (closely, closely related, I contend) is of the utmost importance. (And is “understanding” a fair synonym for “cognitive empathy?” I believe so, but stand ready for correction if justified.) And maintaining our own peace of mind, serenity, and clear-sightedness even when dealing with the most despicable of characters. But for all our insight into others and our own venerable self-control, how do we deal with those marked by various degrees of evil? Those who would sow chaos, lust for power, and are willing to prey upon and sacrifice the lives of others? I admit that I'm exploring the limits of what cognitive empathy can accomplish.
As to followers, the same applies. Since 2016 (and even before but with much less intensity & alarm), I've been seeking to better understand the feelings, thoughts, and motives of those who support--even if just to vote for--Trump. Trump, I believe, isn't “conservative” in any meaningful sense, and only libertine, not liberal; he is in some measure sui generis, at least in the role of president. And despite my attempts at understanding, compassion, and cognitive empathy, I still remain convinced that people who still support Trump and the Big Lie are just plain nuts (to put it in the politest way that I can). But for all my sympathy for the suffering & delusion many Trump supporters have suffered (which we must acknowledge; many Americans have real cause to feel ignore, left-behind, and dismissed), I will not stand by passively and watch as they & the demagogues who cater to them tear down the house of democracy & the rule of law. Sympathy and empathy can be justified & at times useful, but does compassion necessarily entail acceptance? I think not. It's a real balancing act that requires discernment and judgment. (I realize that in my comments I'm exploring the boundaries of cognitive empathy before Robert has made his case. So, the conversation has a long way to go.)
It’s not just that we don’t see the world clearly- it’s because we want things to be different from the way they are.
I’m interested in what you’ve said here… I’ve always understood that Buddhist meditation to be about an emptying of the mind, not a meditating ‘on’ something. I’ve recently been involved in publishing a book on Christian Mindfulness (https://amzn.to/3z0ehnC) and these practices are found throughout church history. They certainly involve the meditating ‘on’, rather than an ‘emptying of’. I would suggest that our encounter with the ‘ultimate other’ (God) in Christian mindfulness (the meditation of the psalms?) is what enables us to more deeply connect with those who appear ‘other’ to us, or who we are urged to ‘other’. Is there something specific to Buddhist meditation that you think is able to achieve something over and above what Christian mindfulness / meditation enables us to reach? You seem to imply that Buddhism has a monopoly on meditative practices, and therefore any attempt to separate cognition and emotion is Buddhist, which would mean Christian contemplation etc. is ultimately Buddhist. Is that what you’re suggesting? I’d be interested in your thoughts…
You may want to read Evan Thompson's Why I Am Not a Buddhist. He offers a thoroughgoing critique of what he terms "Buddhist exceptionalism." Bob is one of his interlocutors in the book, and both have a great discussion about their respective viewpoints here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=heSq98tNTlM
"Modern" Buddhism, based on recent translations of Buddhist text that are are usually diffracted through a Western lens, is great at articulating of what plagues us, i.e., why we suffer and seek conflict even in life circumstances that by most measures are very comfortable. But if one delves a little deeper into philosophy (and theology), one can see that Buddhist positions and contemplative approaches aren't all that different from, say, those of Christian, Jewish, and Muslim mystics (e.g., Meister Eckhart, Martin Buber, or Rumi).
It would be inappropriate to conflate all of these very rich traditions by saying that they're all the same thing--they're not, but they may offer different gates to get to the same place ultimately. We're very complex beings owing to our cultural heritages and that's reflected in this wonderful diversity.
These ideas seem so sensible and welcome that I start worrying that I'm inadvertently relaxing into a tribal affiliation (-: . But if so, I suppose the tribal label is "human," and its boundaries readily permeable to all -- with the possible exception of unwise extraterrestrials and poorly-programmed AI.
I am a longtime devotee of your teachings, so I will continue to follow your newsletter; however, one of my favorite aspects of your podcast was the analysis of current events from a perspective of both Buddhist thought and evolutionary biology. As we try to lead a compassionate life, it is so helpful to read your insights on how human behavior evolved - war, narcissism, and higher-order altruism recur throughout history despite such knowledge.
Peg Regan
"One way to put one of Buddhism’s central claims is like this: The reason we suffer, and the reason we make other people suffer, is that we don’t see the world clearly."
This ties in nicely with what psychiatrist M. Scott Peck said in his seminal work "The Road Less Traveled": that mental health is a defined as "a dedication to reality at all costs."
So is one way to attain these goals that we properly invest in treating mental illness while supporting mental wellness?
Sometimes, as a pragmatist, I think sometimes the situation can boil down to Teddy Roosevelt's saying of "Speak softly and carry a big stick, and you will go far." I think the situation with Putin calls for the TR approach.
I do have an issue with this for example in Bob's piece (I have been a Bob follower for about 6 or 7 years now):
"For example: I’ve argued that doing a better job of exercising “cognitive empathy” toward Russian leaders over the past three decades—better understanding how they see the world, and pursuing America’s foreign policy goals in light of that understanding—could probably have prevented the Ukraine war. And I’ve argued that exercising cognitive empathy toward Putin right now could be in the world’s interest (helping us, for example, avoid nuclear war). "
I would say this part in particular "...could probably have prevented the Ukraine war." is at least arguable and at most I would have written "...could POSSIBLY have prevented the Ukraine war." I may be overcome with confirmation bias and attribution error in thinking still that this war is overwhelmingly caused by Putin's thoughts/beliefs and the dynamics generated by Russian culture, history and authoritarian government downsides. Given these factors in my thinking our (USA/NATO) while we have say contributing negligence in the matter, the majority of the causes lie in other arenas that all the cognitive empathy and non-attribution errors in place we still would be up against Putin as the problem generated out of his individual psychodynamics, the Russian history, Russian culture and the nature of authoritarian systems. Thus, even at the risk of Putin's first use of nuclear weapons we need to respond massively should he use nuclear weapons only with conventional means (like destroy the Baltic and/or Black Sea Russian fleets and maybe all Russian troops on the ground in Ukraine) and risk the ultimate of nuclear war. We do this out of believing that if we do not we won't stop Putin/Russia and will embolden any authoritarian government with nuclear weapons to prey upon their neighbors and/or eventually NATO/USA. Then I could be completely wrong he says with a smile.