The Power of Outrospection and Empathy

page: 1
4

log in

join

posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 12:47 PM
link   
Here is one of those snazzy marker-board animations discussing the importance of nurturing empathy, and the positive revolution that a more empathic civilization could create.

In essence, the idea for outrospection is the age old idea of not judging someone until you have walked a mile in their shoes, and how, by truly making an effort at understanding people at an emotional level, we could improve life on earth in general.




I must admit that my "ultimate conspiracy" has to do with the fact (and yes a number of studies prove this) that people in positions of power have greater psychopathic tendencies than average and one of the main symptoms of psychopathy is the lack of empathy. (Now, does power create psychopathy or are psychopaths attracted to power is the question.)

I believe that there is definitely something to this idea, and, as the video describes, empathic movements have brought substantial social change, like the ending of apartheid.

However, this will not be an easy revolution, as propaganda has been used to de-humanize people who are different, and to discourage empathy. Be it religion, or governments, we are constantly bombarded by messages of fear and hatred toward those who are different, instead of being encouraged to truly understand them and ultimately live in harmony with them.

Anyhow, enjoy and discuss.

I'll admit that on a personal level, I will have to work on being more empathic towards the people in positions of power who lack empathy!

the Billmeister




posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 12:52 PM
link   
I was mulling this very subject earlier today! Thankyou.

I truely believe psychopaths are attracted to power, they only care about themselves and can't empathize with the pain they cause. Which I guess is why a lot more empathic people these days feel depressed.

Now here is the problem, would an empathic person want to seek power over others anyway? So if we were to try and get rid of the psycopaths, who would want to take over... probably another one
edit on 25-2-2013 by Mister_Bit because: Ah...



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 01:07 PM
link   
Awesome, totally awesome.

This has been my main focus for about 40 years....understanding one another.
Not just "agreeing", but "UNDERSTANDING" one another.
Add to empathy: COMPASSION.

Thanks for this vid and thread. s/f!

If we don't truly understand what another person has suffered, or what they fear, or what they hope and wish for, we can't really be a "community" - global or otherwise.

Yeah, psychopaths in charge is bad. The guy mentions Socrates. Yesterday I finished re-reading Dialogues of Plato; Plato has Socrates saying, "What we need is PHILOSOPHERS who are in charge."

Thanks again!



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


Great topic Billmesister: S&F.

Read Plato's Republic. Especially the chapter on "The Philospher King." Many believe that George Lucas patterned the Jedi's and Jedi council based upon this chapter. A perfect society can only be preserved with philosopher kings. Socrates was disenchanted with the state of Athens, corruption in politics, and felt that Greek democracy had become a timocracy. People voting for who they like? Sound like Hope and Change?

A philosopher should not be lied to as a child, they should be educated without corruptible influences, they should not be rewarded for guiding/ruling society. And most importantly, they must possess true knowledge. What is true knowledge? Virtue. Knowing what is right.

Most people in control want to be. If you're ever at a playground watching the children, you will observe about 10% tell the other children what to do. The rest of them converse and play. It's starts early, so philospher kings should be identified at the youngest possible age.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by ibiubu
 

Just finished "Republic" yesterday.
I hear ya, friend.


Identified, and then nurtured. Music and then 'gymnastic'......

edit on 25-2-2013 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 03:29 PM
link   
Great points all around!

I must admit that Plato's Republic goes quite a ways back, though I remember the concept of the "philosopher king" well. I remember that his Utopia was based on heavy class distinction, and being struck by his suggestion that a hired militia was necessary. (Of course, everything must be placed in its historic perspective, and the Greek city-states of the time were in constant war... in fact I believe Athens had just been conquered by Sparta when he wrote this.)

Of course, the notion of the "benevolent king" or "philosopher king" goes against the pure nature of democracy where every citizen can have a say.

There are many essays on the dangers of a self-proclaimed ruler who considers themselves to be acting for a "universal good" because the ends is justified by any means. (Even the most horrific.) In fact, many of history's most brutal regimes were ruled by such men.

Herein lies the problem of psychopaths in power. Can laws be made or systems put in place to prevent them from taking over? Or is this the natural phenomenon of the 10% in the playground playing itself out in the political sphere?

One thing is for certain, we must never fall for the age old propaganda tools used to justify wars ever again, for as corny as it may sound, people are the essentially the same the world over, and we just need to recognize it!

the Billmeister



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Billmeister
 


Socrates was certainly against democracy. In the beginning it worked in Greece. He saw it's destruction and proposed an "ideal" republic. There wouldn't be a philosopher king solely in charge. The philosopher kings would guide the elected politicians. They would then be the "check" to a potential corruptible imbalance. Much like the Jedi council in Star Wars.

Guess the Greeks were offended by his critique. So they sentenced him to death and poisoned him with Hemlock. His story is the secular story of Christ. Some conspiracies revolve around this. Did the Romans use Socrates story as the backdrop of the artificial "Jesus" character to popularize Christianity and control the masses? Ahhhh, not Constantine.

Although back to the topic of your OP. Organizations that facilitate conformity instill hatred and judgement in their members by stereotyping others in a variety of ways. If I tell someone that I'm in search of the true answer to an event, I am commended. If I tell them I'm a conspiracy theorist, I am ridiculed. I think more and more people are becoming enlightened to this.
edit on 25-2-2013 by ibiubu because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 03:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Billmeister
 


It is just another trick to get people to accept collectivism instead of individuality. Introspection is better, you need to know yourself and stick to your values instead of were a mask of conformity for others...
edit on 26-2-2013 by arpgme because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by arpgme
reply to post by Billmeister
 


It is just another trick to get people to accept collectivism instead of individuality. Introspection is better, you need to know yourself and stick to your values instead of were a mask of conformity for others...
edit on 26-2-2013 by arpgme because: (no reason given)


How long, on average. does it take someone to know themselves?

After that, can the effort of learning about different cultures and socio-economic conditions begin?

The idea of outrospection leading to an increased (through conscious effort) level of empathy was in no way associated to a forced conformity, and especially not the "mask-wearing" disingenuous kind, so I'm curious as to how you came upon this conclusion.

the Billmeister



posted on Feb, 26 2013 @ 01:45 PM
link   
Looking outward to others instead of looking inwards probably lead to seeking other's approval and therefore conformity and such fakeness to get it.

How long does it take for you to know yourself? It depends how familiar you are - different times for different folks. But this is irrelevant because there is always something new to learn about yourself as things happen all the time (and therefore new emotions/reactions)



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 07:49 AM
link   
reply to post by arpgme
 


I would have thought that both introspection and outrospection were not mutually exclusive.

Our differing viewpoint may come from our different definition of "outrospection":


Looking outward to others instead of looking inwards probably lead to seeking other's approval and therefore conformity and such fakeness to get it.


You see it as a personal quest for seeking acceptance from others, I see it more like it was described in the video, as a conscious effort to educate ourselves about the reality facing others before making any judgement on them.
As I wrote in the OP: "Not judging someone until you have walked a mile in their shoes."

I would tend to agree that a certain level of self-acceptance is required to go out and seek that though people may differ culturally and/or religiously, they have much more in common than any outward differences may suggest.

the Billmeister



posted on Feb, 27 2013 @ 12:11 PM
link   
I see what you are saying now arpgme. I like that sentence. Good thoughts Billmeister, and there are so many psychological terms/words that can confuse this all IMHO.

I will offer my 2 cents, and then explain my name ibiubu.

Introspection is looking within. Can be bad, can be good. Are you dwelling on something, or you trying to think of your favorite to visit place to visit?

Outrospection is looking outside yourself. Same possibilities apply. Are you seeking approval (like arpgme mentions) or are you being empathetic towards others. In the context of the video, I prefer the word nurturing, but a bit semantics and it is not about me.


To think of a person as someone who displays introspection and outrospection is "black and white" thinking. Tends to imply they are self-seeking or only self-less. So many possibilities occur in a relationship.

If I have good relationships (myself, others, family, work, animals), I am happy and serene. We all need other people. We are symbiotic beings. We affect each other just as the vid pointed out - both with physical language and mental impact. I must first be myself, comfortable with who I am. Otherwise, the relationship is doomed. So, I approach other people first with interest. I want to know about them, pretty much cause I'm curious anyway. The effect of listening, conversing, and just "being there" has a huge impact on the other person. Send out positive vibes, for lack of a better word, and you get them back. The more comfortable that person is as an individual, the better the outcome.

Fear, bias, misunderstanding, manipulation, and other things stand in the way of nurturing any relationship. Tolerance, humility, and virtue help nurture any relationship. It's interesting that serenity is achieved by not seeking it. If you just "be" (stay in the moment, or go with the flow) and "be there" for others, you go to sleep happy. Isn't that the goal? If you have expectations and an agenda that is "against" the flow, you are never happy. A bit like trying to control your outcome.

Those that are self-seeking have a relationship problem. If one desires power and is willing to manipulate, cheat, and lie to achieve it; they certainly care less about other people than they do themselves. The problem is not their relationship with other people. It is their relationship with themselves. Those who act this way are riddled with guilt. At a certain point, they may become a 'psychopath', tormented by their own soul.

I always ask people who are offended by people, "Is it because you want them to act like you wish?" Next question is "What if we were all the same? If we were programmed robots according to what you believe should be?" Usually the answer is "I see your point." I've gotten a few choice words, but understand. No punches LOL.

ibiubu = i was going to get a customized license plate and had only so many letters and digits to choose from. So it's an acronym. I was talking to a friend (actually a rasta from Jamaica mon), and sometimes i give im a bit of da island patois. We were discussing our viewpoints on racism. He said "I am I HIM." HIM is a reference to "His Imperial Majesty" from Ethiopian Royalty. Because I knew his nature, he was not being arrogant. He truly just felt that we was a good person. And, he was. I responded "I Be I and You Be You." Later I laughed, because it's exactly how I feel about my relationships with other people.

So, ibiubu

May Peace Be With You
edit on 27-2-2013 by ibiubu because: (no reason given)
edit on 27-2-2013 by ibiubu because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
4

log in

join