I’ve been re-exploring the concept empathy as an important quality and skill necessary for collaboration, cooperation and conflict resolution when our differences causes us to clash.
I have written and spoken about empathy to highlight its complexity and utility in the past. Discussion about empathy can be contentious due to academic dissection and organisational psychology research turning it into yet another remedy for workplace burnout prevention. In light of the global responses to the intractable conflict between Israel and Hamas, I’ve been examining the causes of empathy erosion as a precursor to empathy loss, dehumanisation and radicalisation.
To empathise and show empathy to another is to really try to understand what it is like for the other person in their position (not how it would be for me if I were in their position). I don’t have to agree with someone’s position to empathise with their rationale for holding their position and I don’t need to feel their feelings (contrary to common interpretations of empathy).
I can feel uncomfortable about their point of view and can still be curious about the ideas and experiences that influenced their perspective because there’s a reason they feel the way they do. I can attempt to understand how their life experiences and exposure to influential authorities shaped their thinking. To successfully get to the heart of someone’s beliefs, I need fully functioning empathy and a well-developed interpersonal communication skillset.
I am also aware that when we’re upset or fired up by world events, power struggles, opposing opinions and troubling behaviours, we automatically default to seeing reality through the lens of Karpman’s Drama Triangle.
Here it is again:
Viewing reality through any of these roles strips reality of complexity, nuance and objectivity, making it even more difficult to uncover the truth. The oppressive dynamic between these roles is the same divisiveness that leads to tribalism and collective narcissism evident in many progressive movements and extremist groups.
If I’m being honest here, I can say that each of these roles (and others) exist in me simultaneously. For example, I can lament being Jewish person witnessing a sharp increase in antisemitism, causing me to feel afraid while aggressively advocating for safety of Jewish people in Israel and insulting anyone who disagrees with me by calling them antisemitic. I’m all 3 of these roles in this one scenario. While I can view my reality in one of these roles, I’m likely to show behaviours of the other roles too.
So it shouldn’t be a surprise when others perceive me in any of these roles when they feel charged up by something I’m saying or doing. My perception of my own impact on others can be quite different to the perception of how someone experiences me, for better or worse.
Reading through comments of pro-Israel, pro-Palestine, anti-Israel, anti-Hamas posts etc it’s easy to see how posters and commenters channel different roles of Karpman’s Drama Triangle that continue to reinforce (unnecessary) power struggles of intractable conflict.
How do we resist being drawn into the dynamics that erode empathy and prevent seeing reality from the other’s perspective, even if it’s really uncomfortable to do?
Here’s a provocation for you…
I want you to imagine that you can see through the eyes of another person who has radically different OR similar perspectives and behaviours to you.
Pick someone from this list who is a member of:
Hamas
Palestinian people in Gaza
Jewish people in Israel
the IDF
Jewish people in the Diaspora
Pro-Palestine activist group
Pro-Israel activist group
Hamas sympathiser group
anyone in a group you abhor
anyone in a group you belong to
No group is a monolith. For the purpose of this exercise, I’m asking you to zone in on someone you know or you’ve interacted with online or you’ve witnessed online who belongs to any of these groups.
If you feel disgusted/angry/upset by the person you chose, it’s likely you see them in the Persecutor/Oppressor role. You will need to temporarily suspend the feelings you have toward them to be able to enter into their mind and imagine how they see the world as the:
victim
persecutor
rescuer
The ASK: I want you to construct a narrative of the way you imagine that person views the situation in Israel-Gaza and how that situation is impacting on them and their behaviour as each of those roles (3 narratives in total).
The purpose is to stretch our mind to consider the different ways a person can view reality based on the role they are in and how easy it is for us to box people in based on our own narrowed view of reality. You could ask yourself “What happened in their life that shaped their experiences as a victim/persecutor/rescuer.” “What goal are they trying to achieve through belonging to that group while embodying the role as victim/persecutor/rescuer?”
Please don’t use this exercise to mock that person - I know it’s tempting but please resist as it’s counter to the intent and purpose of this exercise.
I’m looking forward to seeing your narratives in the comments below!
Thank you for taking part in my little empathy enhancing thought experiment.
I'm choosing a member of a pro-palestine activist group. This person is GenZ, university educated, US-based and neither Jewish, Muslim, Israeli or Palestininan. You're going to see my constructs about this person through the way I narrate their experience as victim, persecutor and rescuer.
Victim: The US government continues to use our tax dollars to fund war and fund a terrorist nation to continually oppress Palestinians. We have housing, job, climate crises. I don't know if I'll ever be able to afford my own place working like a dog in this capitalist society. I'm stressed just thinking about my future. As long as Palestinians are oppressed, we're all oppressed. My liberation is tied to theirs and my freedoms are limited as long as they are oppressed.
Persecutor: I believe that Israel is a menacing, apartheid-like oppressor who should have expected violent resistance from Palestinians. Yes, what Hamas did was wrong and awful but that pales in comparison to all the women and children murdered. Eradicating Zionism is key to freeing Palestinians from 75 years of oppression. Israel created Hamas and now they have to deal with consequences of that.
Rescuer: The Palestinian people have been oppressed living in a concentration camp with limited access to movement, opportunities and freedom. They are victims of imperialist settler colonialists who are currently being ethnically cleansed from the region. I go to every protest, walk out and sign every petition to use whatever power I have to bring about a cease fire and an end to Palestinian genocide.
I'm glad you're thinking about it too Kate. It's sad that we can so easily be dehumanized that it requires another tragedy to wake us up. I'm hoping to release a follow up to this any day now on empathy loss and its causes.
Tough exercise on a very tough subject. Something I will have to mull over.
To me in the Israel Hamas struggle it’s pretty obvious who the aggressor is and frankly who the oppressor is, it’s Hamas. I am going to have tough time trying to understand the other side. But I will try
Off the cuff, I would say yes, but you "don't have to get into bed with them." But in the case of the Israel-Gaza tragedy, they are people in the same community with divergent beliefs. Even so, many of them are friends. Then you have those politicians, radicals, and other deluded souls stirring the pot, and creating strife and death. These are the wetiko-filled members of the military-industrial complex, international bankers, special-interest groups and globalists who benefit, or believe they benefit, from the human catastrophe. These psychopaths, and the ones that believe them, are the ones creating the issue. I don't empathize with these. https://yuval-idan.medium.com/to-my-western-leftist-friends-from-your-leftist-israeli-friend-c1356c1976a1
I'm with you Silver Warrior. If there weren't so many interested parties influencing geopolitics and international relations, we would be having a different conversation.
This is a wonderful little exercise for a high school classroom. And is typical of many post modern psychology thought. But will fail to work in the real world due to the simple fact that opponents are opponents for a reason. Being able to empathize with an opposing group with conflicting motives and goals does nothing to resolve your conflict with them. Take EU/ Ukraine/USA/ Russia. The fundamental issue is EU/US encroachment of weapons systems farther east into the Ukraine and toward the Russian border. President Putin has no need to empathize with NATO when he sees a threat to his country.
And that is the crux of collaboration, cooperation and conflict resolution. You can only honestly empathize with those that you share common values and morals with. As is the case of Hamas. Hamas rapped and murdered innocent civilians on Oct 7. Any ability on my part to empathize with the plight of Palestinians in Gaza was lost when they intentionally landed at a music festival and in cold blood murdered 260 party goers. Because we do not share a common set of values.
Lastly, you don't point out in this piece, what is the ultimate benefit of trying to see the world through their eyes? My experience growing up in western USA in the 1950s, will ultimate override any insights I gain from seeing the world through the eyes of Osama bin Laden. Why? because I place more value on my world and community than his.
Dr. Martinek showed some promise at first, but in the end -- she's a bullshitter by definition (they all are). Anyone who wants to challenge me on that, I invite you to try:
"Bullshitters seek to convey a certain impression of themselves without being concerned about whether anything at all is true. They quietly change the rules governing their end of the conversation so that claims about truth and falsity are irrelevant."
Thank you for liking me! Ms Martinek. Are you related to the Martinek's in Kenosha? I worked in the Brass foundry, like my father and g-father. There were Martinek's who worked there.
You are touching on a subject I have studied for many years. I am an elder now and have finally made sense of things. It took discipline and focus and hard work in thinking. Having overcome the drug scene and violence of the 70's, which included several hospitalizations and a period of homelessness, the onslaught of political persecutions by several fascistic-type groups--such as Feminism, La Raza, --I was even rejected by the anarchists in Milwaukee for speaking about Armand Hammer!--I have lived long enough to see how precious women are to our existence.
That is why I write to you now. There is no point to life without you in it. We don't even have to be married to know that we need one another! Dad was wrong! And kinda sick to think Mom should be the sole object of his desire alone. Men need women. Women need men. Agape. Not a communist collective, either! If you tend to think Christianity and Communism are equivalent, or make that argument, like Pope in Rome is doing at this point in time, I'll tell you "You are nuts!."
Hello! I'm not related to any Martineks in the US.
You're right. We need each other but there's a caveat. Both parties need to have the will to take action to actively support and protect each other. Humanity would cease to exist without women and my hope is that women can get better at supporting each other better.
Thank you for writing! I am a bit confused when you say on the one hand boys and girls need one another, but your focus is on relations between girls exclusively. Boys need you, too, Ms Martinek. It is very sad to me, what is happening to boys. I helped an 11 year old boy here last week. The over-wrought mother threatened to 'throat-punch' the boy. I saw him on two earlier occasions, but he was kept under the counter at the store. When this boy finally came out and I looked at him, I saw something wrong. His eyes! On two or three nights I woke up seeing his face--with cold chills. Finally, I called the law about this torture and abuse. I would like to see you in prison, Ms Martinek, for your abuses. JK
Ms. Martinek. I think your upbringing was similar to mine. I make that conclusion because of your words. You say, in your own words, your intent is to focus on women. You have a tit-for-tat mentality. I'm telling you, you are wrong, and criminal. Because children are now being tortured and killed in front of your face, you still refuse take responsibility. You have no heart.
You think you are a good person, right? You say I have a character problem, after relating how I got involved to help this boy. Unbelievable! If there is a problem of child neglect, it is nowhere to be found on my side of the conversation--which you created. You create division. You are the problem, Ms Martinek. You learned it from sick people. JK
It's a tough exercise because you have to imagine how they think and feel, one of the assumptions being that they believe they're doing something good, and channel different roles at the same time.
Nov 30, 2023·edited Nov 30, 2023Liked by Nathalie Martinek PhD
Dear Dr. Martinek:
I'm looking forward to hearing back from you in Katherine's channel, but in the meantime -- I thought I'd comment on this (which will shed some light on my other commentary). There was a time in our culture when such exercises would have been more fruitful. I greatly benefitted from being required to do similar things in Government class in high school. I believe in what you're trying to do -- but here's the problem: We're living in a culture that "can't" even agree on the most demonstrably provable facts imaginable.
As stated on my site:
"Believing things that have no bearing on reality has become a plague across America — erosion of reason that took decades of denying the undeniable. Systematic oversimplification has taken over to the point where inconvenient correlations are condemned as 'convoluted.' And any attempt to have a conversation on issues that clearly call for careful consideration — is hijacked by baseless beliefs beaten into your brain as bedrock fact."
Before I continue, I'd like you to consider my critique in the context of a book called "The Habit of Thought: From Socratic Seminars to Socratic Practice." It's a great book from 1997 by an author who largely teaches teenagers in schools that welcome such methods in critical thinking courses. In theory, it should work -- as you're getting kids to think before they harden their mind as adults. But here's the problem: The subject matter is not personal, and when it hits home is when your critical thinking skills are truly put to the test.
Your approach coupled with his at that age would great -- but you'd need never get in the door with hot-button topics of this nature. It's utterly ridiculous but that's the way it is -- until we find a way to change that mentality. The issue involved in that exercise in high school -- would likely not even be allowed today. Isn't that sad, as that exercise didn't tell me what I should believe, it just got me to think about it in an open-minded manner.
Then again, why didn't it stick with hardly anyone else in that class? Some of the smartest people I grew up with act like imbeciles and children in slavish service of political gain (including those I agree with). As it was perfectly put in "Social Media Is Reverting Society From Adults Back Into Children": "Adulthood is about spending the time to think before talking . . . Adulthood is about controlling our emotions, learning to take a deep breath and modulating our moments of anger or frustration."
In a country where you can't even count on people to act their age -- we're way too far gone for exercises as advanced as yours. To be sure, they could work wonders for some people -- but I'm talking about widespread impact (a noticeable difference in the atmosphere of America). If you wrote a book of exercises along the lines of the one here, I'm sure it would be a great book, but I don't need to read it to know it wouldn't move America one millimeter. I'm not trying to discourage you, I'm simply conveying the reality of our times.
The only way change that is to adjust in light of new information. I don't see anyone making a case for why their efforts will work (whether it's a book, documentary, or anything else). Lofty language in a sales pitch is not an argument for the efficacy in their approach to achieving their aims.
But my story is built on why it would work -- with very specific reasons behind it. To see that, you'd have to understand the story.
This country needs to learn the immeasurable value in the willingness to be wrong. With what I have in mind, you do that with something's that's undeniable and build on it from there. Your exercise starts from a wide scope and asks people to work their way in to develop a better understanding in order to empathize. I advocate for the exact opposite -- to start with something narrow in scope and definitive (then work your out by connecting the dots to the larger story).
Granted, this cannot be done on every issue -- but this approach is about learning how to argue and connect the dots on the definitive (so that when faced with issues not so clear-cut, you've developed habits on how to approach issues in a more objective and methodical manner). Learning how to be wrong is a path to humility -- which certainly shapes one's ability to have empathy.
This nation has no such notion -- and this is what I feel about damn near all of America:
"There’s no willingness to say, 'I’m wrong.' I mean, you have to take a 2×4 to these people, basically — to get ’em to, sorta, knock ’em down and admit they were wrong."
As stated on my site:
=================
The road to reality is blocked by detours designed to keep you going in circles. Purveyors of poppycock reroute you with narratives that avoid detail like Black Death. The way out is to start with an inconsistency or two that’s narrow in scope and take the trail where it leads. To ascertain the truth on any topic: If you’ve got something concrete to go on — that’s your point of entry. By all means, keep the door open in every direction.
But by nailing down the definitive first, it paves a clearer path to all the rest. This country does the exact opposite on everything: Lumping it all together and never even approaching where you should have started in the first place.
=================
The comparison below is something of an exercise -- by presenting an argument using an alias to temporarily shield the source:
"People who talk glibly about 'intelligence failure' act as if intelligence agencies that are doing their job right would know everything."
— Professional Know-It-All (PKIA for short)
"D.O.E’s standard is to spin a tube at 20% above 90,000 RPM before failure — so 48,000 short is a pretty loose definition of 'rough indication.'"
— Richard W. Memmer: Act II
Between PKIA’s words and mine -- which ones strike you as glib? Every person of age with a functioning brain would come back with the obvious answer. But the second they know who PKIA is, if they're fan of his -- it's no longer about what he said, it becomes about blindly defending him. And we ain't talkin' tax policy here -- this is a matter of mathematical certainty (of world-altering consequence, no less).
And THIS is what I'm to in response (without them even addressing the issue in the slightest). And these are mild compared to the savagery I'm used to:
• “You couldn’t carry PKIA‘s jockstrap!
• “Seriously? Get a life. It doesn’t matter what you say, he’s better than you basically in everything.”
• “You deserved to be treated that way! You’re a moron and pathetic character assassin”
• “Holy shit…. a video of a circle jerks with a nut in the center talking about RPMS. Yet somehow PKIA is a liar.”
You think you can combat that with those exercises? I'm sorry, but there's no way in hell you're reaching the hermetically sealed minds of today with traditional means (not yours or anyone else's).
That’s not an experiment I’d get involved in. As you said hermetically sealed minds are tightly trapped. Nothing is going to get in them so why would I waste effort trying? And who am I to try to change someone’s position or attempt to teach as if I know better than them when it’s not something they’ve even asked me to do?
What’s missing in all the conversations about changing minds, teaching critical thinking, being influential in some way is the importance of a relationship. Unless someone trusts and respects me and feels respected by me, they are likely to be closed to any of my ideas. The deficit that many have is believing that strong arguments, truth and facts are sufficient for penetrating closed minds. Relational approaches that focus on building & sustaining rapport, trust and mutual understanding goes a long way to supporting both parties to consider other perspectives.
This is not an opinion. This is evidence of years of hard work facilitating change in perspective and behaviour that has improved peoples lives in measurable ways.
If we can’t relate to others by seeking to understand why they hold their position or be relatable to others such that they want to get to know us, nothing changes.
Working in a relational way to enable change also requires accepting people as they are. This is hard when we hold high expectations about others. Being realistic about peoples capabilities and Will helps me discern where to invest my finite energy.
Dr. Martinek showed some promise at first, but in the end -- she's a bullshitter by definition (they all are). Anyone who wants to challenge me on that, I invite you to try:
"Bullshitters seek to convey a certain impression of themselves without being concerned about whether anything at all is true. They quietly change the rules governing their end of the conversation so that claims about truth and falsity are irrelevant."
You're all the same -- content creators who talk a good game, but in the end -- it's about racking up subscribers and blowing off anyone who has something more demanding to consider. After all, how I could possibly see something that you don't? How could you have something to learn when you have so much to teach!
These channels aren't about conversation -- it's just a charade. But like the "curious" Katherine -- you got my $8 for one month. Congratulations! "Working in a relational way to enable change also requires accepting people as they are." -- Jesus Christ, could you be any more trite?
What part of this did you not understand: "But my story is built on why it would work -- with very specific reasons behind it. To see that, you'd have to understand the story."
The blankness it must take to fire off your ridiculous reply woven with commentary that couldn't get any more clichéd. Unbelievable! You act like you can't even process any information that doesn't conform to your formula. Ya know, like damn near everyone else anymore. That you're "polite" in your prejudice doesn't change that fact that it's prejudice by definition.
"You raise excellent points about the cognitive decline over the years that would make it difficult to stretch beyond black & white thinking"
As you respond with blank & white thinking. Nice work! You said, "I think a lighter touch would be better" -- to which I replied, "Let's give it a go -- and see if you're as sharp as you think you are." That's what I was really saying, but instead of rising to the challenge -- now it's, "You said yourself, you can't reach them."
No, I said you can't with conventional means (and that I have an idea to get around that) -- which was the whole f@#%ing point behind how this "conversation" started in the first place. You didn't do jack shit to understand anything from the start, but "Hey, you should read Katherine's book before you're [allowed to comment on the obvious]"
You showed some promise after being called out, but then proceeded to play the same game (framing the "conversation" so it expediently goes your way and bail once you've satisfied your self-image). Instead of showing some curiosity and thirst to discover, you were too busy telling me what you think you know. Heaven forbid you people just STFU and ask some questions for a change. Don't just tell your audience how to behave -- lead by example!
You raise excellent points about the cognitive decline over the years that would make it difficult to stretch beyond black & white thinking. There are many reasons for this that include the sinking quality of education, easy access to poor quality information, increased accessibility to instantly gratifying emotionally dysregulating interactions that hijack executive function, trauma burden and the list goes on. It could be that my proposed exercise is aiming too high that people are challenged by the prospect of trying to think like their enemy or trying to see their enemy as a human who is suffering, though I know many of my subscribers have the capacity to employ the skills of empathy to stretch their mind.
I'm not trying to combat anything. Even the awareness that it's hard to imagine yourself in your enemy's position is already a disruptive experience that will continue to unfold in that person.
Having considered your input, I'm thinking a lighter touch would have been useful in getting them to focus more specifically before trying to employ the proposed approach. You got me thinking and I appreciate what you've offered here.
You're a consultant for hire, right? I'd like to hire you for an experiment. My budget is $1,000 for whatever amount of time that gets me. As a matter of good faith, I'd give you half in advance. Part of that time would need to be spent understanding the story I'm out to tell, and then coming up with your own approach to getting my target audience to listen.
In over 2 years of telling this story on Thomas Sowell, I've been practically spit by people promoting principles I followed to find he didn’t. Sowell's a mild-mannered guy on the whole and his fanatical followers act like animals to "honor" him. On the biggest and most costly lie in modern history, he peddled partisan hackery that poisons political discourse and butchers debate to this day. On top of flagrantly ignoring evidence as concrete as it gets, he has a habit of toeing the party line: All of which flies in the face of the principles upon which he’s put on a pedestal.
The cult-like following of this guy is unlike anything I’ve ever seen. As I’ve been in the trenches battling hermetically sealed minds for decades, that’s saying something. His disciples see him as some kind of saint-like Sherlock Holmes — never mind his history being wildly out of sync with his sanctimonious claims. Interconnected echo chambers are seemingly in competition for fawning over this fraud -- it's just pathetic. And it's also an opportunity!
I wrote a post called "Where Can I Find the Festinger of Today?" Where are the professionals willing to look at this underworld of asinine behavior and harness it for good? What the Seekers did in "When Prophecy Fails" pales in comparison to what these people do on a daily basis. Festinger would have a field day with this story.
Not even the touch of a feather is gonna put a hairline crack in these hermetically sealed minds. But I would love for you to prove me wrong. If you do, then I'll have a refined approach to work with. If you don't, then perhaps you'll see just how far off the rails America has gone -- and then you'll see why my idea would work.
Speaking of a lighter touch -- you have a light touch, but allow me to provide some insight into how even the lightest touch can be twisted. "take action to reduce or prevent (something bad or undesirable): an effort to combat drug trafficking." By definition, you are "combating" what's wrong with what's right. But you saw "combat" and heard "combative."
Maybe you didn't like me calling him a professional know-it-all. That's fair, but what does it say to you that I had to come up with an alias just so his crowd will consider his claims in isolation from his immaculate image? What would you call someone who shoots their mouth off without addressing the evidence — but banks on their fabricated reputation to create the impression that they did?
And that's the real story -- the ever-growing danger of image over reality. For 20 years, I've been treated with nothing but contempt for undeniable truth that takes both parties to task. Almost invariably, I'm met with the attitude below and far worse:
"It is as though with some people — those who most avidly embrace the 'we are right' view — have minds that are closed from the very get-go, and they are entirely incapable of opening them, even just a crack. There is no curiosity in them. There are no questions in their minds. There are no 'what ifs?' or 'maybes.'" — Laura Knight-Jadczyk
And yet from barely even a few pixels of a snapshot of the story I've been dealing with for decades -- your advice is to try a lighter touch? I know you mean well but your judgment is wildly premature. And if you take on this experiment, you'll find that these people don't give a damn whether you mean well or not. I'm even assailed on things we agree on, as they instantly assume I'm out to criticize him on what he's most known for (never mind that has nothing to do with it -- other than his hypocrisy in some areas on that front).
The second they see scrutiny of Thomas Sowell -- it's over! You can't breach the force field of fallacy around this man, so you've gotta short-circuit that shield. Hear me out and I'll show you how. And from there, perhaps you can frame the story in a way I can't -- and get paid for it to boot. If my budget's too low, I'm flexible for a bit more.
I'll get things started....
I'm choosing a member of a pro-palestine activist group. This person is GenZ, university educated, US-based and neither Jewish, Muslim, Israeli or Palestininan. You're going to see my constructs about this person through the way I narrate their experience as victim, persecutor and rescuer.
Victim: The US government continues to use our tax dollars to fund war and fund a terrorist nation to continually oppress Palestinians. We have housing, job, climate crises. I don't know if I'll ever be able to afford my own place working like a dog in this capitalist society. I'm stressed just thinking about my future. As long as Palestinians are oppressed, we're all oppressed. My liberation is tied to theirs and my freedoms are limited as long as they are oppressed.
Persecutor: I believe that Israel is a menacing, apartheid-like oppressor who should have expected violent resistance from Palestinians. Yes, what Hamas did was wrong and awful but that pales in comparison to all the women and children murdered. Eradicating Zionism is key to freeing Palestinians from 75 years of oppression. Israel created Hamas and now they have to deal with consequences of that.
Rescuer: The Palestinian people have been oppressed living in a concentration camp with limited access to movement, opportunities and freedom. They are victims of imperialist settler colonialists who are currently being ethnically cleansed from the region. I go to every protest, walk out and sign every petition to use whatever power I have to bring about a cease fire and an end to Palestinian genocide.
This is so interesting, thank you. I’ve been thinking a lot about empathy too, or rather the lack of it, these days.
I'm glad you're thinking about it too Kate. It's sad that we can so easily be dehumanized that it requires another tragedy to wake us up. I'm hoping to release a follow up to this any day now on empathy loss and its causes.
Tough exercise on a very tough subject. Something I will have to mull over.
To me in the Israel Hamas struggle it’s pretty obvious who the aggressor is and frankly who the oppressor is, it’s Hamas. I am going to have tough time trying to understand the other side. But I will try
Off the cuff, I would say yes, but you "don't have to get into bed with them." But in the case of the Israel-Gaza tragedy, they are people in the same community with divergent beliefs. Even so, many of them are friends. Then you have those politicians, radicals, and other deluded souls stirring the pot, and creating strife and death. These are the wetiko-filled members of the military-industrial complex, international bankers, special-interest groups and globalists who benefit, or believe they benefit, from the human catastrophe. These psychopaths, and the ones that believe them, are the ones creating the issue. I don't empathize with these. https://yuval-idan.medium.com/to-my-western-leftist-friends-from-your-leftist-israeli-friend-c1356c1976a1
I'm with you Silver Warrior. If there weren't so many interested parties influencing geopolitics and international relations, we would be having a different conversation.
This is a wonderful little exercise for a high school classroom. And is typical of many post modern psychology thought. But will fail to work in the real world due to the simple fact that opponents are opponents for a reason. Being able to empathize with an opposing group with conflicting motives and goals does nothing to resolve your conflict with them. Take EU/ Ukraine/USA/ Russia. The fundamental issue is EU/US encroachment of weapons systems farther east into the Ukraine and toward the Russian border. President Putin has no need to empathize with NATO when he sees a threat to his country.
And that is the crux of collaboration, cooperation and conflict resolution. You can only honestly empathize with those that you share common values and morals with. As is the case of Hamas. Hamas rapped and murdered innocent civilians on Oct 7. Any ability on my part to empathize with the plight of Palestinians in Gaza was lost when they intentionally landed at a music festival and in cold blood murdered 260 party goers. Because we do not share a common set of values.
Lastly, you don't point out in this piece, what is the ultimate benefit of trying to see the world through their eyes? My experience growing up in western USA in the 1950s, will ultimate override any insights I gain from seeing the world through the eyes of Osama bin Laden. Why? because I place more value on my world and community than his.
Dr. Martinek showed some promise at first, but in the end -- she's a bullshitter by definition (they all are). Anyone who wants to challenge me on that, I invite you to try:
"Bullshitters seek to convey a certain impression of themselves without being concerned about whether anything at all is true. They quietly change the rules governing their end of the conversation so that claims about truth and falsity are irrelevant."
“Substack Is a Scam in the Same Way That All Media Is” Right & Left — you're all being played and always have been: https://onevoicebecametwo.life/2023/12/02/substack-is-a-scam-in-the-same-way-that-all-media-is/
Thank you for liking me! Ms Martinek. Are you related to the Martinek's in Kenosha? I worked in the Brass foundry, like my father and g-father. There were Martinek's who worked there.
You are touching on a subject I have studied for many years. I am an elder now and have finally made sense of things. It took discipline and focus and hard work in thinking. Having overcome the drug scene and violence of the 70's, which included several hospitalizations and a period of homelessness, the onslaught of political persecutions by several fascistic-type groups--such as Feminism, La Raza, --I was even rejected by the anarchists in Milwaukee for speaking about Armand Hammer!--I have lived long enough to see how precious women are to our existence.
That is why I write to you now. There is no point to life without you in it. We don't even have to be married to know that we need one another! Dad was wrong! And kinda sick to think Mom should be the sole object of his desire alone. Men need women. Women need men. Agape. Not a communist collective, either! If you tend to think Christianity and Communism are equivalent, or make that argument, like Pope in Rome is doing at this point in time, I'll tell you "You are nuts!."
Love to hear from you, Ms Martinek.
JK
I would enjoy more discussion with you
Hello! I'm not related to any Martineks in the US.
You're right. We need each other but there's a caveat. Both parties need to have the will to take action to actively support and protect each other. Humanity would cease to exist without women and my hope is that women can get better at supporting each other better.
Thank you Fra Juan
Thank you for writing! I am a bit confused when you say on the one hand boys and girls need one another, but your focus is on relations between girls exclusively. Boys need you, too, Ms Martinek. It is very sad to me, what is happening to boys. I helped an 11 year old boy here last week. The over-wrought mother threatened to 'throat-punch' the boy. I saw him on two earlier occasions, but he was kept under the counter at the store. When this boy finally came out and I looked at him, I saw something wrong. His eyes! On two or three nights I woke up seeing his face--with cold chills. Finally, I called the law about this torture and abuse. I would like to see you in prison, Ms Martinek, for your abuses. JK
You’d like to see me in prison for my abuses?
Thank you for showing your character.
I've changed my mind, Ms Martinek. I apologize for for being so militant. I would NOT want to see you in prison. Now, I want to help you see something I did not see until last week! You helped me see this. And I thank you for it. https://open.substack.com/pub/frajuanklees/p/whole-lotta-love?r=1jtw1c&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Ms. Martinek. I think your upbringing was similar to mine. I make that conclusion because of your words. You say, in your own words, your intent is to focus on women. You have a tit-for-tat mentality. I'm telling you, you are wrong, and criminal. Because children are now being tortured and killed in front of your face, you still refuse take responsibility. You have no heart.
You think you are a good person, right? You say I have a character problem, after relating how I got involved to help this boy. Unbelievable! If there is a problem of child neglect, it is nowhere to be found on my side of the conversation--which you created. You create division. You are the problem, Ms Martinek. You learned it from sick people. JK
It's a tough exercise because you have to imagine how they think and feel, one of the assumptions being that they believe they're doing something good, and channel different roles at the same time.
Dear Dr. Martinek:
I'm looking forward to hearing back from you in Katherine's channel, but in the meantime -- I thought I'd comment on this (which will shed some light on my other commentary). There was a time in our culture when such exercises would have been more fruitful. I greatly benefitted from being required to do similar things in Government class in high school. I believe in what you're trying to do -- but here's the problem: We're living in a culture that "can't" even agree on the most demonstrably provable facts imaginable.
As stated on my site:
"Believing things that have no bearing on reality has become a plague across America — erosion of reason that took decades of denying the undeniable. Systematic oversimplification has taken over to the point where inconvenient correlations are condemned as 'convoluted.' And any attempt to have a conversation on issues that clearly call for careful consideration — is hijacked by baseless beliefs beaten into your brain as bedrock fact."
Before I continue, I'd like you to consider my critique in the context of a book called "The Habit of Thought: From Socratic Seminars to Socratic Practice." It's a great book from 1997 by an author who largely teaches teenagers in schools that welcome such methods in critical thinking courses. In theory, it should work -- as you're getting kids to think before they harden their mind as adults. But here's the problem: The subject matter is not personal, and when it hits home is when your critical thinking skills are truly put to the test.
Your approach coupled with his at that age would great -- but you'd need never get in the door with hot-button topics of this nature. It's utterly ridiculous but that's the way it is -- until we find a way to change that mentality. The issue involved in that exercise in high school -- would likely not even be allowed today. Isn't that sad, as that exercise didn't tell me what I should believe, it just got me to think about it in an open-minded manner.
Then again, why didn't it stick with hardly anyone else in that class? Some of the smartest people I grew up with act like imbeciles and children in slavish service of political gain (including those I agree with). As it was perfectly put in "Social Media Is Reverting Society From Adults Back Into Children": "Adulthood is about spending the time to think before talking . . . Adulthood is about controlling our emotions, learning to take a deep breath and modulating our moments of anger or frustration."
In a country where you can't even count on people to act their age -- we're way too far gone for exercises as advanced as yours. To be sure, they could work wonders for some people -- but I'm talking about widespread impact (a noticeable difference in the atmosphere of America). If you wrote a book of exercises along the lines of the one here, I'm sure it would be a great book, but I don't need to read it to know it wouldn't move America one millimeter. I'm not trying to discourage you, I'm simply conveying the reality of our times.
The only way change that is to adjust in light of new information. I don't see anyone making a case for why their efforts will work (whether it's a book, documentary, or anything else). Lofty language in a sales pitch is not an argument for the efficacy in their approach to achieving their aims.
But my story is built on why it would work -- with very specific reasons behind it. To see that, you'd have to understand the story.
This country needs to learn the immeasurable value in the willingness to be wrong. With what I have in mind, you do that with something's that's undeniable and build on it from there. Your exercise starts from a wide scope and asks people to work their way in to develop a better understanding in order to empathize. I advocate for the exact opposite -- to start with something narrow in scope and definitive (then work your out by connecting the dots to the larger story).
Granted, this cannot be done on every issue -- but this approach is about learning how to argue and connect the dots on the definitive (so that when faced with issues not so clear-cut, you've developed habits on how to approach issues in a more objective and methodical manner). Learning how to be wrong is a path to humility -- which certainly shapes one's ability to have empathy.
This nation has no such notion -- and this is what I feel about damn near all of America:
"There’s no willingness to say, 'I’m wrong.' I mean, you have to take a 2×4 to these people, basically — to get ’em to, sorta, knock ’em down and admit they were wrong."
As stated on my site:
=================
The road to reality is blocked by detours designed to keep you going in circles. Purveyors of poppycock reroute you with narratives that avoid detail like Black Death. The way out is to start with an inconsistency or two that’s narrow in scope and take the trail where it leads. To ascertain the truth on any topic: If you’ve got something concrete to go on — that’s your point of entry. By all means, keep the door open in every direction.
But by nailing down the definitive first, it paves a clearer path to all the rest. This country does the exact opposite on everything: Lumping it all together and never even approaching where you should have started in the first place.
=================
The comparison below is something of an exercise -- by presenting an argument using an alias to temporarily shield the source:
"People who talk glibly about 'intelligence failure' act as if intelligence agencies that are doing their job right would know everything."
— Professional Know-It-All (PKIA for short)
"D.O.E’s standard is to spin a tube at 20% above 90,000 RPM before failure — so 48,000 short is a pretty loose definition of 'rough indication.'"
— Richard W. Memmer: Act II
Between PKIA’s words and mine -- which ones strike you as glib? Every person of age with a functioning brain would come back with the obvious answer. But the second they know who PKIA is, if they're fan of his -- it's no longer about what he said, it becomes about blindly defending him. And we ain't talkin' tax policy here -- this is a matter of mathematical certainty (of world-altering consequence, no less).
And THIS is what I'm to in response (without them even addressing the issue in the slightest). And these are mild compared to the savagery I'm used to:
• “You couldn’t carry PKIA‘s jockstrap!
• “Seriously? Get a life. It doesn’t matter what you say, he’s better than you basically in everything.”
• “You deserved to be treated that way! You’re a moron and pathetic character assassin”
• “Holy shit…. a video of a circle jerks with a nut in the center talking about RPMS. Yet somehow PKIA is a liar.”
You think you can combat that with those exercises? I'm sorry, but there's no way in hell you're reaching the hermetically sealed minds of today with traditional means (not yours or anyone else's).
Thanks for your time!
Rick
That’s not an experiment I’d get involved in. As you said hermetically sealed minds are tightly trapped. Nothing is going to get in them so why would I waste effort trying? And who am I to try to change someone’s position or attempt to teach as if I know better than them when it’s not something they’ve even asked me to do?
What’s missing in all the conversations about changing minds, teaching critical thinking, being influential in some way is the importance of a relationship. Unless someone trusts and respects me and feels respected by me, they are likely to be closed to any of my ideas. The deficit that many have is believing that strong arguments, truth and facts are sufficient for penetrating closed minds. Relational approaches that focus on building & sustaining rapport, trust and mutual understanding goes a long way to supporting both parties to consider other perspectives.
This is not an opinion. This is evidence of years of hard work facilitating change in perspective and behaviour that has improved peoples lives in measurable ways.
If we can’t relate to others by seeking to understand why they hold their position or be relatable to others such that they want to get to know us, nothing changes.
Working in a relational way to enable change also requires accepting people as they are. This is hard when we hold high expectations about others. Being realistic about peoples capabilities and Will helps me discern where to invest my finite energy.
That’s all from me.
Dr. Martinek showed some promise at first, but in the end -- she's a bullshitter by definition (they all are). Anyone who wants to challenge me on that, I invite you to try:
"Bullshitters seek to convey a certain impression of themselves without being concerned about whether anything at all is true. They quietly change the rules governing their end of the conversation so that claims about truth and falsity are irrelevant."
“Substack Is a Scam in the Same Way That All Media Is” Right & Left — you're all being played and always have been: https://onevoicebecametwo.life/2023/12/02/substack-is-a-scam-in-the-same-way-that-all-media-is/
Thank you for proving my point -- as I wrote the "Cabal of the Credentialed" faction for people just like you: https://onevoicebecametwo.life/2023/11/3/cabal-of-the-credentialed/
You're all the same -- content creators who talk a good game, but in the end -- it's about racking up subscribers and blowing off anyone who has something more demanding to consider. After all, how I could possibly see something that you don't? How could you have something to learn when you have so much to teach!
These channels aren't about conversation -- it's just a charade. But like the "curious" Katherine -- you got my $8 for one month. Congratulations! "Working in a relational way to enable change also requires accepting people as they are." -- Jesus Christ, could you be any more trite?
What part of this did you not understand: "But my story is built on why it would work -- with very specific reasons behind it. To see that, you'd have to understand the story."
The blankness it must take to fire off your ridiculous reply woven with commentary that couldn't get any more clichéd. Unbelievable! You act like you can't even process any information that doesn't conform to your formula. Ya know, like damn near everyone else anymore. That you're "polite" in your prejudice doesn't change that fact that it's prejudice by definition.
"You raise excellent points about the cognitive decline over the years that would make it difficult to stretch beyond black & white thinking"
As you respond with blank & white thinking. Nice work! You said, "I think a lighter touch would be better" -- to which I replied, "Let's give it a go -- and see if you're as sharp as you think you are." That's what I was really saying, but instead of rising to the challenge -- now it's, "You said yourself, you can't reach them."
No, I said you can't with conventional means (and that I have an idea to get around that) -- which was the whole f@#%ing point behind how this "conversation" started in the first place. You didn't do jack shit to understand anything from the start, but "Hey, you should read Katherine's book before you're [allowed to comment on the obvious]"
You showed some promise after being called out, but then proceeded to play the same game (framing the "conversation" so it expediently goes your way and bail once you've satisfied your self-image). Instead of showing some curiosity and thirst to discover, you were too busy telling me what you think you know. Heaven forbid you people just STFU and ask some questions for a change. Don't just tell your audience how to behave -- lead by example!
Good day!
Hi Rick
You raise excellent points about the cognitive decline over the years that would make it difficult to stretch beyond black & white thinking. There are many reasons for this that include the sinking quality of education, easy access to poor quality information, increased accessibility to instantly gratifying emotionally dysregulating interactions that hijack executive function, trauma burden and the list goes on. It could be that my proposed exercise is aiming too high that people are challenged by the prospect of trying to think like their enemy or trying to see their enemy as a human who is suffering, though I know many of my subscribers have the capacity to employ the skills of empathy to stretch their mind.
I'm not trying to combat anything. Even the awareness that it's hard to imagine yourself in your enemy's position is already a disruptive experience that will continue to unfold in that person.
Having considered your input, I'm thinking a lighter touch would have been useful in getting them to focus more specifically before trying to employ the proposed approach. You got me thinking and I appreciate what you've offered here.
You're a consultant for hire, right? I'd like to hire you for an experiment. My budget is $1,000 for whatever amount of time that gets me. As a matter of good faith, I'd give you half in advance. Part of that time would need to be spent understanding the story I'm out to tell, and then coming up with your own approach to getting my target audience to listen.
In over 2 years of telling this story on Thomas Sowell, I've been practically spit by people promoting principles I followed to find he didn’t. Sowell's a mild-mannered guy on the whole and his fanatical followers act like animals to "honor" him. On the biggest and most costly lie in modern history, he peddled partisan hackery that poisons political discourse and butchers debate to this day. On top of flagrantly ignoring evidence as concrete as it gets, he has a habit of toeing the party line: All of which flies in the face of the principles upon which he’s put on a pedestal.
The cult-like following of this guy is unlike anything I’ve ever seen. As I’ve been in the trenches battling hermetically sealed minds for decades, that’s saying something. His disciples see him as some kind of saint-like Sherlock Holmes — never mind his history being wildly out of sync with his sanctimonious claims. Interconnected echo chambers are seemingly in competition for fawning over this fraud -- it's just pathetic. And it's also an opportunity!
I wrote a post called "Where Can I Find the Festinger of Today?" Where are the professionals willing to look at this underworld of asinine behavior and harness it for good? What the Seekers did in "When Prophecy Fails" pales in comparison to what these people do on a daily basis. Festinger would have a field day with this story.
Not even the touch of a feather is gonna put a hairline crack in these hermetically sealed minds. But I would love for you to prove me wrong. If you do, then I'll have a refined approach to work with. If you don't, then perhaps you'll see just how far off the rails America has gone -- and then you'll see why my idea would work.
Speaking of a lighter touch -- you have a light touch, but allow me to provide some insight into how even the lightest touch can be twisted. "take action to reduce or prevent (something bad or undesirable): an effort to combat drug trafficking." By definition, you are "combating" what's wrong with what's right. But you saw "combat" and heard "combative."
Maybe you didn't like me calling him a professional know-it-all. That's fair, but what does it say to you that I had to come up with an alias just so his crowd will consider his claims in isolation from his immaculate image? What would you call someone who shoots their mouth off without addressing the evidence — but banks on their fabricated reputation to create the impression that they did?
And that's the real story -- the ever-growing danger of image over reality. For 20 years, I've been treated with nothing but contempt for undeniable truth that takes both parties to task. Almost invariably, I'm met with the attitude below and far worse:
"It is as though with some people — those who most avidly embrace the 'we are right' view — have minds that are closed from the very get-go, and they are entirely incapable of opening them, even just a crack. There is no curiosity in them. There are no questions in their minds. There are no 'what ifs?' or 'maybes.'" — Laura Knight-Jadczyk
And yet from barely even a few pixels of a snapshot of the story I've been dealing with for decades -- your advice is to try a lighter touch? I know you mean well but your judgment is wildly premature. And if you take on this experiment, you'll find that these people don't give a damn whether you mean well or not. I'm even assailed on things we agree on, as they instantly assume I'm out to criticize him on what he's most known for (never mind that has nothing to do with it -- other than his hypocrisy in some areas on that front).
The second they see scrutiny of Thomas Sowell -- it's over! You can't breach the force field of fallacy around this man, so you've gotta short-circuit that shield. Hear me out and I'll show you how. And from there, perhaps you can frame the story in a way I can't -- and get paid for it to boot. If my budget's too low, I'm flexible for a bit more.
Thanks again for your time,
Rick