- Capa dura: 304 páginas
- Editora: Ecco (6 de dezembro de 2016)
- Idioma: Inglês
- ISBN-10: 0062339338
- ISBN-13: 978-0062339331
- Dimensões do produto: 2,3 x 13,2 x 20,1 cm
- Peso de envio: 476 g
- Avaliações dos clientes: 156 classificações de cliente
- Lista de mais vendidos da Amazon: Nº 195,532 em Livros (Conheça o Top 100 na categoria Livros)
Against Empathy: The Case for Rational Compassion (Inglês) Capa dura – 6 Dezembro 2016
Os clientes também visualizaram esses produtos
Clientes que visualizaram este item também visualizaram
Queremos que você tenha segurança sempre que fizer uma compra no site da Amazon.com.br. Por isso, oferecemos garantia para quando você compra de outros vendedores em nosso site, cobrindo a condição do item comprado e sua entrega dentro do prazo estimado. Saiba mais.
Detalhes do produto
Descrição do produto
A controversial call to arms by one of the world’s leading psychologists, Against Empathy reveals how the natural impulse to share the feelings of others can do more harm than good both on the world stage and in our personal lives.
We often think of our capacity to experience the suffering of others as the ultimate source of goodness. Many of our wisest policy makers, activists, scientists, and philosophers agree that the only problem with empathy is that we don’t have enough of it.
Nothing could be further from the truth, argues Yale researcher Paul Bloom. In Against Empathy, Bloom reveals empathy to be one of the leading motivators of inequality and immorality in society. Far from helping us to improve the lives of others, empathy is a capricious and irrational emotion that appeals to our narrow prejudices. It muddles our judgment and, ironically, often leads to cruelty. We are at our best when we are smart enough not to rely on it but to draw instead upon a more distanced compassion.
Basing his argument on groundbreaking scientific findings, Bloom makes the case that some of the worst decisions made by individuals and nations—whom to give money to, when to go to war, how to respond to climate change, and whom to imprison—are too often motivated by honest, yet misplaced, emotions. With precision and wit, he demonstrates how empathy distorts our judgment in every aspect of our lives, from philanthropy and charity to the justice system and from medical care and education to parenting and marriage. Without empathy, Bloom insists, our decisions would be clearer, fairer, and—yes—ultimately more moral.
Brilliantly argued, urgent, and humane, Against Empathy shows us that when it comes to both major policy decisions and the choices we make in our everyday lives limiting our impulse toward empathy is often the most compassionate choice we can make.
Sobre o Autor
Paul Bloom is the Brooks and Suzanne Ragen Professor of Psychology at Yale University. An internationally recognized expert on the psychology of child development, social reasoning, and morality, he has won numerous awards for his research, writing, and teaching. His previous books include Just Babies and How Pleasure Works, and he has written for Science, Nature, The New York Times, and The New Yorker. He lives in Guilford, Connecticut.
Avaliação de clientes
Ocorreu um problema para filtrar as avaliações agora. Tente novamente mais tarde.
Por fim, é um excelente apelo a uma motivação próssocial básica (compaixão) associada às capacidades racionais humanas, para podermos ir além de um raciocínio emocional ao lidarmos com o sofrimento humano, justiça e moralidade.
Principais avaliações internacionais
I dropped my review from five to four stars for what I believe is a glaring omission to the argument; namely reciprocity. I kept turning the pages expecting to find some mention of this vital ingredient of human social behaviour persuasively argued in Matt Ridley’s book ‘The Origin of Virtue’. Although Bloom does tantalising touch on the social angle, any book that argues about empathy – whether for or against – without touching on reciprocity is diminished in its worth and here’s why. Our empathetic responses might go some way to explain why we might help an elderly stranger across the street. However, if we accept Bloom’s argument that our empathy is acutely focused on those that are immediately relevant to us – a force that ripples out from family, to neighbours, to fellow citizens at which point, for the most part, it loses its potency – then exactly why do we help the elderly stranger without any immediate expectation of reward? Citing empathy doesn’t really help us here and in a book that’s against empathy, failing to mention that so much of our moral behaviour is driven by a hard-wired instinct for future reward within the social group, seems odd.
Paul Bloom builds a case for rational compassion, where we use our heads as well as our hearts. He questions empathy’s use in politics, in empathising with one group against another. He views empathy as something that can be manipulated by politicians to get us to feel the plight of certain groups, while cutting off from feeling the plight of others.
My reason for dropping one star, is that he omits ‘projective identification’ as the mechanism behind empathy. This concept, from Melanie Klein, extends our understanding of just how we can enter the psyche of another or be entered by them. The more benign form of projective identification is empathy, but its more hostile form can lead to ensorcellment and brainwashing.
It is also a very readable book unlike a bunch of dense academic books I have bought where I feel very clever for understanding a few paragraphs and then Leave them to gather dust in a corner. Highly recommended
The only sense I made of to is that he feels we should be more rational when we are empathetic towards something/one - act less from the heart more form the mind - that's it. Does that warrant 250 pages? Not for me.
Bloom states that he hates terminology, yet it felt like him spending the majority of the time redefining terminology around empathy and compassion. Perhaps I've missed something or not intelligent enough to comprehend further but I just felt exhausted by page 50 with no new insight decided to pack it in. Sorry Bloom.