tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-756245236982256401.post8492361717408900662..comments2023-03-26T00:40:58.422-07:00Comments on Pop Psychology: Is It A Paradox, Or Are You Stupid?Jesse Marczykhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05528467206826018008noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-756245236982256401.post-64482552885533932892018-11-12T07:20:51.964-08:002018-11-12T07:20:51.964-08:00Its HARD to follow-up a comment like that one...HA...Its HARD to follow-up a comment like that one...HA! <br />I literally felt my eye-balls pop out of my head a bit, my eyes got so huge reading your response. Although I seemed to have gotten stuck in some kind of Peele blackhole, struggling to find at least ONE article that he authored that I could relate to or agreed with or learned anything from, when I peaked at the comments and was led here, HOLY WHAT THE....<br />I really expected more from a blog entry that was written to criticize his article, as there are countless ways to criticize his articles, but I have to say, with full knowledge that you will disagree, that your response was spoken like a true troll, or "punishing personality" type, which leads me to check the date on that article of his next to decide if he wrote it for you(to punish you) for your harsh words. Hmmmm....I think I taste hypocrisy on this orange peele? But I digress...let me explain a few morality issues you seemed to be confused with. The title? Why is it that it is a paradox that cheaters would win when obviously they are cheating in order to win? Because we are raised to believe that cheaters never win, and winners never cheat, you know, by our government, inherently, to deter us from cheating, so that the cheaters in power get all of the success. But yet and still, we ARE conditioned to believe that would indeed be a paradox, to keep from the cognitive dissonence we accheive when we realize that everything we have ever been taught is a lie. Most would rather fully embrace the concept as being a paradox, than to accept it's insignificance, or understand it as an archaic ah-ha that could be in the minds of grade schoolers just beginning to question such concepts. And "too much empathy"? Smh...I am going to hope that was just a jab and that you truly are above that sort of misconception. If not, just take a deep breath, breathing in love and blowing out the intollerance for this man's ignorance in the field of psychology, or your hate, however you want to describe it. Now think about every arguement in the world that is causing turmoil, and conclude that too much empathy is not where any of the problems have arisen from. Every single one could be halted preconception with the addition of empathy, not a subtraction. But as I said, I will choose to believe that was said satirically. I would rather decide that.<br />The only other response I felt compelled to react to was your review on his conclussions drawn from the study on compassion and power. The study itself seemed unnecessary, for drawing the obvious conclussions that came from it, but if they could get a grant to establish whether the grass is greener on the other side they would, so I see how it was done. Of course wealthy, powerful people that have never felt the pain of hunger, and even the ones that have, experience less empathy the more stressed the speaker becomes, because they either see the over-the-top emotional display as a weakness, and do not have an ability to imagine it's relation to the level of opression or injustice experienced by the speaker, or like those have suffered poverty in their past but turned that pain into determination, that built their life from the dirt, they see them as lazy, as unintellegent, believing that anyone could do what they did and bring their lives up out of the rubble, and free themselves from poverty instead of whining. And the less powerful having less empathy at lower levels? Well obviously, they would not feel sorry for someone complaining about conditions that are better than the ones they are dealing with. That research kind of should fall under the "N/A" data statistically. It is presumable. I hope I cleared a few things up for you, and take it easy, because while a little empathy never hurt anyone, too little definitely has, and alot of empathy or even "too much empathy"(there is your paradox) could change the freakin planet!Unbreakablemomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12554315539350871747noreply@blogger.com