“These facts have been presented time and again, year after year, for decades,” DiCaprio says. “Quite simply, we are knowingly doing this to ourselves."
Leonardo DiCaprio is more than just a leading man in some of Hollywood’s biggest blockbusters. Along with being a writer and producer, he’s also an outspoken activist ringing the alarm bells of the catastrophe to befall us, should we ignore our role in global warming. DiCaprio himself has been a long-time advocate for the environment, and sits on the board of many prominent organizations including the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), and the International Fund for Animal Welfare.
Oasis had it right: stop crying your heart out. Psychologist Paul Bloom argues that empathy may be working against our best interests, and that compassion may be a better strategy.
Yale psychologist Paul Bloom’s latest book is called Against Empathy, which doesn’t leave you guessing where he stands. Bloom argues that empathy is doing us damage – there is a place for it, but not so high up on society’s pedestal. Empathy can cloud our decision-making, and bring us too close to problems that require action rather than commiserations. Realizing that begs the question: in a world with less empathy, how do we connect and help our fellow humans? Bloom is banking on compassion, and makes a distinction between the two that transcends semantics: empathy is feeling what other people feel, imagining their predicament, echoing their emotional state. Compassion is more rational: you hear the other person’s predicament but you don’t feel their emotion – this frees you up to understand it, and to make headway on a solution. Bloom likens it to seeing a doctor or a therapist. Do you want them to feel and echo your pain or anxiety, or would prefer that they do something about it? If empathy is as overrated as Bloom suggests, then compassion may be the better way to show you care. Paul Bloom is the author of Against Empathy: The Case for Rational Compassion.
The ranking of empathy from highest to lowest goes liberals, conservatives, libertarians. But the difference is minor, says Paul Bloom. Typically the debate isn’t all over whether or not to empathize – it’s over who to empathize with.
A recent study from Yale University find that dogs are better at resisting peer-pressure and filtering useless information than human beings – but there's value in that human flaw.
Dogs are more no-nonsense than humans. A study from Yale University’s Canine Cognition Center reveals that dogs are better than people at filtering bad advice from good. In the experiment, researchers presented over 40 breeds of dogs with treats hidden inside puzzles. They then demonstrated the steps necessary to solving the puzzle. In doing so, they also included many unnecessary steps. When the dogs proceeded to solve the puzzle, the skipped the steps that had nothing to do with getting to the treats. Thus, the study revealed dogs’ ability to filter useful actions from irrelevant ones. Jeffrey Kluger sums up the results pithily in an article for Time: “[I]f dogs did wear pants, they would use either a belt or suspenders, but definitely not both.”