Why Empathy Matters
The Science and Psychology of Better Judgment
-
- 3,99 €
-
- 3,99 €
Descrizione dell’editore
A road map to empathic and efficient decisions and policies, constructed from new insights in the science of human judgment
Faced with another's suffering, human beings feel sympathy and may even be moved to charity. However, for all our good intentions and vaunted free will, we are lousy at making the bigger decisions that actually improve lives. Why? Drawing on his sweeping and innovative research in the fields of psychology, behavioral economics, and neuroscience, philosopher and cognitive scientist J. D. Trout explains how our empathic wiring actually undermines the best interests of individuals and society. However, it is possible to bridge this "empathy gap" and improve our decision-making. Here, Trout offers a tantalizing proposal- how to vault that gap and improve the lives of not just ourselves but the lives of everyone all around the world.
PUBLISHERS WEEKLY
In this dramatic challenge to cherished American concepts like individualism, free will and laissez-faire economics, Trout (Epistemology and the Psychology of Human Judgment) presents "an alternative story grounded not in the abstractions of political theory or economics, but in the moisture and grit of human psychology." Studies by cognitive scientists and psychologists reveal an "empathy gap," where individuals repeatedly make biased and selfish choices despite their best attempts to the contrary. The author posits that government can bridge the gap and cites vaccination, estate tax, helmet laws and food safety as issues that government has successfully handled for the greater good. For fighting poverty: "the best hope... is amending the Constitution to guarantee an above-poverty income to all citizens." Trout recognizes that government may not always make the right choices, but suggests that if it depended more on automated processes and the advice of social scientists, it might recover the trust that it has lost. For some, Trout's book will seem a panacea for a selfish world, but others may question whether it is really possible to prevent the same biases that affect individual decisions from affecting larger, governmental entities.
