Join 70,000+ Looksmaxxing Members!

Register a FREE account today to become a member. Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox.

  • DISCLAIMER: DO NOT ATTEMPT TREATMENT WITHOUT LICENCED MEDICAL CONSULTATION AND SUPERVISION

    This is a public discussion forum. The owners, staff, and users of this website ARE NOT engaged in rendering professional services to the individual reader. DO NOT use the content of this website as an alternative to personal examination and advice from licenced healthcare providers. DO NOT begin, delay, or discontinue treatments and/or exercises without licenced medical supervision. Learn more

Serious Most people lack empathy

beautyiseverything

CorinthianLOX
Established
Joined
May 2, 2025
Messages
803
Online time
2d 7h
Reputation
1,922
Location
ᚺᛁᛈᛖᚱᛒᛟᚱᛖ
According to wikipedia empathy is generally described as the ability to take on another person's perspective, to understand, feel, and possibly share and respond to their experience. Most people are lacking in this ability.

For example the average white person will never be able to empathize with an african malnourished child who doesn't get enough food and water. Why? Because the white person simply lacks the perspective and the experiences that the african child had to endure. I'll give you an another example. A female will never be able to understand an ugly sub 5's perspective of dating, because she simply lacks the sub 5's perspective and her experience for obvious reasons is entirely different than that of the sub 5's.

Therefore it is not hard to make the conclusion that empathy is not even a defining characteristic of humanity. Rather the complete lack of empathy towards hostiles in most cases is a defining characteristic of human behaviour itself. In this case, hostiles can even be genetically inferior people or in other words sub 5 men and women. This hostility manifests itself as open animosity and ridicule towards ugly people. This animosity doesn't arise from any form of conscious hate. Rather it arises from man's basic animalistic instincts. These instincts helped us survive even the most harshest of conditions. In harsh conditions where procreation was difficult and even dangerous, the individuals with the best genetic qualities survived because of their naturally superior inborn characteristics. These instincts were inherited by the later generations and thus through evolution were ingrained to the human psyche. Therefore, nowhere does the moral right arise to hate women who rejected you. They rejected you because they instinctively recognize your weaker, feebler and inferior genetic quality and they want to prioritize the greatest genes for their offspring. This is so that the next generation can be even superior than the present and previous generation. Therefore this process of mate selection is absolutely crucial for the survival and the preservation of the vitality of the human race and is therefore a necessary precondition for the evolution of the human race into a higher state of being.

There is probably no other species on this earth like the human race that has slaughtered millions and millions of it's own species just for their own tribes' survival. What people often designate as 'empathetic behaviour' only manifests in these smaller tribes were the community of humans have something in common. These communities can be families, states, nations, countries, religious communities etc. The reason why empathy only manifests itself in these circumstances is because in smaller communities people know each other better and can understand his fellow community member better thus empathizing with them.
 
Last edited:
Register to hide this ad
According to wikipedia empathy is generally described as the ability to take on another person's perspective, to understand, feel, and possibly share and respond to their experience. Most people are lacking in this ability.

For example the average white person will never be able to empathize with an african malnourished child who doesn't get enough food and water. Why? Because the white person simply lacks the perspective and the experiences that the african child had to endure. I'll give you an another example. A female will never be able to understand an ugly sub 5's perspective of dating, because she simply lacks the sub 5's perspective and her experience for obvious reasons is entirely different than that of the sub 5's.

Therefore it is not hard to make the conclusion that empathy is not even a defining characteristic of humanity. Rather the complete lack of empathy towards hostiles in most cases is the defining characteristic of human behaviour itself. In this case, hostiles can even be genetically inferior people or in other words sub 5 men and women. This hostility manifests itself as open animosity and ridicule towards ugly people. This animosity doesn't arise from any form of conscious hate. Rather it arises from man's basic animalistic instincts. These instincts helped us survive even the most harshest of conditions. In harsh conditions where procreation was difficult and even dangerous, the individuals with the best genetic qualities survived because of their naturally superior inborn characteristics. These instincts were inherited by the later generations and thus through evolution were ingrained to the human psyche. Therefore, nowhere does the moral right arise to hate women who rejected you. They rejected you because they instinctively recognize your weaker, feebler and inferior genetic quality and they want to prioritize the greatest genes for their offspring. This is so that the next generation can be even superior than the present and previous generation. Therefore this process of mate selection is absolutely crucial for the survival and the preservation of vitality of the human race and therefore a necessary precondition for the evolution of the human race.

There is probably no other species on this earth like the human race that has slaughtered millions and millions of it's own species just for their own tribes' survival. What people often designate as 'empathetic behaviour' only manifests in these smaller tribes were the community of humans have something in common. These communities can be families, states, nations, countries, religious communities etc. The reason why empathy only manifests itself in these circumstances is because in smaller communities people know each other better and can understand his fellow community member better thus empathizing with them.
nature kinda rewards evil, and this is an inherent problem. that's why we created morals, religion.
 
nature kinda rewards evil, and this is an inherent problem. that's why we created morals, religion.
All true. In the past I’ve been guilty of being too good for my own good, and all it’s ever done is give people an open invitation to use me. That’s why now I only put in minimal effort instead of “going the extra mile.”
 
According to wikipedia empathy is generally described as the ability to take on another person's perspective, to understand, feel, and possibly share and respond to their experience. Most people are lacking in this ability.
I'm lacking this too tbh, I have empathy with kids and with animals who get harmed without being even conscious what is happening or why something is happening to them, but other than that idk I'm stone cold tbh


There is probably no other species on this earth like the human race that has slaughtered millions and millions of it's own species just for their own tribes' survival.
Ants do that jfl but yeah the core thought behind your thread is true, as @die scum said being evil is 99% of the time a benefit for you, if no one would have a glimpse of moral we would still be fighting with sticks
 
All true. In the past I’ve been guilty of being too good for my own good, and all it’s ever done is give people an open invitation to use me. That’s why now I only put in minimal effort instead of “going the extra mile.”
as a whole, it's better to everyone if we cooperate. but if one cooperates and the others don't, this one gets exploited. it's the prisoner dilemma in game theory.

not trusting is more rewarding than trusting, UNLESS if everyone trusts.
 
as a whole, it's better to everyone if we cooperate. but if one cooperates and the others don't, this one gets exploited. it's the prisoner dilemma in game theory.

not trusting is more rewarding than trusting, UNLESS if everyone trusts.
As someone with a large social circle and lots of friends i can safely say the majority of friendships are not genuine. A true friend is someone who will always have your back no matter what during good times or bad, who's always willing to cooperate and be helpful and can't stand see you down, but the only people who will ever have that type of bond with you is your family, and some aren’t even fortunate enough to have that.
The world really is dog eat dog.
 
As someone with a large social circle and lots of friends i can safely say the majority of friendships are not genuine. A true friend is someone who will always have your back no matter what during good times or bad, who's always willing to cooperate and be helpful and can't stand see you down, but the only people who will ever have that type of bond with you is your family, and some aren’t even fortunate enough to have that.
The world really is dog eat dog.
Yes. Most people are shallow.
 
As someone with a large social circle and lots of friends i can safely say the majority of friendships are not genuine. A true friend is someone who will always have your back no matter what during good times or bad, who's always willing to cooperate and be helpful and can't stand see you down, but the only people who will ever have that type of bond with you is your family, and some aren’t even fortunate enough to have that.
The world really is dog eat dog.
Most people are also superficial. They don’t put any value on helping others because their world view mostly is entirely solipsistic that is to say their world view revolves around them.
 
I feel like there's a certain point where normal ppl do feel empathy just based on how they act thye only feel empathy towards ppl similar enough to them like a famous person might feel sympathy towards a poor person but not empathy however they will easily feel empathy towards another famous person
 
I feel like there's a certain point where normal ppl do feel empathy just based on how they act thye only feel empathy towards ppl similar enough to them like a famous person might feel sympathy towards a poor person but not empathy however they will easily feel empathy towards another famous person
That's not empathy rather the predisposition to be subjected to (status) fascination
 
You don't need to experience a struggle to have an understanding for it's hardship. It is complete possible, and very common even, to intellectually understand how hard some people have it.

I think you are conflating people not having a radical response to not feeling empathetic
 
Imagine "listening" to Wikipedia
Muh, Africa
Empathy doesn't work like that
Exactly! I don't know why they're using mental gymanstics and make it so hard to explain empathy tbh.

The easiest way to measure empathy is how you react to something happening IRL that you can have an affect on.

simply how would you feel and react if you see people beating a puppy, or you see people bullying a kid in front of you, will you try to intervene and save the kid? Will you just stand there and feel bad? Will you just stand there and secretly enjoy it? Will you join in and bully the kid with them? Your answer determines your "empathy" percentage.

If you resort to historical tragedies 100 years ago or controversial topics millions of kilometers away such as "African children" or "Gaza" or "Holocaust", most people will answer according to their religious or political beliefs, some will lie to appear as the sympathetic politically correct guy, some will say they like it to appear edgy and funny (like most people on these forums) etc.. , it just doesn't work like that.
 
Exactly! I don't know why they're using mental gymanstics and make it so hard to explain empathy tbh.

The easiest way to measure empathy is how you react to something happening IRL that you can have an affect on.

simply how would you feel and react if you see people beating a puppy, or you see people bullying a kid in front of you, will you try to intervene and save the kid? Will you just stand there and feel bad? Will you just stand there and secretly enjoy it? Will you join in and bully the kid with them? Your answer determines your "empathy" percentage.

If you resort to historical tragedies 100 years ago or controversial topics millions of kilometers away such as "African children" or "Gaza" or "Holocaust", most people will answer according to their religious or political beliefs, some will lie to appear as the sympathetic politically correct guy, some will say they like it to appear edgy and funny (like most people on these forums) etc.. , it just doesn't work like that.
Most people avoid situations where they have to feel empathy
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top