Month: October 2024

Original: This is expertly displayed in David Foster Wallace’s 2005 commencement speech, “This is Water”. Wallace never uses the word empathy directly, but through his descriptions of human interactions and choice of thought, he conveys very clearly a higher standard of internal compassion that he believes is worth striving for. Wallace summarizes this when discussing the freedom of being able to choose how to think about life: “The really important kind of freedom involves attention and awareness and discipline, and being able truly to care about other people and to sacrifice for them over and over in myriad petty, unsexy ways every day” (7). Here I believe DFW  captures the true essence of empathy. It isn’t a byproduct of humanity’s prejudice and hypocrisy, nor is it something that comes easily or naturally. Empathy is a choice. A choice to free ourselves from the prison of being stuck as the rulers of our own sad, lonely, unimportant little worlds. Our worlds where we are safe, in control, in charge of everything that goes on, and can be as oblivious to reality as we want.

Rewrite: This is expertly displayed in David Foster Wallace’s 2005 commencement speech, “This is Water”. DFW never uses the word empathy directly, but through his descriptions of human interactions and choice of thought, he conveys very clearly a higher standard of internal compassion that he believes is worth striving for. He presents common, relatable situations of everyday frustration that almost every human on earth understands some part of, like “[having] to get in your car and drive to the supermarket” that’s filled with “stupid and cow-like and dead-eyed and nonhuman” people, despite being tired from work and just wanting to go home and relax, in order to connect the listener to argument (Wallace 3-4). He isn’t just presenting it to tell of the daily struggle of adult life, but rather to emphasize how difficult it is to change that standard, non-empathetic way of thinking. Most people, including myself on the first listen, would laugh at DFW’s depictions of common annoyances, but see little problem with thinking that way because it reflects the way we think. It isn’t until DFW challenges this thinking that it becomes clear how selfish the first example sounds, and also just how difficult it would be to think any differently. He explains how trying to consider other people’s possible situations is counterintuitive, and most of the time we will avoid doing so because it goes against our individual reality (Wallace 5). Ultimately, DFW argues that, in order to achieve meaning that reaches outside ourselves, we have to choose to think about the world differently. He summarizes this when discussing the freedom of being able to choose how to think about life: “The really important kind of freedom involves attention and awareness and discipline, and being able truly to care about other people and to sacrifice for them over and over in myriad petty, unsexy ways every day” (Wallace 7). Here I believe DFW captures the true essence of empathy. It isn’t a byproduct of humanity’s prejudice and hypocrisy, nor is it something that comes easily or naturally. Empathy is a choice. A choice to free ourselves from the prison of being stuck as the rulers of our own sad, lonely, unimportant little worlds. Our worlds where we are safe, in control, in charge of everything that goes on, and can be as oblivious to reality as we want.

Reflection: trying to alter my quotes so that they integrated more fluidly into my essay was challenging. I found it relatively easy to use the embedded quote method, but paraphrasing was very difficult. With embedded quotes, I only needed to find the pieces of the quote that I wanted to use, then fit them into the structure of a sentence. But with paraphrased quotes, I had to restate DFW’s ideas using my own words, and be careful not to depict his argument inaccurately, while also not merely slightly changing the word choice. The full quote is still definitely the easiest because you just need to frame it, but I can see how the embedded quote and paraphrased quote made the essay sound varied, as well as reducing the amount of my essay that relied solely on the quoted author’s writing.

Bloom and Wallace both make assertions about human behavior which involve the use of empathy, but while Bloom considers empathy to be overrated because of it’s biased and illogical nature, Wallace describes empathy as the defining factor in our day-to-day relationships. Bloom makes it clear that he believes empathy to be a human weakness that suffocates the true driving forces of change, but my beliefs about empathy side closer to Wallace’s idea of empathy as a way of choosing to think about the world. Bloom describes empathy as “a spotlight directing attention and aid to where it’s needed” (1). Bloom uses the imagery of a spotlight to suggest that empathy is powerful but narrow. Because of this, empathy is flawed. It only points focus towards those who are similar to us, those who we relate to on a personal level, those who we believe deserve help, and those whose situation is most immediately visible. I don’t believe that Bloom is completely incorrect in his assertion that empathy is a poor driver for widespread change, but I do think that empathy, when utilized in the way I believe Wallace is proposing, creates an incentive for change that bypasses Bloom’s issues. Wallace never uses the word empathy directly, but through his descriptions of human interactions and choice of thought, he conveys very clearly a higher standard of internal compassion that he believes is worth striving for. Wallace summarizes this when discussing the freedom of being able to choose how to think about life: “The really important kind of freedom involves attention and awareness and discipline, and being able truly to care about other people and to sacrifice for them over and over in myriad petty, unsexy ways every day” (1). Wallace’s view differs from Bloom’s because while Bloom focuses on empathy as a human emotion which distracts from those who need help the most, Wallace suggests that empathy is about choosing to consider other’s situations above one’s own. Bloom insists that empathy detracts from real change because in order to determine the best outcome for the most individuals, one must use logic over empathy. However, if we apply Wallace’s mindset, then empathy is merely the building blocks to change. Without the foundational ability to consider other people over yourself, no one would even get to the point of applying logic to help solve other people’s issues because one’s own issues are considered paramount. If no one cares in the first place, Bloom’s suggestions of empathy alternatives are useless.

1. In David Foster Wallace’s speech, “This Is Water”, he argues against falling into the belief that we are “the absolute centre of the universe; the realest, most vivid and important person in existence” (3), but rather suggests that we make an effort to consider other people’s circumstances as more important than our own, allowing us to break out of our default mindset in which our needs are more real than everyone else’s (9). In this way, DFW urges the graduating class to break away from the prison of their own perspective, and to utilize “the real, no bullshit value of your liberal arts education”(5) which allows you “The really important kind of freedom… being able truly to care about other people and to sacrifice for them over and over in myriad petty, unsexy ways every day” (10).

1. DFW’s speech begins by using a parable about fish to introduce the idea that the most important truths in life are often so obvious that we tune them out altogether. His fish parable features two young fish who encounter an older fish, and the older fish asks them how the water is. the younger fish are confused and one asks the other “What the hell is water?” (Wallace 1). This parable goes against what you might assume about a fish’s understanding of their reality. A fish might not understand what water is because they’ve never experienced anything but the water. It would be like asking your friend how the air was. They may correct you and ask if you meant the weather, because it seems so silly to ask someone how the air is. I also realized that the reason the older fish knows what water is, is because he was likely caught by a fisherman at some point and released. Wallace uses this parable to present his argument about how the college experience doesn’t tell us “how to think”, but rather “the choice of what to think about” (Wallace).

1. Wallace goes on to explain what he means by “the choice of what to think about” by using a relatable story of an after-work supermarket trip to get groceries. He suggests multiple ways to think about the unpleasant scenario, and the first two are entirely self-centered. Then he submits another way to think about the situation, which is to think other’s experience instead of your own. He

1. The role of social media is to allow people who could never normally interact to meet and share their ideas, their passions, and their beliefs. However, just like how playing video games is no replacement for being outside, trying to use social media as a replacement for real-world human interaction simply doesn’t provide the same benefits because it lacks a key element: the nature of shared experiences.
   • I think my thesis statement is relatively strong and makes my argument clear. It has a good amount of specificity for a thesis statement, while still leaving room for the following paragraphs to add more context. It clearly establishes what I believe to be true about how social media should be used, and introduces why I believe that social media shouldn’t be used for certain aspects of human relationships. I believe the focus is sufficiently narrow, and it hones in on specific aspects that are addressed in the following paragraphs. I think one way it could be made slightly more specific would be to include aspects of Konnikova and Chen’s arguments that I address later in the paper. I do touch on the nature of shared experiences that is prominent in Konnikova’s essay, but I think pointing out that connection would have been a good tie-in to the later discussion of Konnikova’s writing.
2. I was reminded that I tend to write long, complex sentences when I want to make an argument seem more legitimate, rather than varying my sentence structure to enhance reader comprehension. It’s usually something I would have addressed in my revision process, but often I find it hard to notice issues with sentences that are excessively long because most of my reading material contains such sentences. I was also reminded that I tend to get lost in my writing, especially when I am in the middle of it. What that means is that I get so caught up in details that I am unable to see the writing as a completed piece. This is why peer review helped me so much, because it helped me evaluate the essay as a whole and see how parts that were supposed to connect might not have, rather than focusing on individual paragraphs and adding too many details which might not relate to the thesis or any other part of the essay.
3. In my revision process, I focused heavily on making sure my points all made sense and connected to the overarching point of the essay. I added in specific examples wherever I could think to put them, and I tried to include more of the authors’ arguments from the two essays we read. I also made an effort to really emphasize my personal experience and explain how it influenced my views. I added in my naysayer paragraph because it drew from my own experiences and allowed me to connect my beliefs to a specific event that I had witnessed. I also included a paragraph about how I tend to feel lonely when I can’t interact with the people I care about in person, and how that loneliness has affected me since I began school at UNE. I think that served to invite the reader to connect and maybe empathize with my experience, and in turn help their own loneliness through the realization that they are not alone in their experience.
4. I would definitely try not to procrastinate on paper two as much as I did on paper one. Just because I had to write three essays in two hours for my AP literature exam doesn’t mean that it’s best practice to try to write all my essays at the last minute. For both the rough draft and the final draft I didn’t start on it until the day it was due. It’s definitely something I’ve struggled with in the past because I have a hard time focusing on assignments without the looming deadline as a motivator. I am going to try to give myself more time to think through my essay writing and revision by going through it in increments rather than trying to finish it all in one night, or three hours before it is due.

1. The essay “Is Empathy Overrated?” discusses how empathy might not be the best tool in determining how we focus our attention towards the things that need it. The author, Paul Bloom, argues that empathy is too narrow, because it focuses most on people who we feel a connection with, and ignores people who are different from us. This is made clear when he writes “it’s far easier to empathize with those who are close to us, those who are similar to us, and those we see as more attractive or vulnerable and less scary” (Bloom 2). Here, Bloom is making the point that empathy is biased and prejudiced because we have a harder time empathizing with people who we can’t relate to. Bloom also argues that empathy is flawed because we can only have empathy for individuals, or relatively small groups. He conveys this argument by writing about his general apathy towards the large numbers of murders that happen in a year in Chicago versus his empathy towards school shooting victims in Newtown (Bloom 2). The reason for using this example is to connect his opinions about empathy to real world examples and help the reader visualize the negative impact of empathy when directed at only small groups. Instead of empathy, Bloom discusses how we should approach major issues from a place of “self-control and intelligence and a more diffuse compassion” (4). Bloom posits that it is better to approach issues with these because they result in more rational conclusions that take into account what will be best for the most people. I agree with Bloom that empathy is heavily reliant on personal connection, but I don’t believe that is necessarily a bad thing. Empathy has its place, and that place is primarily within personal relationships. You empathize with those in your immediate vicinity, with those you care about, and occasionally those who have wronged you. When it comes to directing our focus outward towards global issues, a less empathetic approach is necessary because empathy isn’t useful for dealing with issues on a large scale. This does not mean that empathy is useless, just that it is only useful in our personal lives.
2. I partially agree with Bloom when he talks about why empathy is ineffective and possibly even harmful when used towards all issues, because it can’t focus on a broad range of things, and it is too personal to be useful in helping the most people, rather than honing in on just a few of the most prominent cases. However, Bloom doesn’t address where empathy is useful, which is in our relationships with close friends or when we are hurt by someone else. Bloom seems to suggest that empathy is a net negative for the world, when it is in fact a positive, so long as it is applied where it is intended to be applied.
3. Bloom discusses empathy as a negative, which is definitely in contrast to my prior encounters with the subject of empathy. I was always inclined to view empathy as a totally positive thing, but Bloom introduced some ways that empathy can actually be negative that I hadn’t considered before, or at least had attributed to some other cause. Primarily, Bloom’s assertions about how empathy causes one to focus on the suffering of people who are like us first, rather than the people who most need help, really challenged how I viewed empathy, because I hadn’t ever realized how empathy plays into our biases.
4. “Although we might intellectually believe that the suffering of our neighbor is just as awful as the suffering of someone living in another country, it’s far easier to empathize with those who are close to us, those who are similar to us, and those we see as more attractive or vulnerable and less scary.”
   • I disagree with Bloom’s point here because I feel that he has a fundamental misunderstanding of what empathy is, or at least he expects it to be more than what it is. Empathy can only occur when the empathizing individual can relate in some way to the person/people experiencing suffering. It can’t, nor is it supposed to, account for our response to people suffering who we can’t relate to. But acting like this is somehow a flaw to empathy and not the intended function is like calling your freezer faulty when it makes the soda you put in there and forgot about explode. The freezer did what it was supposed to do, you just used it incorrectly. Empathy is supposed to only apply towards people we relate to because that’s what empathy is: relating to someone to the point that you feel what they feel. Empathy is impossible unless you relate to the subject on some level. Also, empathy on its own isn’t any good anyway because even if you empathize with someone, action is needed to actually help them. Bloom puts too much of the blame on empathy when it’s only a small part of why people may choose to help some people and not others.

Reading “Unfollow” by Adrian Chen helped solidify my belief about how social media can be a useful tool for worldwide communication and growth. Chen’s essay tackles how social media connections can reach past internalized biases and, when done correctly, lead to the reevaluation of one’s beliefs. In the essay, he writes about the story of Megan Phelps-Roper, a legal assistant and hyper-religious social media manager for the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas, who comes to doubt and eventually abandon the bigoted and hypocritical beliefs of her community through connections she makes with people on social media. One such connection she makes is with a Jewish blogger, David Abitbol, who used kindness and sincerity to get her to open up, then combated her flawed beliefs using scripture as evidence. As Chen writes, “Abitbol asked why Westboro always denounced homosexuality but never mentioned the fact that Leviticus also forbade having sex with a woman who was menstruating” (18). His approach worked so well because rather than coming at her with open hostility, like most people did when they read her controversial posts, he appealed to her as a human, rather than the opposition, and connected with her through a familiar mastery over biblical concepts that she would have understood. Though many of the approaches that people online took to get Megan to change her beliefs failed, a couple managed to succeed, leading to a full one hundred and eighty-degree turn away from her old beliefs. This displays how social media can be an essential tool for combating prejudice, spreading ideas, and having earnest conversations about the different cultures, beliefs, and practices from around the world. Without social media, Megan may have never been confronted about the damage that her radical beliefs were having on people’s lives, or how much hurt she and the church were causing. Her complete transformation from a full advocate for Westboro’s practices to a nonbeliever leads me to believe that, if social media is to be used at all, it is best for it to be used in a way that connects us with people who we would never usually get to connect with, and not as a replacement for personal relationships.