Talk:Hot-cold empathy gap

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 September 2021 and 13 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cats n boots.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:54, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Book of the same name !

I've deleted this from the article - advertising a book which seems to be unrelated except by the accident of the title !

By author J.D. Trout
The Empathy Gap: Building Bridges to the Good Life and the Good Society, an examination of one of the most debilitating aspects of American social psychology - our lack of empathy. Utilizing the most gripping scientific research on empathy, free will, and decision-making, The Empathy Gap explains how we as a society fail to put our plans into action when it comes to the unacceptable conditions of others. Trout offers insights on how to turn empathy into action.
J.D. Trout is a professor of philosophy and an adjunct professor at Loyola University in Chicago. He's held fellowships from the National Science Foundation, Mellon Foundation, and National Endowment for the Humanities. His previous books include Measuring the Intentional World, and The Theory of Knowledge. Visit J.D. Trout's website at: www.jdtrout.com .

Maybe if the book were 'notable' it could have a separate page and disambguation ? --195.137.93.171 (talk) 12:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! But is the book notable? (Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 02:35, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not understanding the "Power and Empathy Gap" Section

It makes sense that power can influence empathy, but this section does not make clear how that deals with the Empathy Gap as it is defined at the beginning of the article, namely, the underestimation of visceral drives. It is also just hard to understand. It seems the section is trying to say that people in power make a mistake by being less strategic and the opposite happens to the weaker side. It is also said that the buyers and sellers of a mug would tend to guess than the other would value it closer to their evaluation. These two effects seem related but it's not made clear how one can get the conclusion from the experiment, and I'm not even sure that is what the section is trying to say. Even if the experiment and conclusion do make sense, that would show a cognitive bias in how we understand others' mental states. It tells us nothing about estimations of ours or others' visceral drives.

Bookish899 (talk) 02:04, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Section on Influence of Power

This desperately needs rewriting, as the language is very confused and nearly impossible to follow. I'd edit it myself if I even understood what is being said. 104.245.105.26 (talk) 22:49, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. As written the section is confusing and detracts from the page. Given it's been unchanged and confusing since 2012 (see other comment on the Talk page) I'd like to suggest the section be removed entirely. Flavorjones (talk) 12:04, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Section on Smoking/the Sayette et al experiment

There seem to be a couple of problems in this section:

- the same citation (to Sayette et al. 2008) appears as multiple references
- the body text refers to figures in the cited work as "Figure 1", "Figure 2" without reproducing the figures locally or appropriate citation to the work
- the text does not appear to be a concise summary of the reference but instead reproduces the structure and a lot of the content from the article.

Iamleeg (talk) 08:49, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]