The author of the article is involved in a non-profit organization called Healing for Israel, who‘s team includes authors which have been weaponizing the trauma of Oct 7. to justify the Gaza genocide.
This article in particular is loaded in just-so theories which very conveniently explain some cognitive tendencies without any evidence these tendencies even exist, let alone that they are being weaponized by “islamists” like the author describes.
For example:
> Using cognitive empathy, militants have learnt to present their cause as aligned with Western humanitarian values, carefully curating their image as champions of freedom and justice. This dynamic is rooted in asymmetrical power relationships, where weaker groups often develop a detailed understanding of powerful parties, using cognitive empathy to identify and press the psychological buttons that influence those in power. These terrorists often possess a stronger cognitive grasp of Western psychology than Westerners understand jihadi psychology.
By the authors own definition “Cognitive empathy is the ability to accurately understand and model the thoughts, feelings and values of others.” This accusation simply doesn’t make any sense.
If cognitive empathy exists, and is separate from normal (or affective) empathy (a very dubious claim) than what the author is taking about here is just normal emotional manipulation, using known cognitive biases like support for the underdog. It has nothing to do with values or emotions (and let alone perspective or mental states which is center to actual empathy).
I suspect the author is actually guilty of the same thing she is accusing the “jihadists” of. She is aware that people in the west (like everywhere else) are empathizing with victims of genocide—that is actual (affective; not cognitive) empathy. And she wants to turn this empathy on its head in her attempt to justify said genocide.
The way she uses “Western Values” throughout the article should also ring alarm bells of race-science. The term is heavily rooted in racist believes about cultural superiority of the western world and has no scientific basis. There is no proof that the so called western values are any different from normal human values. And even if they were, there is certainly no proof that empathy among humans with “western values” is any different from empathy among other humans.
Could you please stop posting in the flamewar style? You've been doing it repeatedly, unfortunately, and we've already asked you once.
I'm not commenting on your view here, nor the author's; I haven't looked at the article. But a post like this is against HN's rules regardless of what an article says or how wrong it is.
The author of the article is involved in a non-profit organization called Healing for Israel, who‘s team includes authors which have been weaponizing the trauma of Oct 7. to justify the Gaza genocide.
This article in particular is loaded in just-so theories which very conveniently explain some cognitive tendencies without any evidence these tendencies even exist, let alone that they are being weaponized by “islamists” like the author describes.
For example:
> Using cognitive empathy, militants have learnt to present their cause as aligned with Western humanitarian values, carefully curating their image as champions of freedom and justice. This dynamic is rooted in asymmetrical power relationships, where weaker groups often develop a detailed understanding of powerful parties, using cognitive empathy to identify and press the psychological buttons that influence those in power. These terrorists often possess a stronger cognitive grasp of Western psychology than Westerners understand jihadi psychology.
By the authors own definition “Cognitive empathy is the ability to accurately understand and model the thoughts, feelings and values of others.” This accusation simply doesn’t make any sense.
If cognitive empathy exists, and is separate from normal (or affective) empathy (a very dubious claim) than what the author is taking about here is just normal emotional manipulation, using known cognitive biases like support for the underdog. It has nothing to do with values or emotions (and let alone perspective or mental states which is center to actual empathy).
I suspect the author is actually guilty of the same thing she is accusing the “jihadists” of. She is aware that people in the west (like everywhere else) are empathizing with victims of genocide—that is actual (affective; not cognitive) empathy. And she wants to turn this empathy on its head in her attempt to justify said genocide.
The way she uses “Western Values” throughout the article should also ring alarm bells of race-science. The term is heavily rooted in racist believes about cultural superiority of the western world and has no scientific basis. There is no proof that the so called western values are any different from normal human values. And even if they were, there is certainly no proof that empathy among humans with “western values” is any different from empathy among other humans.