- As a society, we focus on the cliche of “putting yourself in someone else’s shoes” or empathy, when we should be putting our energy into kindness instead because kindness motivates unbiased action. When we first critiqued my thesis statement in class, I felt that it was a run-on sentence and the ending was repetitive. Once I let it sit and reread it, I realized that it’s setup is similar to a “if, then” hypothesis statement by saying we do this but really should be doing this instead. This way of setting it up clearly shows my viewpoint and stance. I feel that it is specific and has strong word choices that resonate with the audience. They can pick out the key terms of cliche, energy into kindness, and unbiased action. The word motivates has a strong and positive connotation that sits really nicely at the end of my thesis and introduction paragraph. With the given sources for this essay, my claim had plenty of places to pull from Bloom’s arguments. It was a little harder to dig into the weeds to find a connection with Wallace and Konnikova though. Overall, I felt that my thesis was strong and liked the repetition of kindness because the reader knew where I was headed with my paper. I’m glad I moved its placement to the end of the introduction because it helped my essay flow a lot better.
- During this essay, I was reminded that I often have a hard time getting my initial thoughts on the paper. I hate that I am a procrastinator and tend to struggle with it most when it comes to writing. Ironic that I want to be an English teacher, right? I was also reminded of the importance of sharing my work before submitting it to get more perspectives. A professor in one of my literature classes today claimed, “It’s hard to write in isolation.” This resonated with me and was another reinforcement of leaning on others through peer review to not only improve my essay, but my enjoyment of the writing process as well. Receiving constructive criticism always helps me step back from my own clouded brain and see how my reader is feeling. I learned that switching sentences around can enhance a smoother flow throughout my arguments. Balancing the “they say, I say” portions of my paper is something I need to continue to look out for in the future. Lastly, I remembered how effective the reading to the wall method is in fine tuning my final essay.
- In my essay “The Power of Impartial Kindness,” I focussed on global revision more than I have in any other piece of writing. My three main priorities were making my evidence connect to my thesis, increasing specificity, and incorporating more of the source voices into my essay. I tried to focus on asking myself what I was arguing and how to make it more interesting. Giving more details on my most important text to self connection about my brother’s passing and the unnecessary “empathy” my family received strengthened its purpose in my essay. The remainder of my revision process revolved around finding the best parts of DFW’s speech to incorporate into my essay and adjusting where ideas fit best to prove my thesis.
- I will address our next essay differently by trying to have more completed before the peer review process. I was happy that I had my rough draft down on paper, but enjoy getting feedback that pushes me closer to my final draft. I will make sure to continue taking my time to understand and annotate the sources we get in class. Lastly, I will try to time my essay better because there was a gap between receiving my peer review feedback and implementing it into my essay. Better timing will allow me to remember changes I want to make and strengthen my overall writing process.
Month: October 2025
Throughout David Foster Wallace’s commencement speech, he clearly argues three main points. His introduction begins with a brief story about a fish swimming past two others, asking “How’s the water?” (Wallace). A few minutes later, one fish asks his friend, “What the hell is water?” This sets up Wallace’s message to Kenyon College’s graduating class of 2005 on the importance of awareness. He brings up the mundane day to day interactions and processes graduates are bound to go through. These tedious tasks include having to go through a long stressful day of work, followed by annoying traffic, and then the negative environment of a packed and poorly lit grocery store. This is followed by the explanation of the default setting. It is easy for us to constantly pick out the negatives in people and our experiences when the frustrating components of adult life surface. Wallace argues that having a pessimistic view is “so easy and automatic” and “frustrating crap like this is exactly where the work of choosing is gonna come in.” Having awareness allows us to crack the default setting and think deeper about the things that are annoying us.
Since Wallace is addressing soon to be college grads, he incorporates the liberal arts education cliche that college is where students are learning how to think. He challenges this motto, claiming that university actually teaches us not how to think, but instead, that we have the choice of what to think about. Wallace puts into perspective that we don’t have to despise the checkout lady who says, “‘Have a nice day’ in a voice that is the absolute voice of death.” Nor do we need to get lost in the list of small annoyances and hating life because of them. We can break this default setting if we push ourselves to think, maybe the man who just cut me off on the freeway has it worse than I do. Perhaps, I’m the one in his way. He could be rushing his sick child to the hospital. We can use another cliche and put ourselves in others shoes to make ourselves a little less miserable when possible. Not every day do we feel like putting in the effort, but it’s usually beneficial when we can look further than our default settings. We have the power to decide how we want to see things in this world. Wallace’s opinions come off very strong through his harsh words and I was a bit turned off at first. I think he offers valid points but dislike this piece as a commencement speech. I feel that the message of the power behind choosing our thoughts is important but dislike the way it’s done. His personal experiences that the audience can universally relate to are portrayed in a very pessimistic light. The suicide example felt too heavy for a moment I feel is supposed to be geared towards a balance of preparation, celebration, and inspiration.
I agree with Wallace’s main points I discussed above, yet I do not like the way he argues them. Yes, I feel that college is a combination of teaching us how to think for ourselves and that we have the choice and freedom of our thoughts. I also agree that it’s important to try to feel for others when we can. When we consider others and their lives, we are looking at a broader picture that helps us understand why people act the way they do. In the long run, we benefit from being less pessimistic and bothered by the annoyances that pile up throughout adulthood. It is essential to be aware of what I call autopilot and Wallace calls the default setting. We need to be careful and draw ourselves back through awareness when we see that we are just going through the motions and judging others. Wallace has evidence to back up these points but I strongly dislike his examples. More often than not, his word choice rubs me the wrong way and angers me. We all have bad days of course, but to voice to young graduating adults thoughts of “the ugliest, most inconsiderate and aggressive drivers” or “how stupid and cow-like and dead-eyed and nonhuman” people seem at the end of long days is extremely rude. Additionally, his other point that we are the center of our worlds and every experience is an understandable argument but I can’t fully wrap my head around it. The way he explains this idea does not track with how I view myself as a person. It feels too selfish when I am almost always thinking of others before myself.
I don’t believe Wallace is referring to empathy. I can’t place my finger on a term, but he’s getting at something different. I believe that empathy is the ability to feel for others because we want to and have “moral good” within us. Empathy is something we naturally do. On the other hand, Wallace is saying that we should think twice about other people for our own benefit. This feels a little backhanded and reminds me of when people will apologize because they want to feel better about their wrongs and the uncomfortable situation. Their secondary focus is the fact that they feel bad and are owning up to their poor actions.
“And look at how repulsive most of them are, and how stupid and cow-like and dead-eyed and nonhuman they seem in the checkout line…”
This quote simply pissed me off. Commencement speeches are given to students who have just successfully completed college. They should warn students of the challenges of the outside world and the mundane day to day tasks but they should ultimately be a congratulations with positive words of wisdom for the future. Wallace is being very rude and putting this image into young adults’ heads. I know this isn’t his motive and we all have these thoughts from time to time, but who is he to bring this up and judge others? He’s speaking of doing the opposite and being mindful, yet keeps listing more and more situations through vulgar language. I’d like to have challenged Wallace to make this argument without these harsh examples because he offers valid points.
Wallace and Bloom’s points interact together interestingly. These pieces both get at the importance of thinking of others. While Wallace focuses on the ways that looking deeper into others’ lives is beneficial to increase our awareness, Bloom argues that empathy is dangerously biased and negative. “This is Water” explains why we need to focus on the little things that are forgotten about. These small things contribute to why we hate or love our lives through the default setting. Bloom is pretty much arguing the opposite. He explains that far too often, we care for others on a small scale and empathize with those who are similar to ourselves. This bias gets in the way of those who really need help and are struggling on a much larger scale. At the end of the day, Wallace really only cares about himself being the center of everything. To be the best version of himself and not so miserable from day to day life, he makes up scenarios to try to feel for others. This is really just his way of escaping the consequences of self centeredness and the default setting. Bloom argues that empathy compares to prejudice in the way that we bias who we care for. His point is that our energy is too often put into the wrong places so we should focus on rationality and kindness instead.
1. Paul Bloom’s essay, “Is empathy overrated?” brings his unique perspective on empathy to the reader’s attention. Bloom uses a clever craft to invite the reader to the conversation on empathy before disclosing his controversial opinion. He uses the analogy of empathy being like a spotlight to portray his first belief that the trait is narrowly focused (Bloom 1). Throughout each paragraph, a strong topic sentence has a subclaim backed by evidence and specific examples to prove that empathy does more harm than good.
I believe Bloom’s three main points fall under the spotlight idea of empathy and its limitations and misuse. The argument that “empathy reflects our biases” and only “focuses on specific individuals” drives home the single mindedness we unintentionally have (Bloom 2). This is dangerous because Bloom gives the example of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. Larger scale shootings and other tragedies happen on a more regular basis in places like Chicago. Newton and other surrounding towns dropped everything to send millions of unneeded toys to the impacted families. Paul himself admits that he has an easier time empathizing with the families of Newton over those of Chicago and the thousands of people killed and affected by homicides. This is because of his bias of being a white man who lives in Connecticut and is a father. This idea is further backed by the point that we can empathize with one person whose story we know, rather than the statistics of a large scale of people struggling. The pathos evoked from the image of “an adorable eight-year-old” that’s critically ill clouds our mind from grasping the bigger picture. Just because a vaccine has sickened this one girl, doesn’t mean it’s not having a tremendous impact on twelve other children and saving their lives. In other words, Bloom is saying that we know it’s better for one child to die than twelve, yet we cannot feel this way when twelve is only a statistic and on the other hand, we feel the hardship of the young girl and her family. In this way, “empathy is insensitive to consequences that apply statistically rather than to specific individuals” (Bloom 3). Lastly, Bloom argues that “what really matters for kindness may be self-control, intelligence and a more diffuse compassion” (Bloom 3). Rather than focus on empathy, which has its many downfalls, we should focus on kindness. That way, we take control over the natural biases we have, and can realize what people really need in a time of hardship. We can focus on the statistics of the biggest issues that need solving so that we don’t get caught up in the smaller ones. We can spread our compassion to the places it is needed most by being smart and unbiased. All in all, Paul Bloom argues that there is a better solution to improving humanity than being empathetic.
2. I agree with the main argument that we have a natural bias that impacts who and how we empathize with certain groups of people. It is easier for me to feel for my Mom in a situation than a stranger from another country. Bloom has a good point about the spotlight that empathy places on people and how it leaves behind others who may need the help more. This essay made me really think about the effectiveness of our empathy. When my brother passed away in 2018, all of our friends, family, and even strangers came together to show their support and love. It was a beautiful way to celebrate my brother’s short lived but amazing life. However, similar to the millions of unneeded toys sent to Newton, Connecticut, hundreds of flowers filled our house, covering every space possible. People probably spent thousands of dollars on these. Yet, my family and I didn’t even like flowers. Nor did my brother. This empathetic act came from a place of care but was not what my family and I needed. This money could have been put to a needed cause, like hunger or mental health resources to decrease the American homicide rate. I think that focusing on kindness through self-control, intelligence, and a broader compassion could be more effective than empathy itself, as Bloom claims (3).
3. Bloom challenged my initial understanding of empathy because I had never really viewed it as a bad thing. Yes, I knew it could be harmful to be overempathetic because people could take advantage of you or the receiver could feel inept. However, I always thought that it was a really good thing. It is important to be able to put yourself in others’ shoes and feel for their situation. Everyone always carries something. I felt that it was essential to try to understand this and lend a helping hand to those who needed it. Bloom completely challenged my initial ideas because his entire argument revolved around the fact that empathy’s “negatives outweigh its positives” (Bloom 4). When I first read his argument that empathy is pretty much the same as prejudice, I thought to myself “hell no.” Throughout reading his essay though, I came to understand his general opinion. I saw the evidence that suggests we should put our energy into a better alternative that is more encompassing than the characteristic of empathy.
4. “Empathy distorts our moral judgments in pretty much the same way that prejudice does.”
This is the one claim that I strongly disagree with from Bloom. I understand the limitations of having bias and how that impacts who we care for the most. However, I think it’s natural to feel stronger for someone similar to us. This does not necessarily mean that we are throwing prejudice on another person who is struggling though! This argument rattled me at first. I can see Bloom’s point that he’s getting at, but stating that empathy is almost equivalent to prejudice goes too far for me. Prejudice raises the red flags of racism, sexism, and homophobia. I may be naturally inclined to help someone similar to myself, but this does not mean I am kicking others’ problems to the curb by prejudicing them.
5. In Bloom’s last paragraph, he regards empathy, concluding that “its negatives outweigh its positives – and… there are better alternatives” (Bloom 4). Do you agree with this? Where are the “better” places we should be putting our energy into? Is it possible to transform the negative definition of empathy we have made and turn it into a positive thing?
