Challenge accepted:

...I think the process of using empathy to understand people or more generally imagination/theories to understand things to be an abundant source of stupidity and falsity.
-Judaka

Along with the title "Empathy is worthless for understanding people" should be a self-evident assertion of your stand in and of itself, no?

What I love about this forum is the seeming ability to edit previous posts without an indicator that such editing has occurred. At least per my limited experience. ;-)

Another aspect of this forum seems to be no notification of a response to posts. At least per my experience. Here I thought you had forgotten about me. :(

And yes, I am badass. Strategy is ever my forte, so my posts to anyone is a feeling out of sorts. The initial post is always one of seemingly closed-minded argument with some truths asserted. How you took it and attempted to conceal was quite revealing in itself. (I am revealing this to you because my time here is done.)

The editing of posts for more sound construction and argument is noted and appreciated- this means you are developing; seeking more solid foundations which is a proponent of wisdom aiming but at the same time the action of editing without an acknowledgment of prior falsities is slight-handed/misleading. If you claim your post to be of the same intent, then the proof of this intent will be evident somewhere in this thread- eventually.

With this said, the structure of this forum is lacking for my personal tastes, so I will excuse myself. Carry on.

All things have their uses- both success and failure. Absolutely nothing within our grasp is perfect.

All things are fundamentally founded in Chaos, awaiting Order to structure Chaos for better understanding, moving toward the objective of the universal Law of Order. An objective which seeks sustainability.

Therefore, the judgment that empathy is worthless for understanding people is fallacious in its assertion per Nirvana Fallacy that since it is imperfect it is undoubtedly worthless. But imperfect by who’s standards? One who possesses the pinnacle of empathy? Or one who may believe they possess a certain degree of empathy? Possibly truer- very limited amount. Again- fallacious.

The only worthless notion is in committing such an intellectual blunder. But then again, the blunder educates the perceiver of a great many things about the blunderer; so not worthless in and of itself, per se, just in reference to the initial declaration.

Speculation? Possibly. But out of the ten truths I have gathered based on the initial post, I can successfully posit at least three facts.

Fact 1: There are differing degrees of possessed empathy.
Fact 2: Perfectionists possess underdeveloped cognition (a sign of youth or ignorance; possibly both).
Fact 3: Trying to judge empathy as worthless based on faulty understanding precluded by one’s fallible subjectivity is fallacious.

Truth 1: Sometimes ad hominem to counter ad hominem is the correct course of action in bringing things back to order (or is at least entertaining).
Truth 2: There is a general lacking in both better understanding and usage of empathy for understanding people.
Truth 3: Condescending pseudo-intellectual arrogance is unbefitting.
Truth 4: Redundant realism will rear its all too familiar head.
Truth 5: Test me and you will be made a fool.
Truth 6: This is quite a first post.
Truth 7: I am badass.

In light of this: your original statement of empathy being worthless for understanding people is true in a sense. Here’s why:

One does not seek to empathize with people. One empathizes with a person. One does not empathize with homeless people. One empathizes with a homeless person. Taken in this truer context, empathy is a highly useful and worthwhile tool for assessing individual circumstances and situations; not fully understanding. Nothing alone will allow one to understand someone else. It is a collective, multifaceted effort. Even then it is impossible to fully and completely understand someone, but closer is better than farther. The effectiveness, of course, will be determined by the level or degree of empathy an individual possesses- imagination to intuition ratio (?). Though I may have taken you too literally when you said “people” when you probably meant person.

Pursuant to the logic aforementioned, empathy works in understanding specifics, not generalizations.

You think too broadly; may I suggest taking your own advice about specificity?

OT: And the number one cause of divorce is actually marriage. Again, practice specificity.

Double post.