I just participated in a thread discussion about Callousness. Funny thing about it is I sucked at bringing my point across. Its been a while since I've participated in any argument, so its plain to see how much I've dulled.
The argument about callousness comes from the effects of not caring about how other people feel. Realistically, if a person was really callous then they would make no action to be diplomatic, to frame his communication in the best way for his audience, or be able to be in-tune with other people in a team effort. Also any action to pretend is a form of manipulation or self-preservation.
The argument began from callousness to what was the use or requirement of empathy. Here, personal views about empathy begin to point out everyones own premises. This is where I realized that our attempt to find an objective reference point for debate will not be achieved if we don't have the same idea, opinion, or understanding of what empathy is.
My Personal view of empathy and Intra-personal Intelligence is very much influenced by my experience and the books that made sense of these experiences. Particularly material about Game Theory (Scot P. Stephens), Economic Behavior (Predictably Irrational by Dan Arielly), the Art of Critical Decision Making (Michael A. Roberto), Cognitive Biases, Confucian Analects, Philosophy, and those works I can get from Paul Ekman. Also, having worked with and against functional psychopaths really hammered the lesson home.
So this is where personal views on the world begin to collide in rules interpretation. Beyond to argue, anymore would require making one side alter their premises and that will be a very very long discussion. Particularly when it wasn't very easy for me to find my supporting material, I had the motivation to look for it and it coincided with my humanistic values... so once you reach down and realize we have different premises arguments over.