I read the Guardian article. There was a lot wrong with it.
- The word "empathy" is used differently than we usually do, more like being able to see from another perspective.
- The way it's defined, I consider more empathy a bad thing, especially in teens already overwhelmed with feelings and still learning to control them. IMHO, "empathy" as used results in the expectation that the village will compensate for any bad choices you (or anyone) makes in the interest of "fairness". (i.e. reduced consequences from teen pregnancy or skipping school, and higher taxes/penalties for getting a degree and earning more.)
- The article blurred causation (teens lack empathy due to lacking reading) with correlation (due to environmental factors such as video games and TV, teens both lack empathy and the desire/attention span for reading.) I suspect correlation rather than causation.