I'm sure this will get buried at this point, but I have experienced very negative side effects from my ability to empathize with people. Theres a term (which I find silly) that categorizes people as 'empaths' which I gathered means one can almost "link" emotionally with people. While I fid the term silly, i have experienced almost crippling emotional pain when someone close to me is hurting. I hate it, I wish it would go away.
My one friend, brilliant engineer. Has brain cancer. I sit a desk away from him. When he is upset, I can hardly function. My ex-SO, when upset, I can feel the anger and sadness. It destroys me to feel that someone feels that way toward me. Its truly awful and I wish this didn't happen to me. My siblings growing up, I was able to (and I'm not proud of this at all) basically manipulate them into doing whatever I wanted, because I was able to understand how they felt.
People tell me all the time "you're such likeable person, everyone likes you. That'll take you far." My boss said it not a month ago, which took me by surprise, as I don't care for my boss at all.
I wish there was a spectrum opposite the autism spectrum. I don't think I am at all unique in this, and I wish I could talk to others experiencing the same kinds of things.
If anything, the "skills" demanded by the present economy are those of a high-functioning psychopath [1]. That is, total lack of empathy but with a modest ability to fake it.
Feels "good" to see someone talk about this. It seemed more and more obvious to me but i never really found anything other than my own thoughts talking about it.
How do you deal with this?
a) Slowly turn into a psychopath to be able to rule the biggest portion of the world
b) Forget about all this and live in blissful ignorance.
c) Live a sad life where you know you're getting a$$ fked by psychopaths but you also know you're not "made" to become one.
Thanks for saying what I had on my mind. In fact I was perusing the thread to find more voices that agree with your sentiment, spot on.
The following is a comment of mine on HN from nearly an year ago. It was made in response to a post on what the author learned from Steve Jobs in matters of negotiation [a]. It stands true today as it did then. Every time the topic of empathy and its relevance to startup success or success at large comes up, I feel a strong need to revisit this comment. Sadly, I have a feeling I will be posting this for some time to come, in the foreseeable future because I think most people - if they are being genuine - seem to be under the false assumption that somehow there are ways to win in the valley or elsewhere by being anything but ruthless :
-- -- --
I think every time the issue of Steve Jobs's maniacal side comes up I feel obliged to bring this up:
Steve Wozniak on Steve Jobs:
I was inspired by Stanford intellectuals like
Jim Warren talking this way at the club. Lee
Felsenstein wanted computers to help in things
like the antiwar marches he'd orchestrated in
Oakland and I was inspired by the fact that
these machines could help stop wars. Others in
the club had working models of this computer
before Jobs knew it existed. He came down one
week and I took him to show him the club, not
the reverse. He saw it as a businessman. It as
I who told Jobs the good things these machines
could do for humanity, not the reverse. I
begged Steve that we donate the first Apple I
to a woman who took computers into elementary
schools but he made me buy it and donate it
myself. [1]
The contrast in the personalities of Jobs and Wozniak could not be more clearer.
However I agree with first part of what toddmorey has said below:
3. Most importantly, being an asshole may help
great ideas get powered through, but it's not
the only way.
The latter part, I'm unsure and circumspect about:
The people I most admire have found
success while still being amazing human beings
to work beside.
In the valley and elsewhere, I think this is increasingly not the case.
I think we should stop telling kids that life rewards the passionate and the skilled.
By rewards I certainly do not mean some inner calm or contentment coming from indulging in what you love. I mean the conventional rewards of recognition, admiration and remuneration.
Life is rigged in favor of the opportunists. The schemers, hustlers and the witty-talkers.
But certainly not the plainspoken and the adept.
This is what many kids who have grown up on the stories of Steve Jobs and the valley lore surrounding many other iconic founders, will take away as their guiding principles.
They will grow up thinking, "Life rewards the unabashedly ravenous, merciless and ruthless blokes among us. Life does not spare the dignified, the pleasant or the mild-mannered."
There is nothing to suggest otherwise.
No matter how you dice it, your conscience tells you that this is more than a bit disenchanting if not unfair.
I don't think I agree with your interpretation of that story or the conclusions you've drawn from it.
Not wanting to donate the first apple II or use it to "help stop wars" doesn't make Steve Jobs a bad person or demonstrate a lack of empathy. He could have easily understood exactly where Wozniack was coming from, but have drawn different conclusions about what was right. The things that people associate with being "good" aren't always the best indicators of morality or motivation. Someone can be a good person without ever giving money to charity.
And before we crush the dreams of children, it should be pointed out that musicians, artists and athletes are heavily rewarded for their passion and skill every day. So are many successful entrepreneurs. It's our responsibility to chose the right heroes, for ourselves and for the next generation. There's a Judas for every Jesus. We get to choose which one we want to be.
I'm no Steve Jobs fanboy, but describing him as "unabashedly ravenous, merciless and ruthless" is far beyond the pale. Don't let a few rumors and out of context stories color your judgement of an entire human life. Empathy, right?
I feel somewhat embarrassed to have put the situation in such a short and harsh fashion. If only it wasn't true.
I think we should teach our kids to build a world where life rewards the passionate, skillful and empathetic - but be very aware that we don't have that world yet.
Those are the skills you need if you want to rule the world (or a significant portion of it). For the majority of us who don't want to rule the world empathy is one of the more important skills to build relationships and be happy with our lives.
I experience something similar. Besides having high scores on those online "EQ" quizzes, it's astoundingly easy for me to be liked if I make the effort to "turn it on," to the point where I feel completely undeserving and out of place being welcomed. The downside is that if someone is a skillful manipulator, they'll use my empathy against me(many confidence schemes involve some of this). And if I hurt someone I'll basically remember it forever, so I'm predisposed towards pacifism even at my most hyped up and aggressive.
Given all of that, I have gradually established certain "rules of engagement" that aim for noble uses of these various strengths and weaknesses - whom I am allowed to be involved with, and on what levels, in various situations, and what is a "good" way to be involved with someone. I subscribe heavily to Stoicism. I also think often on how socialization works elsewhere in nature, to realign my perspective on human society.
I have similar issues, and I've read scientific opinions [1] theorizing that people diagnosed with aspergers may actually have extreme empathy to the point where it paralyzes them.
I've been diagnosed with aspergers by one specialist. I had experience that sort of wreaked havoc on my life, so I've learned to carefully not conflate the term empathy with 'mind reading'. It takes a lot of practice, but you can actually learn to (not turn off, but subdue, I suppose is the best wording) the voice in your head that flags every face, body expression, tone of voice, topic of conversation, etc - to a more appropriate level, a more course granularity (depending on the relationship). If you want. I used to memorize conversations and attempt to predict what people were thinking/wanted/needed, and based my action and decision from this prediction. I was very unhappy. I felt like I had no self, my mind was just consumed with the needs of everyone else.
I am also a domestic abuse survivor, so I think my obsession with people behavior, feelings, and thoughts has been 'on alert', hypervigilant. At some point I had to decide that I wanted to study code and math more than I wanted a false sense of people security. I am less depressed because of it, but I also avoid close relationships. It is easy to fall into a black hole when others are suffering because it is so incredibly sad. But I just try to be strong and supportive now, because the world needs people like that too.
If there's someone in the office having a confrontational phone call, I have to either feel their rage or isolate myself (loud music). Seeing other people's injuries (especially my son's) is overwhelming. I naturally do the 'Choose the other side' suggestion from the article - possibly due to an incorrect belief that other people act rationally, and so must have had some reason for being mean. I have to be really careful with emotive TV/films. They can screw me up for days.
There does seem to be a spectrum. The furthest extremes are very interesting with some people on the deeply empathetic end of the spectrum actually experiencing pain when they view other humans experiencing pain. That is to say the viewer's neurons literally fire and send signals that the viewer is in pain when in actuality it is another person falling, bumping into something or what have you. There was a fantastic story about one person who experiences this on NPR's new science podcast Invisibilia [1].
Most people tend to automatically reflect back at others the emotions projected towards them: someone gets angry at you, and you get angry right back at him. Being able to notice this in the moment and sidestep the reaction is a learned skill.
On the opposite end of the scale, there are "sponges" who receive and absorb others' emotions unconditionally, as you describe. I've known many people like this, and many seem to develop unusual health issues -- but it's equally possible to notice this process in the moment and modulate it.
In both cases, practicing mindfulness meditation is the most direct way to develop the necessary skills.
What you're describing may actually be indicative of very high functioning autism, depending on whether those skills came naturally to you at all times. I have the same problems and abilities but was clinically diagnosed with aspergers as a child (since early adulthood I no longer meet the clinical definition because of how much I've learned of socialization). Emotions come VERY strongly from other people. I'd suspect there are others who are extremely empathetic but have greater control over how strongly they internalize those emotions.
Do you happen to have any books on hand that deal with setting boundaries. I never really developed this skill, but it seems really useful and I'm in a situation where I need it. My boundaries are clearly being crossed, but I don't know how consequences should be brought up, or how to actually go through with the consequences (I seem to cave pretty easily.)
as a person with severe depression, i am absolutely certain of one thing. feelings come first, then thoughts. it's impossible to think your way out of depression. it sounds like OP's empathy is a "deep" / low-level quality of how their mind works, in which case it's probably impossible for them to think their way out of it. IMO
i didn't explain what i was trying to get at with "feelings come first" well enough. i believe people are constantly associating their current emotional state with their current area of perceptive focus. for instance let's say you go through a bad breakup and drink chocolate milk every day for a week while crying into your chocolate milk. when you drink chocolate milk again months later, you're going to remember that association and have a twinge of sadness. i think this process goes on constantly (with much less intensity usually) with everything you do.
feelings come first. your associated emotions are the reasons you have the beliefs you have! they're the reason you have the goals you have, the fears you have, etc etc etc. the myriad tiny emotional associations you feel constantly are the low-level stuff on which the higher-level construct of thoughts is built. that is what i'm saying.
nah. your assumption is that i feel depressed about something. it's just an ambient feeling that is constantly present when i'm conscious, that has a negativity-reinforcing effect on my thoughts and perspective. it has nothing to do with what i'm experiencing, although getting bummed out can certainly make it worse. the closest thing i can compare it to is chronic back pain. i also didn't explain the "feelings come first" thing very well but i elaborated in my response to the guy above you.
Empathy is one of the greatest spiritual quality [0]. You should explore spirituality and who knows that you may progress faster than average individuals [1].
This is a refreshing article considering the mainstream upsell of the selfish "cool" stone-hearted asshole.
Anywho, I used to be one of those kids with little to no capacity for empathy. I wasn't horrible, I would never have hurt anyone, but I had a really hard time relating (nor was I trying to). My pre-school teacher mentioned to my parents that something was off with me (they just thought I was a weird kid), it seemed I had no notion of social feedback, putting me somewhere on the autism spectrum.
Turns out I was going completely deaf, which on the long run ended up being a blessing in disguise (also because I more or less recovered my hearing later on).
Being deaf, you learn to read people as if they came with an instruction booklet, it comes very naturally. I saw how other people had those reactions, emotions showing in their faces, their body language and so on, and how it affected others. I started feigning it and playing with it, effectively manipulating people into reacting the way I wanted them to.
As time moved on, some of these things started coming naturally and it soon hit me like a brick: the best way to get things from others is to understand where they stand emotionally and to show reciprocation and support, i.e. empathy.
It often makes me wonder whether empathy is purely an acquired trait, or if some people have a strong predisposition for it.
The one major drawback of empathy, in my opinion, is feeling utterly useless when you see other people repeatedly hurting themselves, usually thinking they're doing the right thing. It pains me, deeply, but I suppose it's a necessary side-effect.
the best way to get things from others is to understand where they stand emotionally and to show reciprocation and support, i.e. empathy
I don't know about best but other effective and often used methods of getting things from people include:
* Instilling a deep fear in them, so they avoid crossing you or look to you as their savior.
* Manipulating their sense of worth so they need what you are offering them to merely feel OK about themselves.
* Creating the impression that you are so important and highly valued by others that getting only the smallest amount of time from you is a great blessing.
* Telling them that other people are awful and out-to-get them, so that they need to work with you to oppose those other, awful people.
I try to avoid doing this kind of thing but these are methods that have made many people much money and earned them many dollars. Empathy is great, I support empathy and try to practice it whenever I can. It's also important to understand that real empathy isn't necessarily a skill that will help you get ahead in the present work world. Often it's a "skill" that others will aim to exploit in you.
Don't confuse being a good person and being a successful person. You might be able to be both but they definitely two different, uh, "paths". I'd encourage being a good person more than being a successful but I think everyone should have their eyes open concerning our modern world.
Is it really a given that "successful" means upward mobility and financial success? Not everyone can should or wants to own a kingdom. Freedom to pursue your interests is a good goal to have - the skills you practice to get you to that point may not serve you well as you'll find you're only good at gaining money.
A whole bunch of surgeries and being followed by one of the best doctors I've ever had the chance to meet :) it isn't going to last, but I'm sure glad I got the chance to both be deaf and hearing.
I honestly don't mind it, I'm lucky enough to know how to deal with it, if only to an extent. It's a congenital condition, the tissues in my throat, ears and nose are weak and get infected and damaged more easily.
> the best way to get things from others is to understand where they stand emotionally and to show reciprocation and support, i.e. empathy.
This is the dangerous line this article is suggestive toward: empathy as a tool for manipulative gain.
I wonder if someone truly naturally capable of understanding differing perspectives would even write such an article. It sounds more like a robot discovering a trick they can utilize to score points.
I think empathy is a sense. When I read some people talking about it in this way, it feels like deaf people thinking they're able to hear music because they found a trick of feeling the speaker's bass.
I can't help but feel a little offended by your reply but I think I can also understand where you're coming from. To give some perspective, hearing the bass is not a trick, it's your way towards understanding how to listen, or rather feel music differently. Bass is the most obvious thing for most deaf people, so it helps you realize "how the whole thing works". You then gradually realize than you do feel the entire spectrum through your skin, bones, etc., you just have to dedicate a certain amount of effort to it. For reference, I'm the only musician in my family, I got interested in playing piano at age five, had a innate sense for basic chords, while having absolutely no hearing.
> I can't help but feel a little offended by your reply but I think I can also understand where you're coming from.
It's not hard to see how you might feel offended by a comment that took the very experience you were talking about (deafness) and used it to contrive an example of not one, but two repugnant qualities. Yet instead of lashing out, you channeled that into understanding, while still honoring your own reaction. That takes both subtlety and skill. Thanks for giving us an example of the thing we're talking about.
This blog post is factually incorrect in the sense that it contradicts the current state-of-the-art in psychology research, which comes from the regression analysis of statistically-identifiable personality traits against actual career outcomes in repeated large-n survey research.
Specifically, empathy is associated with "agreeability" in the five-factor OCEAN model (the dominant scientific model of personality traits in psychology). In this model, agreeability has been repeatedly shown to correlate with worse career outcomes and lower professional satisfaction over time.
This is not to say that being an asshole is good, but if we are measuring career performance in terms of the traditional metrics that matter to most people (promotion and pay), the statistical reality is that high levels of empathy don't move the needle in the direction people conventionally assume they want.
I think there might be confusion about terminology. The form of empathy that the author is referring to is more "understanding other people" than being "kind, sympathetic, cooperative, warm and considerate". Basically, putting yourself in the other person's shoes and seeing things from their perspective as opposed to being agreeable or kind. The former is the essence of strategy and manipulation. The latter is generally being a good person.
It's clear that if you want to get ahead in life, understanding how other people perceive things is THE skill. Being warm, kind and sympathetic is also good, but not required. I can understand how being agreeable can be a detriment in many professional situation. The form of "empathy" being described in the blog post is always an advantage.
Could be the other way around, that people that become leaders lose their empathy? I've read that this is a real effect.
Either way makes sense to me, empathy is a horrible trait in a leader. I know that seems like a horrible thing to say, but I am a very empathetic person and would make a horrible leader. Wanting to please everyone leads to stress and indecision.
When you can place yourself in the position of a colleague/customer/supplier, you often understand "they did the best they could given their resources" - be those financial, emotional, intelligence, etc.
Often I see more senior leaders in business have a somewhat flagrant disregard for their staff and suppliers constraints - "I don't want excuses or reasons, just make it work... You should have foreseen these problems, and worked with me to mitigate them."
Personally I find getting the balance right, between understanding how and why a situation has occurred, or will occur - and how to "motivate" a customer/supplier/colleague to do "better" irrespective of the resources - really quite hard.
Indeed, I will often be making the excuses on behalf of my suppliers... because I often understand the constraints on them just as well as they do, and can articulate them more clearly. And that is the complete opposite of what I see many "successful" executives do. Many of who have selective hearing, and only hear the good news, and never the bad unless it gives them an advantage.
"Agreeableness is a personality trait manifesting itself in individual behavioral characteristics that are perceived as kind, sympathetic, cooperative, warm and considerate.... People scoring low on agreeableness are generally less concerned with others' well-being and report having less empathy...."
and:
"Agreeableness is usually associated with a lower income as opposed to aggressive employees who are found to have a higher income."
The first source is a press release from what appears to be an HR company which attempts to debunk the claim that agreeableness correlates with lower income based on a survey they contracted through a polling agency.
That survey portends to show that "almost half of American workers (45 percent) believe employees with more agreeable personalities (those who seem more tolerant, less controlling, or more willing to consider co-workers’ ideas) are more successful in the workplace". There are a lot of problems with this statement...
(1) Less than half of American workers actually agreed with the stated result.
(2) The study survey was carried out by a local North Carolina polling agency with no data available as far as I can tell.
(3) Believing that 'agreeable' persons are more successful in the workplace does not contradict the finding that 'agreeableness' correlates with low incomes -- as in many cases, what many individuals believe does not necessarily correspond to the truth.
The study they apparently contracted the survey in response to was called, "Do Nice Guys – and Gals – Really Finish Last? The Joint Effects of Sex and Agreeableness on
Income" [1]. Needless to say, you'll want to skip the press release and go straight to that paper.
I am unable to read the second source, thanks to Elsevier's brutal lockdown of scientific research. That being said, I'm hesitant about buying into the thread parent's claim that TFA "contradicts the current state-of-the-art in psychology research" given that I have only been able to find that one study purporting to link "agreeability" with lowered income.
I linked to Wikipedia because it properly contextualizes the five-factor model and somewhat accurately summarizes the research. If you need academic sources try searching for the following terms (or some variation) at Google scholar:
five-factor agreeableness salary
I get 10,000 results for that search and the teasers show the overwhelming trend of the findings ("a significant negative relationship between agreeableness and salary", "agreeableness is negatively related to initial career success", etc). An online readable version of the paper you mention as being inaccessible is the first result for a Google search on the exact title. Subsequent results do seem to be either media coverage or paywall spam.
The paper you linked is the one I was able to read -- I linked the full text in my previous post. The paper I was unable to access was "Development and Validation of an International English Big-Five Mini-Markers" which I was interested in for its apparent validation of the model at a more general level.
I peered through the Google Scholar results this morning, and I did indeed find several approachable articles on the subject. For those interested:
The results are varying, [1] and [2] confirm, while [2] seems to disconfirm (haven't read that one beyond the abstract yet as I need to go to work). [3] appears to confirm but only finds this relationship holds true for women.
In any case, thanks 'trevelyan for pointing me towards some interesting weekend reading!
Could it be that people who are non-agreeable often switch careers when they butt heads with others and this switching gives them higher income than those who stay in one place and wait for promotions?
If you are interested and have the time, Jordan Peterson has a great course that covers the five factors and goes into some detail on what we think we know about them. This is agreeability:
Empathy is a skill and a talent. I've had close personal relationships with a few great salesmen. It's incredible to watch the difference between someone who is gifted in this regard and someone who isn't. It can be worked on, but some people definitely have a natural talent.
Great salesmen are always in a good mood, never negative, never criticize, never go off on random tangents and know what the other person is going to say even before they say it. They can tell immediately how a target market will react to anything in a product or offering. It's like they can easily put themselves in the other person's mindset to understand their gut emotional reaction to things. I only dream of being that good. The best I can do is to clumsily emulate it, but it requires concentration to pay attention to everything, it's like speaking a foreign language but never quite thinking in it.
There is a large difference between the ability to read emotions and "..vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another..".
A great salesman can also be sociopathic. We are all salesmen to some extent, so this isn't to denigrate the profession or the ability to read people and use it for personal gain.
I suppose the difference lies in whether what one is selling tends towards symbiosis or exploitation.
My mom(sales rep) would help buyers working for large companies. Picking up their kids at school in an emergency, lending her car and even help to pay for a surgery.
I couldn't understand these things until I interned in a software outsourcing company. Empathy started to make a lot more sense. Employees felt like slaves, which clearly had an impact on their lives and productivity of the company.
I think empathy needs several things. But above all, it needs one's brain power, or smartness.
In my understanding, empathy is pretty much a skill to emulate the other person's thinking. There's a discussion about Kolmogorov Complexity, which says to emulate an already complex system you need an even more complex system, which means a bigger brain. Of course human minds are not that simple, but I think this is onto something.
In addition to smartness, you'd probably need a patience and some serenity to react (or not react) to the situation accordingly.
> I think empathy needs several things. But above all, it needs one's brain power, or smartness.
I thought empathy had more to do with the part of your brain that is able to pick up on facial expressions, body language, and spoken tone ("social queues") to make inferences that are not otherwise explicit. Mild autism suppresses this part of the brain, meaning you could have someone who is very "smart" but lacks empathy and social skills.
And of course it can be learned, which is part of the treatment for mild autism, but many (most?) normal people are able to tap into something much more instinctive.
It can be used for good or evil, like any talent. The good is that a person with empathy will be able to find common ground and defuse conflicts by understanding the other side's position and actually be able to address their concerns instead of just talking past them. Being empathetic can also lead to better leadership and maintaining groups by helping different participants in the group communicate and understand each other instead of splitting up the group due to petty squabbles. A very empathetic person can design brilliant products too by being able to feel every pain point in a user's interaction with that product.
I find the amount of people that have a complete and utter lack of empathy staggering. Average people really couldn't care less if someone they don't know is hurt as long as they have what they want; coming across somebody truly empathetic is really a rarity. I've always found this rather depressing.
I'm not quite sure how to fix this problem. I'm empathetic (I believe) because I've had terrible things happen to me in my life. I'm not sure everyone has to go through terrible things to be empathetic, and I worry about what my children would have to go through to have that same level of empathy.
How do you teach something where you have to feel it to understand?
I'm no longer empathetic, because whenever I felt bad for people because terrible things happened to them, I saw them repeat mistakes. Empathy is behavior that only works if those around you are trustworthy. Societal empathy destroys the requirement to be so; and therefore makes it dangerous for individuals and society to be empathetic.
> because whenever I felt bad for people because terrible things happened to them, I saw them repeat mistakes.
Keep in mind, there are terrible things that happen to people because of their choices, and terrible things that happen to people that are beyond their control. There is a difference.
> Societal empathy destroys the requirement to be so; and therefore makes it dangerous for individuals and society to be empathetic.
Fixing society is currently beyond my experience cone unfortunately :/
One of the odds things I've noticed about empathy is that a great many people are very bad at recognizing it in others. Empathy doesn't just look like playing madlibs to the tune of "You feel $FEELING. That's $ADJECTIVE!".
And beware of anyone who calls for empathy but displays none for their audience. That's just manipulation.
Indeed. It does seem that people who talk about empathy will sometimes really mean they want you to agree with whatever they think, or whatever their version of empathy is.
Not that I would accuse TFA of that -- it's explicit about "knowing your enemy" and listening to someone you are disagreeing with.
It's not incompatible for someone to have a lot of empathy and still just want you to agree with whatever they think. The real test is whether you find yourself actually agreeing with what they think. If you do, they have successfully gotten into your head and performed inception. If you don't, they bungled it.
You assume that understanding a belief system is enough to manipulate it in the direction you want. This is not necessarily always possible. If you want a external test of empathy, how about settling for the ability to predict what someone else will do, given particular circumstances?
Even this much simpler test is often blundered at, even by professional diplomats.
Well, what I mean to say is that talk about empathy is sometimes talk about "just agree with me and stop with all your opinions otherwise". Which is of course the opposite of envy. I don't really understand about the inception stuff.
I'm saying that being able to communicate your ideas requires that you step into the mind of the listener - i.e, empathy. If you do this successfully, you express them in a language that is already familiar to him, and so (to him) it seems like you're saying something obvious. If you have to resort to "just agree with me and stop with all your opinions otherwise", then you don't actually understand how he thinks or how to reach him, i.e. you have failed at empathy.
We agree, but I am trying to add a little extra detail and a meta-example to the discussion. :-)
This is how much I feel empathy: When I played Civilization as a kid I felt so terrible when the AI players begged for mercy, I would try to keep them around rather than have to conquer them entirely.
I think any perceived universal lack of empathy is more a projected personal lack of empathy. I think that if you assume and expect the worst from others you'll in turn hold yourself to the same standard. Everyone's been in a bystander position before, where they knew they could do something but didn't; this is empathy without action, which is mistakenly labelled as a lack of empathy.
Hence the problem is not that we can't empathize but that there's no obligation to do anything, which reflects a general preference towards identifying and branding over the actual work of change and action.
Sometimes I joke about people and someone corrects me telling me what a douche I am. But lately I've started thinking that maybe It's easy for me to say these things because just because I say someone for example looks a certain way does not genuinely mean I think that person IS that way.
And then when people correct me, they are actually reacting on their own prejudgements and projecting it on my joke.
> I think any perceived universal lack of empathy is more a projected personal lack of empathy. (a)
> I think that if you assume and expect the worst from others you'll in turn hold yourself to the same standard. (b)
(b) does not necessarily follow from (a). Lack of empathy does not automatically make you expect the worst from others.
For example you can easily assume that people will treat you at least superficially nicely because "being nice" is some expectation. Or maybe because it's even their job, e.g. someone in a leadership position.
Or put differently, if you do not have empathy and do not expect empathy from someone else (whether rightly so or simply due to your own lack of empathy) you could assume they still act rationally and that it is simply not in their interest to "do their worst" when interacting with you.
"I think that if you assume and expect the worst from others you'll in turn hold yourself to the same standard. Everyone's been in a bystander position before, where they knew they could do something but didn't; this is empathy without action, which is mistakenly labelled as a lack of empathy."
Yes I have. I'll tell you I didn't see empathy I saw fear and inability to act through lack of cognition. I'll agree with the lack of obligation but that depends. A parent will move into danger to rescue their own child, a stranger may not.
Service people move into danger putting their lives at risk to rescue strangers every day.
I can read anyone like a book. I also know why I have this skill - my mother had a mean temper. No violence, but a lot of screaming and banging doors. So I learnt quickly to measure the temperature of a room. Weird, and cool, that that aspect of growing up produced such a useful skill. Really weird though, was discovering how few have this ability.
Similarly, being on the bottom rung of a large corporate hierarchy is a great place to practice empathy. You learn fairly quickly which ideas are likely to have a shot and which will get shot down ruthlessly, where you can look for allies, who your protectors in management will be, and how to make your idea seem inconsequential or unrelated to those who might be threatened by it.
It's too bad that so many startup founders are in it because they never want to work for somebody else. That denies them the opportunity to practice this skill, which tends to come back to bite them when they're dealing with customers or trying to manage employees.
I too can read anyone like a book, and I'd never really thought about why before but my mum also had a temper and I grew up with 2 separate abusers and left home to a 3rd. I've never considered it a skill before, or indeed realised that it wasn't that common.
I actually find it debilitating at times, because it can come out in weird ways. I will sometimes fixate on situations or even individuals and feel vast amounts of pain for them, even carrying massive guilt for things I cannot fix. (I am seeing a counsellor.)
That's the thing, even though she knows he had some to drink, just the plausible (or even implausible) deniability makes her feel better. It's irrational, but that's how it works.
True story: I took a parenting course titled Redirecting Childrens Behavior (great course, BTW) from an instructor who also taught an enterprise-oriented course called Redirecting Corporate Behavior. In class, I was curious and had to ask what the difference was. Her response was, "They're the same. People are the same at work as at home."
However I would suggest it could be argued that compassion is the bigger skill and talent here, and that it includes empathy.
The etymological root of "compassion" is "to suffer with", to feel someone's pain. To walk in their shoes. To see their perspective. To breathe their air.
When there is compassion there is a better user experience. Apple used to have a lot of compassion but like other recent HN posts have discussed, Apple's software of late suggests they're losing it . . . fast.
One's entire daily activity, including operating vehicles (be they two wheels or more), could benefit from more compassion. Nations would benefit from a more compassionate media. Not to menion more compassionate politicians.
For me, compassion is the thing. It's what the world needs now.
I think there's a lot of associated cultural baggage and expectations that come with our notions about empathy. This muddies the discussion, somewhat: people seem to be conflating the idea of understanding what other people are feeling (and why they feel that way--which doesn't require feeling anything), feeling what other people are feeling (which doesn't necessarily require understanding), and a host of other ideas. (e.g. influencing how other people are feeling--which may require the first to some extent)
> The reason crowds of people exhaust me is that I am constantly trying to read and understand the feelings and motivations of those around me.
That describes me perfectly.
But there is a general confusion between "empathy" and "compassion".
I have a lot of the former and very little of the latter; I understand what other people experience, but I don't really "feel" it -- I don't suffer when they do.
(I don't know what this says about me -- that's just how I am).
Professionally this has served me well; I'm an independent contractor but the core of what I do is translate what people say to one another. When designing a system it's amazing how users think they have expressed their needs clearly when the tech guys understood a completely different thing; this happens even when everything is written down and formally accepted, etc. The way to fight this problem is to describe the consequences of every choice: if you do this this way, then you won't be able to do that other thing.
Personally, empathy without compassion is more of a flaw. In a conversation I usually know what the other person is going to say, so I answer their questions before they finish asking, and most people don't like it. Or they feel they have found a sympathetic ear and start telling me a lot about themselves, which gets boring quickly.
Small talk with people you know just a little, terrifies me. I have learned to talk about the weather -- that works most of the time, but only for so long (but the conversation can start anew every day).
A lack of empathy is the source of many of the worlds problems.
Would we be care more about US drone attacks if we had friends or family living in Afghanistan or Iran? Would we be so cavalier about prison rape if it had happened to us or a close friend?
These things occur when we distance ourselves from the people who are affected. When you look at all the injustice in the world, so much of it would evaporate if the people responsible simply had more empathy.
"Why should you explicitly work to enhance your ability to empathize with others?"
There's a reason why empathy is declining and I think it's related to the disconnect individuals have when moving from situations where the "We" has been superseded by the "I".
If you live, work with a number of individuals working together, where everyone has particular skills and roles then find yourself in a situation where your existence is on the line, co-operation will beat individuals. You see this in nature where big cats hunt in teams, with combat troops and to an extent startups. Empathy is a by-product, because if you don't help them out, you fail.
People can get a taste of this playing competitive team sports.
Nope. That's the wrong explanation for empathy. This won't be popular. Empathy forms in environments where individual outcomes are determined by group perception. Everyone romantacizes it's benevolence but it's really all about manipulating people. Empathy is actually on the rise. Compassion on the other hand...
" Empathy forms in environments where individual outcomes are determined by group perception."
Can you give some examples or cites for this.
I can give lots of real-world examples where self concern is second and group put first. Animals in nature and humans in groups. This is from an anthropology observational point of view.
"Oh so you were perceiving them then? ;)"
Animals in nature, yes. Humans in real-life under stress, yes.
Maybe in a situation where you have time for strategy. In a dynamic real-time situation where training and instinct kicks in (no time to think), maybe not.
Wow this is so me. I feel u totally. Unfortunately my "Sensitivity" has caused me to become somewhat introverted yet still able to get through life and doing pretty well. Great article, great to know im not the only one out there. thanks
I really enjoyed the book: Nonviolent Communication: A Language of Life by Marshall Rosenberg - which despite the title, is actually very relevant to this topic.
I picked it up after hearing a number of very positive reviews, and despite my skepticism, I now understand why it's so highly praised.
I'd try to provide a brief summary, but I know I wouldn't do it justice. I will however say that it's almost certainly one of, if not the best, book I've ever read on improving interpersonal communication and relationships.
The author has a phd in psychology, so the advice has some real science backing it up too.
I also can't give a short summary, but one thing about the book struck me: it's a very egoistic book.
He describes in the very beginning that his reason to learn these techniques was to find out how he can get his wishes fulfilled, easier and with less friction. His conclusion is that seriously caring about others wishes and wants is one of the best ways to do that. He also tries to do that without being manipulative.
Sure. I think it's important to empathise with people. Especially in a professional setup. But how do you empathise with the lazy ones who would come to a meeting unprepared, hoping to get a quick tutorial on the subject on the go. Or the condescenders who would assume their expertise on a subject renders all other opinions invalid. In those cases empathy is actually cruel to the remaining who do deserve it. Empathy like every other human emotion isn't really universal.
Btw, empathy by itself (if we think of it as so-called mirror neurons based machinery of shaped by evolutionary forces reciprocal altruism) is a "glue" of any social formation, so there is nothing special about it.
If we think of it as an "ability to feel other people's feels" (and reflect and react on them) - then it is OK for some context and not so for another. At least, in a harsh, competitive even hostile environments it is rather a vulnerability.
So, inside any kind of social organization, be it a flock of animals or a village community or a company competing in a crowded market - empathy is what holds it together. It is also the foundation of the social aspect of some religions, but why should one pile up more abstract concepts on top of a simple biological phenomena?
And, of course, it is not the most important skill, given that the social aspect of a human life is, indeed, important, but not the most important. Any so-called "introvert" (with is a last-century meme) will tell you that.
There are people, who would say, that independent thinking, not being a docile sheeple, conditioned by social environment, etc. are more important virtues in life.
There are reasons, why intellectual practices and spiritual growth requires a solitude.
So, high empathy is important for a social worker or a priest or any kind of "manipulator", but I don't buy that it is the most important skill for a techie or an "introvert". Yes, it helps when we have to visit a public place, but why should we make other people as our primary occupation?
Love this! Lately, I have been suffering from Impostor Syndrome and there are times I felt like I am doing everything wrong and I even started to question my empathy. Anyway, great article!
Another side effect of involuntary empathy for me is tending to forgive (sometimes too?!) easily - since I understand, or at least like to believe I understand almost everything as a result of hard to change traits and motivations.
Whenever somebody is blamed for something I immediately try to explain why her or his acting is understandable.
Empathy might also lower my belief in free will.
its good to promote this. thank you for advocating this viewpoint. :)
although as much as i identify a failure at empathy as a serious weakness i have, i continually fail to do anything about it and constantly put my foot in my mouth and offend others.
demands exceeds supply. even socially inept lazy aspies with mediocre coding skills, who'd normally be the last that would get hired (like me) have programming careers. any success you may experience is not likely to have anything to do with your soft skills.
I don't agree. In my experience, somebody who can't deal effectively with people will get hired for technical skills and be largely put on the slow track where the benefits of their technical expertise can be reaped while not having to deal with the negatives of their social weaknesses. (I was that guy once. I got better.)
One thing I've gotten better at--with a derivative that's much steeper than the rise in my technical skills over time--is a kind of empathy that I can use in a professional context. What I've found that this lets me do (this can also be read "forces me to do") is understand others' needs and actually care about them at a level that makes it important for me to do the right thing. People can tell when you give a shit about them, and they're more likely to entrust you with responsibility even when you may not be, from a technical or historical perspective, the best candidate. Not just because they like you, but because they can have confidence in your desire to do well, with their interests in mind. That matters.
Emotional intelligence is only as good as healthy your social environment will be. If you work or live with toxic or neurotic people neither a great sense of social intelligente nor to be able to feel like them will help you. To be smarter could.
My one friend, brilliant engineer. Has brain cancer. I sit a desk away from him. When he is upset, I can hardly function. My ex-SO, when upset, I can feel the anger and sadness. It destroys me to feel that someone feels that way toward me. Its truly awful and I wish this didn't happen to me. My siblings growing up, I was able to (and I'm not proud of this at all) basically manipulate them into doing whatever I wanted, because I was able to understand how they felt.
People tell me all the time "you're such likeable person, everyone likes you. That'll take you far." My boss said it not a month ago, which took me by surprise, as I don't care for my boss at all.
I wish there was a spectrum opposite the autism spectrum. I don't think I am at all unique in this, and I wish I could talk to others experiencing the same kinds of things.