"Does anyone else find the concept/practice of empathy incredibly disturbing?"

[louiesgonnadie]

I was browsing the Asperger's subreddit because I find it interesting, and then I come across this post that really got me thinking:

The more I think about how people describe empathy, the more it seems like treating other people as extensions of yourself--denying them basic agency and humanity and individuality.

I mean--the idea of thinking you know how someone else feels seems insanely presumptuous and just straight-up deluded to me. I don't. How could I? How could anyone?

It seems like people just build little homunculus surrogates out of their own feelings and assumptions, on scant skeletons of actual data, and then interact with those instead of the actual people they're made to represent. And that's empathy, I guess?

It's like--absorption rather than actual connection. It's creepy.

source: http://www.reddit.com/r/aspergers/comments/238byi/does_anyone_else_find_the_conceptpractice_of/

Now it could be just a case of classic Aspie lack of empathy and social understanding, probably. But it just really got me thinking, and it also made me think of a raging inferior-Fe.

Which brought me here.

Now I'm not saying INTPs could probably relate to this. But I'm curious what your thoughts are on this.

 

[BigApplePi]

Not sure I follow what you're saying.

I was browsing the Asperger's subreddit because I find it interesting, and then I come across this post that really got me thinking:

Aspie's have special brains.

The more I think about how people describe empathy, the more it seems like treating other people as extensions of yourself--denying them basic agency and humanity and individuality.

Well the question is: are they treated as extensions or as separate people? I see empathy as first looking at another and then recognizing how that person is if you can discover that same condition in oneself.

It seems like people just build little homunculus surrogates out of their own feelings and assumptions, on scant skeletons of actual data, and then interact with those instead of the actual people they're made to represent. And that's empathy, I guess?

No. One looks at the other person first and guesses.

Now it could be just a case of classic Aspie lack of empathy and social understanding. But it just really got me thinking, and it also made me think of a raging inferior-Fe.

An Aspie might not be able to recognize what's going on in another but it could be low Fe or it could be Fe that is disregarding another. Many people on seeing Hitler would not want to feel empathy with his attitude.

Now I'm not saying INTPs could probably relate to this. But I'm curious what your thoughts are on this.

Yes. An INTP with low Fe = low experience.

 

[RadicalDreamer31]

...it seems like treating other people as extensions of yourself--denying them basic agency and humanity and individuality.

What? Give an example of this.

If I witness someone in pain, and I hurt too. How does this deny them their humanity?

Empathy is humanity. It is the means through which we build relationship, and co-exist. There is no presumptions or delusions, there is a real neural-chemical reaction while in the presence of another, or knowing of another. It is a mean to an end, the end is co-existence.

The tread you referenced is over thinking it.

 

[louiesgonnadie]

Aspie's have special brains.

I'm sure an Aspie may possibly be offended by that statement, but I guess I agree lol x_x

 

[Pyropyro]

Well if you put it that way then it does sound creepy. However, I think that's a rather ego-centric approach of dealing with people. I think it's more about comparing data. I could say to the person, "Hey, I experienced A (say loss of a dog) so I think I understand when you say when you told me about B (say loss of a cat)." The other person can then confirm or deny whether my own reactions and the feelings for A (sadness etc.) is similar to the reactions and the feelings they had for B.

As the others have said earlier, empathy is not one of the INTP's stronger skills. I think it's very hard for me to read and empathize people unless I have bigger amount of data to work with. I gather data by being with them for a longer time and experiencing a wider range of their emotions and memories with them.

 

[Black Rose]

Confusing empathy with sympathy

Understanding another mind completely is only possible if they are less complex and you are above the threshold for a theory of mind. Equal minds could do anything unpredictable but empathy is to know a model of separate self from other.

 

[Flawed_Ravvn]

I don't think you can know exactly what a person is going through, but I think you can have an idea of what they are going through just by your experiences. No one can know exactly how someone is feeling because they are your own feelings.

 

[Matriluzviva]

It seems creepy when we frame it against some concept which emphasizes individuality in human being. In our culture individuality is such a precious thing that the very idea suggesting its fragility produces some fear in us. Some eastern philosophies say that our true self is shared by all mankind, our true self is like pure water, pure water is always equal to pure water. Maybe empathy means a movement toward this true self.
But in other approach maybe empathy is related to a common structure in human beings, this common structure given by the fact we belong to the same species and live in similar societies, then maybe empathy occurs like the perception of an object, one can emphasizes some aspects of it, but one cannot say it's a square while other says it's a circle.
To me empathy is a very difficult thing, while reading a novel I can easily grasp given the distance, and an focused mind state and actually is well known that good literature can improve our empathy skills.
The idea of being absorbed by others reminds me some that someone told me about a psychologist who used to absorb the mental state of his patients and at some degree becoming sick as his patient and then healing it in himself so he could tell his patient how to deal with it. Our intellect is one which seems to control or calm down our emotions, by some process which metaphorically expressing the feeling of it, we feel that somehow our intellectual nature shed light into our feelings. We try to move in some way along with our emotions(mainly the bad ones) with a natural intention to learn about them and deal with the situation which produced them. So an individual experience it in himself, his feelings being absorbed by his intellectual nature.
Empathy to me at least manifests itself with that flavour similar to an inspirational state, information is not mechanically processed and rise to my consciousness abruptly and whole.
So emotion inside ourselves is not an intentionally created state of mind, we can build circumstances to precipitate it, given this nature of emotion it's not the empathising one absorbing the empathised other, it's emotion that absorbs them both.

 

[Grayman]

The mind communicates emotions through expressions, sounds, and body presentation. What is the difference between being emotionally and directly connected to the mind and being connected through these other processes?

 

[Variform]

By default no one can directly experience another. Empathy is a form of communication whereby one person uses his own feelings as a model to understand what another is feeling and then project the result inward after which such understanding might be shared with that person. That communication is not always needed. It is a communication because the feelings are bounced off of the other person. In that person the feelings are what communicates but it is below a conscious level.

 

[Cognisant]

I agree with the OP, but then I've been tested and although I'm clinically identified as someone with Asperger's I display a lot of the characteristics, including having difficulty reading other people's emotions.

But from my perspective people are overly emotional if not outright crazy, I mean I can understand when someone is upset but I don't see why there is this expectation that I should be upset as well, how does that help anyone?

 

[Grayman]

But from my perspective people are overly emotional if not outright crazy, I mean I can understand when someone is upset but I don't see why there is this expectation that I should be upset as well, how does that help anyone?

If you are upset with them they don't feel alone in their suffering. They know you understand something of what they are going through and a little of how they feel. They can then expect that you will be there to help them get through it. Otherwise they would assume you care nothing for their suffering or incapable of helping them because you do not understand.

 

[TimeAsylums]

A prime criterion for psychopathy(rather, NPD, BPD, APD, ASD) is the lack of empathy

I get bored:

DSM "empathy" search + "Empathy"

a. Empathy: Preoccupation with, and sensitivity to, criticism or rejection, associated with distorted inference of others' perspectives as negative.

Empirical Investigation of Jung's Psychological Types and Personality Disorder Features

/

The more I think about how people describe empathy, the more it seems like treating other people as extensions of yourself--denying them basic agency and humanity and individuality.

I mean--the idea of thinking you know how someone else feels seems insanely presumptuous and just straight-up deluded to me. I don't. How could I? How could anyone?

Semantics

"Assuming" that one can know somewhat of how another person might feel.

It is a tool used even in elementary schools. "How do you think that made him/her feel?"
"Imagine if he/she was you"(alternatively, if you were him/her)

Assumably, those that lack empathy, lack the ability to wrap their minds around others also having 'feelings.'

 

[Grayman]

By default no one can directly experience another.

If you send a PDF file from one phone to another is it the same file? Does it matter?

 

[The Introvert]

You can understand that someone feels bad without actually feeling what they feel.

You can be empathetic to another human being without having undergone the exact same scenario (and even then not experiencing it identically).

The empathy that you've described is not empathy, but rather egocentricity.

 

[Jennywocky]

You can understand that someone feels bad without actually feeling what they feel.

You can be empathetic to another human being without having undergone the exact same scenario (and even then not experiencing it identically).

The empathy that you've described is not empathy, but rather egocentricity.

Yeah, you're right; people shouldn't complicate things. If there was no way for people to relate and share similar emotions triggered by the same things, there would be no such thing as art.... but we have books, movies, TV shows, music, paintings, and whatever else.

Same thing with relationships. If we weren't in the ballpark with our understanding of each other, no one would be friends with or connected to another human being.

 

[ActiveMind]

This is a problem I've discovered about myself recently. I went to see a counselor who said Active Listening is a key to developing your empathy. I realize it's hard not to get bored by small talk and stuff INTPs shy away from, but it helps build social aptitude as well as interpersonal relationships which also helps build extroversion. Even if you can't empathize due to a lack of experience, Active Listening(asking questions related to what the other person is saying) is a way to help build it.

 

[Variform]

It is a tool used even in elementary schools. "How do you think that made him/her feel?"
"Imagine if he/she was you"(alternatively, if you were him/her)

Assumably, those that lack empathy, lack the ability to wrap their minds around others also having 'feelings.'

I like the definition you pasted.

But what they do in school, as you describe, is that not emotional blackmail?

 

[Polaris]

Assumably, those that lack empathy, lack the ability to wrap their minds around others also having 'feelings.'

Have I misunderstood you here or isn't it more that those who actually lack empathy can acknowledge that others have feelings, but are unable to change their own emotional perception to match the others? Therefore they cannot recognise the other person's emotions and thus not empathise?

(I think this may be more common in young people as they have yet to fill the empathy-capacity part of the brain with the 'appropriate' emotional triggers related to their own experiences.)

This is how I experience the two phenomena:

a) lacking empathy (80% of the time):

- I can see that the other person is upset, angry, whatever, but because I cannot recognise or 'feel' their emotions, I am unable to empathise. Because I do not know the cause of their anger or upset, I feel overwhelmed, and have to take a step back. However, if I can understand the reason for their anger or upset, I may be able to show some understanding and even offer counseling if they are asking for it. By understanding reason, I don't mean understanding the cause --> effect reaction, but understanding the underlying reasons for the reaction to the reason. Alternatively I can feign understanding by adopting behavior that satisfies the emotional need of the other. But I worry that it comes across as insincere, so I'm very uncomfortable in these situations. Because of this inability to feel, but ability to understand based on data input, I have thus over the years learnt to adopt a chameleon-approach to the more predictable social situations based on my accumulated experiences and observations of others.

b) empathic experience (20% of the time)

- For some reason I am able to recognise the emotion due to some internal trigger. For example, I can empathise with grief, as I have now experienced it. I can understand love, as I have now experienced it. However, this too often leads to a feeling of being overwhelmed so that I'm unable to act on my empathy - I kind of freeze -- and by the time I have figured out a way to deal with it, it is often too late.

Edit: Err, forgot to tie it back to OP:

So, in other words, it may be difficult for those not inclined towards intuitive emotional recognition (if there really is such an inherent trait) to understand empathy; particularly when one takes into account, as OP stated, that every individual experiences different situations from a slightly different emotional platform depending on their environmental conditioning and genetic hard-wiring. It may seem a little disturbing from that point of view; that we can perhaps never truly understand another individual.

Spoiler

Edit/disclaimer: I suspect I may be on the ASD somewhere...currently under investigation.

 

[TimeAsylums]

Have I misunderstood you here or isn't it more that those who actually lack empathy can acknowledge that others have feelings, but are unable to change their own emotional perception to match the others? Therefore they cannot recognise the other person's emotions and thus not empathize?

If you can figure that out, then you have figured out how the mind of a psychopath works.

Jokes: "or doesn't work"

 

[Grayman]

If you can figure that out, then you have figured out how the mind of a psychopath works.

Power, God, A force

The excitement of it. The adrenaline. The strength. The invincibility. I am powerful and they are but grass that I can cut down if I so choose.

 

[Polaris]

If you can figure that out, then you have figured out how the mind of a psychopath works.

Jokes: "or doesn't work"

So, for example, we may have two people with ASD of same or similar 'severity'.

-One becomes a psychopath; the other does not.

Possible causes/triggers?

Does it have to do with wilful dismissal of morals, and in such a case, what emotion drives this wilful dismissal?

Because an ASD person may have low empathy, but still know what is 'wrong' or 'right', and thus not use it to their advantage over others.

A psychopath crosses into a different territory as they choose to ignore the rules.

Beware, pure speculation: Those ASD individuals with a leading Feeling function would be more likable to become psychopaths as they are F-doms; they would hypothetically be more aware of emotion in others and thus more likely to become 'professionals' at manipulating people emotionally.

Obviously, I haven't taken the time to research this yet. I'm more interested in what other members think first.

Edit: I'm interested because I consider myself a low-empathy person. I know another low-empathy person very closely, but he turned out completely different.

 

[TimeAsylums]

Polaris, I am refraining from speculating at all because this is too complex a subject of which I have too little knowledge. As much as I dislike the overbearing world of the DSM and modern psychology, I'll stick to their definitions regarding psychopathy et al.

I would first look at proper examples

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy

enduring antisocial behavior, diminished empathy and remorse, and disinhibited or bold behavior

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathy

Empathy is the capacity to recognize emotions that are being experienced by another

Specifically "recognize that emotions are being experienced by another" Key word: recognition, not anything else.

Let us stick with the standardized denotations of these words.


And if you want to speculate about functions and Personality Disorders, the best I've got so far is this: Empirical Investigation of Jung's Psychological Types and Personality Disorder Features

- I can see that the other person is upset, angry, whatever, but because I cannot recognise or 'feel' their emotions, I am unable to empathise.

Regarding a lot of people here and "empathy,"
A lot of you(general "you") seem to say you "lack empathy" It is of my opinion that you are describing simply a lack of "stirring up of feelings" within you when it comes to other people's emotions. The given standardized denotations of empathy is NOT this, it is simply the "recognition."

You said you both lack the ability to "recognize" AND "feel" other people's emotions. I posit that there is a difference in between simply recognizing another's emotions and "feeling" for them. See above.

Thus, adhering to the strict denotation of empathy, it is simple recognition of other's feelings and emotions. If in some way society or people have twisted this recognition to compare to the "welling up of feelings," or "feeling what they are feeling," then that deviates from the definition.

See the following, specifically that each definitions is unique

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathy

Empathy has many different definitions that encompass a broad range of emotional states, such as caring for other people and having a desire to help them; experiencing emotions that match another person's emotions; discerning what another person is thinking or feeling; and making less distinct the differences between the self and the other.[4]

It also is the ability to feel and share another person’s emotions. Some believe that empathy involves the ability to match another’s emotions, while others believe that empathy involves being tenderhearted toward another person.[5] Compassion and sympathy are two terms that many associate with empathy, but all three of these terms are unique. Compassion is an emotion we feel when others are in need, which motivates us to help them. Sympathy is a feeling of care and understanding for someone in need.

Again, it is of my opinion that many here confuse sympathy, compassion, and empathy for one. The defining trait of psychopathy being "diminished"(lack of) empathy, not compassion or sympathy.


OP is specifically addressing

and making less distinct the differences between the self and the other.

I would rather use

discerning what another person is thinking or feeling

aka, recognition.

 

[Polaris]

Hmm, yes.

It seems we used different definitions of 'recognition'. In this case, I used recognition in the context of recall/memory. A comparison of emotional states. Hard to explain, perhaps I should come back to this later.

I have no trouble admitting that I easily confuse empathy, compassion and sympathy, and I'm not surprised that other people have similar difficulty. If I were to go by the definitions above, I rarely experience any of them, so perhaps that has something to do with it. In most instances I find it difficult to relate to other people's emotions. I have to go away and pick the conversation apart in order to find clues to their emotional states.

So perhaps, by your definition of 'recognise' I can do that. I have had to learn it though; and it has taken me a long time to get comfortable with my skills. I still make social blunders, which is why I avoid social events as much as possible.

Spoiler

I don't understand how to behave appropriately. Yes, by this definition I can recognise when someone is upset, angry, etc. I have more difficulty with sarcasm and humour. Someone can be rude to me and I would not pick it up unless someone else pointed it out, for example. More so when I was younger; now I have developed a method of reading signals more accurately. But I still have no reaction, or perhaps a very delayed emotional reaction once I have analysed the situation over and over.

Again, it is of my opinion that many here confuse sympathy, compassion, and empathy for one. The defining trait of psychopathy being "diminished"(lack of) empathy, not compassion or sympathy.

Okay.


So, I find this interesting:

"Professor Simon Baron-Cohen suggests that, unlike the combination of both reduced cognitive and affective empathy often seen in those with classic autism, psychopaths are associated with intact cognitive empathy, implying non-diminished awareness of another's feelings when they hurt someone"




I think I will abandon Wiki for now, and try some actual psychology articles.... :/

Thanks for the article link in the other thread, it was interesting.

 

[TimeAsylums]

"Professor Simon Baron-Cohen suggests that, unlike the combination of both reduced cognitive and affective empathy often seen in those with classic autism, psychopaths are associated with intact cognitive empathy, implying non-diminished awareness of another's feelings when they hurt someone"

Speculating on psychopaths is fun, alas I have nothing to offer because I have never interviewed one (not that I would be opposed to doing so).

But yes, it appears he is suggesting that psychopaths do have empathy, and are explicitly choosing to act in this way. Though, that's just from reading what you quoted.

Also, one more link since you mentioned Asperger's -> http://www.capt.org/research/article/JPT_Vol66_1206.pdf (shared in my most recent thread "Journal of Psychological Type"


I'd love to hear anything else you have to say about this topic in general(or specific)

It seems we used different definitions of 'recognition'. In this case, I used recognition in the context of recall/memory. A comparison of emotional states.

Yes, it seems you are using it as

experiencing emotions that match another person's emotions

I prefer

discerning what another person is thinking or feeling

It seems there is a "wide variety" of definitions one can use. Instead of wiki we could look to the DSM to how it(empathy) is standardized.

I could see either (or both)

If one can experience the emotions of another, then one can determine(recognize) how the other may feel. However, also, if one can discern(recognize) and acknowledge the emotions of another, then one can also determine how another may feel.

IMO, all seem perfectly acceptable ways of experiencing empathy. The scary thing would be one who could do neither. (And it could easily be inferred what functions might experience these in certain ways)



Examples:

- Someone close to me has just experienced a loss, they are morbid, and very sad. Just because I do not experience their sadness on the same level, does not mean I do not recognize how they are feeling, I acknowledge and I recognize the depth of sadness within them because I can discern how losing some one close to me might make me feel.

- However, another person may indeed experience their sadness in the same way and on the same level that they are

(both seem perfectly acceptable), though OP (And others) may find the second one disturbing, although others may find our way of experiencing empathy disturbing because we are not as "sad" as they are -> it's ok because we "understand"


- It is the concept of "mirroring" another person, if one lacks the ability to discern(recognize) the emotions (understand) of another AND the inability to feel those emotions...then


Something a lot more personal -> http://www.intpforum.com/showpost.php?p=431719&postcount=93 (my definition of empathy would be the little lion cubs learning how much force to use that causes harm, while yours might be actually experiencing those emotions)


Once again, I bring up the elementary "how would that make you feel?" "How would you feel if you were him/her?" Simply imagining yourself in that situation or a similar situations.

 

[Variform]

If you send a PDF file from one phone to another is it the same file? Does it matter?

I don't undergrasp.

 

[Suicicidad]

Interesting, empathy to psychopathy. I understand the concept of emotions, gauge peoples reactions to certain events and act accordingly. But when all's said and done, unless it directly involves me, I don't care how other people feel.

 

[Variform]

Interesting, empathy to psychopathy. I understand the concept of emotions, gauge peoples reactions to certain events and act accordingly. But when all's said and done, unless it directly involves me, I don't care how other people feel.

Just to make sure, you don't care or you don't feel responsible?

I would like all to be happy. But that could be just me, because I am unhappy, so I project. If you are happy and don't care, than that is normal?

Twisted world.

 

[Suicicidad]

I certainly don't feel responsible, and I care only insomuch as other persons feelings affect my own situation.

 

[rushgirl2112]

I would first look at proper examples

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathy

Specifically "recognize that emotions are being experienced by another" Key word: recognition, not anything else.

Let us stick with the standardized denotations of these words.

I'm curious as to why you chose Wikipedia as a source rather than a dictionary. You're getting hung up on one word that someone wrote whose authority you can't confirm. DICTIONARY.

empathy
noun \ˈem-pə-thē\ : the feeling that you understand and share another person's experiences and emotions : the ability to share someone else's feelings

Full Definition of EMPATHY

1: the imaginative projection of a subjective state into an object so that the object appears to be infused with it

2: the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another of either the past or present without having the feelings, thoughts, and experience fully communicated in an objectively explicit manner; also : the capacity for this

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/empathy

No mention of "recognition" there.

A lot of you(general "you") seem to say you "lack empathy" It is of my opinion that you are describing simply a lack of "stirring up of feelings" within you when it comes to other people's emotions. The given standardized denotations of empathy is NOT this, it is simply the "recognition."

You said you both lack the ability to "recognize" AND "feel" other people's emotions. I posit that there is a difference in between simply recognizing another's emotions and "feeling" for them. See above.

Thus, adhering to the strict denotation of empathy, it is simple recognition of other's feelings and emotions. If in some way society or people have twisted this recognition to compare to the "welling up of feelings," or "feeling what they are feeling," then that deviates from the definition.

No it does not. See dictionary entry above.

By the way, even the Wikipedia article you linked to contradicts what you're saying.

Empathy has many different definitions that encompass a broad range of emotional states, such as caring for other people and having a desire to help them; experiencing emotions that match another person's emotions; discerning what another person is thinking or feeling; and making less distinct the differences between the self and the other.[4]


It also is the ability to feel and share another person’s emotions. Some believe that empathy involves the ability to match another’s emotions, while others believe that empathy involves being tenderhearted toward another person.

. . . Since empathy involves understanding the emotional states of other people, the way it is characterized is derivative of the way emotions themselves are characterized. If, for example, emotions are taken to be centrally characterized by bodily feelings, then grasping the bodily feelings of another will be central to empathy. On the other hand, if emotions are more centrally characterized by a combination of beliefs and desires, then grasping these beliefs and desires will be more essential to empathy.

Emphasis mine.

That definition is not in any way restricted to "recognition." It involves feelings and understanding.

Also, how people actually use words is important. Language is a living thing whose creation and evolution is based on consensus. That changes over time. So nobody's "twisted" the definition. It's in the dictionary, and it's in popular usage. You're always free to create your own personal definition, but that doesn't make other people incorrect.