In my experience some people struggle with empathy a lot more than they realise. And the “solutions” they offer are just ways for them to try and get out of an uncomfortable conversation. There are better and more honest ways to do that.
I don’t think he captured what empathy is. What he says honestly aligns more closely with sympathy by my understanding.
Sympathy involves understanding and feeling sorry for someone’s situation, while empathy goes a step further, involving the ability to share and understand the emotions of another person. It’s almost always a one on one connection. You’re putting yourself in their shoes, personally.
Sympathy often includes a desire to offer solutions or assistance, while empathy is primarily about understanding and sharing emotions. Donating to a charity for the blind out of a sense of feeling sorry for them aligns more with sympathy, as it involves a compassionate response and a potential desire to provide support or solutions without necessarily fully understanding the blind individuals’ emotional experiences. It’s even less empathetic if you’re primarily doing it to feel good. I would personally classify it as altruism or personal fulfilment based on sympathy for their suffering.
I do agree with the general point that you can usually get more done if you pick a lane, I just don’t think the fact that people don’t pick a lane, because they want to feel good for helping many different causes, is based on misguided empathy. And I think it’s wrong to argue empathy is bad based on this premise.
Lastly, even if I’m entirely wrong and it is empathy, he’s only arguing against empathy being bad on a societal level. That does not mean it’s bad on a one on one level such as when talking to a friend, family member or partner. Arguing that ALL empathy is bad just because using empathy to make decisions on “how best to help the world” is bad is incredibly inaccurate.
What if your nature is in constant problem solving mode, my life and work revolve around solving problems so it’s a natural neurological pathway. Should someone like that work overtime to suppress how they think about a situation, and stay quiet until they formulate some method of discussion and acknowledgement of the problem, without offering solutions?
What if your nature is in constant problem solving mode, my life and work revolve around solving problems so it’s a natural neurological pathway.
If that’s why you’re problem solving then your urge Problem solving is for you and about you . Not for them. If you’re making room for someone in your life that means letting things also be about them.
Should someone like that work overtime to suppress how they think about a situation, and stay quiet
Again: making it about you and how it’s inconvenient for you.
until they formulate some method of discussion and acknowledgement of the problem, without offering solutions?
Sometimes it is about them finding their voice. And at times it’s about letting them learn. It can be empowering for them to grow.
You might offer help when asked or when you know someone definitely is incapable. But let others have their space and their journey too especially if you know they are capable.
Problem solving is sometimes a problem in and of itself especially in situations of where it’s enabling or stifling others or stopping you from connecting to them.
Listening actively comes in more than one description. Cmon it cannot be painful to be there for someone else. Stop being obtuse on purpose. That’s just acting in bad faith.
I think it comes down to the balance, most people want me to listen but do not care to listen to me. It is generally a selfish thing to demand from me my full attention without reciprocating. That is not bad faith in that case.
I think some people are just not compatible with each other. To try and claim one way is right or better or more rational is surprisingly unrational and not aligned with finding a solution.
When you are unable to offer emotional support or empathy to your partner, communicate early that you won’t be willing or able to listen to their problems on their terms. Then they can decide if that’s okay with them. Problem solved.
Some people need to be heard a lot more than others, could be compatibility in that case. If I’m the listener 90% of the time without being able to engage in the conversation really, it doesn’t seem appealing for me to be there at all. A balance is probably a key factor, and some people are far more needy than others.
Maybe consider it from the other perspective - the other party wants to be heard. That’s the problem you’re trying to solve.
Can you solve it? How would you solve it? What approaches make them feel heard? What feedback do they need from you to indicats they are being heard? How do you get feedback from them that they feel heard? What are the words you should use? How will you know they are wanting to be heard? What are the words they are using? What are the facial expressions they are using? What are they doing with their body while they’re talking to you? 1What situations are likely to bring about an instance which they are wanting to be heard?
I had to do this a bit when moving into people management. After a whole you become practised at it and it’s not hard any more.
This could also be an issue of this:
The difference between empathy and sympathy
In my experience some people struggle with empathy a lot more than they realise. And the “solutions” they offer are just ways for them to try and get out of an uncomfortable conversation. There are better and more honest ways to do that.
I think we should stop saying empathy and start saying compassion (again.)
Most people don’t know what the differences between sympathy and empathy are and get confused whenever they hear empathy. “You mean sympathy?”
Just say compassion. I get the ‘dm’ crowd has chosen their wording, but it sucks and we can change it.
Replace every instance of ‘empathy’ with compassion and everyone will understand you better, but you won’t be virtue signaling for your crowd.
I don’t think she actually captured what sympathy is. And here’s an counter point to empathy
I don’t think he captured what empathy is. What he says honestly aligns more closely with sympathy by my understanding.
Sympathy involves understanding and feeling sorry for someone’s situation, while empathy goes a step further, involving the ability to share and understand the emotions of another person. It’s almost always a one on one connection. You’re putting yourself in their shoes, personally.
Sympathy often includes a desire to offer solutions or assistance, while empathy is primarily about understanding and sharing emotions. Donating to a charity for the blind out of a sense of feeling sorry for them aligns more with sympathy, as it involves a compassionate response and a potential desire to provide support or solutions without necessarily fully understanding the blind individuals’ emotional experiences. It’s even less empathetic if you’re primarily doing it to feel good. I would personally classify it as altruism or personal fulfilment based on sympathy for their suffering.
I do agree with the general point that you can usually get more done if you pick a lane, I just don’t think the fact that people don’t pick a lane, because they want to feel good for helping many different causes, is based on misguided empathy. And I think it’s wrong to argue empathy is bad based on this premise.
Lastly, even if I’m entirely wrong and it is empathy, he’s only arguing against empathy being bad on a societal level. That does not mean it’s bad on a one on one level such as when talking to a friend, family member or partner. Arguing that ALL empathy is bad just because using empathy to make decisions on “how best to help the world” is bad is incredibly inaccurate.
What if your nature is in constant problem solving mode, my life and work revolve around solving problems so it’s a natural neurological pathway. Should someone like that work overtime to suppress how they think about a situation, and stay quiet until they formulate some method of discussion and acknowledgement of the problem, without offering solutions?
If that’s why you’re problem solving then your urge Problem solving is for you and about you . Not for them. If you’re making room for someone in your life that means letting things also be about them.
Again: making it about you and how it’s inconvenient for you.
Sometimes it is about them finding their voice. And at times it’s about letting them learn. It can be empowering for them to grow.
You might offer help when asked or when you know someone definitely is incapable. But let others have their space and their journey too especially if you know they are capable.
Problem solving is sometimes a problem in and of itself especially in situations of where it’s enabling or stifling others or stopping you from connecting to them.
I guess then I should just stay quiet and keep doing whatever I’m working on while listening passively.
Listening actively comes in more than one description. Cmon it cannot be painful to be there for someone else. Stop being obtuse on purpose. That’s just acting in bad faith.
I think it comes down to the balance, most people want me to listen but do not care to listen to me. It is generally a selfish thing to demand from me my full attention without reciprocating. That is not bad faith in that case.
I think some people are just not compatible with each other. To try and claim one way is right or better or more rational is surprisingly unrational and not aligned with finding a solution.
When you are unable to offer emotional support or empathy to your partner, communicate early that you won’t be willing or able to listen to their problems on their terms. Then they can decide if that’s okay with them. Problem solved.
Some people need to be heard a lot more than others, could be compatibility in that case. If I’m the listener 90% of the time without being able to engage in the conversation really, it doesn’t seem appealing for me to be there at all. A balance is probably a key factor, and some people are far more needy than others.
Maybe consider it from the other perspective - the other party wants to be heard. That’s the problem you’re trying to solve.
Can you solve it? How would you solve it? What approaches make them feel heard? What feedback do they need from you to indicats they are being heard? How do you get feedback from them that they feel heard? What are the words you should use? How will you know they are wanting to be heard? What are the words they are using? What are the facial expressions they are using? What are they doing with their body while they’re talking to you? 1What situations are likely to bring about an instance which they are wanting to be heard?
I had to do this a bit when moving into people management. After a whole you become practised at it and it’s not hard any more.
This. Turn it into a puzzle and maybe you won’t be stressed out when you can’t instantly solve it so you don’t have to listen