Posting with Empathy

[highviolet]

Empathy and cheating simply don't relate.

 

 

 

Validation is exactly what you're describing.

 

 

 

Yet you're wondering why people do not validate/agree with a cheater's manipulative decisions.

 

 

Ok so basically your MO is to put words in people's mouths in order to prove some point that you feel needs to be made. No where did I say anything about agreeing with / validating said decisions. So I'm not sure where you're getting that. You read into things too much I think.

 

ETA: I think you are lumping people together into with you or against you, and anybody you deem is against you is going to get your spiel. Or you're just picking on me, for what reason I do not know.

 

Either way, maybe there was another poster who said something about validating a cheater, but it wasn't me.

Edited March 29, 2011 by highviolet

[wheelwright]

That sounds horrible on the first take. However, it is a fascinating concept. Imagine what the world would look like if we all physically felt one anothers pain?

 

Might be in our best interests to avoid hurting each other, yes?

 

Agree. If we think of perfect empathy, that's the answer.

 

However, perfect empathy is a pathology. Just like narcissism, only it would be worse to live with.

 

I have thought about this kind of empathy - I write and I have imagined a race who live with this. And I have imagined the down side. Because if you can't move forward because you feel the pain of others too accutely you're up a creek.

 

Feeling the pain of others is not the only avenue into right and wrong.

[mizliz]

So if I am to understand this right, empathy is putting yourself in someone else's shoes to understand thier motivations for their actions, so why can't someone do that for an OW just because they could never be one themselves?

 

Isn't that the point of putting yourself in someone else's shoes? Looking at it from another person's perspective, not your own?

 

Empathy means connecting with someone else. It's not about motivations or perspectives.

 

Motivations and perspecives are fleeting - they don't define a person because they are changing.

 

Empathy requires discipline. You have to hold yourself to values before you can truly be empathetic.

[mizliz]

Agree. If we think of perfect empathy, that's the answer.

 

However, perfect empathy is a pathology. Just like narcissism, only it would be worse to live with.

 

I have thought about this kind of empathy - I write and I have imagined a race who live with this. And I have imagined the down side. Because if you can't move forward because you feel the pain of others too accutely you're up a creek.

 

Feeling the pain of others is not the only avenue into right and wrong.

 

You can't allow another's pain to disable you.

 

Feel it as you will, but don't allow it to drown you.

[wheelwright]

I don't agree that empathy requires discipline.

 

'Good' behaviour does.

 

Empathy happens whether you behave well or not, and is a huge influence.

[mizliz]

I don't agree that empathy requires discipline.

 

'Good' behaviour does.

 

Empathy happens whether you behave well or not, and is a huge influence.

 

Behaviours are socially based. Empathy transcends behaviour -

 

Remember what you are - a soul, having a bodily experience.

[highviolet]

Empathy means connecting with someone else. It's not about motivations or perspectives.

 

Motivations and perspecives are fleeting - they don't define a person because they are changing.

 

Empathy requires discipline. You have to hold yourself to values before you can truly be empathetic.

 

I don't agree with this. I think empathy is about understanding and identifying with someone's feelings in a particular situation, which are often a motivating factor behind their decisions and actions. I don't think it has anything to do with defining a person.

 

Or agreeing with those decisions or actions that were made.

[mizliz]

I don't agree with this. I think empathy is about understanding and identifying with someone's feelings in a particular situation, which are often a motivating factor behind their decisions and actions. I don't think it has anything to do with defining a person.

 

Or agreeing with those decisions or actions that were made.

 

Great, then you should take your understanding of empathy and apply it to the world - let me know how that works for you.

 

One defines themselves through experience. Not from some ******* that comes along and wields their life in front of you...

 

Defining people is a skill. Whether you like it, or not.

[dreamingoftigers]

Stupidity is a part of it, but it's all conscious selfishness at the end of the day. Unremorsefulness.

 

Speaking of stupidity:

 

http://www.loveshack.org/forums/showthread.php?t=270385&page=3&highlight=Dreamingoftigers

[dreamingoftigers]

I don't agree with this. I think empathy is about understanding and identifying with someone's feelings in a particular situation, which are often a motivating factor behind their decisions and actions. I don't think it has anything to do with defining a person.

 

Or agreeing with those decisions or actions that were made.

 

I agree with this, more often we are able to empathize with a situation that someone is going through (often due to our own experience or that of someone very close to us) better then we can just "a random person."

[NoIDidn't]

Great, then you should take your understanding of empathy and apply it to the world - let me know how that works for you.

 

One defines themselves through experience. Not from some ******* that comes along and wields their life in front of you...

 

Defining people is a skill. Whether you like it, or not.

 

I agree. Empathy is a skill that sociopaths are very good at mimicking. A sociopath would be considered empathic in here when all they are doing is reading a posters vulnerabilities and preying on them.

[Silly_Girl]

So if I am to understand this right, empathy is putting yourself in someone else's shoes to understand thier motivations for their actions, so why can't someone do that for an OW just because they could never be one themselves?

 

Isn't that the point of putting yourself in someone else's shoes? Looking at it from another person's perspective, not your own?

 

Exactly. Not condoning, not approving, not encouraging, not supporting, not cheerleading, just acknowledging that perspective. Being aware there's another perspective other than your own.

[NoIDidn't]

Exactly. Not condoning, not approving, not encouraging, not supporting, not cheerleading, just acknowledging that perspective. Being aware there's another perspective other than your own.

 

Disagree. The dictionary defines empathy as "the intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another", not simply "acknowledging that perspective".

 

One can acknowledge a perspective without having empathy for the one with that perspective.

 

And based on that definition, I'm not sure why anyone here needs others to do all that just to communicate with them in this forum. A person that needs that needs to dial down their expectations, big time.

[NoIDidn't]

Finally read the article linked in the OP. I'm actually shocked that the OP found value for this forum since the article consisted mainly of talking about borderline personality disordered women, the Holocaust (way more inflammatory than infidelity, IMO), and a murderer.

 

If I told my kids about the horrors of slavery, I'd be said to be indoctrinating my kids with bias against those with the same skin color as the slave owners/traders. But the author tells of how he was told about the Holocaust as he is Jewish.

 

I'm sorry, but I wasn't able to get much from that article because it started out heavily biased towards a view of empathy that I don't share. It appeared to be an excerpt from a book, so maybe that's why it seemed to come on so strongly. I don't think the Nazi's lacked empathy, they simply had an abundance of hatred for the Jews. There is a difference. Lack of empathy does not equal hatred.

[Silly_Girl]

Disagree. The dictionary defines empathy as "the intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another", not simply "acknowledging that perspective".

 

One can acknowledge a perspective without having empathy for the one with that perspective.

 

That definition... Many posters are not able to do that. Or don't wish to. I can understand some terrible things some people have done. I vehemently oppose their actions, but I can empathise with why THEY saw it as a fair course of action.

[Silly_Girl]

Disagree. The dictionary defines empathy as "the intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another", not simply "acknowledging that perspective".

 

Thinking of some posters I really admire here (especially BSs) the ones who - to my mind - demonstrate most empathy are the ones who seem most at peace with themselves/their situation. They seem less angry than some others.

[NoIDidn't]

A question on the Empathy Test is "When I was a child, I enjoyed cutting up worms to see what would happen".

 

Seriously.

 

Well, when I was a child I enjoyed collecting fireflies in a jar as a makeshift lamp. I didn't feed them, and often kept them until they stopped lighting up - which they did without being dead most of the time.

 

What does that say about me?

 

Does anyone here have the ability to see life from the perspective of a worm as the test seems to suggest you should?

 

There is clearly a point of having too much empathy.

[NoIDidn't]

That definition... Many posters are not able to do that. Or don't wish to. I can understand some terrible things some people have done. I vehemently oppose their actions, but I can empathise with why THEY saw it as a fair course of action.

 

Did you read the article?

 

The murderer killed a guy for looking at him funny across the bar. When he asked the guy about it, the guy said he wasn't looking at him but just looking around the room. And the not-yet-murderer smashed a bottle on the bar and stabbed him to death with it.

 

Can you empathize with what he saw was a "fair course of action"? I'm not asking this to be extreme because you said you "vehemently oppose their actions" but can empathize with them.

 

The murderer felt "disrespected" and felt that killing the guy was what he deserved.

 

I can not empathize with him. And based on the tilt of the story, neither can the author of the article.

[NoIDidn't]

Thinking of some posters I really admire here (especially BSs) the ones who - to my mind - demonstrate most empathy are the ones who seem most at peace with themselves/their situation. They seem less angry than some others.

 

Even this answer does not suggest that they are feeling empathy. It suggests that they at peace and secure in their position, not feeling sorry for the OPs here.

 

A synonym for empathy is pity. I doubt anyone here wants pity. The antonym is indifference. Maybe those "acknowledging the perspective" without judgment are indifferent, not empathic.

[Silly_Girl]

Even this answer does not suggest that they are feeling empathy. It suggests that they at peace and secure in their position, not feeling sorry for the OPs here.

 

A synonym for empathy is pity. I doubt anyone here wants pity. The antonym is indifference. Maybe those "acknowledging the perspective" without judgment are indifferent, not empathic.

 

Oh dear... Empathy differs from pity.

 

I'm done, but have thoroughly enjoyed the entire discussion.

[NoIDidn't]

Oh dear... Empathy differs from pity.

 

I'm done, but have thoroughly enjoyed the entire discussion.

 

LOL. Oh I agree. I thought it was interesting to see pity listed as a synonym for empathy.

 

Surely a person that feels pity for you is seeing themselves in your shoes and not really liking the feeling they get. So they feel sorry for you.

[pureinheart]

Finally read the article linked in the OP. I'm actually shocked that the OP found value for this forum since the article consisted mainly of talking about borderline personality disordered women, the Holocaust (way more inflammatory than infidelity, IMO), and a murderer.

 

If I told my kids about the horrors of slavery, I'd be said to be indoctrinating my kids with bias against those with the same skin color as the slave owners/traders. But the author tells of how he was told about the Holocaust as he is Jewish.

 

I'm sorry, but I wasn't able to get much from that article because it started out heavily biased towards a view of empathy that I don't share. It appeared to be an excerpt from a book, so maybe that's why it seemed to come on so strongly. I don't think the Nazi's lacked empathy, they simply had an abundance of hatred for the Jews. There is a difference. Lack of empathy does not equal hatred.

 

No. One feeds the other.

[Just a stone's throw]

Owl, you don't need to take a test on Empathy. You've earned an honorary degree here on LS. Though you've never agreed with anything I as an OW or other's in A situations have done, you have expressed a great deal of empathy with the goal (I think it is your goal) to help the posters (including me) see how their actions are affecting their life and others. Perhaps one of the strongest ways to insight a change.

 

In order to do that, you have put yourself in their shoes, if even for just a moment, and thought through their situations.

 

Yes, Owl. I give you the highest marks, don't bother taking a test.

 

Interesting thread though. Very thought provoking.

 

JAST

[Taramere]

A question on the Empathy Test is "When I was a child, I enjoyed cutting up worms to see what would happen".

 

Seriously.

 

Well, when I was a child I enjoyed collecting fireflies in a jar as a makeshift lamp. I didn't feed them, and often kept them until they stopped lighting up - which they did without being dead most of the time.

 

What does that say about me?

 

I don't know. Did you read animal stories when you were a kid? I think children who read a lot of those stories featuring an animal or insect hero are probably less inclined to objectify small creatures.

 

Anna Sewell wrote Black Beauty in a bid to encourage people to empathise with horses (which she had a lot of respect for, due to her difficulty in walking and her reliance on horses). The book was really effective in raising awareness of animal welfare...so in that sense, you could say that empathy was taught, encouraged or fostered in people rather than being something they automatically had and demonstrated. Imagination and empathy are closely linked.

[seren]

I always imagine empathy as being able to take a step back and think, if I do X,Y or X then the likely consequences are A,B or C and if the consequences are that another gets hurt by my actions and for my pleasure then I wouldn't go there. It's not compassion, I would feel that if I went ahead and did X,Y or Z, it's looking at what I do that affects that person's life or experiences. Or supporting someone with those consequences, not necessarily condoning, but I always figure their conscience is their boat to row.

 

I can empathise with a person's emotions or situation and not necessarily agree with or condone their behaviour or actions. The behaviour or action that hurts another shows, IMO, a lack of empathy on the part of the doer, the understanding of the emotions resulting from that action are mine to own, my empathy or capacity for it. We don't need to agree with someone to show empathy and may puzzle as to how someone else hasn't empathy to the same degree. Unfortunately empathy isn't always based on reciprocity, it it were then more people would think of the consequences of their actions.

 

Ummm and yes I did cut up worms and stiched them back together again when birds pecked them, complete with bandages. But when I understood it hurt the worms, I stopped.

Edited March 29, 2011 by seren
worm cutting confession