Empathy

Move along, nothing to see here!
User avatar
Ego
Posts: 6359
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 12:42 am

Empathy

Post by Ego »

Sam Harris spoke with Paul Bloom about empathy. Fascinating stuff.

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the- ... cold-blood

Dragline
Posts: 4436
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2011 1:50 am

Re: Empathy

Post by Dragline »

But do you really know anyone that lacks "empathy" but has "compassion" as they defined those terms? It seemed like an artificial distinction when they were trying to differentiate the two.

It seemed like the logical conclusion from the discussion is that natural empathy should be tempered with some rationality and/or expanded beyond filial bonds, not that "empathy is bad" or "lacking empathy or being "cold-blooded" is virtuous" as the headline-designed-to-sound-controversial-and-attract-more-listeners reads. Their problem seemed to be more related to rationality or self-control than empathy per se. The solution that I would draw is that you want to encourage those traits, not to "dial down" empathy. What doctors call "clinical detachment" as SH talks about near the end (but seems not to have heard about, which made me think he had not done his homework).

The reference to the race of "Spock-like" people who apparently don't care much for sports and stories kind of tells you that this is very theoretical conversation. Although maybe SH discovered them on the drug trips he describes. ;-)

I'd highly recommend the work of Simon Baron Cohen that the guest mentions, particularly http://www.amazon.com/The-Science-Evil- ... 0465031420 But Bloom's rather flippant conclusion that we only need worry about people who lack self-control is not supported by decades of research, particularly that of Robert Hare. The most dangerous people in the world are psychopaths who have lots of self-control. Watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TB0k7wBzXPY for more on that.

User avatar
Ego
Posts: 6359
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 12:42 am

Re: Empathy

Post by Ego »

There is this strange Catch-22 with empathy where you must have it to be successful at helping others - if you can't understand the problem from their perspective then you can't really understand what they need in the way of help - but, as they emphasized in the talk, it is a terrible thing to empathize with those who have the most serious problems and who need help most.

They talk about compassion as if it is enough, but I don't buy that. I think it is enough for the helper but insufficient for the person being helped.

To answer your question, no I do not know anyone who radiates that loving kindness without empathy. Here in Bali I find myself tripping over people who are posing in radiant bliss. I want to punch them in the face. How so very compassionate of me.

My internet connection is slower than mud so I have not watched the video, but I will. Thanks.

mfi
Posts: 93
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2012 10:27 pm

Re: Empathy

Post by mfi »

Matthieu Ricard on altruism, compassion, etc (audio and transcript)
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2015- ... d-altruism

User avatar
Ego
Posts: 6359
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 12:42 am

Re: Empathy

Post by Ego »

Okay, I was finally able to download the audio but not the video of Fishhead. I very much enjoyed it.

Though there was a major difference between the two:

1) In the Sam Harris podcast in the original post, Paul Bloom says psychopaths are cognitively hyperempathic. They manipulate people by understanding exactly where the other person is coming from.

2) In Fishhead one of the two authors of the Corporate Psychopath book says, "Some of the characteristics (of a psychopath) would include a stunning lack of empathy. A lack of concern for other people. The ability to look at other people as mere objects."


It begs the question, what is empathy?


Bloom distinguished between “cognitive empathy,” the capacity to understand the thoughts and emotions of others, and “emotional empathy,” the capacity to feel what others feel.

I would think that in order to accurately feel what others feel you surely must have the ability to understand their thoughts and emotions, and visa-versa. But Bloom seems to be saying psychopaths can know it without feeling it.

It reminds me of the Golden Rule vs the Platinum Rule.

Golden Rule: "Do unto others as you would have done unto you".
Platinum Rule: "Do unto others as they would have us do unto them."

The Golden Rule assumes that what I want and what the other person wants are the same whereas The Platinum Rule considers both cognitive and emotional empathy (what they want).

User avatar
jennypenny
Posts: 6851
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 2:20 pm

Re: Empathy

Post by jennypenny »

Ego wrote: 1) In the Sam Harris podcast in the original post, Paul Bloom says psychopaths are cognitively hyperempathic. They manipulate people by understanding exactly where the other person is coming from.
I'm pretty sure that's incorrect. As I understand it, empathy isn't only understanding why someone feels the way that they do, but also feeling those same feelings in sympathy. "I feel your pain."

This goes back to disparatum's thread about being able to read people. There have been times I've been accused of being unsympathetic or cold or a robot because I didn't show empathy in a certain situation. (I imagine this has happened to others here, especially among the INTJs.) People assume it's because I understand the situation and choose not to show sympathy. Most of the time, it's because I didn't understand what the person was feeling in the first place, so empathy was impossible. Even when I can empathize with someone, it doesn't seem to be enough. I have to *show* how much I empathize. I suppose that's because extrovertedness is the default setting in society.

I understand Dragline's point about people with a lot of self-control being the most dangerous, but I'd still rather lean that way than the other. Empathy is exhausting, especially for an introvert. There must be an acceptable middle ground between detachment and constant emoting. If you don't, or can't, relate to the specific circumstances that brought on the other person's feelings or the depth of their feelings in a given situation, it's probably enough to try and recognize the basic emotion they are experiencing (fear, joy, excitement) and share in that, even if you don't know why they feel the way they do or don't want to let yourself feel the depth of their pain.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 9372
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Empathy

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

Is an alligator a psychopath? I know this is not a scientifically valid model, but I think there are two dimensions of emotions that human beings experience and process into either reaction or response; the first dimension being more based in the reptilian part of the brain which is concerned with survival as individual, dominance, hierarchy, simple lust etc. and the second dimension being more based in the mammalian part of the brain which is concerned with ensuring the survival of helpless infant offspring. Therefore, a psychopath could be somebody who had high big brain human intelligence of understanding/comprehending/assigning meaning/planning for future AND hyper-empathy in the realm of reptilian emotions (for instance, could smell fear on you) BUT a thorough lack of empathy in the realm of mammalian emotions. IOW, a psychopath is a human being who has zero functioning in his or her adult feminine quadrant, no maternal instincts whatsoever. However, this does not mean that somebody who has no desire to birth and care for a human infant is a psychopath, because they very well may have sublimated their maternal instincts into care for nature or works of literature, etc. etc. Also, somebody who forever views him or herself as the baby in need of care is also clearly not a psychopath, although not likely to make a great housemate.

I think that maybe? INTJs tend towards being locked-dominants. A locked-dominant is somebody whose starting position is adult masculine functioning or a core desire to be in control of self or situation with less ability to either allow themselves to be out-of-control (have fun) in the juvenile masculine or relax in the feminine. But, what a person manifests externally is not what they possess internally. I would not leave an infant in the care of a psychopath, but I wouldn't hesitate to leave an infant in the care of most INTJs. Just because a person engages in rational discussion on the topic of not feeding starving babies does not mean that they would not feel mammalian empathy in proximate situation and they might have more skills/resources to bring to bear.

NOTE: I don't mean to be picking on the INTJ here. The problem most ENTP's have is that instead of being "locked dominants" we are "loose switches." One saying about ENTPS is that you can trust an ENTP with your life but not to return a library book on time.

Dragline
Posts: 4436
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2011 1:50 am

Re: Empathy

Post by Dragline »

jennypenny wrote:
Ego wrote: 1) In the Sam Harris podcast in the original post, Paul Bloom says psychopaths are cognitively hyperempathic. They manipulate people by understanding exactly where the other person is coming from.
I'm pretty sure that's incorrect. As I understand it, empathy isn't only understanding why someone feels the way that they do, but also feeling those same feelings in sympathy. "I feel your pain."
Yes, I did not think Bloom and Harris were well-informed on this subject, and in many respects appeared to be applying their own labels for the convenience of their arguments.

While there is not a consensus in this area, the most recent work on this is the Simon Baron Cohen research, where he has taken the whole panoply of "zero empathy" people and divided them into different groupings that include everyone from the autistics and Aspergers to the narcissists, borderlines and psychopaths. The older research pioneered by Robert Hare and others focused on the latter three.

But whether a particular zero-empathy person has a gift for manipulating others -- Paul Bloom's so-called "hyper-empathic"-- is a only a subset of the "psychopath" group. Despite the popular misconception that Bloom has apparently adopted, not all psychopathic people are charmers, and probably not even a majority of them. And most zero-empathy or low-empathy people are certainly not.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 9372
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Empathy

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

...and most charmers are not psychopaths, just maybe clever and a little bit naughty sometimes.

User avatar
GandK
Posts: 2059
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:00 pm

Re: Empathy

Post by GandK »

jennypenny wrote:Empathy is exhausting, especially for an introvert. There must be an acceptable middle ground between detachment and constant emoting.
Amen.

This doesn't go any better for introverted feelers. I absorb other people's emotional runoff like a sponge whether I want to or not, whether I have the bandwidth to deal with their issues or not, and whether it helps either one of us or not. The only reliable method I've found of NOT entering into the emotional states of others is to avoid them. And when my life gets chaotic, that's exactly what I do: avoid anyone I know who is likely to seek something from me emotionally. This strategy is imperfect and I feel guilty when I employ it. But there's no denying that it works.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 9372
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Empathy

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

The functional middle ground is called emotional differentiation. Detachment reactivity and anxious clinging reactivity are two sides of the same dysfunctional coin. If you can't be around somebody because of their emotional states or you have to stay near somebody and attempt to fix their emotional states (for instance, make them happy) then you are emotionally fused with that person, not empathetic. David Schnarch is the expert on this topic. Emotional fusion is extremely common in long-term relationships and generally contributes to sex-death due to lack of recognition of "other"-ness.

George the original one
Posts: 5404
Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2010 3:28 am
Location: Wettest corner of Orygun

Re: Empathy

Post by George the original one »

But... but... the coworker keeps trying to drag me into the depths of their drama! No, don't tell me I'm fused to them!

jacob
Site Admin
Posts: 15907
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
Contact:

Re: Empathy

Post by jacob »

I submit one can break it down a bit like this ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_stages_of_competence

Level 1: Sociopathy
Level 2-3: Sympathy
Level 4: Empathy

Also, I don't know if the podcast covered it (audio = too long; didn't listen ;-) ) ... but I also submit that there exists or should exist a similar scale for the neocortex as is mentioned above for the reptilian and the limbic systems. It would appear that sympathy and empathy are related to the limbic system in the vernacular but what about the neocortex equivalents for sympathy and empathy.

To wit, for me, as an INTJ, I'd much rather be understood (neocortical empathy) or have my thinking acknowledged (neocortical sympathy) than have my limbic system recognized.

User avatar
Ego
Posts: 6359
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 12:42 am

Re: Empathy

Post by Ego »

Dragline wrote: While there is not a consensus in this area, the most recent work on this is the Simon Baron Cohen research....
.

Here is Baron-Cohen's response to Bloom's proposal.
http://www.bostonreview.net/forum/again ... aron-cohen

and Bloom's response...

Simon Baron-Cohen starts with contemporary atrocities, such as the bombing of a school and the firing of rockets into a civilian population, and describes these as the product of “a rational cost-benefit calculation”—an approach he believes I am endorsing. What would stop these atrocities, he suggests, is empathy. He then analyses Nazi genocides in the same way, as the result of logic without feeling—“All that was missing [from the Final Solution] was empathy for the Jewish
victims.”

Now, when Baron-Cohen talks about a rational cost-benefit approach, he assumes that this sort of reasoning doesn’t take into account human suffering. Indeed, at one point, he assumes that the costs and benefits are financial costs and benefits—which is why he concludes that, from a rational approach, the Nazi euthanasia of those with learning difficulties is “irrefutable,” as it saves the government money.

Such a decision making process would certainly be monstrous, but it is not what I am proposing (or what anyone is proposing, as far as I know). Rather, my alternative to empathy emphasizes justice, fairness, and compassion, so any rational decision process would consider death and suffering to be a terrible cost.

GandK wrote:
jennypenny wrote:Empathy is exhausting, especially for an introvert. There must be an acceptable middle ground between detachment and constant emoting.
Amen.

This doesn't go any better for introverted feelers. I absorb other people's emotional runoff like a sponge whether I want to or not, whether I have the bandwidth to deal with their issues or not, and whether it helps either one of us or not. The only reliable method I've found of NOT entering into the emotional states of others is to avoid them. And when my life gets chaotic, that's exactly what I do: avoid anyone I know who is likely to seek something from me emotionally. This strategy is imperfect and I feel guilty when I employ it. But there's no denying that it works.
That's one of the problems Bloom's proposal tries to address. Highly empathic people can be overwhelmed with the problems of others. This overwhelm causes them to make very bad decisions. Compassion is much better than empathy.

In the cases of the Nazis or lynching in the south, Bloom says empathy is the thing that is responsible for the crimes. We naturally empathize with those who are like us and demonize those who are not.

Dragline
Posts: 4436
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2011 1:50 am

Re: Empathy

Post by Dragline »

More tellingly, in his reply Bloom failed to respond to Baron-Cohen's observations in BC's numbered points at the end that Bloom was using bad and/or cherry-picked data to construct his arguments. Because that is exactly what Bloom has done.

Instead, Bloom again falls back on an unsupported assumption at the root of his idea that was widely criticized:

"Lynn O’Connor, Jack Berry, Leonardo Christov-Moore, and Marco Iacoboni argue that “we can’t feel compassion without first feeling emotional empathy” and that “affective empathy is a precursor to compassion.” If they are right, then my proposal that we should stanch empathy and enhance compassion is untenable on psychological grounds. Both commentaries raise deep questions about the intricate relationship between cognitive empathy, emotional empathy, and compassion. But the strong conclusion that compassion and empathy come as “a package” is almost surely mistaken."

Really? I think not. What Bloom comes back to here is called an ipse dixit -- "it is because I say it is and who could doubt me?" This goes back to my original point: "But do you really know anyone that lacks "empathy" but has "compassion" as they defined those terms? It seemed like an artificial distinction when they were trying to differentiate the two."

At least he was gracious enough to admit that his proposals are "untenable" absent his erroneous assumptions.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 9372
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am

Re: Empathy

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

George the original one said: But... but... the coworker keeps trying to drag me into the depths of their drama! No, don't tell me I'm fused to them!
lol- But, actually, even the way you chose to describe the co-worker's behavior is indicative of fusion. Nobody can make you inhabit or react to their emotional state without your permission. It is not against the law to say "I don't enjoy talking about this sort of thing. Would you please grant me the gift of silence." to your co-worker. Likely, the reason why you don't is either that you are "too nice" and don't want to hurt the co-worker's feelings or fear social conflict/stigma of being branded a jerk or you are financially-fused to your job. If you magnify these fears and dependencies by giant factor, that is what causes intense emotional gridlock in important long-term relationships. The funny thing is that (not that you would necessarily want this), if you were to say the above to your co-worker, he/she would likely find you more attractive on reptilian level because you would be signaling higher status.
jacob said: To wit, for me, as an INTJ, I'd much rather be understood (neocortical empathy) or have my thinking acknowledged (neocortical sympathy) than have my limbic system recognized.
Interesting. Do you think this might have to do with relative frequency of occurrence? Do you not also feel respected and valued when your thinking is understood and acknowledged? If your core desire is to feel respected then you are emotionally centered in the adult masculine quadrant. If your core desire is to feel adored/cherished then you are emotionally centered in the juvenile feminine quadrant. If your core desire is to feel free then you are emotionally centered in the juvenile masculine. If your core desire is to feel appreciated then you are emotionally centered in the adult feminine. Ish. If you are high-functioning and self-aware then you are strong and free to move about your entire emotional domain. Of course, being self-aware is a high neocortical function. Like your emotions are animals in a zoo with different areas but the zookeeper is neocortical and all the animals should be free but under the level of control that differentiates reactivity from responsiveness. For instance, you should be able to say to yourself "Now, I will release inhibitions!" and then do it, if you are strong and self-aware in your juvenile masculine energy, and you are able to allow yourself to be vulnerable if you are strong and self-aware in your juvenile feminine energy, and you are able to act with authority and confidence if you are strong and self-aware in your adult masculine, and you are able to choose to exhibit responsible caring behavior if you are strong and self-aware in your adult feminine. My main problems are that I am soft and bloated in my adult feminine and rather hyper and out-of-control in my juvenile masculine, so my juvenile feminine and adult masculine are sometimes neglected or under-developed, but I am working on it : )

User avatar
GandK
Posts: 2059
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:00 pm

Re: Empathy

Post by GandK »

Ego wrote:That's one of the problems Bloom's proposal tries to address. Highly empathic people can be overwhelmed with the problems of others. This overwhelm causes them to make very bad decisions. Compassion is much better than empathy.

In the cases of the Nazis or lynching in the south, Bloom says empathy is the thing that is responsible for the crimes. We naturally empathize with those who are like us and demonize those who are not.
To me specifically, that's an unrealistic level of detachment. Empathy is HOW I relate to other humans. I don't know that I'm neurologically capable of connecting with someone without attempting to put myself in his shoes when he speaks. It isn't a conscious choice when I do that. It's me being me.

And I don't doubt that empathy writ large could lead to some very bad decisions, if acted upon without judgment or any sort of moral compass. But so can logic. So can pleasure seeking. So can service. So can any other starting point for relationship that you can name.

I am impressed that Bloom is proposing solutions. Truly. I'm always impressed by proposed solutions as opposed to lazy griping. I just don't agree with him that empathy is a problem.

User avatar
Ego
Posts: 6359
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 12:42 am

Re: Empathy

Post by Ego »

Dragline wrote:This goes back to my original point: "But do you really know anyone that lacks "empathy" but has "compassion" as they defined those terms? It seemed like an artificial distinction when they were trying to differentiate the two."
Hat tip to mfi above. I personally don't know anyone, but here is someone who is trying.

http://www.matthieuricard.org/en/blog/p ... -fatigue-1

and here is the research behind why he is trying.

http://www.cogneurosociety.org/empathy_pain/

The neural networks underlying the effects of empathy and compassion training are very different. Whereas the former increases negative emotions, the latter is associated with positive feelings of warmth and increased activation in brain networks associated with affiliation and reward.

This may have large implications for people working in care-giving professions, such as nurses, doctors, therapists, and even fire fighters. Teaching them to transform an initial empathic response when confronted with the deep suffering of their patients or clients into a compassionate stance could protect them from negative health consequences and burnout often associated with these jobs. At the same time, it could also help the patients, as compassion is not only rewarding for yourself but obviously good for others too.




This is relatively new research. New research tends to upend the status-quo. Some go where the findings lead them, which I believe is what Bloom is doing, while those who created the current iteration of the status-quo tend to dig trenches, which I believe Borat's brother is doing. But I could be wrong.

Dragline
Posts: 4436
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2011 1:50 am

Re: Empathy

Post by Dragline »

I guess I would not agree that humans are likely to change in any meaningful way in a time frame that is not on the order of millenia or longer -- i.e., regardless of the research and intentions, humans are not likely to become Spock-like characters of compassion-less empathy in our lifetimes or in the next 1000 years, at least not without some forced artificial programming or manipulation of a cyborg nature. "A Clockwork Orange" treatment come to life, perhaps.

It does suggest that care-givers need vacations, though. ;-)

I think it would be more productive to focus on what we already know "works" and is eminently achievable for humans, such as this research suggests:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/12/educa ... p_1=169030

User avatar
Ego
Posts: 6359
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 12:42 am

Re: Empathy

Post by Ego »

Dragline wrote:
I think it would be more productive to focus on what we already know "works" and is eminently achievable for humans, such as this research suggests:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/12/educa ... p_1=169030
Yes! By all means we should be doing all of that. But if we can improve on it by learning to transform emotional empathy, the piece that can be crippling, into compassion, then we might be even better.

From the article linked above

The second exciting avenue for future research lies in the study of the effects of mental training practices on health, brain, subjective well-being, and social behavior. In the last years, plasticity research, which used to focus on the trainability of cognitive skills such as memory or motor behavior, has now started to study and develop secular training programs aiming at increasing higher-level mental faculties, such as attention or compassion.

These secular training programs are often inspired by meditation practices from the East and, by consequence, this research integrates first-person with third-person approaches in a novel way. It sets out to understand how we can improve physical and psychological well-being by cultivating introspection and turning our focus towards our own mind.

Post Reply