The more I spend time in the space of empathy... the more I see different expressions, definitions and destinations. What is empathy if it’s not done with emotion or compassion, some ask? Can empathy be merely cognitive? If the receptor doesn't experience it, has empathy happened? What’s the difference between somatic, affective and compassionate empathy? As Reena has said, it’s a rather confusing, if not cloudy word.
And then, more profoundly: What if we all agreed? What if we were all empathic? What would become of our world? After all, it's possible we all agree that we're human beings, no? Does agreement actually mean progress? What's it all actually about or for?
Maybe that is the bigger question for which we must flex our empathic muscle?
This is a conversation I have been having frequently in the past couple weeks. It is this inner knowing we have as humans when an act of kindness and/or connection comes from a place of authenticity and when it doesn't. We just inherently know. Sometimes we can't quite put our finger on why something is "off" but it is. Often, I think what is "off" is a sense/energy of forced connection or effort of kindness or empathy. We can't force it, we just have to let it flow from us when it naturally does, and be honest with ourselves when we can't quite summon it.
If we agree that we are all human beings, do we all have the same capacity for empathy? Or is there a different amount of empathy "available" to each of us.
Quite right, Murphy, mostly we do "know" when someone is not being empathetic. Sometimes however I find it easier to just take things at face value and move on instead of second guessing too much. Figuring out motivation is so hard and easier to assume the best. That works in most case, except when someone blows our trust again and again. Then we ought to speak up and/or move away. Like all things human, complicated...
I like that too, and it's one of my defining characteristics to presume good intent until I know different. I'd rather assume people are good and be proven wrong every once in a while than assume they're bad and not give them a chance to prove otherwise.
Part of me feels like the Empaths are always having to do all the empathising while the others benefit from it. The others can be the stressed person who rudely cuts in front of you in the queue. "Oh he's stressed so I should let him in"?? Or shouldn't he have the decency to respect others, their time and civility? Too often it seems like a one-way traffic. From my observation, Murphy, sometimes you can be more empathic and at others too wrapped up in your own affairs to have the awareness or patience or bandwidth to be empathic. And truth is that it is usually easier to be empathic with like-minded individuals. An ecosystem approach. The trickier task is to be empathic with people whose acts and culture are foreign to you. And they can even be your neighbour or a classmate or a colleague. Even, dare I say it, your family.
Minter I try to think of empathy as something that makes things easier for ME, actually. Here's what I mean: If someone is being a jerk, try to point it out kindly - mostly they're unaware of their impact - and if they still don't get it, move on. Assuming that their life is actually THAT hard that they cannot give even a small consideration to others! That actually makes me feel less angry... it's odd but it helps. The practice of this in any consistent manner is of course really tough. That's another story ;-)
I have trouble with this too, because as an idealist I just wish (though I know it's unrealistic) that people were all understanding and empathetic and curious and could move through the world with grace and love rather than animosity. I do what I can on my side to make that happen, but I wish everyone were that way.
Maybe the difference is "fake it til you make it"? At least for some people. In putting on empathy it's hard to see how you're not changing yourself at least some tiny bit. You've got to understand the shoes they're wearing before you can pretend to have worn them, if that makes sense.
Like I said below, though, I often ask myself that question: What if we were all empathetic? The vision I have for a world where we lead with curiosity and care is a richer one, where we don't have to worry about being trolled, if that makes sense. We just love each other and help each other out. The ecosystem you were talking about, or a village as I like to think of it.
The first point is that we must navigate and experiment as we grow into empathy. It is nécessarily a rather messy road. We might learn to walk in those shoes but we will likely as easily forget the sensation as we get caught up in our own lives.
In the second point, this is a tricky topic in that it is difficult not to want everyone to get along. However, I don't feel it is possible nor realistic for everyone all the time to get along (hat tip to the brilliant Oscar-winning film). The idea of global love is idealistic. For starters, we can barely agree what is a New Yorker, much less an American. In the meantime, to explicit our involvement or belonging in anything smaller in scope suggests being exclusionary, if not elitist.
This is a conversation I have been having frequently in the past couple weeks. It is this inner knowing we have as humans when an act of kindness and/or connection comes from a place of authenticity and when it doesn't. We just inherently know. Sometimes we can't quite put our finger on why something is "off" but it is. Often, I think what is "off" is a sense/energy of forced connection or effort of kindness or empathy. We can't force it, we just have to let it flow from us when it naturally does, and be honest with ourselves when we can't quite summon it.
If we agree that we are all human beings, do we all have the same capacity for empathy? Or is there a different amount of empathy "available" to each of us.
Quite right, Murphy, mostly we do "know" when someone is not being empathetic. Sometimes however I find it easier to just take things at face value and move on instead of second guessing too much. Figuring out motivation is so hard and easier to assume the best. That works in most case, except when someone blows our trust again and again. Then we ought to speak up and/or move away. Like all things human, complicated...
I like the presumption of goodness. Better to think the world is good place than to start by thinking everyone is out to get you! :)
I like that too, and it's one of my defining characteristics to presume good intent until I know different. I'd rather assume people are good and be proven wrong every once in a while than assume they're bad and not give them a chance to prove otherwise.
Part of me feels like the Empaths are always having to do all the empathising while the others benefit from it. The others can be the stressed person who rudely cuts in front of you in the queue. "Oh he's stressed so I should let him in"?? Or shouldn't he have the decency to respect others, their time and civility? Too often it seems like a one-way traffic. From my observation, Murphy, sometimes you can be more empathic and at others too wrapped up in your own affairs to have the awareness or patience or bandwidth to be empathic. And truth is that it is usually easier to be empathic with like-minded individuals. An ecosystem approach. The trickier task is to be empathic with people whose acts and culture are foreign to you. And they can even be your neighbour or a classmate or a colleague. Even, dare I say it, your family.
Minter I try to think of empathy as something that makes things easier for ME, actually. Here's what I mean: If someone is being a jerk, try to point it out kindly - mostly they're unaware of their impact - and if they still don't get it, move on. Assuming that their life is actually THAT hard that they cannot give even a small consideration to others! That actually makes me feel less angry... it's odd but it helps. The practice of this in any consistent manner is of course really tough. That's another story ;-)
I have trouble with this too, because as an idealist I just wish (though I know it's unrealistic) that people were all understanding and empathetic and curious and could move through the world with grace and love rather than animosity. I do what I can on my side to make that happen, but I wish everyone were that way.
Maybe the difference is "fake it til you make it"? At least for some people. In putting on empathy it's hard to see how you're not changing yourself at least some tiny bit. You've got to understand the shoes they're wearing before you can pretend to have worn them, if that makes sense.
Like I said below, though, I often ask myself that question: What if we were all empathetic? The vision I have for a world where we lead with curiosity and care is a richer one, where we don't have to worry about being trolled, if that makes sense. We just love each other and help each other out. The ecosystem you were talking about, or a village as I like to think of it.
The first point is that we must navigate and experiment as we grow into empathy. It is nécessarily a rather messy road. We might learn to walk in those shoes but we will likely as easily forget the sensation as we get caught up in our own lives.
In the second point, this is a tricky topic in that it is difficult not to want everyone to get along. However, I don't feel it is possible nor realistic for everyone all the time to get along (hat tip to the brilliant Oscar-winning film). The idea of global love is idealistic. For starters, we can barely agree what is a New Yorker, much less an American. In the meantime, to explicit our involvement or belonging in anything smaller in scope suggests being exclusionary, if not elitist.