19 Dec 2012, 8:18 pm
19 Dec 2012, 8:57 pm
btbnnyr
Veteran
Joined: 18 May 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,359
Location: Lost Angleles Carmen Santiago
19 Dec 2012, 10:42 pm
19 Dec 2012, 11:33 pm
19 Dec 2012, 11:39 pm
20 Dec 2012, 1:01 am
20 Dec 2012, 6:47 am
20 Dec 2012, 6:57 am
whirlingmind
Veteran
Joined: 25 Oct 2007
Age: 59
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,130
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
20 Dec 2012, 11:08 am
20 Dec 2012, 9:02 pm
aghogday wrote:
The first type of empathy most humans experience is emotional contagion, the earliest type of empathy that infants experience when they share laughter/giggling with other infants. It requires no cognitive understanding to share, and is understood as an innate trait in humans.
Then there is cognitive empathy that develops out of this emotional contagion when a child meets normal developmental milestones. One developmental marker of it is when a child exhibits the ability to tell a lie, to avoid a negative consequence such as the anticipation of punishment. That requires the child to take a basic perspective of another individual separate from self, usually a parent or caregiver, in expectation of what they will do next; per this example of the potential of a punishing action. The lie usually requires verbal communication, but taking on the perspective of others through cognitive empathy does not necessarily require verbal communication.
Complex emotions develop in most children and identification of those emotions in oneself leads to the cognitive understanding of the emotional states of others with a result of most individuals identifying and sharing those complex emotional feelings with others through what is described by some as emotional or affective empathy.
Then there is the potential in most that one will develop the ability for a sympathetic concern for the distress of others, when cognitively recognized and shared. Pity is not a requirement for this sympathetic concern. The two are often confused in conversation.
Compassion is a stronger emotional component that can motivate one to take action to alleviate another individual's distress, when cognitively recognized. It usually results from the cognitive recognition and sharing of the perspective and/or emotions of others, but one can experience a positive emotional drive to take compassionate action for others in distress, without strongly sharing the negative emotions of another in distress. Cognitive recognition of the distress of others remains a requirement.
So, from a developmental standpoint there is emotional contagion, cognitive empathy, affective/emotional empathy, sympathy, and compassion. In all stages there are different potential levels of expression and action of each described aspect, ranging from a giggle of an infant to a heroic act of laying one's life down for another.
But, to put things in perspective of those described more severely impacted by symptoms on the spectrum and described as emotionally indifferent to others from young childhood, some don't experience that emotional contagion that results in a group of infants giggling together in unison.
There is a whole spectrum of what could be described as potential deficits or lacks of empathy. Most people use the words empathy, sympathy, and compassion to describe most of this phenomenon, sometimes interchangeably, except in the case of infants that are usually described as laughing or giggling instead of experiencing emotional contagion:).
Interestingly a lack of sympathetic concern or compassionate action is not considered a significant enough psychological impairment to be listed in a disorder. Which makes sense because the attributes are generated and controlled strongly by the expectation of culture and gender roles.
Some people on the spectrum can be impaired in cognitive and affective/emotional empathy and still express sympathetic concern for others as well as compassionate action as long as distress is cognitively recognized through some type of perception, and there is enough emotional motivation to take action.
And, there is the potential that some of these individuals with these described impairments of empathy experienced all aspects fully until the cultural environment took some of it away. That potential exists for almost anyone, even Mother Teresa, as described in her words, but the cognitive recognition of distress, sympathetic concern, and compassionate action remained for her as it does for some others. But, no one suggested she lacked empathy, even though she described she lost the ability to feel it, to the degree she had before.
Then there is cognitive empathy that develops out of this emotional contagion when a child meets normal developmental milestones. One developmental marker of it is when a child exhibits the ability to tell a lie, to avoid a negative consequence such as the anticipation of punishment. That requires the child to take a basic perspective of another individual separate from self, usually a parent or caregiver, in expectation of what they will do next; per this example of the potential of a punishing action. The lie usually requires verbal communication, but taking on the perspective of others through cognitive empathy does not necessarily require verbal communication.
Complex emotions develop in most children and identification of those emotions in oneself leads to the cognitive understanding of the emotional states of others with a result of most individuals identifying and sharing those complex emotional feelings with others through what is described by some as emotional or affective empathy.
Then there is the potential in most that one will develop the ability for a sympathetic concern for the distress of others, when cognitively recognized and shared. Pity is not a requirement for this sympathetic concern. The two are often confused in conversation.
Compassion is a stronger emotional component that can motivate one to take action to alleviate another individual's distress, when cognitively recognized. It usually results from the cognitive recognition and sharing of the perspective and/or emotions of others, but one can experience a positive emotional drive to take compassionate action for others in distress, without strongly sharing the negative emotions of another in distress. Cognitive recognition of the distress of others remains a requirement.
So, from a developmental standpoint there is emotional contagion, cognitive empathy, affective/emotional empathy, sympathy, and compassion. In all stages there are different potential levels of expression and action of each described aspect, ranging from a giggle of an infant to a heroic act of laying one's life down for another.
But, to put things in perspective of those described more severely impacted by symptoms on the spectrum and described as emotionally indifferent to others from young childhood, some don't experience that emotional contagion that results in a group of infants giggling together in unison.
There is a whole spectrum of what could be described as potential deficits or lacks of empathy. Most people use the words empathy, sympathy, and compassion to describe most of this phenomenon, sometimes interchangeably, except in the case of infants that are usually described as laughing or giggling instead of experiencing emotional contagion:).
Interestingly a lack of sympathetic concern or compassionate action is not considered a significant enough psychological impairment to be listed in a disorder. Which makes sense because the attributes are generated and controlled strongly by the expectation of culture and gender roles.
Some people on the spectrum can be impaired in cognitive and affective/emotional empathy and still express sympathetic concern for others as well as compassionate action as long as distress is cognitively recognized through some type of perception, and there is enough emotional motivation to take action.
And, there is the potential that some of these individuals with these described impairments of empathy experienced all aspects fully until the cultural environment took some of it away. That potential exists for almost anyone, even Mother Teresa, as described in her words, but the cognitive recognition of distress, sympathetic concern, and compassionate action remained for her as it does for some others. But, no one suggested she lacked empathy, even though she described she lost the ability to feel it, to the degree she had before.
Who is the source of these categories?
20 Dec 2012, 9:04 pm
applesauce wrote:
I have big issues with the empathy/sympathy debate. Mostly because the people who generally say folk with ASD don't understand empathy, don't actually understand it themselves. To them, empathy is understanding the world from their standpoint and understanding the way THEY feel about it. If we don't do that, perfectly, we lack empathy. But the reality is the opposite, surely? We have a different way of thinking to other people. They are not, apparently, able to understand that. Clearly that makes them lacking in empathy.
People who think they lack empathy, stop and think as to whether you have ever understood the perspective of someone else on this forum, and been able to relate to something they've said. If you can do this, you can empathise. Just because your perception of the world doesn't match the outside world's expectations of what you OUGHT to feel or think doesn't make you lacking in empathy. It makes them lacking in understanding. It's just common sense that someone with ASD would more easily empathise with someone else with ASD, because there are more similarities in brain function and therefore experiences and thought processes.
Do not let the outside world convince you otherwise
. They just like to sculpt us into their ideal shapes and sizes, and we really don't need to accept it.
People who think they lack empathy, stop and think as to whether you have ever understood the perspective of someone else on this forum, and been able to relate to something they've said. If you can do this, you can empathise. Just because your perception of the world doesn't match the outside world's expectations of what you OUGHT to feel or think doesn't make you lacking in empathy. It makes them lacking in understanding. It's just common sense that someone with ASD would more easily empathise with someone else with ASD, because there are more similarities in brain function and therefore experiences and thought processes.
Do not let the outside world convince you otherwise
. They just like to sculpt us into their ideal shapes and sizes, and we really don't need to accept it.Yep. This is what l observe in daily life, it's the "for us or against us" mentality. You have to think of the standpoint of the people writing this criteria ages ago, obviously they're skilled professionals but people can eb amazingly dense/inflexible with this concept.
l don't think l lack empathy either, though l'm socially skilled enough to at least keep myself out of trouble.
The point is that if you don't automatically interpret something the way they do or it seems that you're capable of interpreting something in more than way (clearly one is right and one is ''WRONG'') you lack empathy. lf you're comfortable with accepting that you may not even know someone's true thoughts, too. And maybe don't care all that much.
And the irony never ceases to kill me because those who can interpret meaning in different ways have more understanding of what others are thinking or are at least trying to.
Last edited by EXPECIALLY on 20 Dec 2012, 9:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
20 Dec 2012, 9:10 pm
20 Dec 2012, 9:45 pm
20 Dec 2012, 11:03 pm
slave wrote:
Who is the source of these categories?
There are literally hundreds of sources, some of which provide different interchangeable accounts of the terms. Wiki provides good basic definitions:
Personal distress is a type of emotional contagion that has been reported described as a type of affective empathy, in research from 2007. That research linked below indicated from self-reports that individuals with Aspergers Syndrome experienced stronger personal distress than control groups of individuals without Asperger's Sydrome, witnessing the pain of others.
Individuals with Autistic Disorder or PDD NOS were not included in this study.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_distress
http://www.cog.psy.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/p ... Disord.pdf
Quote:
In psychology, personal distress is an aversive, self-focused emotional reaction (e.g., anxiety, worry, discomfort) to the apprehension or comprehension of another's emotional state or condition. This negative affective state often occurs as a result of emotional contagion when there is confusion between self and other. Unlike empathy, personal distress does not have to be congruent with the other's state, and often leads to a self-oriented, egoistic reaction to reduce it, by withdrawing from the stressor, for example, thereby decreasing the likelihood of prosocial behavior.[1] There is evidence that sympathy and personal distress are subjectively different,[2] have different somatic and physiological correlates,[3] and relate differently to prosocial behavior.[4]
Emotional Contagion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotional_contagion
Empathy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathy
Cognitive vs. Affective Empathy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathizing%E2%80
%93systemizing_theory#Cognitive_versus_affective_empathy
Sympathy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sympathy
Compassion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compassion
21 Dec 2012, 12:14 am
21 Dec 2012, 1:00 am
Luci wrote:
Is feeling anxious/afraid if someone is angry (even if it's not directed at me) some type of empathy? Maybe not, but maybe it requires some type of empathy (so as to recognize a person's angry or at least know what anger is and misinterpret others to be angry) I mean with this someone actually being in the physical vicinity and being angry, it just feels as if they're angry at me, I kind of actually feel scared instead of just anxious (are fear and anxiety different things?). What I mean is that it feels different when it happens online, I'd say it's just a less extreme form of the same thing if it didn't.
Is it just that I perceive angry people as a threat to my physical safety when they're not? A natural 'fight or flight response' or what is it? Because I then feel like I want to/need to flee from the situation.
Cognitive empathy - I'd say it varies, I have cognitive empathy but I don't understand everything yet (but then again, who does? I still try, I have noticed that people, even NTs, frequently refuse to try to look at things from the other party's perspective, and I really mean refuse as opposed to just not being able to, unless I'm committing this very "sin" right now by assuming this?). Depends if it's familiar to me - if I've ever either experienced something very similar myself OR read/heard it explained in an understandable way. A couple of the things I still don't get are the whole 'being in the same wavelenght with someone' my mother often talks about or what it means to 'love' someone platonically as when my mother asks if I love her and my father. She hasn't been able to explain these concepts in a way I understand.
I've definitely gotten much better at all this over the years, though! I used to not be able to describe my feelings much at all, now if I don't have an existing description/previous experience to compare to I often manage to at least try to describe.
Compassion - This sounds very similar to 'sympathetic concern'? What is the difference? That 'compassion' is more strong and means the person is more likely to take action?
Is it just that I perceive angry people as a threat to my physical safety when they're not? A natural 'fight or flight response' or what is it? Because I then feel like I want to/need to flee from the situation.
Cognitive empathy - I'd say it varies, I have cognitive empathy but I don't understand everything yet (but then again, who does? I still try, I have noticed that people, even NTs, frequently refuse to try to look at things from the other party's perspective, and I really mean refuse as opposed to just not being able to, unless I'm committing this very "sin" right now by assuming this?). Depends if it's familiar to me - if I've ever either experienced something very similar myself OR read/heard it explained in an understandable way. A couple of the things I still don't get are the whole 'being in the same wavelenght with someone' my mother often talks about or what it means to 'love' someone platonically as when my mother asks if I love her and my father. She hasn't been able to explain these concepts in a way I understand.
I've definitely gotten much better at all this over the years, though! I used to not be able to describe my feelings much at all, now if I don't have an existing description/previous experience to compare to I often manage to at least try to describe.
Compassion - This sounds very similar to 'sympathetic concern'? What is the difference? That 'compassion' is more strong and means the person is more likely to take action?
Your first paragraph description is almost identical to what was described as Personal distress as a type of emotional contagion, in the Wiki quote and link I provided two posts above. Wiki distinguishes it separate from empathy, and others sources identify it on a scale of affective empathy.
As I described in my last post, what has been identified in research on a scale of deficit in comparison to control groups in cognitive empathy, is not a complete lack of empathy. That can differ greatly among any two individuals on or off the spectrum, depending on many potential biological and/or cultural factors.
Compassion is described as the emotion that drives empathetic/sympathetic concern whether felt only internally or demonstrated as compassionate action. However, a person could demonstrate compassionate action for another person without strongly feeling the warm emotional feeling of what is described as compassion for another person, because they cognitively determine it is the appropriate thing to do, or are perhaps motivated by another emotion, like anxiety or fear.
I have heard many people on the spectrum identify the issue with affective empathy you identify below in your quote. Movies and Video games provide emotional cues through music and exaggerated displays of emotion. Authors intentionally provide rich detail describing emotions that one normally doesn't see in real life. Day dreams are only limited by imagination. I suspect this affects everyone to some degree on or off the spectrum. I suspect it may affect people on the spectrum, at least in part, potentially stronger, just because this is where more of some of their exposure to the cues of social interaction and emotion occur.
I suppose, to put it more concisely, the virtual world produces expectations that real life most often does not meet. Part of the reason "romance novels" have traditionally been so popular among some. And, part of the reason cited that a growing, somewhat alarming number of people in Japan are no longer even interested in relationships with other people. Animals have replaced children, as a less complex option to nurture another flesh and blood being, among some, even dressed and riding in strollers.
Those are potential cultural factors of "common sense" that aren't well studied in research, but other potential biological and environmental factors are not well identified that have been the focus of research. I suspect at least one associated "inherent" factor on the spectrum described as Hyperlexia may be associated with the phenomenon, and potentially the biological/environmental condition of Alexithymia prevalent in 85% of cases of ASD's; but I have yet to find a way to put that into words.
.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperlexia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexithymia
Quote:
Affective empathy - I only ever feel affective empathy due to movies, video games, books, daydreams. Somehow it doesn't work in real life and I don't get why.
