The empathy question - once more.

Post Reply New Topic

Because you decided to try to "imagine and try to relate", one could deduce that you did actually have some idea what they other person was feeling.
Perhaps you just meant that you were unsure of the exact nature of the feeling?

I think if you really had no idea, then you would not act at all on it.

If someone is frowning I could try to think of reasons why one might frown. Maybe they are having a bad day or just a jerk. I could think of a million reasons why someone might be having a bad day and could never pick the right one, but regardless I can be nice to them instead of frowning back. If they are truly just a jerk than I wasted my effort but I give them the benefit of the doubt anyway.

If someone is smiling I could imagine a million reasons too for this smile. But it does not really matter why they are smiling. I have empathy because I can relate to being happy. It is easier to have empathy when someone talks to gain more information, but even in causal encounters one can have empathy.

If one looks at someone's face and gains no info from them, then no they cannot have any idea of how the person is feeling and cannot have empathy at that time.

I may get confused at certain expressions and have over simplified this for this example but this is for interactions with strangers with little to no words. Longer conversations with people one sees frequently give more info to gain an understanding of their mood. My point would be to make the attempt to come to a conclusion about the person's mood/feelings and be sympathetic. This leads to empathy.

the frowning is a great example. I could not assume either thing that you apparently did by observing the frown.

I could ask myself if my own frown would mean something negative and I would have to answer "no not necessarily". I could not get past that step, and so further deduction and/or projection wouldn't really be possible.

I've actually had a frown on my face while thinking intensely about something I really like.

Once the other person speaks and clearly states how they feel, then I can react appropriately, or at least close.

edit=>
A big problem with that is that normal people tend to not clearly state things that accurately represent reality. They are very deceptive in how they communicate. This tends to make me avoid responding or interacting at all.

I did not read through all the posts here but I feel the need to comment.

People with Aspergers have just as much, if not more empathy towards others. We just have a hard time showing it and we are sometimes a little slow at absorbing things emotionally related.

Sympathy vs Empathy

Sympathy is an older word, in usage. People were often called sympathetic when someone was suffering something adverse. They would console but not get involved emotionally.

The word empathy was rarely used when I grew up in the 60's and 70's. As I recall, it gained some usage in the 90's and then it quickly overtook sympathy as the word to use. I think this is because empathy sounds less patronizing than sympathy. Perhaps also because these days people want others to know they either feel it too or have been in a similar situation. In older days, feelings were less on display, let alone shared.

Sensitivity, when it comes to observing others, can be related to both sympathy and empathy. Consider it your personal geiger counter, which reads the emotional radiation of other people. Some geiger counters pick up the tiniest nuances, whereas others have to be in meltdown before they register.

Depending on the situation and the agendas in the room, some people won't respond to the emotion on the other's face, because it may impact on the agenda. Picture a business meeting with one of the participants displaying adverse emotions. For the sake of conducting the business and maintaining reputations, some will do all they can to ignore the emotion or minimize its impact. And this happens not just in a business setting.

Whoaa, something particular about that statement just needed some time to sink in I think.
This is significant. I think this is the most significant thing I've read on WP since I joined a couple of months ago.

You are bringing to light the fact that though NTs can read and respond to each other appropriately, they are unable to do it anywhere near consistently with us. That is they don't have a special ability that goes across the board of humanity. It's more a matter of two separate perceptions of reality, which is what I usually say. It's a primary individual intelligence vs a primary system intelligence.

Personally, I have NTs read me completely wrong all the time, and then react completely inappropriately. The only reason I'm labeled as inappropriate is because I'm the minority.
Saying that their inability to read me is a fault is every bit as valid as the reverse situation.

All the bees in the hive claim to have empathy, but if another bug walks into the hive, then they say that bug has no empathy because there is no connection either way between them.

Now I see more in the following quotes from you from the "not interested" thread:





My observations are in line with this.
You seem to be talking about the chemical reward pathways in the brain ultimately driving thinking and behavior patterns that you are describing.

I think it's impressive and could suggest maybe genius, as in ability to see a large interaction of processes.

That is so sweet thank you olympiadis
I get plenty of time to think :p