Lack of Empathy

[vze57564]

Recently, a close friend of mine said I am severely lacking in empathy.

 

When pressed for a definition, he stated this was on the grounds that when I argue opposing viewpoints, I do so as if it is an incontrovertible truth and that it is done without having experienced it from their end. In one example, we cited a conversation I had on parenting, insofar as I had no business telling other people how to raise their child since that is deeply personal to them and could be upsetting; much more so that I have had no experience as a parent. I was also able to get the position from him that I should value of people's feelings about an idea rather than argue it on its merits; that ideas are not quite as easily separated from an individual (their ideas are part of them). I also think he had instructed that I should show respect to other people's ideas, lest I upset them and thus fail at being empathetic.

 

I've pointed to a few holes in the arguments, such that I argue for peaceful parenting and do not force people but merely share with them a case as best I can for not spanking, circumsizing and so forth. I also am of the position it is people and not ideas that are to be respected. Finally, I think he is making a case that I am better done, socially at least, to conform with others rather than to expound an opposing viewpoint. I was unsure how to work this idea out, if I was lacking in empathy or if he had an ulterior motive. I am evaluating things from a universal sense as well and dont think some of his premises are applicable in that sense.

 

I am asking for some perspective on this, if possible. Let me know in the responses.

[Slavik]

It seems rather funny to me when people say that (you are not a parent so you have no idea).   It is true that some of us have no experience in being a parent, but I would argue that all of us have a great deal of experience in being a child...

[vze57564]

Right, I had that to say, that I too was a child and there were things I didn't like, as well as the catch and release analogy with the rabid dog that I would create and my responsibility for it, if I took in a puppy and abused it through life. The child eventually goes into the world with whatever dysfunction was put into it. Knowing what is bad and good, I have presented others that information but my concern is whether or not my friend is right whether such actions are unempathetic and an overreach of my business with someone else's life.

[dsayers]

When pressed for a definition, he stated this was on the grounds that when I argue opposing viewpoints, I do so as if it is an incontrovertible truth and that it is done without having experienced it from their end.

 

Did he experience this from your end or just state it as if it is an incontrovertible truth?

 

In one example, we cited a conversation I had on parenting, insofar as I had no business telling other people how to raise their child since that is deeply personal to them and could be upsetting

 

Does he have any business telling other people what to talk about since that is deeply personal to them and could be upsetting?

 

I was also able to get the position from him that I should value of people's feelings about an idea rather than argue it on its merits; that ideas are not quite as easily separated from an individual (their ideas are part of them).

 

But if your ideas are that the truth is important and that the more delicate the project, the greater the care required (parenting), why would he try to separate those ideas from you while cautioning against separating people from their ideas?

 

Look, I don't know you or the guy, so take what I say with a grain of salt. What I do know is

 

1) If somebody tells you that you lack empathy, they could be trying to help you or they could be trying to erase you.

 

2) Your creation of this thread and consideration of the possibility of the validity of his claim is empathetic.

 

3) He utilized the above universality fails.

 

Given these items, I would say it's more likely that his action was meant to manage his own anxiety in being connected to you while you are doing things that make HIM uncomfortable.

 

The whole "you're not a parent" is such a goofy and desperate plea. Not just for the reason Slavik pointed out. It asserts that you need to be intimately involved with something in order to accept the latest technology regarding it. This literally bars all acquisition of knowledge from birth. The claim disposes of truth altogether. How does your sperm unifying with an egg have any bearing on 2+2=4?

 

No, the only difference between being a parent and not is not being a parent means you can actually disregard the science if you choose to. Not the other way around.

[vze57564]

Good points. I noted a few universality fails with his argument, however the possibility of him managing his anxiety probably explains what makes me feel uneasy about it all. Even now I continue to have a visceral reaction to it, similar to a great sadness.

 

I did start thread with the possibility that someone could in fact say I am wrong for what I am doing and would have to correct my behavior, should a strong enough case be made to that effect. Lacking critical thinkers in my inner circle, I thought this a forum where I could get clearer perspectives.

 

As to whether he experienced childhood from my end, insofar as what I have told him yes, but he was not technically in the house at all times; hence limiting the experience. To the effect that Stef has provided studies about the deleterious effects of child abuse and neglect, I have agreed and shared with others in hopes of perhaps making the lives of those children better. These can range from new parents, to parents to be, to already existing ones. Sure, people may disagree, and some have. Others were very receptive and others didn't care or dismissed me. I am not forcing anybody to take my views, if anything I might not be communicating them in a way he deems proper or more so that he contends I have no business talking with others about that at all.

 

I did have trouble figuring what he felt were the bounds of what I could and could not talk about in conversation. It appeared to me that he is more valuing the other person's feelings on it as opposed to whether they could be the right or wrong idea. If the other person is made upset, there is a degree of social ostracism I will get as a result of me holding and putting out a controversial view on something like parenting, politics or religion. He expressed this would be bad for me, that I would be pushing away potential allies and friends and so forth.

 

I questioned how this could be if all ideas are to be respected, that would mean so would mine. Also, with the assumption that people get into ideas outside if a rational basis and questioning, what respect could be given to an idea that hasn't been fully thought through? If people are just parroting what is popular or out of tradition, or PC are those ideas similarly deserving of respect?

[Pepin]

Yet, you are showing a great deal of empathy for the children, which is far more fundamental and important than empathy for the one who does harm to the children. It is not just limited to that, as you are showing courage in making yourself publicly vulnerable for your empathy, and demonstrate heroism for providing reason and evidence with expectation of rejection and personal scorn. All that is being shown in your friend's claim is their capability to project.

[vze57564]

I feared that possibility. Guess I should talk with him about that.

[LanceD]

Empathy is an important thing to have as a person. This fact allows people to twist and confuse the definition of empathy in order to benefit themselves. This is an obvious example of the phenomena in action.

 

Your buddy thinks empathizing with bad parents means excusing their behavior because "reasons". He is acting like just because someone feels an emotion we need to empathize and excuse the actions they take afterward. This is utter nonsense of course since it totally circumvents morals and virtue by creating a situation where your actions are excused based on your emotional state and your motivation.

 

True empathy would mean being understanding and sympathetic to the abusive parents in regards to their own childhood's. While still holding them accountable for how they act to towards their own children.

[Josh F]

What was his childhood like?

[vze57564]

What was his childhood like?

I never spoke to him specificaly about it but I remember him having trouble with his father most of the time. I am unsure if he was yelled at or hit. We went to elementary school together and I remember having an in and off relationship usually at my instigation. We also participated in bowling league together for a time. As to the childhood with his parents I could not say.I also remember he hated his middle name a lot. His cousins were also quite the characters, one that went wild and another that had anger issues. I remember him being active in the church. He never reported any big problems socially or when he went to school, that was more on my end.If there was any lack of empathy, it would surely be with the way I treated him then, but not for the reasons he stated in the most recent conversation. I wonder if that might be it, actually; the impression I might have left him while we grew up.

Empathy is an important thing to have as a person. This fact allows people to twist and confuse the definition of empathy in order to benefit themselves. This is an obvious example of the phenomena in action.Your buddy thinks empathizing with bad parents means excusing their behavior because "reasons". He is acting like just because someone feels an emotion we need to empathize and excuse the actions they take afterward. This is utter nonsense of course since it totally circumvents morals and virtue by creating a situation where your actions are excused based on your emotional state and your motivation.True empathy would mean being understanding and sympathetic to the abusive parents in regards to their own childhood's. While still holding them accountable for how they act to towards their own children.

I think he was establishing bounds I should follow when speaking to others. You are right in identifying he cares more for the feelings of the people I broach this with as compared to whether or not the parents know what is right, which was what puzzled me about his assertion. It would follow that I would make someone less comfortable if I told them they should not spank or yell, but what then comes of the child? As one that had a bad experience growing up, I see the bad effects of how I was raised had on me, and if I can help someone with the information I have learned, then I think I will be of better help. Its a trade off of the short term pain of realizing and correcting the mistakes of ones parenting or preventing them, than a lifetime of sadness that results when children are raised nonpeacefully. I guess he does not see that as empathetic. I will pursue the previous response though if this may be him getting at me for what I did in the past.

[LanceD]

Citing empathy as a reason for inaction is another excuse a weak person would make. They are afraid of the potential conflict that would result and cite being empathetic as an excuse.

 

Avoiding confrontation over moral and principle issues due to fear and empathy towards another's feelings leads to stagnation and eventual moral decline in society. You can see evidence of that all around western societies.

 

Your friend lacks confidence in his own convictions, or lacks a basic set of morals all together. I doubt a simple conversation will do much to help him. He needs to learn to reason and accept universal morality as a truth before he will get any better.

[vze57564]

Citing empathy as a reason for inaction is another excuse a weak person would make. They are afraid of the potential conflict that would result and cite being empathetic as an excuse. Avoiding confrontation over moral and principle issues due to fear and empathy towards another's feelings leads to stagnation and eventual moral decline in society. You can see evidence of that all around western societies. Your friend lacks confidence in his own convictions, or lacks a basic set of morals all together. I doubt a simple conversation will do much to help him. He needs to learn to reason and accept universal morality as a truth before he will get any better.

That would explain the universality fail. Perhaps he is wrong in his advice and that he is hiding something else entirely unrelated to whether or not I have empathy. It makes sense the more I think on this, insofar as people will be upset, especially of they are bad and do bad things willingly or even if they don't know and it upsets them because now they have to backtrack and make up for what they did. I should definitely not be empathetic with people that do bad onto others, much less should I value feelings if there are universally preferable principles being abrogated. Maybe I will explore that avenue with him. I have my doubts it is malicious, but who knows.

[LanceD]

It doesn't need to be directly malicious.

 

It could be tied in to an inability to properly think, some people legitimately believe emotions can be used as justification for wrong doing.

 

Or it could be a simple self defense mechanism People who don't want to be held accountable can instead choose to excuse and forgive the same behaviors in others because it prevents them from seeing themselves as they truly are.

 

Regardless I hope you confront him on his failures in thinking and I'm excited to hear what you have to say afterwards. A question I hope you ask is what he thinks of children who hit other children and what an appropriate parental response would be. I remember when my son hit a girl and how angry I was at him until the thought struck me, "I hit him for doing wrong why the hell wouldn't he start hitting people he thinks wronged him?!" That thought exposed me to my own moral relativism and started me down the road I'm on today

[vze57564]

It doesn't need to be directly malicious.It could be tied in to an inability to properly think, some people legitimately believe emotions can be used as justification for wrong doing.Or it could be a simple self defense mechanism People who don't want to be held accountable can instead choose to excuse and forgive the same behaviors in others because it prevents them from seeing themselves as they truly are.Regardless I hope you confront him on his failures in thinking and I'm excited to hear what you have to say afterwards. A question I hope you ask is what he thinks of children who hit other children and what an appropriate parental response would be. I remember when my son hit a girl and how angry I was at him until the thought struck me, "I hit him for doing wrong why the hell wouldn't he start hitting people he thinks wronged him?!" That thought exposed me to my own moral relativism and started me down the road I'm on today

Good point. I will ask him about it. Thank you for your perspective on this. I will ask him about that with the possibility that it could be a cognitive issue or defensive posturing. I am sorry to hear that you had to go about learning about your relativism in that manner and wish you well in your efforts for self knowledge. I get the sense I should approach him socratically as to best elicit what the real issue is.

[Carl Green]

I recently listened to Podcast 362: Forget About Offense and this topic reminded me of something Stefan brought up at around 40:00 about people having an issue with certainty.  It was more about someone having an issue with Stefan laughing at a person's beliefs (I think, or something along those lines) but it might have some relevance.

[vze57564]

Thanks. I will put it on now.

[vze57564]

I just finished it. Youre right, it was a sign of weakness on his part. Distilling the argument he is putting on me is that he wants me to respect other people's ideas and beliefs otherwise I will upset them. Perhaps he does not like that I show certainty, especially where he disagrees. Thank you for the podcast. I will be sure to hold on tightly to the mantra it is people to be respected, not ideas. The feelings one has to their beliefs are moot, only whether the belief is logical, verifiable and so forth should matter.

[TDB]

OTOH, it is hard to convince anyone of anything if they perceive you as accusing them of something. Not sure this applies in your case or not.

 

Someone was saying something like that on the school sucks podcast a few weeks ago, you have to build a bridge of empathy so you can drive your logic and evidence accross the bridge. If people perceive you as accusing them, they are more likely to react defensively than too give you a fair hearing.

[vze57564]

Yeah, on a recent podcast I heard, I concluded the way I would be able to reach others is through the Socratic method.  I will do this, much like I do with religious people, such that I will assume they have lost or have a diminished capacity for how to think and that questions are less direct than statements or assertions.

[xSocrates]

I would probably agree with this friend. I see this in many people, especially with those in this community, who simply cannot put themselves in someone else's shoes when they have opposing arguments. It's not a statement  that you're both right, it's merely humility and being better able to engage people in important subjects.