Jot Posted October 15, 2016 Posted October 15, 2016 I remember listening to a call about social anxiety (first call). If my memory serves me right, at some point Stefan affirmed that "people with good childhoods do not have empathy for people who had bad childhoods" (and as a result developed social anxiety). It is very likely that I am paraphrasing and that this were not exactly his words but I am really confident that he said at least something very similar to this. I remember wondering at that time "well, if they had good childhoods how come they are not empathetic? Is not empathy something that develops naturally as a result of good parenting?!" I know that the word "good" is very broad and vague and does not provide enough context but knowing that Stefan is really precise with his language and does not sugar coat things at all on this matters I would have a hard time believing that when he said "good" he really meant what most society would call "good", which is in fact dysfunctional/abusive. And such...why I am not seeing here?
Boss Posted October 15, 2016 Posted October 15, 2016 Empathy is the ability to understand and share the feelings of another.If you had a good childhood it would be hard to understand and share the feeling of someone who had a bad childhood. Thus bringing social anxiety.
Mister Mister Posted October 16, 2016 Posted October 16, 2016 yes especially if the people with "good childhoods" still have delusions about their society, about the family as an institution and so on, it's hard for them to accept the level of abuse and neglect that exists for so many
dsayers Posted October 16, 2016 Posted October 16, 2016 I wonder if there is a disconnect here between the ideas of sympathy and empathy. A "good childhood" should be a boon for the formation and cultivation of empathy.
brucethecollie Posted October 16, 2016 Posted October 16, 2016 I don't know, the way empathy works, i'd think that with enough communication and attention, empathy would be enabled. I may not feel overwhelming empathy to hear a vaguely worded sad story but to have someone personally recount a sad story with details would likely leave me sobbing for them. Someone with a good childhood who has empathy can "accept the level of abuse and neglect that exists for so many" if they have meaningful conversations with others who share their stories with them. I grew up with type 1 diabetes and surprisingly, the girl with the most empathy for me was the only friend I had who genuinely had nothing big to complain about regarding her parents or upbringing or situation in life. She always asked questions and listened with wide eyes that sometimes would fill up with tears and she sometimes would say "I just don't know how you do it". Honestly, the best support I got during all those years. It wasn't just sympathy either, it was empathy because she'd look out for me at school and when we played varsity Soccer but always managed to do it in a way that didn't strip me of my dignity (can be easy in high school). Her actions proved that she was anticipating what might be helpful to me and to do that she needed to try and put herself in my shoes. At least, that's what I think. 1
Jot Posted October 16, 2016 Author Posted October 16, 2016 yes especially if the people with "good childhoods" still have delusions about their society, about the family as an institution and so on, it's hard for them to accept the level of abuse and neglect that exists for so many Would not they be rational if they had received proper parenting?
Jot Posted October 17, 2016 Author Posted October 17, 2016 I wonder if there is a disconnect here between the ideas of sympathy and empathy. A "good childhood" should be a boon for the formation and cultivation of empathy. In this case you cannot have empathy without having sympathy as well since empathy requires you accurately seeing the reality of what some go through which automatically gives rise to sympathy. But as Stefan put it, it seems that he was of the opinion that people with as he put it "good childhoods" don't have empathy nor sympathy for their less fortunate fellows.
David Ottinger Posted October 18, 2016 Posted October 18, 2016 Sympathy: Dude, that sucks that you went through that. Empathy: Yeah, that verbal abuse can be very taxing on the psyche. I remember when a teacher had a fit and yelled at another student. It was scary. (Btw, this is how someone who didn't have abusive parents can empathize.)
dsayers Posted October 19, 2016 Posted October 19, 2016 Sympathy: Dude, that sucks that you went through that. Empathy: Yeah, that verbal abuse can be very taxing on the psyche. I remember when a teacher had a fit and yelled at another student. It was scary. (Btw, this is how someone who didn't have abusive parents can empathize.) My understanding of sympathy and empathy are the exact opposite; Sympathy is the ability to relate and empathy is the ability to feel without necessarily having the ability to relate. Oh and how is a parent that exposes a child to such a teacher (or schools in general) not abusive? 1
Jaeger Posted October 19, 2016 Posted October 19, 2016 Sympathy: Dude, that sucks that you went through that. Empathy: Yeah, that verbal abuse can be very taxing on the psyche. I remember when a teacher had a fit and yelled at another student. It was scary. (Btw, this is how someone who didn't have abusive parents can empathize.) As someone who had a good childhood this is a wealth of information. Thank's so much for sharing. I do find myself providing just sympathy or trying to down play someones abuse. For that I'm so sorry. I grew up in a house where a kid like Stefan would hang around for food and he always got it. That really hit home because I know my parents suspected the kid's parents of being abusive but never confronted them. I can see now that food and sympathy is not enough. 1
David Ottinger Posted October 19, 2016 Posted October 19, 2016 As someone who had a good childhood this is a wealth of information. Thank's so much for sharing. I do find myself providing just sympathy or trying to down play someones abuse. For that I'm so sorry. I grew up in a house where a kid like Stefan would hang around for food and he always got it. That really hit home because I know my parents suspected the kid's parents of being abusive but never confronted them. I can see now that food and sympathy is not enough. I went through abuse, and even I was unaware of how to connect openly like this. Vulnerability is difficult to step into. And it's even worse when you have a lot of responsibilities pulling you in multiple directions already. But, thanks to Brene Brown's work, I've been able to slow it down and understand others more compassionately. Just like will power is a muscle that can be trained, this ability to connect with others on a deep emotional level can be exercised, too. And, as a result, you end up expanding the bandwidth, to put it visually. You can find her TED talks, but her books on audible are the best. I recommend, "The Power of Vulnerability: Teachings of Authenticity, Connection, and Courage" http://www.audible.com/pd/Self-Development/The-Power-of-Vulnerability-Audiobook/B00CYKDYBQ/ref=a_search_c4_1_2_srTtl?qid=1476896807&sr=1-2 My understanding of sympathy and empathy are the exact opposite; Sympathy is the ability to relate and empathy is the ability to feel without necessarily having the ability to relate. Oh and how is a parent that exposes a child to such a teacher (or schools in general) not abusive? I picked up that definition from Stefan myself. But, I've expanded on that definition even further due to Brene Brown's work as expressed in the post above. So, I look at it all differently now. In that sympathy example you quoted, there was relating, but it was absent of adopting the feelings in the moment because to actually feel requires one to tap into that emotional framework rather than simply acknowledging it, and that adoption of another's emotional state can be painful -- which some people don't want to step into for various reasons. So, one can relate (i.e. sympathize) with others without actually resonating emotionally with the individual. "I acknowledge what you're feeling, and I acknowledge I've felt that before, too." That's all it takes to relate, i.e. sympathize. From here some one might crack a joke to release tension, which moves us away from that emotional state. And, that's a coping mechanism as well. However, it does not give closure. Only love can bring closure. And that requires someone to connect and feel it with the individual so that the individual knows s/he is not alone. And, that's real empathy in its fullest form. The rest are just stages of it, but never the full embrace of emotional connection. One cool thing is that there are people who see colors due to synesthesia, and that's how you get people who see someone's "aura". Feeling blue? 1
gemccarty Posted October 19, 2016 Posted October 19, 2016 I remember listening to a call about social anxiety (first call). If my memory serves me right, at some point Stefan affirmed that "people with good childhoods do not have empathy for people who had bad childhoods" (and as a result developed social anxiety). It is very likely that I am paraphrasing and that this were not exactly his words but I am really confident that he said at least something very similar to this. I remember wondering at that time "well, if they had good childhoods how come they are not empathetic? Is not empathy something that develops naturally as a result of good parenting?!" I know that the word "good" is very broad and vague and does not provide enough context but knowing that Stefan is really precise with his language and does not sugar coat things at all on this matters I would have a hard time believing that when he said "good" he really meant what most society would call "good", which is in fact dysfunctional/abusive. And such...why I am not seeing here? Go to the 54:00 mark and see (statement starts around 54:30). Stef did not say that even remotely. Here are some direct quotes: "There are two kinds of people in the world: those who are traumatized and those who reject those who are traumatized. And the second consider themselves very good people." "It's horrifying to me... um... the degree to which supposedly healthy people from supposedly healthy backgrounds have zero fuckin' empathy for the victims of child abuse." "It is the great horrifying... horrifying... disorder of the world." "[...] if you're so happy and healthy and fine, where is your compassion for people less fortunate than yourself?" "The indifference of the supposedly healthy people to the victims of child abuse, their discomfort when somebody says 'I had a bad childhood'... do you know that is fundamentally what allows abusers to hurt their children?" ----------------------------------- Seeing the quotes above, I can only suspect slanderous intent, as he said the opposite of what you suggested. I think I can fairly say you need to review the source before posting. ----------------------------------- Empathy is formed very early on in our development. Stef has referenced this with the difference between himself and his brother: Stef having an attentive and loving caregiver (who later named a son of hers after him) as an infant and his brother being "cared" for by his mother. The topic "Why don't people with 'good' childhoods have empathy?" is begging the question. Why? Even though you have used quotation here to mystify the term, it has a meaning. It can't be used to describe any child rearing practice except peaceful parenting. I'm going to give you the respect of not having to explain that statement here. Now, there is the question of degrees of evil, and how do people escape their childhoods with any empathy? Well, the answer is above. Some parents are caring early on, but begin outright abuse around the age of 2. By this time empathy, mirror neurons etc. are formed. There are the considerations of eye contact, attention to needs, and mirroring that affect the degree of empathy that is allowed to develop during infancy. Any absence of these needs is abuse. Whatever degree these things were lacking is the degree to which empathy development is hindered. Also, factors of intelligence and genetics play into this logically. If I can process information faster, my brain can construct the complex systems of empathy faster with less input. We wouldn't say a mentally challenged person has the capacity for empathy, even if they were raised relatively peacefully. Sympathy: Dude, that sucks that you went through that. Empathy: Yeah, that verbal abuse can be very taxing on the psyche. I remember when a teacher had a fit and yelled at another student. It was scary. (Btw, this is how someone who didn't have abusive parents can empathize.) Sympathy is a branch of empathy that includes parallel or similar situations. It doesn't need to be complicated by intellectualization. Thanks for reading! 1
Jot Posted October 20, 2016 Author Posted October 20, 2016 Go to the 54:00 mark and see (statement starts around 54:30). Stef did not say that even remotely. Here are some direct quotes: "There are two kinds of people in the world: those who are traumatized and those who reject those who are traumatized. And the second consider themselves very good people." "It's horrifying to me... um... the degree to which supposedly healthy people from supposedly healthy backgrounds have zero fuckin' empathy for the victims of child abuse." "It is the great horrifying... horrifying... disorder of the world." "[...] if you're so happy and healthy and fine, where is your compassion for people less fortunate than yourself?" "The indifference of the supposedly healthy people to the victims of child abuse, their discomfort when somebody says 'I had a bad childhood'... do you know that is fundamentally what allows abusers to hurt their children?" ----------------------------------- Seeing the quotes above, I can only suspect slanderous intent, as he said the opposite of what you suggested. I think I can fairly say you need to review the source before posting. ----------------------------------- Empathy is formed very early on in our development. Stef has referenced this with the difference between himself and his brother: Stef having an attentive and loving caregiver (who later named a son of hers after him) as an infant and his brother being "cared" for by his mother. The topic "Why don't people with 'good' childhoods have empathy?" is begging the question. Why? Even though you have used quotation here to mystify the term, it has a meaning. It can't be used to describe any child rearing practice except peaceful parenting. I'm going to give you the respect of not having to explain that statement here. Now, there is the question of degrees of evil, and how do people escape their childhoods with any empathy? Well, the answer is above. Some parents are caring early on, but begin outright abuse around the age of 2. By this time empathy, mirror neurons etc. are formed. There are the considerations of eye contact, attention to needs, and mirroring that affect the degree of empathy that is allowed to develop during infancy. Any absence of these needs is abuse. Whatever degree these things were lacking is the degree to which empathy development is hindered. Also, factors of intelligence and genetics play into this logically. If I can process information faster, my brain can construct the complex systems of empathy faster with less input. We wouldn't say a mentally challenged person has the capacity for empathy, even if they were raised relatively peacefully. Sympathy is a branch of empathy that includes parallel or similar situations. It doesn't need to be complicated by intellectualization. Thanks for reading! I am not sure that what I tried paraphrasing appeared at that time mark, it has been 2 years since I have listened to it so I would have to relisten and make sure.
AccuTron Posted October 20, 2016 Posted October 20, 2016 One cool thing is that there are people who see colors due to synesthesia, and that's how you get people who see someone's "aura". Feeling blue? With respect to genuine synesthesia, I believe the seeing of supposed aura is because all eyeballs move around slightly and quickly and unconsciously, due to the need to keep each retinal cell with a changing data stream or the cell will more or less gray out. Thus, looking at a person will mean that the person is still but the eyes are moving, and the small area around the person is where the retina is moving back and forth, getting as it were mixed signals, and the subsequent perception of color(s). Staring at a shape with strong color and then moving the eyes to a bland space will temporarily induce the perception of the same shape with the "opposite" color; this is a similar effect. Interpreting the colors is then voodoo.
David Ottinger Posted October 20, 2016 Posted October 20, 2016 Sympathy is a branch of empathy that includes parallel or similar situations. It doesn't need to be complicated by intellectualization. I don't find intellectualizing complicates things. It leads to understanding how the world works, thus expanding one's choices which promotes free will. So, I find no reason to share your aversion to it.
gemccarty Posted October 20, 2016 Posted October 20, 2016 I don't find intellectualizing complicates things. It leads to understanding how the world works, thus expanding one's choices which promotes free will. So, I find no reason to share your aversion to it. I think we're working with different definitions of "intellectualization". I was speaking in the psychological sense of the term. Here is a formal definition: "In psychology, intellectualization is a defense mechanism where reasoning is used to block confrontation with an unconscious conflict and its associated emotional stress – where thinking is used to avoid feeling. It involves removing one's self, emotionally, from a stressful event (Wikipedia)." In this particular case he expressed what I understand to be the psychological phenomenon of intellectualization. I'm so sorry I did not make this clear in my post. --------------------------------------------------- Also, let's forget for the moment the delineation I've put forth between "sympathy" and "empathy". There is so much conflicting information about the two terms that I refuse to even try to apply "sympathy" to anything, as it is either described as a condescending and patronizing feeling of pity, or an idealization (in the psychological sense) of others who are suffering. Many go on to explain how it is similar to "rapport" (understanding between people; common feeling), which I find mind-boggling. So let's just forgo the term for now. The claimed intellectualization will be my focus for the remainder of the post. We can open a separate thread on sympathy if you would like to further discuss that topic. Sympathy: Dude, that sucks that you went through that. Empathy: Yeah, that verbal abuse can be very taxing on the psyche. I remember when a teacher had a fit and yelled at another student. It was scary. (Btw, this is how someone who didn't have abusive parents can empathize.) David Ottinger describes the subject's own experience in this example of empathy. This is not in line with an actual communication of empathy. Empathy is one's ability to understand and share the feelings of another, not draw an intellectual parallel based upon your own experience. He has avoided the experience of the person he is talking to, and moved the topic to his own intellectual analysis of the situation. Feeling the other person's experience in the moment, as they describe it, is very different from this description. Unless he expresses his experience of empathy, I don't know about it. He certainly has not communicated the presence of any empathy in this example, or accurately explained how "someone who didn't have abusive parents can empathize". It is more likely that a person having a difficult time communicating their empathy, if present, would communicate in a way that is similar to the example David Ottinger has provided; which is not a crime, I am only pointing out the reality of his example. Note: I don't mean to put down David Ottinger with my replies, as empathy is a very difficult concept. It's not easy to put empathy into an example, as it is an internal process of the mind. However, the concepts put forth in Real Time Relationships not only make this possible, but exceedingly easy (with practice) to outwardly express empathy. I would highly recommend reading the book if you haven't already. Does that make sense? 1
David Ottinger Posted October 23, 2016 Posted October 23, 2016 I think we're working with different definitions of "intellectualization". I was speaking in the psychological sense of the term. Here is a formal definition: "In psychology, intellectualization is a defense mechanism where reasoning is used to block confrontation with an unconscious conflict and its associated emotional stress – where thinking is used to avoid feeling. It involves removing one's self, emotionally, from a stressful event (Wikipedia)." In this particular case he expressed what I understand to be the psychological phenomenon of intellectualization. I'm so sorry I did not make this clear in my post. Thank you for the clarification. Although, I still find there is an aversion to intellectualizing being expressed here? Rather than understanding it as a defense mechanism, I understand it as a coping mechanism. One that is quite resourceful. Now, I do understand that people can utilize this resource in order to avoid feeling something, which can be construed as defensive, but I fail to see how that's happening here. So, my point is that intellectualizing events does not automatically make one defensive. Also, let's forget for the moment the delineation I've put forth between "sympathy" and "empathy". There is so much conflicting information about the two terms that I refuse to even try to apply "sympathy" to anything, as it is either described as a condescending and patronizing feeling of pity, or an idealization (in the psychological sense) of others who are suffering. Many go on to explain how it is similar to "rapport" (understanding between people; common feeling), which I find mind-boggling. So let's just forgo the term for now. The claimed intellectualization will be my focus for the remainder of the post. We can open a separate thread on sympathy if you would like to further discuss that topic. David Ottinger describes the subject's own experience in this example of empathy. This is not in line with an actual communication of empathy. Empathy is one's ability to understand and share the feelings of another, not draw an intellectual parallel based upon your own experience. He has avoided the experience of the person he is talking to, and moved the topic to his own intellectual analysis of the situation. Feeling the other person's experience in the moment, as they describe it, is very different from this description. Unless he expresses his experience of empathy, I don't know about it. He certainly has not communicated the presence of any empathy in this example, or accurately explained how "someone who didn't have abusive parents can empathize". It is more likely that a person having a difficult time communicating their empathy, if present, would communicate in a way that is similar to the example David Ottinger has provided; which is not a crime, I am only pointing out the reality of his example. Note: I don't mean to put down David Ottinger with my replies, as empathy is a very difficult concept. It's not easy to put empathy into an example, as it is an internal process of the mind. However, the concepts put forth in Real Time Relationships not only make this possible, but exceedingly easy (with practice) to outwardly express empathy. I would highly recommend reading the book if you haven't already. Does that make sense? I respectfully disagree with your analysis. The question was in essence, "How can person 'A' feel (i.e. empathize) with person 'B' when person 'A' has never gone through something as traumatic as person 'B' has?" Well, we all have the same assortment of emotions, so what you're dealing with here is scale. And, to put it analogously, we're an exposed nerve to the world. So, the person who went through trauma has an imprint like a groove on a vinyl if you want to consider it harmonically. Or, you can consider it like a foot print in sand verse an asteroid crater. The point is that each individual has experienced these emotions on some level, and if the two individuals are in person, mirror neurons will do much of the work for you. But, if one is genuinely trying to tap into the depth of another's experience, especially a deep fear or sadness, then they need to find a way to simulate it within themselves. Funny thing is that when it's a great feeling of joy everyone has no problem jumping into those waters and seeing how far (i.e. deep) the feeling goes. But, when it's fear or sadness or grief expressed, there is a hesitancy or reluctancy because the observer's flight response is kicking in to avoid pain for the self or even the other individual. Exposure to traumatic events lead to the development of coping mechanism to process these events so we can respond better and survive. So, someone who hasn't gone through such an experience doesn't have these tools developed in such a specialized way. And, my example served to provide one. And with that coping mechanism they can explore these deep emotions safely by finding a way to connect. Basically, everyone has experienced the full spectrum of our emotional capacity on some level, except maybe not in magnitude. Thus, everyone (psychopaths aside) can connect to the experience by calling up within themselves events that triggered those emotions and then build from there via imagination while remaining vulnerable in the moment. That initial connection is all you need if you're truly genuine in feeling the experience. That moment in my example where the individual says, "It was scary," that individual has stepped into those emotions. It may be a fractal version of the host experience, but nonetheless you're mirroring it, and thus feeling it. And, now you're a guest at this other's emotional paradigm. Enjoy the ride.
Recommended Posts