I have always had a love-hate relationship with empathy. Empathy is commonly defined as the ability to understand and share the feelings of another. I love the idea of seeing things from someone else’s perspective. Fyodor Dostoyevsky said, “Nothing is easier than to denounce the evildoer; nothing is more difficult than to understand him.” I agree! In fact, you could say that I’m obsessed with ‘the other point of view’.
I am frequently the advocate for understanding the ‘enemy’. As a manager, I often put myself in the shoes of non-management. As a heterosexual male who does not believe in gender fluidity, I can still understand the LGBT fight for acceptance. As an advocate for the life of the foetus, I also understand the pro-choice viewpoint. You can see why I am frequently in no man’s land; fully accepted in neither camp, which suits me fine because I rather think that’s a major quality of Jesus. He did not sign up with the religious elite or the evildoers. He hung out with sinners and went to the synagogue. He was on everyone’s side and no-one’s side.
But I digress… You see I am fine up to the understanding someone else’s emotions part; it’s the sharing those emotions part that eludes me. To illustrate my point, there’s a video on empathy by Brene Brown (which you can watch here). In the video Brene identifies 4 qualities of empathy:
- Taking another’s perspective.
- Staying out of judgment.
- Recognizing and understanding someone else’s emotions.
- Communicating your understanding of that emotion.
I think I’m good until that dastardly #4. I’m like the deer in the video who responds to someone saying, “My marriage is falling apart”, with, “At least you have a marriage.” I’m the silver lining, pull yourself up by your bootstraps, get off your keister, ok enough with this pity party kinda guy.
So, I’ve been going around for most of my life thinking that I have this major character flaw – a severe lack of empathy until…. I came across Paul Bloom; a psychologist who argues that empathy is not a helpful trait. Paul says that when we act based on our emotions we are not contributing positively to the other person or society in general. According to Paul, making decisions based on emotion clouds our judgment. For example, if we were choosing which charities to give some money to and if we gave to the one that pulled most on our heart-strings (like the baby dying from malnutrition) then our philanthropy would not necessarily be aimed where it could make the biggest difference for the most number of people which is a much better decision-making criteria. In summary, to quote Bloom, “…empathy is prone to biases that render moral judgment potentially harmful.”
So, I was feeling a lot better about myself until I did a little more digging (i.e. web-research) and found that there were many other experts that disagreed with Bloom. There were many good arguments but, in the end, I distilled a way of reasoning that made the most sense to me. I went back to the dictionary (and Brown’s) definition. Neither definition actually speaks to taking action. As Brene says, empathy is not about responding, it is about connecting.
Of course, this takes me back to square one…almost. I believe that empathy should be a first step. Our first step should always be just to understand; to connect. However, I also believe that there is a place for a rational response; a step two. Maybe a night out with the boys or a counselling appointment or just a pep talk to prod from pity party to problem solving. Experts say that positive action rightfully comes from cognitive empathy (understanding another viewpoint) whereas emotional empathy (sharing feelings) is useful to build relationships is not useful for decision-making.
I think my shortfall, however, is that I leap over step one straight to problem-solving. What about you? If you were in a deep funk, what would be the words that you’d want to hear from your best friend?
Joyfully,
Copyright 2018, Matik Nicholls. All rights reserved.
