I've seen a couple of times recently where authors have are are planning on writing about the concept of taking empathy so far that it becomes harmful. While I haven't had a chance to dig to deeply into their research, I saw this earlier today and found it interesting. I'm seeing people "describing this inclination as “untethered empathy,” which is “a concern for the hurting and vulnerable that is unmoored from truth, goodness, and reality.”"
I think that this could be interesting. The notion that it is possible to unmoor empathy from "truth, goodness, and reality" seems to describe some of what we see in our culture today.
It's something that I plan on digging deeper into going forward.
https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/the-beauty-and-abuse-of-empathy
https://medium.com/@sexvangelicals/what-is-untethered-empathy-625d8701e3d3
https://andynaselli.com/how-empathy-can-be-sinful
https://www.biblicalcounselingcoalition.org/2021/10/29/avoiding-untethered-compassion-re-engaging-in-church-after-church-hurts/
https://dougwils.com/books-and-culture/s7-engaging-the-culture/a-pinch-of-incense-to-the-genius-of-democracy-2.html
I know that in the past when I've posted on something that I'd found interesting or that had drawn my attention, that Dan has jumped to to conclusion that I wholeheartedly agree with everything that everyone has said on a particular subject. As in the past, this conclusion is not True. This term and concept is new to me, and I posted a few links for reference. Until I dig deeper, it's too soon to draw any conclusions.
But, at first glance, the notion the empathy could be misused or could be harmful does make some sort of intuitive sense. Of course, that doesn't really mean much.
16 comments:
I guess there's really nothing which can't be abused. I'm not familiar with this concept about which your post focuses, either. Thanks for the links.
I assume this is Art, because everyone else except Dan posts under their Google account, and I can't imagine Dan ever saying what you just said.
Until I dig deeper, it's too soon to draw any conclusions.But, at first glance, the notion the empathy could be misused or could be harmful does make some sort of intuitive sense. Of course, that doesn't really mean much.
I support helpful, grace-full empathy.
I'm wary of or oppose thoughtless or unhelpful empathy.
I looked at a couple of your articles.
Here's one from Psychology Today saying some similar things:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/between-the-lines/202107/is-empathy-always-good-thing
The article notes that some people - abusers, narcissists, sociopaths, sexual predators, con artists, etc - are aware of the trait of empathy and will sometimes use and abuse that natural concern to exploit people.
I'm opposed to that and would counsel to use empathy wisely. Be graceful and concerned, but don't be foolish. We should also be aware that research shows that humans tend to be more naturally empathetic to people like us - think of political parties, for instance - and less empathetic towards people not like us - think of the homeless or refugees.
We should also be aware of that reality and not be taken in by predators who are seeking to exploit our natural empathy because we identify with the predator. That's one of the traits of conmen and predators of all sorts, that they specifically use words and phrases and ideas that make us think, "Oh, he's one of us... we should feel sympathy for him, send him money, defend him..."
Good post and wise warnings, Craig. Well done. I'd say your intuition is correct. There IS data in psychological and mental health fields that supports the point you're making, that not all empathy is good. My only caveat to your articles is that when talking about data and wise advice on topics related to the human mind, it's fine to read what some religious thinkers think, but it's also important to look to experts in the fields of the human mind, mental health experts, psychologists, etc.
More...
https://www.apa.org/monitor/2021/11/feature-cultivating-empathy
https://uxdesign.cc/what-can-researchers-learn-from-con-artists-7e6ec17a630a
Well, thanks Dan. That is so unusual and uncharacteristic that I'm not sure how to deal with it.
That is so unusual and uncharacteristic that I'm not sure how to deal with it.
You can have some empathy and say, Dan IS trying to be helpful sometimes and making reasonable points when agreeing with me sometime. Or just offer the thanks, as you did.
Good enough.
Yes, Craig...that was me who started off this thread of comments. I've now returned from my trip to Hellinois and can resume commenting from my aged desk top computer.
I know how to deal with Dan's comments. It's again filled with attacks and accusations. Who do think he's referencing when he speaks like this:
"We should also be aware that research shows that humans tend to be more naturally empathetic to people like us - think of political parties, for instance - and less empathetic towards people not like us - think of the homeless or refugees."? ...particularly that last bit about the homeless or refugees? And then there's this:
"We should also be aware of that reality and not be taken in by predators who are seeking to exploit our natural empathy because we identify with the predator. That's one of the traits of conmen and predators of all sorts, that they specifically use words and phrases and ideas that make us think, "Oh, he's one of us... we should feel sympathy for him, send him money, defend him...""
The party Dan supports is expert in this sort of thing, but I've no doubt he's not speaking of Obama. In fact, his comments are true manifestations of that which he says he opposes. He's feigning empathy to draw a favorable response.
Anyway, I always had difficulties with the word "empathy" and looked it up again to see the difference between it and "sympathy". The word is much newer than I would have thought and has quickly evolved to become what "sympathy" had for centuries been used to denote:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/sympathy-empathy-difference
Still haven't gotten to the links you posted. Thought I should add that.
Dan,
I hate to break it to you, but you exhausted any empathy I might have had for you a long, long time ago.
Art,
Glad you're back to normal.
While I suspect that this trait spans a wide swath of people, it's interesting how many of those I've seen who practice it are on the progressive side of things. I suspect that like so many things Dan is trying to pretend like this is exclusively or primarily something of "the right".
Yeah, there used to be a difference, but that's been almost erased for most.
I hate to break it to you, but you exhausted any empathy I might have had for you a long, long time ago.
Well, that would be another difference between you and I. I still believe in you and your Christianity and your ability to rise above partisan disagreements.
Much love to you, brother.
And to answer your last comment, no. Of course, I don't think this con man nature of manipulating empathy is exclusively or primarily a thing of "the right." Nor do I think it is primarily a thing of the left, of course. It is a less common and unhealthy moral, mental and emotional deviation of those with forms of narcissism and sociopathy and other disorders and, perhaps, just those intent to be bad and consumed with hedonism.
My conservative parents, family or people I was raised with were never - not a single one of them - driven to engage in narcissistic manipulating of empathy.
George W Bush, for instance, had not a drop of him in this malignant manipulation at this level or scale.
Of course, that is not what I think or "pretend." And again, I believe in the best of you, in spite of your sometime inability to read my words and come to an exactly wrong conclusion. I don't think you do it malignantly, just in ignorance and as a sincere mistake.
"Well, that would be another difference between you and I. I still believe in you and your Christianity and your ability to rise above partisan disagreements."
Unfortunately, I fail to see any evidence that you can consider anything beyond the limited scope of your biased, partisan, narrative.
"Much love to you, brother."
I'm left to compare random comments like this, you the bulk of your comments and am forced to conclude that your concept of how to express things like love and grace is severely flawed.
"And to answer your last comment, no. Of course, I don't think this con man nature of manipulating empathy is exclusively or primarily a thing of "the right." Nor do I think it is primarily a thing of the left, of course. It is a less common and unhealthy moral, mental and emotional deviation of those with forms of narcissism and sociopathy and other disorders and, perhaps, just those intent to be bad and consumed with hedonism."
Very ecumenical of you. I suspect that'll last until you see an advantage of ascribing it primarily to the "right" or until you find one "right wing" example to use exclusively.
"My conservative parents, family or people I was raised with were never - not a single one of them - driven to engage in narcissistic manipulating of empathy."
So?
"George W Bush, for instance, had not a drop of him in this malignant manipulation at this level or scale."
So?
"Of course, that is not what I think or "pretend." And again, I believe in the best of you, in spite of your sometime inability to read my words and come to an exactly wrong conclusion. I don't think you do it malignantly, just in ignorance and as a sincere mistake."
How condescending of you. The notion that everyone who disagrees with you is ignorant or mistaken is quite the display of hubris.
How condescending of you.
I note the reality that when YOU say, condescendingly and presumptuously
While I suspect that this trait spans a wide swath of people, it's interesting how many of those I've seen who practice it are on the progressive side of things. I suspect that like so many things Dan is trying to pretend like this is exclusively or primarily something of "the right".
That your opinion, what you "suspect" is just factually false. To you, me helping you understand my actual position that you guessed wrongly about... THAT is condescending? And NOT you "suspecting" ridiculous and unsupported things?
I don't think you understand what that word means.
You continue this with...
The notion that everyone who disagrees with you is ignorant or mistaken is quite the display of hubris.
Of course, I don't think everyone who disagrees with me is ignorant or mistaken. I never said anything to suggest that because, of course, I don't believe it. Failing to distinguish between me politely correcting your false understanding and presuming to think I'm saying everyone who disagrees with me is ignorant... that IS presumptuous.
"That your opinion, what you "suspect" is just factually false. To you, me helping you understand my actual position that you guessed wrongly about... THAT is condescending? And NOT you "suspecting" ridiculous and unsupported things?"
It is my opinion, based on my observations. I was clear about the fact that I was not suggesting anything beyond my opinion. I was unaware that discussing my opinions, based on my observations, was somehow condescending. Though, it's a great way to distract from your actual condescension. Of course, simply announcing something as "factually false" in the absence of any evidence seems strange, to say the least.
"I don't think you understand what that word means."
Thne you're wrong as usual. But by all means, keep up the condescending, superior bullshit.
"Of course, I don't think everyone who disagrees with me is ignorant or mistaken. I never said anything to suggest that because, of course, I don't believe it. Failing to distinguish between me politely correcting your false understanding and presuming to think I'm saying everyone who disagrees with me is ignorant... that IS presumptuous."
If you say so. Because, that's your default position.
Dan, I'm not quite sure I can parse this:
"George W Bush, for instance, had not a drop of him in this malignant manipulation at this level or scale."
Are you saying that Bush has no empathy at all, as indicated by his lying about WMDs?
Bubba,
Was W lying, or was he just wrong? I've seen reports of evidence of WMDs in Iraq or sought by them. And of course he used WMDs on Kurds and others. If one wishes to define the term as "nuclear" weapons, then it should be stated as such, rather than "WMDs", which covers a variety of weapons which can cause literally mass destruction, death or casualties.
I dislike the mention of Bush lying about WMDs, because I've seen nothing which stands as definitive proof that he knew there wasn't any when he acted on the basis of that belief. Moreover, I don't believe he needed to even mention WMDs in order to have a legitimate basis for invading Iraq. It was one of over a dozen reasons. It's difficult for me...and many others...to believe that Hussein had no desire or plan to acquire nukes.
Art,
I'm not sure Bubba is making the point you seem to think he is. I agree that it's entirely likely that Bush could have been wrong about WMD. We know Saddam used them, and he was very public about his desires to obtain more. I agree that Saddam was a vile human being and one who needed to be deposed regardless of WMD.
OK. Perhaps he wasn't clear. I wouldn't have said he necessarily meant anything untoward. I just feel compelled to respond to the claim, whether he agrees with it or not, when it's mention doesn't include the asterisk.
Post a Comment