Thursday, August 6, 2015
The Blog Has Moved!
The blog has moved to a new location! You can now find the blog here: http://www.empathysymbol.com/blog/
Friday, June 26, 2015
Are People Actually Bad at Empathy?
The New York Times published an article by a psychologist named Paul Bloom, titled "Imagining the Lives of Others." In it, he reports on a new book by psychologist Nicholas Epley called "Mindwise", which says that humans are actually much worse at empathy than we think we are. Like several of the commenters on the column, I am skeptical that the studies cited really prove that. Those studies "included asking speed daters to identify others who wanted to date
them, asking job candidates how impressed their interviewers were with
them and asking a range of people whether or not someone was lying to
them." The fact that the subjects were pretty bad at doing these tasks doesn't tell me that people can't be empathetic.
But, his main point, that it is much harder than we realize to truly understand the lives, experiences, and feelings of others, is true. As he says, if you haven't been to war, you can't really know what it's like--as any returning soldier will tell you. If you haven't had a child die, you cannot know what it's like for those bereaved parents. If you haven't been out of work and searching for a job for a year, you can't really know what an unemployed person is going through.This is why support groups are so popular and useful. People need to be with others who have had the same experience, as they will tell you.
And indeed, this is necessary for human survival. We are exposed to a lot of difficult and horrible things in the news every day, ranging from those that affect a large number of people, such as natural disasters, to those that affect only a few, such as the story on our local news station the other night about two teenage brothers who were killed in a car crash. I saw the devastated family, the sobbing teammates of the boys, and I could understand to some extent how unalterably horrible this unexpected life-changing event was. But I could turn off the news and go back to making dinner--which I did, because it was too hard to watch that. If we did experience complete empathy for every person we meet, every person we know, and every person we see or read about in the news, it would be overwhelming. It would be incapacitating.
So, perhaps the amount of empathy most of us are able to feel for others is generally OK. We are a highly social species, and empathy helps to maintain those social ties. Humans are far more empathetic than any other species. (Which is not to say that other species, notably dolphins, elephants, and primates, don't experience empathy. Apparently they do.) We need to try to understand one another, as best we can. We need to read novels and non-fiction, see movies and plays, as a way to learn about others' lives and experiences. We need to talk to other people, pay attention to others' lives.
And as Paul Bloom says in this article, "These failures [to be as empathetic as we think we are] should motivate a certain humility when it comes to dealing with the lives of others. Instead of assuming that we can know what it is like to be them, we should focus more on listening to what they have to say."
But, his main point, that it is much harder than we realize to truly understand the lives, experiences, and feelings of others, is true. As he says, if you haven't been to war, you can't really know what it's like--as any returning soldier will tell you. If you haven't had a child die, you cannot know what it's like for those bereaved parents. If you haven't been out of work and searching for a job for a year, you can't really know what an unemployed person is going through.This is why support groups are so popular and useful. People need to be with others who have had the same experience, as they will tell you.
And indeed, this is necessary for human survival. We are exposed to a lot of difficult and horrible things in the news every day, ranging from those that affect a large number of people, such as natural disasters, to those that affect only a few, such as the story on our local news station the other night about two teenage brothers who were killed in a car crash. I saw the devastated family, the sobbing teammates of the boys, and I could understand to some extent how unalterably horrible this unexpected life-changing event was. But I could turn off the news and go back to making dinner--which I did, because it was too hard to watch that. If we did experience complete empathy for every person we meet, every person we know, and every person we see or read about in the news, it would be overwhelming. It would be incapacitating.
So, perhaps the amount of empathy most of us are able to feel for others is generally OK. We are a highly social species, and empathy helps to maintain those social ties. Humans are far more empathetic than any other species. (Which is not to say that other species, notably dolphins, elephants, and primates, don't experience empathy. Apparently they do.) We need to try to understand one another, as best we can. We need to read novels and non-fiction, see movies and plays, as a way to learn about others' lives and experiences. We need to talk to other people, pay attention to others' lives.
And as Paul Bloom says in this article, "These failures [to be as empathetic as we think we are] should motivate a certain humility when it comes to dealing with the lives of others. Instead of assuming that we can know what it is like to be them, we should focus more on listening to what they have to say."
Wednesday, May 20, 2015
Roll a Mile in Someone Else's Shoes
An article in the Star Tribune by a student named Kate Ross is a reminder that the best way to experience empathy for another person is to actually experience what that person is experiencing. While there are many important and useful ways to increase our empathy--talking to other people, reading about other people, watching films about other people, listening to Ted Talks about other people, meeting and getting to know other people--nothing compares to having the same experience. Many doctors say that they thought they had empathy for what their patients were going through, until they had a serious illness themselves and became a patient. Then their understanding changed and deepened. It became real.
In this case, Kate tells about how she injured both of her legs in an accident and had to use a wheelchair for two months. She says that, like many of us, while she had been sympathetic to people with disabilities, she realized after the accident how far that was from empathy. Then, she experienced for herself how much of a struggle it is for people in wheelchairs to have access to places most of us take for granted. Particularly, she found it difficult to access bathrooms in public places, and to maneuver her wheelchair through crowded restaurants. How many times have any of us sat in a restaurant where the tables are crowded together, and it's hard enough for those of us who can walk to work our way through the narrow spaces between people sitting at close tables? Although Kate has the use of her legs back, she will assuredly never again use a public bathroom, or move through a crowded public place, or step up easily onto a curb after crossing a street, without thinking about her fellow citizens who happen to be disabled.
And so, she was moved enough by this experience to write an opinion article for a major newspaper, urging us all to truly understand why it is so important for the Americans with Disabilities Act to be enforced.
Of course, it is impossible for anyone to truly experience the life of every other person. But Kate's story reminds us to be humble--to be careful when we say, "I understand." We kind of do, but it is important to remember that we also really don't.
In this case, Kate tells about how she injured both of her legs in an accident and had to use a wheelchair for two months. She says that, like many of us, while she had been sympathetic to people with disabilities, she realized after the accident how far that was from empathy. Then, she experienced for herself how much of a struggle it is for people in wheelchairs to have access to places most of us take for granted. Particularly, she found it difficult to access bathrooms in public places, and to maneuver her wheelchair through crowded restaurants. How many times have any of us sat in a restaurant where the tables are crowded together, and it's hard enough for those of us who can walk to work our way through the narrow spaces between people sitting at close tables? Although Kate has the use of her legs back, she will assuredly never again use a public bathroom, or move through a crowded public place, or step up easily onto a curb after crossing a street, without thinking about her fellow citizens who happen to be disabled.
And so, she was moved enough by this experience to write an opinion article for a major newspaper, urging us all to truly understand why it is so important for the Americans with Disabilities Act to be enforced.
Of course, it is impossible for anyone to truly experience the life of every other person. But Kate's story reminds us to be humble--to be careful when we say, "I understand." We kind of do, but it is important to remember that we also really don't.
Sunday, September 7, 2014
The One-Fourth, Three-Fourths Empathy Symbol
I'm glad people like the empathy symbol. But to be perfectly honest, perhaps sometimes it should be drawn with the line dividing the two sides, not down the middle, but over to the side. Maybe 1/4, 3/4. Because quite often, while we say that two sides should "reach out and open up to understand each other's feelings and experiences", it is true that one of those sides--the majority side--is more well-known to the other than vice versa. Black people already pretty much know what the white experience is, because it's what they see in the media all the time. Disabled people can see what life is like for able-bodied people, because it's all around them. Gay people know what it's like to be straight, because that's all they see in romantic comedies. Jews know what it's like to experience everyday life as a Christian--it surrounds them every December for an entire month.
And so, truthfully, it is often mostly incumbent on those in the majority to try to understand the experiences and feelings of those in the minority.
It's been very interesting, following the Ferguson, MO shooting (and previously, the Trayvon Martin shooting) to see the media cover what it is actually like to be black in America in the 2000's. The "post-racial" society. Only, clearly, not so much. It's important to hear this from a general viewpoint, and from a personal viewpoint.
In the Star Tribune of Sept. 5th, Sara Adams writes from the very personal vantage point of a mother of two sons--one white, one black. How heart-wrenching for her to see her black son stopped at the end of their driveway by the police, and forced to put his key in the door to prove he lived there. How awful to fear for her black son, as she does not have to for her white son, that as he has gotten to be a young man, he will be stopped and harassed, possibly seriously, possible lethally. For good reason. She's already experienced having her black 17-year-old son detained by the police for curfew violation, while they let his white friends go home. She says, "My white son has never been exposed to this kind of treatment. When he gets in trouble, he is gently reprimanded, reminded that he's a role model, and told to go home and think about it." She called her experience raising a black son and a white son "eye-opening." You should read her story. It will open your eyes.
Jon Stewart described, on a recent Daily Show, how a producer and a correspondent for his show went into a New York City building, the white producer dressed like a "homeless elf", as he humorously put it, and the black correspondent dressed "resplendently" in a tailored suit. As he said, "Guess who was stopped?" He ended this powerful 9-minute segment on race in America by saying, "You're tired of hearing about it? Imagine how f**king exhausting it is living it."
That's what empathy asks us to do. Imagine life as someone else. Someone of a different culture, a different skin color, a different sexual orientation. Imagine it, and see it as a fully human experience. Just different, in some ways. And of course, similar in many other ways, since we are all human beings, after all.
The media has been very remiss in presenting life in all its variations. Apparently, there will be some new TV shows on ABC this fall about racial minorities. "Black-ish", a sitcom about an African-American family, based on the writer's own family. And it will dare to mention things like racial profiling and Ferguson, because that is actually the reality of the African-American experience. Hopefully, white American audiences will see this not as a black sitcom for black viewers, but as a sitcom about an interesting, truthful and funny portrayal of a black family. Same goes for the comedies that ABC will be putting on this year about a Latino family, and an Asian immigrant family.
So here is my plea: people in the 3/4 group, please acknowledge: empathy and understanding are not always a 50/50 deal.
And so, truthfully, it is often mostly incumbent on those in the majority to try to understand the experiences and feelings of those in the minority.
It's been very interesting, following the Ferguson, MO shooting (and previously, the Trayvon Martin shooting) to see the media cover what it is actually like to be black in America in the 2000's. The "post-racial" society. Only, clearly, not so much. It's important to hear this from a general viewpoint, and from a personal viewpoint.
In the Star Tribune of Sept. 5th, Sara Adams writes from the very personal vantage point of a mother of two sons--one white, one black. How heart-wrenching for her to see her black son stopped at the end of their driveway by the police, and forced to put his key in the door to prove he lived there. How awful to fear for her black son, as she does not have to for her white son, that as he has gotten to be a young man, he will be stopped and harassed, possibly seriously, possible lethally. For good reason. She's already experienced having her black 17-year-old son detained by the police for curfew violation, while they let his white friends go home. She says, "My white son has never been exposed to this kind of treatment. When he gets in trouble, he is gently reprimanded, reminded that he's a role model, and told to go home and think about it." She called her experience raising a black son and a white son "eye-opening." You should read her story. It will open your eyes.
Jon Stewart described, on a recent Daily Show, how a producer and a correspondent for his show went into a New York City building, the white producer dressed like a "homeless elf", as he humorously put it, and the black correspondent dressed "resplendently" in a tailored suit. As he said, "Guess who was stopped?" He ended this powerful 9-minute segment on race in America by saying, "You're tired of hearing about it? Imagine how f**king exhausting it is living it."
That's what empathy asks us to do. Imagine life as someone else. Someone of a different culture, a different skin color, a different sexual orientation. Imagine it, and see it as a fully human experience. Just different, in some ways. And of course, similar in many other ways, since we are all human beings, after all.
The media has been very remiss in presenting life in all its variations. Apparently, there will be some new TV shows on ABC this fall about racial minorities. "Black-ish", a sitcom about an African-American family, based on the writer's own family. And it will dare to mention things like racial profiling and Ferguson, because that is actually the reality of the African-American experience. Hopefully, white American audiences will see this not as a black sitcom for black viewers, but as a sitcom about an interesting, truthful and funny portrayal of a black family. Same goes for the comedies that ABC will be putting on this year about a Latino family, and an Asian immigrant family.
So here is my plea: people in the 3/4 group, please acknowledge: empathy and understanding are not always a 50/50 deal.
Saturday, December 14, 2013
There but for the grace of fate go I
Apparently, Scrooge is alive and well these days. He's not just a relic from Dickens' time, not just a character in a play we watch during the holidays. Witness these modern-day Scrooges, who say "Bah, humbug" in 21st Century language: Congresspeople who want to cut SNAP benefits, inexplicably wanting to save the government money by literally taking food from poor children's mouths. Congresspeople who have cut extended unemployment benefits from the latest budget agreement. Outgoing mayor of New York, Michael Bloomberg, whose policies favored the wealthy and made life much more difficult for the homeless and the poor. Readers of Nicholas Kristof's New York Times column, who responded to his recent writings about food stamp recipients, the uninsured and prison inmates with vitriol and accusations that it was all their fault and they deserved nothing from those who have successfully made their own lives more comfortable and well-functioning.
Perhaps these people who excoriate the poor are afraid that if they feel empathy for those who live in homeless shelters and get their food from food shelves and SNAP vouchers and free meals, they are admitting that these people are like themselves. So they have to set them up as different, as someone they could never be. But in fact, as Kristof says in a recent column, "let’s remember that the difference between
being surrounded by a loving family or being homeless on the street is
determined not just by our own level of virtue or self-discipline, but
also by an inextricable mix of luck, biography, brain chemistry and
genetics. For those who are well-off, it may be easier to castigate the
irresponsibility of the poor than to recognize that success in life is a
reflection not only of enterprise and willpower, but also of random
chance and early upbringing."
The New York Times had a powerful series just recently on a girl named Dasani, living with her parents and 7 siblings in one room in a particularly decrepit homeless shelter in New York. I defy you to read this series and not feel empathy for Dasani and her family. You will also feel deep admiration for her determination to succeed despite the tremendous odds stacked against her from the moment of her birth.
Which raises the question: What of those who strive as hard as they can, and yet fall behind? Before you write to your Congressperson to urge the government to cut off unemployment benefits to people who have been "living on the government dole for too long", please read about Yolanda Gray.
And then, turn off the cynicism and turn on the empathy for the down and out, whose ranks have been growing steadily in these times of increasing economic disparity.
We used to say, "There but for the grace of God go I." I don't think God had much to do with the fact that some of us live in a nice house and shop at Whole Foods, while other families live in a homeless shelter and shop with food stamps. Let's just call it fate. As Kristof says, "it’s callous for those born on second or third base to denounce the poor for failing to hit home runs."
Wednesday, August 28, 2013
The Age of Empathy?
My son Zack just shared this article with me. It's fascinating and thought-provoking, and highly recommended.
It's called, Six Habits of Highly Empathetic People, by Roman Krznaric. He is a founding faculty member of The School of Life in London and empathy advisor to organizations including Oxfam and the United Nations.
Mr. Krznaric contends that science is pointing us from many directions into an understanding of how human beings are actual hardwired to be empathetic, which makes a lot of sense, given that we are a highly socially-based species. He offers 6 ways that people can increase their empathy. Some are easier than others. Certainly, it's easier to talk to the person sitting next to us on the bus than it is to go live among people in a slum. But all of the ideas are well-worth exploring, however we can.
Do check out this article, with its accompanying videos.
It's called, Six Habits of Highly Empathetic People, by Roman Krznaric. He is a founding faculty member of The School of Life in London and empathy advisor to organizations including Oxfam and the United Nations.
Mr. Krznaric contends that science is pointing us from many directions into an understanding of how human beings are actual hardwired to be empathetic, which makes a lot of sense, given that we are a highly socially-based species. He offers 6 ways that people can increase their empathy. Some are easier than others. Certainly, it's easier to talk to the person sitting next to us on the bus than it is to go live among people in a slum. But all of the ideas are well-worth exploring, however we can.
Do check out this article, with its accompanying videos.
Friday, July 12, 2013
Chris Kluwe: Punter, Pundit and Empathy Promoter
Chris Kluwe is the former Minnesota Vikings punter who became famous when he published an enraged response on Deadspin to a Maryland state legislator's demand to the Baltimore Ravens that they silence their player who had expressed support for same-sex marriage. His well-argued open letter, full of colorful and persuasive language, propelled him into working as a public spokesman for the "Vote No" effort to defeat the anti-same-sex marriage amendment in Minnesota last fall. The amendment was defeated.
For Kluwe, it all comes down to empathy. Plain, simple, basic empathy. As he said on Conan's talk show, "Societies that don't practice empathy, if you look at the historical record, every single civilization has failed. … And really, the root cause of that is not being able to put yourself in someone's shoes. It's empathy, it's treat other people the way you'd like to be treated."
Now Kluwe has a new book of essays titled Beautifully Unique Sparkleponies. His subject matter ranges from human rights to philosophy to professional football and more. But he keeps coming back to the basic value of empathy, which is his guiding principle in life. In fact, one of the essays, called "All Your Bases", asserts that "the core of a stable society is a tripod", one of the legs of which is empathy: "Without its people possessing a fully developed sense of empathy, a society has no freedom. It is only through accepting the differences of others that a stable polity can develop." (p.60)
One of the most striking essays in the book is called "Somebody Think of the Children". (p 116-118) He talks about a Vote No gathering that he attended, and shares some of the thoughts he took away from it. First, he says, "Gay people are exactly the same as straight people. They laughed, they yelled, they congratulated me on the Vikings winning, ...they spilled beer on the floor and apologized for doing so. They asked for autographs, ...and introduced me to their significant others." Kluwe goes on to say, "Gay people are not treated as American citizens. The number of individuals who came up and thanked Brendon and me for talking a stand was staggering and, frankly, depressing. I use the word depressing because if so many have to thank us for showing basic empathy, thank us for recognizing that they are human beings just like everyone else, that means that many, many other people have not. ...it means that we are failing the American dream."
Then he tells about how he was stunned when a teacher/coach came up to him and thanked him, saying "What you did will save children's lives." Kluwe says, "This really hit me, in a primal way I was not expecting. ... A child should never have to feel that way. A child should never think that suicide is the only option, the only solution to the tormenting and bullying and unthinking viciousness adults often unwittingly pass along to the young. ... Because, make no mistake, children who suffer this way are casualties. All the hopes, all the dreams, all the wonderful potential life has in store are as dust before the scouring winds of intolerance (whether it be racist, sexist, or religious.) Every time you propagate the message that a person who is gay is less than human, that same-sex marriage cannot be as filled with love and laughter and tears as heterosexual marriage, that gays don't deserve to pass a legacy on the to their families, you quicken that howling storm and sweep away a tiny bit more humantity from the world. ... Well, I for one will not stand for it. I will not stand for... people thinking that they have the right to live other people's lives for them, of the complete lack of empathy so often shown in our society. ... I stand for equality under the law, for teating others how I would want to be treated. ... I stand for my children."
Powerful stuff. I stand with Chris Kluwe.
For Kluwe, it all comes down to empathy. Plain, simple, basic empathy. As he said on Conan's talk show, "Societies that don't practice empathy, if you look at the historical record, every single civilization has failed. … And really, the root cause of that is not being able to put yourself in someone's shoes. It's empathy, it's treat other people the way you'd like to be treated."
Now Kluwe has a new book of essays titled Beautifully Unique Sparkleponies. His subject matter ranges from human rights to philosophy to professional football and more. But he keeps coming back to the basic value of empathy, which is his guiding principle in life. In fact, one of the essays, called "All Your Bases", asserts that "the core of a stable society is a tripod", one of the legs of which is empathy: "Without its people possessing a fully developed sense of empathy, a society has no freedom. It is only through accepting the differences of others that a stable polity can develop." (p.60)
One of the most striking essays in the book is called "Somebody Think of the Children". (p 116-118) He talks about a Vote No gathering that he attended, and shares some of the thoughts he took away from it. First, he says, "Gay people are exactly the same as straight people. They laughed, they yelled, they congratulated me on the Vikings winning, ...they spilled beer on the floor and apologized for doing so. They asked for autographs, ...and introduced me to their significant others." Kluwe goes on to say, "Gay people are not treated as American citizens. The number of individuals who came up and thanked Brendon and me for talking a stand was staggering and, frankly, depressing. I use the word depressing because if so many have to thank us for showing basic empathy, thank us for recognizing that they are human beings just like everyone else, that means that many, many other people have not. ...it means that we are failing the American dream."
Then he tells about how he was stunned when a teacher/coach came up to him and thanked him, saying "What you did will save children's lives." Kluwe says, "This really hit me, in a primal way I was not expecting. ... A child should never have to feel that way. A child should never think that suicide is the only option, the only solution to the tormenting and bullying and unthinking viciousness adults often unwittingly pass along to the young. ... Because, make no mistake, children who suffer this way are casualties. All the hopes, all the dreams, all the wonderful potential life has in store are as dust before the scouring winds of intolerance (whether it be racist, sexist, or religious.) Every time you propagate the message that a person who is gay is less than human, that same-sex marriage cannot be as filled with love and laughter and tears as heterosexual marriage, that gays don't deserve to pass a legacy on the to their families, you quicken that howling storm and sweep away a tiny bit more humantity from the world. ... Well, I for one will not stand for it. I will not stand for... people thinking that they have the right to live other people's lives for them, of the complete lack of empathy so often shown in our society. ... I stand for equality under the law, for teating others how I would want to be treated. ... I stand for my children."
Powerful stuff. I stand with Chris Kluwe.
Tuesday, April 30, 2013
Empathy and the Boston Marathon Bombing...How?
I tried to write about the Boston Marathon bombings a week ago and got one sentence written before I was stuck; I sat there staring at the screen for some time before I gave up.
This is a very difficult thing to write about in regard to empathy. Of course, we have empathy for the victims. Of course, many write about our common humanity that emerges in these kinds of situations--the heroism, the selflessness. Harder is the question of empathy for the perpetrators. Is it important to understand them and what would cause them to do something so heinous? It feels like doing so is somehow condoning it. "Yes, I understand" usually means, "I sympathize, I can see where you're coming from, I'd probably do the same in your situation..." Certainly no one means that when they say we should have empathy for the bombers. Can we just write them off as evil? Apparently not, since so many who knew the younger brother, Dzhokhar, cannot reconcile their personal knowledge of him as a nice, normal kid with a terrorist.
A reader sent me a very interesting link to a blog in Boston.com: Reactions to Dzhokhar: Hatred, anger... empathy? I'd recommend checking it out.
But just now, as I was writing this, it became clear to me why I am struggling so with this particular subject. It's that Dzhokhar himself showed zero empathy to his victims. There are reports from his victims of him looking them in the eye as he set the bomb down and walked away, knowing that he was about to kill them. Fellow humans beings: children, fathers, mothers, friends. He had to completely turn off whatever empathy he normally felt for other people--and people who knew him testify that he was an empathetic, caring guy--to be able to do this. He had to turn off his empathy long before he committed the crime, while he was planning it for however many days. He had to keep it turned off as he was getting himself to the scene, knowing in his head what he intended to do, looking at people as he walked by them, completely dissociating himself from humanity. And then, he had to keep it turned off in the days following, as he saw evidence of the pain and suffering he had caused, as he learned the names of his victims, as he heard about the boy he killed, and the BU student, and the young working woman. He had to keep it turned off as he watched the people he maimed being interviewed on TV, as he watched the families of the victims crying on TV. We all cried as we watched it. How did he not?
How does this happen? How does empathy in a normally empathetic person get so completely turned off? That's the million dollar question.
This is a very difficult thing to write about in regard to empathy. Of course, we have empathy for the victims. Of course, many write about our common humanity that emerges in these kinds of situations--the heroism, the selflessness. Harder is the question of empathy for the perpetrators. Is it important to understand them and what would cause them to do something so heinous? It feels like doing so is somehow condoning it. "Yes, I understand" usually means, "I sympathize, I can see where you're coming from, I'd probably do the same in your situation..." Certainly no one means that when they say we should have empathy for the bombers. Can we just write them off as evil? Apparently not, since so many who knew the younger brother, Dzhokhar, cannot reconcile their personal knowledge of him as a nice, normal kid with a terrorist.
A reader sent me a very interesting link to a blog in Boston.com: Reactions to Dzhokhar: Hatred, anger... empathy? I'd recommend checking it out.
But just now, as I was writing this, it became clear to me why I am struggling so with this particular subject. It's that Dzhokhar himself showed zero empathy to his victims. There are reports from his victims of him looking them in the eye as he set the bomb down and walked away, knowing that he was about to kill them. Fellow humans beings: children, fathers, mothers, friends. He had to completely turn off whatever empathy he normally felt for other people--and people who knew him testify that he was an empathetic, caring guy--to be able to do this. He had to turn off his empathy long before he committed the crime, while he was planning it for however many days. He had to keep it turned off as he was getting himself to the scene, knowing in his head what he intended to do, looking at people as he walked by them, completely dissociating himself from humanity. And then, he had to keep it turned off in the days following, as he saw evidence of the pain and suffering he had caused, as he learned the names of his victims, as he heard about the boy he killed, and the BU student, and the young working woman. He had to keep it turned off as he watched the people he maimed being interviewed on TV, as he watched the families of the victims crying on TV. We all cried as we watched it. How did he not?
How does this happen? How does empathy in a normally empathetic person get so completely turned off? That's the million dollar question.
Thursday, March 28, 2013
Obama: Peace starts with Empathy
President Barack Obama recently gave a brilliant speech to the citizens of Israeli, asking them to consider how things are from the perspective of their adversary, the Palestinians. He said that the only way to get to peace between their two peoples is to have empathy for one another.
He spoke very forthrightly and directly to the Israelis: "It is not fair that a Palestinian child cannot grow up in a state of their own, living their entire lives with the presence of a foreign army that controls the movements not just of those young people but their parents, their grandparents, every single day. It’s not just when settler violence against Palestinians goes unpunished. It’s not right to prevent Palestinians from farming their lands or restricting a student’s ability to move around the West Bank or displace Palestinian families from their homes." He emphasized the commonality between young persons of different cultures: "Four years ago, I stood in Cairo in front of an audience of young people. Politically, religiously, they must seem a world away. But the things they want, they're not so different from what the young people here want. The ability to make their own decisions, to get an education and a good job, to worship God in their own way, to get married, to raise a family. The same is true of the young people in Gaza ..."
As Stephen Prothero, a professor of religion at Boston University, writes in a blog for CNN, "In religious studies courses, professors often try to get their students to see the world through Hindu eyes or to walk a few miles in the shoes of a Confucian. Anthropologists refer to this as cultivating an emic (or insider) perspective. The less fancy name for it is empathy. Barack Obama is, for better or worse, an empathetic man who has tried for years to see the world through Republican eyes even as he has pleaded for Republicans to walk a few miles in Democratic shoes. As a former community organizer, he knows that you need a little empathy all around to get anything done among people with different world views."
As we say on our Empathy Symbol site--Empathy: The first step to peace in our families, schools, communities,nation, world. President Obama knows this. What could be accomplished if only people in our country and around the world took the wisdom of our president to heart!
He spoke very forthrightly and directly to the Israelis: "It is not fair that a Palestinian child cannot grow up in a state of their own, living their entire lives with the presence of a foreign army that controls the movements not just of those young people but their parents, their grandparents, every single day. It’s not just when settler violence against Palestinians goes unpunished. It’s not right to prevent Palestinians from farming their lands or restricting a student’s ability to move around the West Bank or displace Palestinian families from their homes." He emphasized the commonality between young persons of different cultures: "Four years ago, I stood in Cairo in front of an audience of young people. Politically, religiously, they must seem a world away. But the things they want, they're not so different from what the young people here want. The ability to make their own decisions, to get an education and a good job, to worship God in their own way, to get married, to raise a family. The same is true of the young people in Gaza ..."
As Stephen Prothero, a professor of religion at Boston University, writes in a blog for CNN, "In religious studies courses, professors often try to get their students to see the world through Hindu eyes or to walk a few miles in the shoes of a Confucian. Anthropologists refer to this as cultivating an emic (or insider) perspective. The less fancy name for it is empathy. Barack Obama is, for better or worse, an empathetic man who has tried for years to see the world through Republican eyes even as he has pleaded for Republicans to walk a few miles in Democratic shoes. As a former community organizer, he knows that you need a little empathy all around to get anything done among people with different world views."
As we say on our Empathy Symbol site--Empathy: The first step to peace in our families, schools, communities,nation, world. President Obama knows this. What could be accomplished if only people in our country and around the world took the wisdom of our president to heart!
Monday, January 21, 2013
Science and Empathy
I just finished listening to a broadcast of a fascinating radio show about empathy, from a scientific viewpoint, that aired on January 16th on WUNC from Chapel Hill, North Carolina. You can listen to the show first, and then join our discussion here in this blog. Or read the high points here first, and then listen to the in-depth discussion.
Two neuroscientists from Duke University, Lasano Harris and Pate Skene, approach the biological foundation of empathy with a more precise definition of empathy than I use, in that they include not just the ability to put oneself into another's shoes and understand both cognitively and emotionally what that person is experiencing, but that this results in the desire to help that person. Jesse Prinz, a professor of philosophy, joins the discussion from his viewpoint of the history of morality.
Interestingly, and rather distressingly, they claim that in measuring a person's brain activity to determine how much the mirror neurons fire, they found that people are much more empathetic toward people who are like themselves, or toward people to whom they are close. At first in the discussion, they seem to claim that people actually can't feel empathy toward those who are "other", which I found distressing, since that's the whole point of the empathy symbol. But later they say that one's group doesn't necessarily have to be defined narrowly as one's race or cultural group, so they're not saying that I, as a white woman, cannot feel empathy for a black man. But they do make a very interesting point. To increase empathy, we need to find ways to increase our "group". If my empathetic neurons are going to fire more for a white, middle-aged, middle-class woman than they are for a homeless Latino man, then I need to find ways to mentally and emotionally expand my group to a broader range of humanity.
On the other hand, if our "group" is all of humanity, then we are burdened with unsustainable empathy. They talk about how a person cannot continue functioning on a day-to-day basis if he or she becomes overwhelmed with empathy for all the suffering people of the world. Certainly this is a journalistic truism, that people will be more interested in stories that are closer to them, and that the further away the reader gets, the less concern the story generates. So a fire that puts a family out on the street is interesting, and generates an empathetic response from us, if it happens in our town. We really cannot care about every fire that happens to every family in the world. A tsunami on the other side of the world is certainly big enough to attract our attention and interest, but we probably need to see video of real people getting swept out to sea or of sobbing parents discovering the body of their child for our empathetic neurons to fire, and thus to cause us to get out our wallets and donate to the relief effort.
They talk about empathy for animals as well (certainly not a natural part of our group, but then many of us bond closely with our pets, and enjoy learning about animals in the wild.) They talk about how people who have higher levels of empathy need to shut that down so they don't get overwhelmed, and they even mention "roadkill" as being too distressing for a highly empathetic person. I found that interesting personally, since every time I drive past a dead squirrel on the street or a dead raccoon on the side of the road, I imagine their spirits leaving their bodies, and I feel a bit sad. If I'm driving on a busy street, I also can't drive past a car waiting on a side street to enter the road without checking my rear view mirror to see if they were able to get on the street. I feel concerned for them, and am compelled to check on them, even though it drives me crazy that I do that.
This was an fascinating discussion that broached on many aspects of empathy, including one that I discussed in a very early blog about empathy in autistic people. There is a common belief that autistic people cannot feel empathy or make that connection with other people's experiences and feelings, but the father of an adopted severely autistic child, Ralph Savarese (an English professor), enters the discussion about half-way through and thoroughly disputes that. He also brings in the angle of feeling empathy for characters in literature, and talks about how his son (now a successful college student) was overcome with empathy for Huck Finn and other characters in Twain's novel.
They even talk about empathy and the law, in that Pate Skene is now a law student. How do we get laws passed that protect the rights of minorities if we don't feel empathy for them because they are not part of our group? This is a good question that is very relevant to the current debate about gay marriage. As more gay people are open about their sexuality, more people will know them as individuals with whom they work, or as neighbors or members of their religious group, and will thus be able to include them in their now-expanded "group". It will be easier to empathize with their desire to be in a married relationship.
Lots of food for thought in this compelling broadcast. I invite you to listen to it, and add comments to the discussion in this blog.
Two neuroscientists from Duke University, Lasano Harris and Pate Skene, approach the biological foundation of empathy with a more precise definition of empathy than I use, in that they include not just the ability to put oneself into another's shoes and understand both cognitively and emotionally what that person is experiencing, but that this results in the desire to help that person. Jesse Prinz, a professor of philosophy, joins the discussion from his viewpoint of the history of morality.
Interestingly, and rather distressingly, they claim that in measuring a person's brain activity to determine how much the mirror neurons fire, they found that people are much more empathetic toward people who are like themselves, or toward people to whom they are close. At first in the discussion, they seem to claim that people actually can't feel empathy toward those who are "other", which I found distressing, since that's the whole point of the empathy symbol. But later they say that one's group doesn't necessarily have to be defined narrowly as one's race or cultural group, so they're not saying that I, as a white woman, cannot feel empathy for a black man. But they do make a very interesting point. To increase empathy, we need to find ways to increase our "group". If my empathetic neurons are going to fire more for a white, middle-aged, middle-class woman than they are for a homeless Latino man, then I need to find ways to mentally and emotionally expand my group to a broader range of humanity.
On the other hand, if our "group" is all of humanity, then we are burdened with unsustainable empathy. They talk about how a person cannot continue functioning on a day-to-day basis if he or she becomes overwhelmed with empathy for all the suffering people of the world. Certainly this is a journalistic truism, that people will be more interested in stories that are closer to them, and that the further away the reader gets, the less concern the story generates. So a fire that puts a family out on the street is interesting, and generates an empathetic response from us, if it happens in our town. We really cannot care about every fire that happens to every family in the world. A tsunami on the other side of the world is certainly big enough to attract our attention and interest, but we probably need to see video of real people getting swept out to sea or of sobbing parents discovering the body of their child for our empathetic neurons to fire, and thus to cause us to get out our wallets and donate to the relief effort.
They talk about empathy for animals as well (certainly not a natural part of our group, but then many of us bond closely with our pets, and enjoy learning about animals in the wild.) They talk about how people who have higher levels of empathy need to shut that down so they don't get overwhelmed, and they even mention "roadkill" as being too distressing for a highly empathetic person. I found that interesting personally, since every time I drive past a dead squirrel on the street or a dead raccoon on the side of the road, I imagine their spirits leaving their bodies, and I feel a bit sad. If I'm driving on a busy street, I also can't drive past a car waiting on a side street to enter the road without checking my rear view mirror to see if they were able to get on the street. I feel concerned for them, and am compelled to check on them, even though it drives me crazy that I do that.
This was an fascinating discussion that broached on many aspects of empathy, including one that I discussed in a very early blog about empathy in autistic people. There is a common belief that autistic people cannot feel empathy or make that connection with other people's experiences and feelings, but the father of an adopted severely autistic child, Ralph Savarese (an English professor), enters the discussion about half-way through and thoroughly disputes that. He also brings in the angle of feeling empathy for characters in literature, and talks about how his son (now a successful college student) was overcome with empathy for Huck Finn and other characters in Twain's novel.
They even talk about empathy and the law, in that Pate Skene is now a law student. How do we get laws passed that protect the rights of minorities if we don't feel empathy for them because they are not part of our group? This is a good question that is very relevant to the current debate about gay marriage. As more gay people are open about their sexuality, more people will know them as individuals with whom they work, or as neighbors or members of their religious group, and will thus be able to include them in their now-expanded "group". It will be easier to empathize with their desire to be in a married relationship.
Lots of food for thought in this compelling broadcast. I invite you to listen to it, and add comments to the discussion in this blog.
Sunday, December 9, 2012
Empathy in 6 words
Michele Norris of NPR has created an elegant, brilliant way to get the conversation on race kick-started again. It's called The Race Card Project. It started out simply, when she was on a book tour for her new book about race, The Grace of Silence: A Memoir. She handed out 200 postcards and asked people to write their thoughts on race in six words. The response floored her. To date, two years later, she has gotten back over 12,000 postcards! Clearly, people are aching to be heard, and to be heard clearly. That's the beauty of the six words. They succinctly sum up what a person most wants to say about race.
Here are some examples: "You know my race. NOT ME!" "Chinese or American? Does it matter." One that has ignited a firestorm of response lately is "We aren't all Strong Black Women." This really hit a nerve for a lot of people, particularly black women, of course. Some of the responses were eye-opening for white people, since many would assume "Strong Black Woman" is a compliment. Not necessarily so. There is much more to it than that. Read the article, and the responses, and see for yourself.
Now that this has taken on a life of its own, Ms. Norris has created a website devoted to it, where people can post their six-word thoughts on race, and respond to others. What a brilliant way to open up the conversation on race--a conversation that is not nearly finished yet, despite what some may think. Check out the website here.
So what six words would I write? Maybe, "I take for granted white benefits."
Here are some examples: "You know my race. NOT ME!" "Chinese or American? Does it matter." One that has ignited a firestorm of response lately is "We aren't all Strong Black Women." This really hit a nerve for a lot of people, particularly black women, of course. Some of the responses were eye-opening for white people, since many would assume "Strong Black Woman" is a compliment. Not necessarily so. There is much more to it than that. Read the article, and the responses, and see for yourself.
Now that this has taken on a life of its own, Ms. Norris has created a website devoted to it, where people can post their six-word thoughts on race, and respond to others. What a brilliant way to open up the conversation on race--a conversation that is not nearly finished yet, despite what some may think. Check out the website here.
So what six words would I write? Maybe, "I take for granted white benefits."
Saturday, October 20, 2012
empathy for one, empathy for all
A devoted reader sent me a link to an interesting article in the New York Times about the science of compassion: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/15/opinion/sunday/the-science-of-compassion.html?_r=2&hp&
The article reported on a study that found that inducing a compassionate feeling for someone leads the person to feel compassion for others as well, even when they might not "deserve it." Another study found that creating a feeling of commonality between people, even an artificially-created meaningless commonality (tapping in rhythm with another person) led people to feel more compassion and more of a desire to help the other person.
The author of the article, David DeSteno, who was also a researcher on the second study, concluded: "Simply learning to mentally recategorize one another in terms of commonalities would generate greater empathy among all of us — and foster social harmony in a fairly effortless way."
Wow.
So the question is, how do we foster more of a feeling of commonality among people in general, and people who specifically don't feel that commonality with people of other groups?
One way would be to make it easier for people to discover commonalities. I think Facebook is useful in this way. When people become "friends" with people whom they really don't know well, such as through a neighborhood page (my neighborhood has one on Facebook), they will easily discover commonalities. When they view profiles of people who are friends of their friends, but who seem quite different from themselves, they will likely discover commonalities.
Actual physical proximity helps. When you shop at a grocery store, and you see people of various cultures and ethnic groups, and you notice them reaching for the same cereal box you do, or you see them dealing with the same issues with their children (you can recognize a child whining for a treat in any language), you feel the commonality. Your empathy level increases.
Media helps. When you see Cam and Mitchell, the popular gay couple on the TV show "Modern Family", squabbling about little things, just like you do with your spouse, your feeling of commonality increases. Your empathy level increases.
I think it's interesting that the study found that even trivial commonalities increase compassion. This leads me to believe that humans are innately driven to seek and find what they have in common with each other--not just people of their own group, but all people. The drive to empathize is inherent in our make-up. Empathizing with one another is good for human survival.
The article reported on a study that found that inducing a compassionate feeling for someone leads the person to feel compassion for others as well, even when they might not "deserve it." Another study found that creating a feeling of commonality between people, even an artificially-created meaningless commonality (tapping in rhythm with another person) led people to feel more compassion and more of a desire to help the other person.
The author of the article, David DeSteno, who was also a researcher on the second study, concluded: "Simply learning to mentally recategorize one another in terms of commonalities would generate greater empathy among all of us — and foster social harmony in a fairly effortless way."
Wow.
So the question is, how do we foster more of a feeling of commonality among people in general, and people who specifically don't feel that commonality with people of other groups?
One way would be to make it easier for people to discover commonalities. I think Facebook is useful in this way. When people become "friends" with people whom they really don't know well, such as through a neighborhood page (my neighborhood has one on Facebook), they will easily discover commonalities. When they view profiles of people who are friends of their friends, but who seem quite different from themselves, they will likely discover commonalities.
Actual physical proximity helps. When you shop at a grocery store, and you see people of various cultures and ethnic groups, and you notice them reaching for the same cereal box you do, or you see them dealing with the same issues with their children (you can recognize a child whining for a treat in any language), you feel the commonality. Your empathy level increases.
Media helps. When you see Cam and Mitchell, the popular gay couple on the TV show "Modern Family", squabbling about little things, just like you do with your spouse, your feeling of commonality increases. Your empathy level increases.
I think it's interesting that the study found that even trivial commonalities increase compassion. This leads me to believe that humans are innately driven to seek and find what they have in common with each other--not just people of their own group, but all people. The drive to empathize is inherent in our make-up. Empathizing with one another is good for human survival.
Sunday, August 19, 2012
Blogs: The 21st Century Empathy Tool
Social media offers an amazing opportunity for the growth of empathy. In particular, blogs give people the chance to connect with and understand others' experiences and feelings on a vastly larger scale than ever before.
When I was growing up in the mid-20th Century, there were 2 avenues for increasing empathy: personal experience, or the media: TV, books, newspapers, magazines. Growing up in a small, nearly 100% white town in Minnesota, I didn't even meet a black person until I moved to a larger suburb in 11th grade. We had one Asian at our school. I made my first Jewish friend when I went to grad school. For anyone in such a situation today (and fortunately, the country, and even my small Minnesota hometown, are far more diverse now), they can connect with a person different from themselves on the Internet.
Let's say you have a relative in their 20's who tells you he has cancer. You are stunned, even though he tells you that it is the highly curable kind. Clearly, this is a life-changing event for your relative. How do you relate? How do you begin to understand what he is going through? Of course, you can talk directly with him. But you can also read the blog of a person who is going through a similar situation. A follower of this empathy blog, Roger Lumpp, commented recently that he has a blog that chronicles his journey as he dealt with a cancer diagnosis as a young adult. You can find it at .http://www.liftliving.com/.
Do you want to know what it's like to be a young stay-at-home mother of a newborn, or a lawyer mother of 3 children, or a father of a teenager, or the parent of a special needs child? There are blogs for all of these, and any other parenting situation you, or someone you know, may find yourself in. A great part of empathy is just understanding--learning about and understanding someone else's life, feelings, culture, situation, etc. Blogs are perfect for this! Do you have a nephew who has just come out as gay? Do you have a niece who's getting married to someone outside of your faith? Is your best friend getting divorced after 40 years of marriage? Find a blog, and increase your empathy!
I have a niece who is teaching in Indonesia. Reading her blog has increased my understanding of Indonesian culture. Tell us--what blogs do you read, and how have they increased your empathy?
When I was growing up in the mid-20th Century, there were 2 avenues for increasing empathy: personal experience, or the media: TV, books, newspapers, magazines. Growing up in a small, nearly 100% white town in Minnesota, I didn't even meet a black person until I moved to a larger suburb in 11th grade. We had one Asian at our school. I made my first Jewish friend when I went to grad school. For anyone in such a situation today (and fortunately, the country, and even my small Minnesota hometown, are far more diverse now), they can connect with a person different from themselves on the Internet.
Let's say you have a relative in their 20's who tells you he has cancer. You are stunned, even though he tells you that it is the highly curable kind. Clearly, this is a life-changing event for your relative. How do you relate? How do you begin to understand what he is going through? Of course, you can talk directly with him. But you can also read the blog of a person who is going through a similar situation. A follower of this empathy blog, Roger Lumpp, commented recently that he has a blog that chronicles his journey as he dealt with a cancer diagnosis as a young adult. You can find it at .http://www.liftliving.com/.
Do you want to know what it's like to be a young stay-at-home mother of a newborn, or a lawyer mother of 3 children, or a father of a teenager, or the parent of a special needs child? There are blogs for all of these, and any other parenting situation you, or someone you know, may find yourself in. A great part of empathy is just understanding--learning about and understanding someone else's life, feelings, culture, situation, etc. Blogs are perfect for this! Do you have a nephew who has just come out as gay? Do you have a niece who's getting married to someone outside of your faith? Is your best friend getting divorced after 40 years of marriage? Find a blog, and increase your empathy!
I have a niece who is teaching in Indonesia. Reading her blog has increased my understanding of Indonesian culture. Tell us--what blogs do you read, and how have they increased your empathy?
Wednesday, April 4, 2012
The Line Between
The empathy symbol is defined by the line between the two halves of the symbol, portraying two groups who would benefit by reaching out to each other and opening up to understand one another. The reaching-out and opening-up aspects of empathy are defined by the two Y's in the symbol, lines that pass through the divide and then open up.
Two recent events, one in Duluth and one in Florida, highlight the tendency of some to reinforce the barrier between the two halves of a group--in this case, the racial groups White and Black. The Florida event was the killing of Trayvon Martin, an unarmed black youth, by an armed self-appointed neighborhood watch man, George Zimmerman. This has spurred many articles by black people relating how they have to have "the talk" with their sons when they are as young as 5 or 6 years old. "The talk" has nothing to do with sex--it is about how to more safely "walk while black", because many people will assume a young black man is hostile and dangerous, and will react to him accordingly. This is not something most white people have ever thought about discussing with their sons, nor are most white people aware of the need for such a talk in black families. This is a perfect opportunity for white people to expand their empathy toward black people, to better understand what it is like to be black in America, even in 2012.
And yet, the reaction to this has been hostility from some white readers, rather than increased empathy. Which brings me to the other event. the one in Duluth. A group called The Unfair Campaign put up billboards in Duluth, as well as elsewhere, that said, "It's hard to see racism when you're white." This produced a surprising amount of backlash from whites, who claimed it was reverse racism. The comments on an MPR story about this campaign were pretty shocking, with many equating anti-racism with being anti-white. The article does say that follow-up discussion groups have been organized. Perhaps this face-to-face discussion will help--if people can open up the barrier between each other, rather than clinging tightly to it while trying to reinforce it.
It is a fact that being white can still be an advantage in 2012 America--an advantage that most white people don't have to think about. It just is. Perhaps the white people who react defensively to this don't feel advantaged. Perhaps they feel that life is against them, and that many people, including those of other races, unfairly have it better than them.
50 years ago, John Howard Griffin wrote a book about his experiences when he chemically darkened his white skin, and traveled through the deep South as a black man in the 1950's. The book, Black Like Me, shook up American society. Talk about the ultimate exercise in empathy! Of course, if a black person had written the same account about his experiences in segregated America, it would have dropped like a stone in a pond, without a ripple. It took a white man being shocked by the experience, and sharing it with his fellow white people, to create a splash.
Maybe it's time for white people to finally let down the barriers, put away the defenses, and actually listen to and understand it when black people tell them that yes, being black in America can still have an impact on one's life in unfair, and even sometimes deadly, ways.
Two recent events, one in Duluth and one in Florida, highlight the tendency of some to reinforce the barrier between the two halves of a group--in this case, the racial groups White and Black. The Florida event was the killing of Trayvon Martin, an unarmed black youth, by an armed self-appointed neighborhood watch man, George Zimmerman. This has spurred many articles by black people relating how they have to have "the talk" with their sons when they are as young as 5 or 6 years old. "The talk" has nothing to do with sex--it is about how to more safely "walk while black", because many people will assume a young black man is hostile and dangerous, and will react to him accordingly. This is not something most white people have ever thought about discussing with their sons, nor are most white people aware of the need for such a talk in black families. This is a perfect opportunity for white people to expand their empathy toward black people, to better understand what it is like to be black in America, even in 2012.
And yet, the reaction to this has been hostility from some white readers, rather than increased empathy. Which brings me to the other event. the one in Duluth. A group called The Unfair Campaign put up billboards in Duluth, as well as elsewhere, that said, "It's hard to see racism when you're white." This produced a surprising amount of backlash from whites, who claimed it was reverse racism. The comments on an MPR story about this campaign were pretty shocking, with many equating anti-racism with being anti-white. The article does say that follow-up discussion groups have been organized. Perhaps this face-to-face discussion will help--if people can open up the barrier between each other, rather than clinging tightly to it while trying to reinforce it.
It is a fact that being white can still be an advantage in 2012 America--an advantage that most white people don't have to think about. It just is. Perhaps the white people who react defensively to this don't feel advantaged. Perhaps they feel that life is against them, and that many people, including those of other races, unfairly have it better than them.
50 years ago, John Howard Griffin wrote a book about his experiences when he chemically darkened his white skin, and traveled through the deep South as a black man in the 1950's. The book, Black Like Me, shook up American society. Talk about the ultimate exercise in empathy! Of course, if a black person had written the same account about his experiences in segregated America, it would have dropped like a stone in a pond, without a ripple. It took a white man being shocked by the experience, and sharing it with his fellow white people, to create a splash.
Maybe it's time for white people to finally let down the barriers, put away the defenses, and actually listen to and understand it when black people tell them that yes, being black in America can still have an impact on one's life in unfair, and even sometimes deadly, ways.
Tuesday, December 27, 2011
Empathetic Rats
A friend sent me a very interesting link to a report about empathy in rats. I was interested for 2 reasons--1) the question of whether animals as well as humans can feel empathy is very intriguing, and 2) I really like rats. They're one of my favorite animals.
Please check out the video on YouTube. Then consider the emotional life of rats and other animals with me.
We had a pet rat in my class of 4- and 5-year-olds for several years. His name was Squeaks, and he was the most gentle, good-natured guy you'd ever want to know. He would sit on the kids' laps and let them pet him like a cat; he would let them carry him around in their sweatshirt pockets; he would give them little rat kisses. I learned a lot about rats, studying them with the kids. Rats are highly social creatures, organized into coherent and efficient social structures in their rat societies. They're very smart, and I have to think that intelligence is a necessary component of empathy. I don't think turtles are smart enough to be able to understand something from another turtle's viewpoint; I think rats are that smart. I also think that caring for infants is another requirement for empathy. Animals--mainly mammals and birds--that care for their own young have to be able to feel compassion and to understand what their infants need--i.e. they must have empathy for their infants.
So I believe that many animals can and do feel empathy, not only for others of their own species, but also for other species sometimes (dogs and their owners will back me up on that, I'm sure!)
Of course, this raises the question of whether we humans should feel empathy for other animals, and what we should do about that. One obvious thing is that we should feel the pain of animals raised on factory farms in horrible conditions (see the movie, "Food, Inc.") Are we participating in the torture of animals when we order a hamburger at a fast food place or pick up one of those convenient, already-roasted chickens at the grocery store? I'd say yes. Taking it one step further, many vegetarians would say that our empathy for animals should prevent us from eating them at all. Where do you fall on the food continuum? My older son won't eat intelligent animals--no more calamari, no more pork--but will sometimes eat fish, or humanely-raised chickens or beef. My middle son is a vegetarian. I can no longer in good conscience order chicken or other meat in a restaurant unless they specifically say it comes from a local, sustainable, humanely-conducted family farm. I'm still thinking about the issue of eating intelligent animals.
Well, I guess we've gone a bit afield from the question of whether animals can feel empathy. Do watch the video. You'll learn that rats are nicer to each other than we humans often are!
Please check out the video on YouTube. Then consider the emotional life of rats and other animals with me.
We had a pet rat in my class of 4- and 5-year-olds for several years. His name was Squeaks, and he was the most gentle, good-natured guy you'd ever want to know. He would sit on the kids' laps and let them pet him like a cat; he would let them carry him around in their sweatshirt pockets; he would give them little rat kisses. I learned a lot about rats, studying them with the kids. Rats are highly social creatures, organized into coherent and efficient social structures in their rat societies. They're very smart, and I have to think that intelligence is a necessary component of empathy. I don't think turtles are smart enough to be able to understand something from another turtle's viewpoint; I think rats are that smart. I also think that caring for infants is another requirement for empathy. Animals--mainly mammals and birds--that care for their own young have to be able to feel compassion and to understand what their infants need--i.e. they must have empathy for their infants.
So I believe that many animals can and do feel empathy, not only for others of their own species, but also for other species sometimes (dogs and their owners will back me up on that, I'm sure!)
Of course, this raises the question of whether we humans should feel empathy for other animals, and what we should do about that. One obvious thing is that we should feel the pain of animals raised on factory farms in horrible conditions (see the movie, "Food, Inc.") Are we participating in the torture of animals when we order a hamburger at a fast food place or pick up one of those convenient, already-roasted chickens at the grocery store? I'd say yes. Taking it one step further, many vegetarians would say that our empathy for animals should prevent us from eating them at all. Where do you fall on the food continuum? My older son won't eat intelligent animals--no more calamari, no more pork--but will sometimes eat fish, or humanely-raised chickens or beef. My middle son is a vegetarian. I can no longer in good conscience order chicken or other meat in a restaurant unless they specifically say it comes from a local, sustainable, humanely-conducted family farm. I'm still thinking about the issue of eating intelligent animals.
Well, I guess we've gone a bit afield from the question of whether animals can feel empathy. Do watch the video. You'll learn that rats are nicer to each other than we humans often are!
Sunday, August 28, 2011
The Science of Evil book review
I said back in May that the next book I would be reading was "The Science of Evil: On Empathy and the Origins of Cruelty" by Simon Baron-Cohen. It took me till mid-August to get the book from the library, because there were so many holds on it--which is good, that people are interested in this subject.
Baron-Cohen is Professor of Developmental Psychopathology at the University of Cambridge, and has been studying empathy for 30 years. He has concluded that there is a biological basis for empathy or the lack thereof, as well as factors in the environment that affect the development of empathy. He and his colleagues have discovered some genes related to empathy, and expect to find more. They have pinpointed areas in the brains that are activated when a person has an empathetic response (or not very activated in the brains of those low in empathy.) He talks about hormonal factors--testosterone negatively affecting empathy, and oxytocin increasing empathy. (Not surprisingly, males on average rate lower than females on empathy.)
He presents a bell of curve of empathy, with those at the lowest end being termed either "zero-negative" or "zero-positive." The zero-positives are autistic people, particularly those with Asperger Syndrome, who are unable to understand another's point of view, but who nonetheless have a moral code and understand that they must live by the rules of society. (See blog post from Nov. 20, 2009 for a discussion from a reader on the difficulty of being married to a person with Asperger Syndrome--her husband literally just did not understand her.)
It's the zero-negatives that are commonly labeled evil. They lack an ability to appreciate another person's feelings or experiences, and are totally centered on their own selves--their own needs and desires. These people probably have a lethal combination of bad genes and a bad environment, most likely having been raised in abusive homes by zero-negative parents. They include sociopaths, narcissists, and people with borderline personality disorder. Whether their zero-negative state leads them to be angry at others all the time and to lash out verbally or physically, or whether it leads them to be coldly manipulative of others, or even to murder someone, the results are always bad for both the person and those around him.
Baron-Cohen talks about evil as simply being a complete lack of empathy, and it certainly makes sense that one would not be able to commit evil acts if one felt the pain of one's victim. I don't know that being zer0-negative is the sum total explanation of evil. It doesn't seem to explain those that get pleasure from others' pain. Particularly when it comes to psychopaths, such as Eric Harris, the Columbine killer, something else must lead them to move from not caring about causing pain to others, to actively seeking to cause pain. Psychopaths, says Baron-Cohen, can intellectually understand another's viewpoint, which is why they're so good at manipulating people, but they are unable to care. But psychopaths also seem to have a great deal of contempt for anyone but themselves, regarding others as inferior and deserving of whatever they do to them. This additional step seems to be necessary to get to evil.
One of my favorite movies is Fargo, partly for its brilliant portrayal of an ordinary, evil man. The car salesman, Jerry Lundegaard (played superbly by William H. Macy) is clearly a zero-negative person. He has absolutely no empathy for the terror he is willing to put his wife through in staging her kidnapping in order to solve his financial problems. He has absolutely no empathy for his son--what a painful, moving scene when he stands in the doorway of his son's bedroom, seeing his son in so much pain over his kidnapped mother, and is unable to comfort him. At the end, he has absolutely no remorse for what he has done--just fear of the consequences for himself.
The book raises a lot of provocative questions. For example, it is often asserted that anyone is capable of committing evil acts, even murder, given the right circumstances. Is this true? People cite the famous psychological studies in which ordinary people can be induced to give painful electric shocks to strangers (or so they believe), or the experiment in which college students were randomly divided into guards and prisoners, and the guards ended up treating the prisoners (really their fellow students) cruelly. However, not everyone who participated in those studies did these bad things. Some people refused to do so, despite the experimenters' attempts to push them into it. Baron-Cohen's bell curve of empathy helps to explain this. Those in the lower to middle range, who score a one t0 a four, would be more easily induced to ignore any feelings of empathy for the other. Those at the high end, who score a five or six on the scale, would be those who would walk out or refuse to inflict pain on others, no matter what.
There is no denying that being zero-negative on the empathy scale is a necessary condition for evil. Certainly, environmental factors would have to contribute. (Often, but not always, parenting. Other factors might come into play--peers, media, and so on.)
The consideration of evil is a big topic, far to big to cover in one, or several, blog posts. But I would recommend this book as a fascinating jumping-off point. Let me just conclude with my favorite quote from the book: "Each drop of empathy waters the flower of peace."
Baron-Cohen is Professor of Developmental Psychopathology at the University of Cambridge, and has been studying empathy for 30 years. He has concluded that there is a biological basis for empathy or the lack thereof, as well as factors in the environment that affect the development of empathy. He and his colleagues have discovered some genes related to empathy, and expect to find more. They have pinpointed areas in the brains that are activated when a person has an empathetic response (or not very activated in the brains of those low in empathy.) He talks about hormonal factors--testosterone negatively affecting empathy, and oxytocin increasing empathy. (Not surprisingly, males on average rate lower than females on empathy.)
He presents a bell of curve of empathy, with those at the lowest end being termed either "zero-negative" or "zero-positive." The zero-positives are autistic people, particularly those with Asperger Syndrome, who are unable to understand another's point of view, but who nonetheless have a moral code and understand that they must live by the rules of society. (See blog post from Nov. 20, 2009 for a discussion from a reader on the difficulty of being married to a person with Asperger Syndrome--her husband literally just did not understand her.)
It's the zero-negatives that are commonly labeled evil. They lack an ability to appreciate another person's feelings or experiences, and are totally centered on their own selves--their own needs and desires. These people probably have a lethal combination of bad genes and a bad environment, most likely having been raised in abusive homes by zero-negative parents. They include sociopaths, narcissists, and people with borderline personality disorder. Whether their zero-negative state leads them to be angry at others all the time and to lash out verbally or physically, or whether it leads them to be coldly manipulative of others, or even to murder someone, the results are always bad for both the person and those around him.
Baron-Cohen talks about evil as simply being a complete lack of empathy, and it certainly makes sense that one would not be able to commit evil acts if one felt the pain of one's victim. I don't know that being zer0-negative is the sum total explanation of evil. It doesn't seem to explain those that get pleasure from others' pain. Particularly when it comes to psychopaths, such as Eric Harris, the Columbine killer, something else must lead them to move from not caring about causing pain to others, to actively seeking to cause pain. Psychopaths, says Baron-Cohen, can intellectually understand another's viewpoint, which is why they're so good at manipulating people, but they are unable to care. But psychopaths also seem to have a great deal of contempt for anyone but themselves, regarding others as inferior and deserving of whatever they do to them. This additional step seems to be necessary to get to evil.
One of my favorite movies is Fargo, partly for its brilliant portrayal of an ordinary, evil man. The car salesman, Jerry Lundegaard (played superbly by William H. Macy) is clearly a zero-negative person. He has absolutely no empathy for the terror he is willing to put his wife through in staging her kidnapping in order to solve his financial problems. He has absolutely no empathy for his son--what a painful, moving scene when he stands in the doorway of his son's bedroom, seeing his son in so much pain over his kidnapped mother, and is unable to comfort him. At the end, he has absolutely no remorse for what he has done--just fear of the consequences for himself.
The book raises a lot of provocative questions. For example, it is often asserted that anyone is capable of committing evil acts, even murder, given the right circumstances. Is this true? People cite the famous psychological studies in which ordinary people can be induced to give painful electric shocks to strangers (or so they believe), or the experiment in which college students were randomly divided into guards and prisoners, and the guards ended up treating the prisoners (really their fellow students) cruelly. However, not everyone who participated in those studies did these bad things. Some people refused to do so, despite the experimenters' attempts to push them into it. Baron-Cohen's bell curve of empathy helps to explain this. Those in the lower to middle range, who score a one t0 a four, would be more easily induced to ignore any feelings of empathy for the other. Those at the high end, who score a five or six on the scale, would be those who would walk out or refuse to inflict pain on others, no matter what.
There is no denying that being zero-negative on the empathy scale is a necessary condition for evil. Certainly, environmental factors would have to contribute. (Often, but not always, parenting. Other factors might come into play--peers, media, and so on.)
The consideration of evil is a big topic, far to big to cover in one, or several, blog posts. But I would recommend this book as a fascinating jumping-off point. Let me just conclude with my favorite quote from the book: "Each drop of empathy waters the flower of peace."
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
Teaching Empathy in College
A faithful supporter recently sent me an interesting article in the Chronicle of Higher Education in which the writer asks the question: should empathy be taught to college students? The author, Richard Kahlenberg, asks: "In higher education, should colleges affirmatively seek to teach students empathy or is doing so inappropriate because it is unrelated to academic achievement and might be overtly political?"
First, I have to say I see nothing political about empathy. One would hope that politicians of every persuasion would see the pro-social value of empathy in our society. Yes, some on the far-right side of the political spectrum do not believe that values should be taught in school, but rather should be left strictly to home. Also, as the speaker to whom Mr. Kahlenberg was listening pointed out, President Obama was castigated by some Republicans for saying, when he was in the process of making his last Supreme Court appointment, that he would be looking for a justice with the trait of empathy. (See previous blog post from May 2009 for my take on this topic.) But I seriously doubt any political party would wish to call itself "anti-empathy".
There are 2 questions to be answered as to whether teaching empathy to college students is advisable: is it worthwhile, and is it possible?
Possible? Maybe, maybe not. Empathy is a human trait that I believe is built into the human brain and the human social system, and it is learned naturally just as we learn language, the social mores of our particular group, and many other things. Most humans develop empathy to a certain degree--some more, some less, and a few, not at all. (See my blog posts on March 2009 and May 2o11 for further discussion of this topic.) Mr. Kahlenberg discusses a college which is requiring its students to take part in an 8-week program in which they do things like spending a day in a wheelchair, or a night in a homeless shelter. My feeling is, this may help some young people broaden their understanding of what people less fortunate than themselves experience, so why not do it? Of course, spending one night in a homeless shelter cannot give a true, deep understanding of what it is like to be without a home--to live in uncertainty day after day, to not be able to own more than you can carry on your back or maybe store at a friend's house, to not know where you will be sleeping each night, to not have a neighborhood and the sense of belonging that comes with that... But even having a taste of the experience might open up some eyes and hearts to things the person had not understood and thought about before.
And I too am only speculating and imagining what being homeless would be like, because I have not personally experienced that. In fact, I would hope that the college would pair each "experience" with a guest speaker who could talk to the students about what their life is like and how they feel about it, and who could answer the students' questions and engage in a deep and meaningful dialogue with them.
As far as whether it is appropriate for colleges to teach empathy? Absolutely! Gaining understanding of the larger world is pretty much the mission of higher education, isn't it? Don't most English literature classes involve analyzing and trying to understand the characters' feelings and experiences? Don't sociology classes, anthropology classes, psychology classes and many other college courses expand a student's empathy and understanding of other people?
The intention of a liberal arts education is to broaden young people's understanding of the world and those who live in it. Enhancing students' empathy gives them another tool to do so.
First, I have to say I see nothing political about empathy. One would hope that politicians of every persuasion would see the pro-social value of empathy in our society. Yes, some on the far-right side of the political spectrum do not believe that values should be taught in school, but rather should be left strictly to home. Also, as the speaker to whom Mr. Kahlenberg was listening pointed out, President Obama was castigated by some Republicans for saying, when he was in the process of making his last Supreme Court appointment, that he would be looking for a justice with the trait of empathy. (See previous blog post from May 2009 for my take on this topic.) But I seriously doubt any political party would wish to call itself "anti-empathy".
There are 2 questions to be answered as to whether teaching empathy to college students is advisable: is it worthwhile, and is it possible?
Possible? Maybe, maybe not. Empathy is a human trait that I believe is built into the human brain and the human social system, and it is learned naturally just as we learn language, the social mores of our particular group, and many other things. Most humans develop empathy to a certain degree--some more, some less, and a few, not at all. (See my blog posts on March 2009 and May 2o11 for further discussion of this topic.) Mr. Kahlenberg discusses a college which is requiring its students to take part in an 8-week program in which they do things like spending a day in a wheelchair, or a night in a homeless shelter. My feeling is, this may help some young people broaden their understanding of what people less fortunate than themselves experience, so why not do it? Of course, spending one night in a homeless shelter cannot give a true, deep understanding of what it is like to be without a home--to live in uncertainty day after day, to not be able to own more than you can carry on your back or maybe store at a friend's house, to not know where you will be sleeping each night, to not have a neighborhood and the sense of belonging that comes with that... But even having a taste of the experience might open up some eyes and hearts to things the person had not understood and thought about before.
And I too am only speculating and imagining what being homeless would be like, because I have not personally experienced that. In fact, I would hope that the college would pair each "experience" with a guest speaker who could talk to the students about what their life is like and how they feel about it, and who could answer the students' questions and engage in a deep and meaningful dialogue with them.
As far as whether it is appropriate for colleges to teach empathy? Absolutely! Gaining understanding of the larger world is pretty much the mission of higher education, isn't it? Don't most English literature classes involve analyzing and trying to understand the characters' feelings and experiences? Don't sociology classes, anthropology classes, psychology classes and many other college courses expand a student's empathy and understanding of other people?
The intention of a liberal arts education is to broaden young people's understanding of the world and those who live in it. Enhancing students' empathy gives them another tool to do so.
Monday, July 11, 2011
Facebook: the face of empathy today?
I read a very inspiring article in the New York Times about a new Facebook page that is connecting young Palestinians and Israelis. It's called Facebook.com/yalaYL, the YL standing for "young leaders." This site was created by a former Israeli diplomat, and is being supported by many important people. There are welcome messages from Shimon Peres, president of Israel, and Mahmoud Abbas, president of the Palestinian Authority. Mark Zuckerberg, founder of Facebook, is very excited about this project.
According to the NewYork Times article, this site is getting many Israelis and Palestinians to talk to each other for the first time. They quote an 18-year-old Palestinian student who says, "This is my first contact with Israelis. ...I think it's cool." Another student, who got a friend request from Egypt, said, "I asked one Egyptian why he had contacted me...and he said, 'After the revolution, everything is permitted. I want to see what Israelis are like."
Clearly, Palestinians and Israelis will never be able to make true peace with each other until they can know each other--until they have empathy for where each other is coming from, and for what each other is going through. They must know each other, as individuals, and hear each other's stories and experiences, feelings and desires, to be able to come to see each other as fellow human beings, rather than enemies.
Social media just might bring the world together.
According to the NewYork Times article, this site is getting many Israelis and Palestinians to talk to each other for the first time. They quote an 18-year-old Palestinian student who says, "This is my first contact with Israelis. ...I think it's cool." Another student, who got a friend request from Egypt, said, "I asked one Egyptian why he had contacted me...and he said, 'After the revolution, everything is permitted. I want to see what Israelis are like."
Clearly, Palestinians and Israelis will never be able to make true peace with each other until they can know each other--until they have empathy for where each other is coming from, and for what each other is going through. They must know each other, as individuals, and hear each other's stories and experiences, feelings and desires, to be able to come to see each other as fellow human beings, rather than enemies.
Social media just might bring the world together.
Sunday, May 22, 2011
Can rich and powerful people be empathetic?
Lately, several things have added up to my asking the question in the title.
On The Daily Show this week, Jon Stewart interviewed the author Jon Ronson, who wrote The Psychopath Test. He avers that a surprising number of CEOs and powerful politicians are successful precisely because they are psychopaths. In other words, they completely lack empathy for anyone else, and thus are able to do whatever is necessary to get ahead. As Booklist says in its review of this book, "those behaviors are found in CEOs who recklessly eliminate jobs while lavishing money on themselves and their friends, as well as in murderously dangerous Mafiosi".
Tomorrow night my book club will be discussing the 2010 novel The Privileges, by Jonathon Dee. It's a brilliantly-written depiction a family--husband, wife, daughter, son--who become ultra-rich. The man is very good at his job and makes a lot of money working for a private equity firm, but he feels absolutely entitled to a life of ultimate privilege for himself and his family. So he engages in illegal insider trading, and makes an incredible fortune. The man and his wife are totally narcissistic and lacking in empathy for anyone else outside their 4-person family unit, including their own parents and siblings. They believe that their children should be denied nothing. The results are horrifying.
Meanwhile, our newspapers are filled with stories about how the rich have gotten richer during our current economic downturn. Two days ago, I read this headline in the Minneapolis Star Tribune: "Rich Spend as Everyone Else Scrimps." I have to wonder if someone who spends $5000 on one handbag, which is just plain ridiculous, can have any empathy for the other 99% of humanity.
F. Scott Fitzgerald famously wrote, "Let me tell you about the very rich. They are different from you and me." Being born rich has to put you at a remove from ordinary people which would be very difficult to bridge. Does attaining great wealth do the same thing? Or do you have to feel that remove from others in the first place in order to amass a personal fortune.
Of course I am not saying that all rich people and all powerful people lack empathy. Certainly many people, like the late Minnesota Senator Paul Wellstone, go into politics precisely because they have great empathy for others, and wish to help them and make the world a better place. And I'm sure some rich people send their kids to public school and do other things to keep their children, and themselves, grounded and in touch with regular people. Prince William flies search and rescue helicopters and hangs out with his RAF crew.
But history is full of people--from the robber barons of the past to Bernie Madoff of today--who are very rich because they are sociopaths who have a talent for taking money from other people in various ways and not caring one tiny bit about those whom they have hurt.
The next book I'm going to read is The Science of Evil: On Empathy and the Origins of Cruelty, by Simon Baron-Cohen. If I learn anything therein that helps us know what can be done about rich and powerful sociopaths, I'll let you know.
On The Daily Show this week, Jon Stewart interviewed the author Jon Ronson, who wrote The Psychopath Test. He avers that a surprising number of CEOs and powerful politicians are successful precisely because they are psychopaths. In other words, they completely lack empathy for anyone else, and thus are able to do whatever is necessary to get ahead. As Booklist says in its review of this book, "those behaviors are found in CEOs who recklessly eliminate jobs while lavishing money on themselves and their friends, as well as in murderously dangerous Mafiosi".
Tomorrow night my book club will be discussing the 2010 novel The Privileges, by Jonathon Dee. It's a brilliantly-written depiction a family--husband, wife, daughter, son--who become ultra-rich. The man is very good at his job and makes a lot of money working for a private equity firm, but he feels absolutely entitled to a life of ultimate privilege for himself and his family. So he engages in illegal insider trading, and makes an incredible fortune. The man and his wife are totally narcissistic and lacking in empathy for anyone else outside their 4-person family unit, including their own parents and siblings. They believe that their children should be denied nothing. The results are horrifying.
Meanwhile, our newspapers are filled with stories about how the rich have gotten richer during our current economic downturn. Two days ago, I read this headline in the Minneapolis Star Tribune: "Rich Spend as Everyone Else Scrimps." I have to wonder if someone who spends $5000 on one handbag, which is just plain ridiculous, can have any empathy for the other 99% of humanity.
F. Scott Fitzgerald famously wrote, "Let me tell you about the very rich. They are different from you and me." Being born rich has to put you at a remove from ordinary people which would be very difficult to bridge. Does attaining great wealth do the same thing? Or do you have to feel that remove from others in the first place in order to amass a personal fortune.
Of course I am not saying that all rich people and all powerful people lack empathy. Certainly many people, like the late Minnesota Senator Paul Wellstone, go into politics precisely because they have great empathy for others, and wish to help them and make the world a better place. And I'm sure some rich people send their kids to public school and do other things to keep their children, and themselves, grounded and in touch with regular people. Prince William flies search and rescue helicopters and hangs out with his RAF crew.
But history is full of people--from the robber barons of the past to Bernie Madoff of today--who are very rich because they are sociopaths who have a talent for taking money from other people in various ways and not caring one tiny bit about those whom they have hurt.
The next book I'm going to read is The Science of Evil: On Empathy and the Origins of Cruelty, by Simon Baron-Cohen. If I learn anything therein that helps us know what can be done about rich and powerful sociopaths, I'll let you know.
Monday, April 4, 2011
The GIft of Sharing Pain
I have a good friend who has cancer. She was diagnosed with breast cancer last fall, had 3 surgeries, and has been undergoing a grueling series of chemo and radiation treatments that started in January and will last until the end of May. Like many others, she has a CaringBridge website that allows her to stay in touch with friends and family around the country, and keeps us updated on her condition.
This lovely person has a wonderful sense of humor, and it is beautifully on display in her journal updates. She jokes about her "day at the nuclear spa". She says, "I absolutely look like Molting Ostrich Girl, which is quite hilarious. I am collecting a wonderful assortment of ridiculous wigs and headgear, the newest one a fiery red mohawk hat."
But she has also found the strength to honestly share how hard the long battle with cancer is, and to trust that we will hang with her, that we do not need jokes all the time to make it bearable. I so much appreciate her sharing the dark side of cancer with us. I have been lucky in that, so far, we haven't had any family members diagnosed with cancer. I didn't know that when you're having weekly chemo sessions, you get one "good" day a week--the day before your next session, when you plunge down the chemo cliff again, your mind engulfed in a chemo haze and your body barely able to walk. She says, "The basic news is that it's darn tough, not a little frightening, a lot lonely, and a huge challenge across the physical, emotional and spiritual spectrums. Those aren't bad things, however. Hope springs eternal! "
It is so hard to open up and let people know the darkness you are dealing with. My friend is a very strong, vibrant person. And now she has found the strength to be dependent, to feel anger at the setbacks, to need support. As she put it so well in her most recent post: "I thank my friends for staying close to me, and for pushing me to let you help me. I deflect with humor and try to make it easy to be around me, and realize that I have a really tough time showing my vulnerability. Part of the journey to the other side is getting your rear end kicked, and learning to let a lot go!"
This lovely person has a wonderful sense of humor, and it is beautifully on display in her journal updates. She jokes about her "day at the nuclear spa". She says, "I absolutely look like Molting Ostrich Girl, which is quite hilarious. I am collecting a wonderful assortment of ridiculous wigs and headgear, the newest one a fiery red mohawk hat."
But she has also found the strength to honestly share how hard the long battle with cancer is, and to trust that we will hang with her, that we do not need jokes all the time to make it bearable. I so much appreciate her sharing the dark side of cancer with us. I have been lucky in that, so far, we haven't had any family members diagnosed with cancer. I didn't know that when you're having weekly chemo sessions, you get one "good" day a week--the day before your next session, when you plunge down the chemo cliff again, your mind engulfed in a chemo haze and your body barely able to walk. She says, "The basic news is that it's darn tough, not a little frightening, a lot lonely, and a huge challenge across the physical, emotional and spiritual spectrums. Those aren't bad things, however. Hope springs eternal! "
It is so hard to open up and let people know the darkness you are dealing with. My friend is a very strong, vibrant person. And now she has found the strength to be dependent, to feel anger at the setbacks, to need support. As she put it so well in her most recent post: "I thank my friends for staying close to me, and for pushing me to let you help me. I deflect with humor and try to make it easy to be around me, and realize that I have a really tough time showing my vulnerability. Part of the journey to the other side is getting your rear end kicked, and learning to let a lot go!"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)