I read about a new study that claims that college kids are about 40% less empathetic than their counterparts 20 or 30 years ago. This was a large study analyzing data on 14,000 college students. The results were obtained by asking students pretty straight-forward questions like how much they agree with the statement, "I sometimes try to understand my friends better by imagining how things look from their perspective". I answered the questionnaire myself, and it seemed hard to get a low score.
A 40% drop is huge, and the article in Science Digest speculated on why this might have occurred, fingering everything from violent video games to reality shows (which make entertainment of real humans' problems) to Facebook as the culprits.
But I have to wonder if the results are right. All of the young people I know, from my sons' friends to my nieces and nephews to people I work with, seem quite empathetic. Yes, they connect on Facebook in a somewhat superficial way, but that doesn't mean they don't connect with each other in real life, and they still seem to share and listen to each other as much as ever. Maybe I'm wrong. But I hope not.
I read about the study in New York Times' columnist Charles M. Blow's account of how he isn't as personally connected to his neighbors as people used to be. But then, he lives in New York City. Maybe it's different here in Minnesota. After all, Minneapolis is the number one city in the U.S. in terms of number of people who volunteer. And you don't voluntarily give up your time and money to help someone else, whether it's a child who needs help with reading in school, or a homeless family who needs a free meal, or a sick and lonely old person in a nursing home who needs a friend, unless you feel empathy for that person you're helping.
Maybe young people today just self-report differently than they did in the past. Maybe when asked how much a statement such as "When I see someone being taken advantage of, I feel kind of protective towards them" describes themselves, they chose the second-highest option on the five-point scale, for some reason. Maybe they're more cynical about being surveyed. Maybe they're more honest. Maybe they're thinking, "It depends on why that person is being taken advantage of."
I would really love to hear from young people: how accurate do you feel this study is?
Friday, June 18, 2010
Saturday, June 5, 2010
Gay stigma fading away
Good news on the empathy front! New York Times columnist Charles M. Blow reports on the Gallup research organization's findings that the percentage of Americans who feel that gay and lesbian relations are "morally acceptable" has passed the 50% mark. Further, the increase comes about because men have dramatically increased their acceptance of homosexuality in others, bringing them up to the same level of acceptance as found among women.
This is particularly true for young men. In general, it seems the youth are leading the way on this front. They've been exposed to gay characters on TV and in the movies their whole lives; they've seen increasing numbers of famous people come out and say "I'm gay, this is who I am, but it doesn't define me"; they personally know more people who are openly gay. Remember when Ellen DeGeneres came out on national TV in 1997 and it was considered so brave? She helped break the ground for Adam Lambert to be able to come out in a very casual and natural way 12 years later. Adam Lambert is the new normal for young people. One of my son's best friends is gay, and it certainly hasn't adversely affected their close friendship.
I'm not saying it isn't still difficult for a gay or lesbian person to tell the world--their families, friends and co-workers--about their sexual orientation. I don't want to make light of the prejudice and hostility they still face. But the stigma seems to be falling rapidly, as even the military is now on the verge of repealing its "Don't ask, don't tell" policy. And now we're seeing state after state open up marriage to same-sex couples, further decreasing the "us" vs "them" mentality of the past. I suspect that when Gallup does a follow-up poll in 10 years, young people in 2020 will say, "Who cares if someone's gay or not? No one I know."
This is particularly true for young men. In general, it seems the youth are leading the way on this front. They've been exposed to gay characters on TV and in the movies their whole lives; they've seen increasing numbers of famous people come out and say "I'm gay, this is who I am, but it doesn't define me"; they personally know more people who are openly gay. Remember when Ellen DeGeneres came out on national TV in 1997 and it was considered so brave? She helped break the ground for Adam Lambert to be able to come out in a very casual and natural way 12 years later. Adam Lambert is the new normal for young people. One of my son's best friends is gay, and it certainly hasn't adversely affected their close friendship.
I'm not saying it isn't still difficult for a gay or lesbian person to tell the world--their families, friends and co-workers--about their sexual orientation. I don't want to make light of the prejudice and hostility they still face. But the stigma seems to be falling rapidly, as even the military is now on the verge of repealing its "Don't ask, don't tell" policy. And now we're seeing state after state open up marriage to same-sex couples, further decreasing the "us" vs "them" mentality of the past. I suspect that when Gallup does a follow-up poll in 10 years, young people in 2020 will say, "Who cares if someone's gay or not? No one I know."
Saturday, May 8, 2010
Empathy for Evil?
Are we required to have empathy for those who are evil?
I recently watched the movie Hotel Rwanda. This is, of course, a very disturbing movie about true evil that was committed on a massive scale, as well as being a hopeful movie about courage and respect for the humanity of others in the face of such evil.
So, should we try to feel empathy for those who slaughtered their neighbors, including small children, so brutally?
Yes, because feeling empathy does not mean condoning or excusing what the recipient of one's empathy does. Empathy may help us understand why humans can commit evil, either on an individual scale (as in the case of an abused child who grows up to become an abuser) or on a larger scale, as in Rwanda. But that doesn't mean that harming other people is ever okay.
Instead, we recognize and admit that we share a common humanity with those who commit evil, rather than distancing ourselves from them and consoling ourselves with the notion that we could never do what they did. Certainly, we all hope that we would be the brave ones to resist the Nazis, to shelter those being persecuted, to speak up when we see someone abusing their child in public. But until we can admit that all of us contain within our human souls the capacity to do wrong as well as right, we can make no progress in dealing with evil.
Who joined the Crusades? Who slaughtered whole families of Native Americans in their villages? Who enslaved Africans? Who lynched them when they were freed? Who participated in the killing fields of Cambodia? Who watched their Jewish neighbors being taken away to death camps and said nothing? Who kidnaps boys in Africa today and brutalizes them until they turn into killers? People not unlike us, that's who.
I am reminded of the famous Stanford experiment from 1971, wherein students were randomly divided into 2 groups--prisoners and guards. The experiment was supposed to last 2 weeks, but they had to stop it after 6 days because the students who were the guards became so cruel (although they were not allowed to physically hurt the prisoners) and the prisoners became so traumatized. These were normal, typical college students, no different, really, from our own friends, our own children.
And in all cases of mass evil, the common denominator that allowed it to happen (besides that of power) was that the people who were slaughtered or raped or mutilated were made out to be "others", less than human. In other words, those who committed the evil acts had absolutely no empathy for those whom they hurt.
I recently watched the movie Hotel Rwanda. This is, of course, a very disturbing movie about true evil that was committed on a massive scale, as well as being a hopeful movie about courage and respect for the humanity of others in the face of such evil.
So, should we try to feel empathy for those who slaughtered their neighbors, including small children, so brutally?
Yes, because feeling empathy does not mean condoning or excusing what the recipient of one's empathy does. Empathy may help us understand why humans can commit evil, either on an individual scale (as in the case of an abused child who grows up to become an abuser) or on a larger scale, as in Rwanda. But that doesn't mean that harming other people is ever okay.
Instead, we recognize and admit that we share a common humanity with those who commit evil, rather than distancing ourselves from them and consoling ourselves with the notion that we could never do what they did. Certainly, we all hope that we would be the brave ones to resist the Nazis, to shelter those being persecuted, to speak up when we see someone abusing their child in public. But until we can admit that all of us contain within our human souls the capacity to do wrong as well as right, we can make no progress in dealing with evil.
Who joined the Crusades? Who slaughtered whole families of Native Americans in their villages? Who enslaved Africans? Who lynched them when they were freed? Who participated in the killing fields of Cambodia? Who watched their Jewish neighbors being taken away to death camps and said nothing? Who kidnaps boys in Africa today and brutalizes them until they turn into killers? People not unlike us, that's who.
I am reminded of the famous Stanford experiment from 1971, wherein students were randomly divided into 2 groups--prisoners and guards. The experiment was supposed to last 2 weeks, but they had to stop it after 6 days because the students who were the guards became so cruel (although they were not allowed to physically hurt the prisoners) and the prisoners became so traumatized. These were normal, typical college students, no different, really, from our own friends, our own children.
And in all cases of mass evil, the common denominator that allowed it to happen (besides that of power) was that the people who were slaughtered or raped or mutilated were made out to be "others", less than human. In other words, those who committed the evil acts had absolutely no empathy for those whom they hurt.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Haiti Vs. Congo
I was going to write about how the overwhelming response to the earthquake disaster in Haiti gives us clear evidence that empathy is alive and well in the human population. We see millions of people suffering enormous loss, and we must respond, millions of us in return. We are compelled to help people we don't know at all, just because we can put ourselves in their place and imagine how awful it must be. Compassion is the empathetic response to bad things happening to other people, even people we will never meet.
And this is true, but...
Nicholas D. Kristof writes in the New York Times today about the humanitarian crisis happening in east Congo now, and contrasts the outpouring of support for the suffering people in Haiti to the indifference the world exhibits to the genocide and atrocities happening in Congo. He says that the civil war there has claimed 30 times the number of lives as has the earthquake in Haiti; he describes in vivid and sickening detail the savage murder of parents in front of their children, the kidnapping of young girls to sexually service the rebel soldiers, the rape of children. Extremist Hutu militias (remnants of those that committed the genocide in Rwanda) are brutally destroying the country and its people, and the world is, apparently, indifferent.
WHY?
Some guesses:
--It's too alien, too far removed from our own experience here in the U.S. Natural disasters we know, we understand. We have tornadoes, earthquakes, hurricanes. We don't have roaming bands of lawless thugs breaking into our homes, eviscerating our husbands in front of our eyes, raping our wives as we are forced to watch, and carrying off our screaming 12-year-old daughter. (Although I write this from the safety of my suburban home. I acknowledge that people who live in our worst slums are subject to terror from gang members.)
--We don't see it. We see the Haitian disaster on TV, and it's a lot easier to respond with empathy to what you can see. Maybe if Steven Spielberg made a movie about Congo, we'd respond.
--Tribal warfare in Africa seems endless and unsolvable to most of us in the West. There are solutions to earthquake damage. The remedies are concrete: dig people out of rubble; send doctors; send food; send tents; send money. But what is the remedy for genocide, for rape on a massive scale? Send in our troops? Not going to happen. Send money? To whom? World wide awareness and outcry? Important, but will it make any difference in actually stopping it?
--One disaster was caused by natural events; the other by the most extreme human evil. We don't like to think about how evil we as a species can be. We want to distance ourselves from it, but in doing so we distance ourselves from the victims as well.
I wish I had some insightful answer. I don't. But I am highly grateful to Mr. Kristof for speaking up for the ravaged Congo people.
And this is true, but...
Nicholas D. Kristof writes in the New York Times today about the humanitarian crisis happening in east Congo now, and contrasts the outpouring of support for the suffering people in Haiti to the indifference the world exhibits to the genocide and atrocities happening in Congo. He says that the civil war there has claimed 30 times the number of lives as has the earthquake in Haiti; he describes in vivid and sickening detail the savage murder of parents in front of their children, the kidnapping of young girls to sexually service the rebel soldiers, the rape of children. Extremist Hutu militias (remnants of those that committed the genocide in Rwanda) are brutally destroying the country and its people, and the world is, apparently, indifferent.
WHY?
Some guesses:
--It's too alien, too far removed from our own experience here in the U.S. Natural disasters we know, we understand. We have tornadoes, earthquakes, hurricanes. We don't have roaming bands of lawless thugs breaking into our homes, eviscerating our husbands in front of our eyes, raping our wives as we are forced to watch, and carrying off our screaming 12-year-old daughter. (Although I write this from the safety of my suburban home. I acknowledge that people who live in our worst slums are subject to terror from gang members.)
--We don't see it. We see the Haitian disaster on TV, and it's a lot easier to respond with empathy to what you can see. Maybe if Steven Spielberg made a movie about Congo, we'd respond.
--Tribal warfare in Africa seems endless and unsolvable to most of us in the West. There are solutions to earthquake damage. The remedies are concrete: dig people out of rubble; send doctors; send food; send tents; send money. But what is the remedy for genocide, for rape on a massive scale? Send in our troops? Not going to happen. Send money? To whom? World wide awareness and outcry? Important, but will it make any difference in actually stopping it?
--One disaster was caused by natural events; the other by the most extreme human evil. We don't like to think about how evil we as a species can be. We want to distance ourselves from it, but in doing so we distance ourselves from the victims as well.
I wish I had some insightful answer. I don't. But I am highly grateful to Mr. Kristof for speaking up for the ravaged Congo people.
Monday, December 21, 2009
My parents, empathy, and one Christmas morning
I grew up with parents who were extremely empathetic-- both toward others and toward us, my sisters, brother and me. The Christmas season reminds me of a wonderful example of that.
As the oldest of the four kids, I was the first to learn the truth about Santa Claus. I felt very important and grown-up to be keeping this secret with my parents, and wanted to be a part of making the Santa magic for my younger siblings. I had the idea that "Santa" should leave a trail of presents from the fireplace to the tree-- an idea I eagerly shared with my parents. They agreed to do it.
I got up Christmas morning, all excited to see the results of my collaboration with my parents. When I walked into the living room, I was surprised to see ALL the presents spread out between the fireplace and the tree, and none under the tree. I realized that my parents had misunderstood my idea, which had been to have most of the presents under the tree, and just a thin trail of presents from the fireplace to the tree.
I thought it looked really bad. And I was extremely touched to see it so. Because it told me that my parents valued me more than anything, certainly more than how something looked-- even something as important as a once a year magical Christmas event. I figured they had to have thought it looked stupid, too, when they laid it out, but they did it anyway. For me.
They had such empathy for me (I felt it even if I didn't know the word then) that they understood how excited and grown-up I felt to be in on the secret, and they honored that. What a beautiful gift, one that I have treasured to this day.
As the oldest of the four kids, I was the first to learn the truth about Santa Claus. I felt very important and grown-up to be keeping this secret with my parents, and wanted to be a part of making the Santa magic for my younger siblings. I had the idea that "Santa" should leave a trail of presents from the fireplace to the tree-- an idea I eagerly shared with my parents. They agreed to do it.
I got up Christmas morning, all excited to see the results of my collaboration with my parents. When I walked into the living room, I was surprised to see ALL the presents spread out between the fireplace and the tree, and none under the tree. I realized that my parents had misunderstood my idea, which had been to have most of the presents under the tree, and just a thin trail of presents from the fireplace to the tree.
I thought it looked really bad. And I was extremely touched to see it so. Because it told me that my parents valued me more than anything, certainly more than how something looked-- even something as important as a once a year magical Christmas event. I figured they had to have thought it looked stupid, too, when they laid it out, but they did it anyway. For me.
They had such empathy for me (I felt it even if I didn't know the word then) that they understood how excited and grown-up I felt to be in on the secret, and they honored that. What a beautiful gift, one that I have treasured to this day.
Friday, November 20, 2009
Life in a Family without Empathy
How difficult is it to live with family members who are unable to feel empathy for you or each other?
I've had a series of interesting e-mails from a woman who recently discovered the empathy symbol and the website. She tells of the daily anguish of living just such a life. She suggested that we add "families" to the motto on the bookmarks and magnets, which says: "Empathy-- the first step to peace in our schools, communities, nations, world."
I thought her experience should be shared, and she gave me her permission to do so here, even though she felt some trepidation. She believes that the lack of empathy in her family members stems from undiagnosed Asperger Syndrome. She is aware that this might be controversial in the Asperger community. But looking on Wikipedia, I found that Hans Asperger, the Austrian pediatrician who identified the syndrome in 1944, "described children in his practice who lacked nonverbal communication skills, demonstrated limited empathy with their peers, and were physically clumsy." Saying that at least some people who have Asperger Syndrome have a difficult time feeling empathy for others is not a judgment, and it doesn't mean that all such individuals cannot learn to feel and understand how things are for another person.
I think it's important to listen to her experience with an open mind and heart, and really hear, and feel, what she shares:
"As you know, empathy is a very personal issue for me. ... living with decades of no empathy from your spouse, daughter and other extended family members can be deadly. I believe my sister suicided in 2006 in part from the lack of empathy she experienced over 25 years with her husband-probably undiagnosed AS. She didn't think she could live with him anymore, but she also didn't think she could live without him. It has taken me 32 years to realize my husband probably has AS. It took me 52 years to realize my parents and sisters probably also have/had it. What took me even longer was to realize the impact on ME from living with non-empathetic people for all of my life! I have found a whole world of Asperger Spouses who struggle with depression, anxiety, physical illnesses from decades of neglecting themselves and caring for others and/or stuffing emotions and feelings which family members will not allow expression of. ...I attend a monthly Asperger Spouse Support, or ASS, group.
...Prior to finding your website, my favorite website was that of Maxine Aston who has described "Cassandra Affective Deprivation Disorder" experienced by the spouses of those with Asperger's. Unlike Autism, which is usually more obvious, people don't believe they have AS, or that your spouse might have AS. Thus, you speak the truth that there's something wrong, but nobody believes you. It is truly a curse. For 10 months my family has denied the possibility they have AS, just increasing my despair after a brief glimmer of hope that I finally understood what I was dealing with. We have finally found a competent health psychologist experienced with AS and are working towards a diagnosis, but much slower than I'd like.
If you are ever interested in learning more from my perspective, or that of other spouses, I'd be willing to set something up. Again, my bottom line recommendation is to add the word "families", because the lack of empathy IS deadly within families, just as much as it is in other aspects of our society. The reality is that if people don't learn empathy within their families, or during K-12 schooling, it will be much more difficult to learn it other places. Since AS did not exist as a diagnosis until 1994, there are many, many undiagnosed adults in our world who are not eligible for the educational services young students receive today. Our health plan does not cover AS as it is not "curable", even though it has impacted my health severely. But health insurance companies don't look at the health impact on others from your disability. There's a whole can of worms out there in relationship to this issue.
Thanks again for the symbol, and the affirmation and hope it brings to me (and others) that someone is acknowledging the importance of something we lack on a daily basis within our families."
Having grown up in a family that was awash in empathy, I can only imagine her pain; I thank her for sharing her story with me, and now with you.
And yes, we will be adding the word "families" to the empathy motto soon.
I've had a series of interesting e-mails from a woman who recently discovered the empathy symbol and the website. She tells of the daily anguish of living just such a life. She suggested that we add "families" to the motto on the bookmarks and magnets, which says: "Empathy-- the first step to peace in our schools, communities, nations, world."
I thought her experience should be shared, and she gave me her permission to do so here, even though she felt some trepidation. She believes that the lack of empathy in her family members stems from undiagnosed Asperger Syndrome. She is aware that this might be controversial in the Asperger community. But looking on Wikipedia, I found that Hans Asperger, the Austrian pediatrician who identified the syndrome in 1944, "described children in his practice who lacked nonverbal communication skills, demonstrated limited empathy with their peers, and were physically clumsy." Saying that at least some people who have Asperger Syndrome have a difficult time feeling empathy for others is not a judgment, and it doesn't mean that all such individuals cannot learn to feel and understand how things are for another person.
I think it's important to listen to her experience with an open mind and heart, and really hear, and feel, what she shares:
"As you know, empathy is a very personal issue for me. ... living with decades of no empathy from your spouse, daughter and other extended family members can be deadly. I believe my sister suicided in 2006 in part from the lack of empathy she experienced over 25 years with her husband-probably undiagnosed AS. She didn't think she could live with him anymore, but she also didn't think she could live without him. It has taken me 32 years to realize my husband probably has AS. It took me 52 years to realize my parents and sisters probably also have/had it. What took me even longer was to realize the impact on ME from living with non-empathetic people for all of my life! I have found a whole world of Asperger Spouses who struggle with depression, anxiety, physical illnesses from decades of neglecting themselves and caring for others and/or stuffing emotions and feelings which family members will not allow expression of. ...I attend a monthly Asperger Spouse Support, or ASS, group.
...Prior to finding your website, my favorite website was that of Maxine Aston who has described "Cassandra Affective Deprivation Disorder" experienced by the spouses of those with Asperger's. Unlike Autism, which is usually more obvious, people don't believe they have AS, or that your spouse might have AS. Thus, you speak the truth that there's something wrong, but nobody believes you. It is truly a curse. For 10 months my family has denied the possibility they have AS, just increasing my despair after a brief glimmer of hope that I finally understood what I was dealing with. We have finally found a competent health psychologist experienced with AS and are working towards a diagnosis, but much slower than I'd like.
If you are ever interested in learning more from my perspective, or that of other spouses, I'd be willing to set something up. Again, my bottom line recommendation is to add the word "families", because the lack of empathy IS deadly within families, just as much as it is in other aspects of our society. The reality is that if people don't learn empathy within their families, or during K-12 schooling, it will be much more difficult to learn it other places. Since AS did not exist as a diagnosis until 1994, there are many, many undiagnosed adults in our world who are not eligible for the educational services young students receive today. Our health plan does not cover AS as it is not "curable", even though it has impacted my health severely. But health insurance companies don't look at the health impact on others from your disability. There's a whole can of worms out there in relationship to this issue.
Thanks again for the symbol, and the affirmation and hope it brings to me (and others) that someone is acknowledging the importance of something we lack on a daily basis within our families."
Having grown up in a family that was awash in empathy, I can only imagine her pain; I thank her for sharing her story with me, and now with you.
And yes, we will be adding the word "families" to the empathy motto soon.
Saturday, October 3, 2009
Babies are sociopaths
We all start life as sociopaths.
Babies don't much care that mommy is dead tired from getting up every two hours to feed them. Their cries say it all: "Feed me. Change me. Hold me. Meet my needs."
Fortunately, we are also hardwired from the beginning to be interested in other human beings, to gain pleasure from seeing a face we recognize, from hearing other human voices. When a toddler reaches out from her high chair to offer her mother a bite of the cookie she is enjoying, wishing Mommy to experience the pleasure she has, we are certainly seeing the beginning of empathy.
In fact, I believe we are hardwired as humans to become empathetic, that caring about others and wanting to understand others is a survival trait for the human species. We are a social species, and we have succeeded spectacularly because of this.
But, there are aberrant individuals in any species. In humans, a severe lack of empathy leads to a sociopathic personality--a person who has no interest in the experiences or feelings of any other human being but himself. What are the worst human beings in our history but sociopaths, able to commit mass atrocities because they are unable to feel the pain they are causing others, unable to even perceive others as full human beings like themselves?
And of course, empathy runs on a continuum, like most things. It's not either/or: either you're empathetic or you're a sociopath. Most of us fall somewhere between Mother Teresa and Hitler.
We all know people who just don't seem all that interested in anyone but themselves. This person, when you tell him you just had something bad happen to you (let's say you found out your mother has cancer), responds with his own story of someone he knows who had cancer, or a story about an illness his own mother had, rather than responding to you and your experience. Sure, sometimes people do this as an attempt to let you know that they understand where you're coming from. But you know the kind of person I mean: whatever you say, their response starts with the word "I". They're not quite up to the mid-point on the empathy scale.
On the other hand, we all know someone who seems genuinely interested in hearing about us and our feelings and experiences. This person's response tends to be a question about you and what you said: "Oh my, I am so sorry to hear that. What's your next step with your mother? How's she taking this? How're you holding up?" These people really share your joys and your sorrows, and they make the world a better place.
Yes, we all start life as sociopaths. Fortunately, most of us naturally learn to become empathetic to others. Helping all children to increase their empathy for other people, including people not in their own social group (ethnicity, religion, culture, etc.), would be a huge boost in moving our human species to a higher level of existence. This is especially true for children who have not themselves experienced an empathetic response--those children who are abused, who are unloved. Teach a child empathy, show a child empathy, and we will all be better for it.
Babies don't much care that mommy is dead tired from getting up every two hours to feed them. Their cries say it all: "Feed me. Change me. Hold me. Meet my needs."
Fortunately, we are also hardwired from the beginning to be interested in other human beings, to gain pleasure from seeing a face we recognize, from hearing other human voices. When a toddler reaches out from her high chair to offer her mother a bite of the cookie she is enjoying, wishing Mommy to experience the pleasure she has, we are certainly seeing the beginning of empathy.
In fact, I believe we are hardwired as humans to become empathetic, that caring about others and wanting to understand others is a survival trait for the human species. We are a social species, and we have succeeded spectacularly because of this.
But, there are aberrant individuals in any species. In humans, a severe lack of empathy leads to a sociopathic personality--a person who has no interest in the experiences or feelings of any other human being but himself. What are the worst human beings in our history but sociopaths, able to commit mass atrocities because they are unable to feel the pain they are causing others, unable to even perceive others as full human beings like themselves?
And of course, empathy runs on a continuum, like most things. It's not either/or: either you're empathetic or you're a sociopath. Most of us fall somewhere between Mother Teresa and Hitler.
We all know people who just don't seem all that interested in anyone but themselves. This person, when you tell him you just had something bad happen to you (let's say you found out your mother has cancer), responds with his own story of someone he knows who had cancer, or a story about an illness his own mother had, rather than responding to you and your experience. Sure, sometimes people do this as an attempt to let you know that they understand where you're coming from. But you know the kind of person I mean: whatever you say, their response starts with the word "I". They're not quite up to the mid-point on the empathy scale.
On the other hand, we all know someone who seems genuinely interested in hearing about us and our feelings and experiences. This person's response tends to be a question about you and what you said: "Oh my, I am so sorry to hear that. What's your next step with your mother? How's she taking this? How're you holding up?" These people really share your joys and your sorrows, and they make the world a better place.
Yes, we all start life as sociopaths. Fortunately, most of us naturally learn to become empathetic to others. Helping all children to increase their empathy for other people, including people not in their own social group (ethnicity, religion, culture, etc.), would be a huge boost in moving our human species to a higher level of existence. This is especially true for children who have not themselves experienced an empathetic response--those children who are abused, who are unloved. Teach a child empathy, show a child empathy, and we will all be better for it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)