Why is emotional empathy so rare?

[chewybrian]

I simply have to believe they are more widespread than you seem to think, though I wish I had good reason to believe otherwise.

To be clear: That would mean that you think most childhoods are dysfunctional in the way that you've described and that most parents, for whatever reason, either don't have or can't express the natural parental instincts that I've described.

I don't know what the true percentage is, or even where the threshold is that says a parent is dysfunctional. Certainly, all of them could be better. I don't think there is a single person who could not benefit in some way from training in emotional intelligence. If they don't cross the threshold of being diagnosed with a mental illness, this does not mean that they don't suffer or cause suffering due to their incomplete understanding of the best ways to get along with others and deal with the pressures of life. Say you have the divorced couple that you don't think is a problem. Maybe neither parent could be diagnosed with a mental illness, but they may cause problems with the child through their attempts to hurt the other parent through the child, telling the child the other parent is no good, explicitly or implicitly, etc. They might fight in front of the child (not with fists) and display horrible ways of interacting with others, trying to play mind games with each other and hurt the other parent with their words. The child is listening and learning all the while, and learning all the wrong things. So, nothing has to rise to the level of serious mental illness to be a problem.

Alcohol does certainly seem to be a growing problem in our societies (US and UK in our cases) but I still wouldn't call alcohol problems that are severe enough to damage childhoods a norm. A quick look at some stats suggests that 5 to 6% of people in both the US and UK are classed as alcoholic. Not a good thing, for sure. But not the norm.

First, I would not argue that mental illness is the norm. It's easy to look at one problem: alcoholism, depression, anger issues or whatever, and say that 5 or 10% of people suffer with it. But, say that 5 to 10% of people suffer from each type of mental illness. If, further, there are a dozen varieties, each of which hits 5 to 10% of the population, then it's pretty widespread. Perhaps 5 to 10% of people have some other serious problem that doesn't rise to the level of mental illness. Again, there could be a dozen different problems of this kind, each of which is hitting 5 to 10% of us.
We could easily say, then, that problems with emotional intelligence are widespread, and that we all need to be educated.

[Steve3007]

I don't know what the true percentage is, or even where the threshold is that says a parent is dysfunctional. Certainly, all of them could be better. I don't think there is a single person who could not benefit in some way from training in emotional intelligence. If they don't cross the threshold of being diagnosed with a mental illness, this does not mean that they don't suffer or cause suffering due to their incomplete understanding of the best ways to get along with others and deal with the pressures of life.

I think we can agree that it's always possible to do better and that some kind of training in emotional intelligence would not be a bad thing.

Say you have the divorced couple that you don't think is a problem...

I'll just stop you there a second and point out that I said that, in my view, the high divorce rate is not inherently a problem. In other words, it's not a problem in itself. It depends on other things. As I said, it seems to me that divorce is often preferable, for the kids' welfare and as an example to them, than a couple chained (so to speak) together in a loveless relationship. Best case divorce scenario: If a couple can recognize that they're not good together and can separate reasonably amicably, that could actually be a good example to the kids. If we compare the modern situation to the situation in both of our societies in times past when divorce was not an option, and when having children out of "wedlock" was considered such a terrible thing that it was brushed under the carpet in some terrible ways whose consequences are still being felt today, I think the modern situation with divorce, for all its faults, is probably better.

Ok. Go on.

Maybe neither parent could be diagnosed with a mental illness, but they may cause problems with the child through their attempts to hurt the other parent through the child, telling the child the other parent is no good, explicitly or implicitly, etc. They might fight in front of the child (not with fists) and display horrible ways of interacting with others, trying to play mind games with each other and hurt the other parent with their words. The child is listening and learning all the while, and learning all the wrong things. So, nothing has to rise to the level of serious mental illness to be a problem.

Yes, of course those tragic things can happen. But I think they're as likely to happen within a relationship with parents who have stayed together when they perhaps shouldn't have.

First, I would not argue that mental illness is the norm. It's easy to look at one problem: alcoholism, depression, anger issues or whatever, and say that 5 or 10% of people suffer with it. But, say that 5 to 10% of people suffer from each type of mental illness. If, further, there are a dozen varieties, each of which hits 5 to 10% of the population, then it's pretty widespread. Perhaps 5 to 10% of people have some other serious problem that doesn't rise to the level of mental illness. Again, there could be a dozen different problems of this kind, each of which is hitting 5 to 10% of us.
We could easily say, then, that problems with emotional intelligence are widespread, and that we all need to be educated.

I think we can agree that education in emotional intelligence is a good thing. I think we've both made our points.

[Pattern-chaser]

A study of a national sample of American children found...

Wow! It's difficult for us, the lucky ones, to remember that some people live in countries that are less than civilised. No country is perfect, but Americans seem to have it much worse than most. From the outside, American society and culture appear barbaric, uncaring, violent and profit-driven. In a topic based on empathy, this is especially heartbreaking.

[Steve3007]

Wow! It's difficult for us, the lucky ones, to remember that some people live in countries that are less than civilised. No country is perfect, but Americans seem to have it much worse than most. From the outside, American society and culture appear barbaric, uncaring, violent and profit-driven. In a topic based on empathy, this is especially heartbreaking.

Personally, I don't think it's helpful to turn this into a "our society is better than yours" kind of discussion. It looks smug. You'll only succeed in getting people's backs up. Same as if it was the other way round. Sure, there are differences between different societies, as there are, for example, between the US and UK. And, sure, the US has its societal problems. Don't we all? But I don't recognize the extreme picture of the US that you're painting there.

[Belindi]

Steve wrote:

As I was saying earlier (I think it was to Chewy), it seems to me that one of the problems with assessing this kind of thing is that on the one hand we tend to relate more easily to individual, anecdotal stories and (naturally) our own experiences and the experiences of those close to us. On the other hand, statistics about larger numbers of people are more representative of the population as a whole, but we can't relate to statistics.

"Individual, anecdotal stories" are what good novels, good poetry, good reportage, theatre, and good pictorial art portray.
By " good" I mean that the piece in question is about complexities of feelings, personalities, deeper motivations, besides about what people do.

It is okay for reports or instructions about sport, physiology, cookery, joinery, farming, the natural sciecces, and so forth to be about simple causes and effects as long as it's understood by the receiver that it's not about the consumer's entire range of experiences that includes feelings of joy and sorrow. We often need and seek explicit instructions and training, and we need knowledge of scientific facts.

Education proper is not training , but includes learning how to seek and find others' feelings. It does not matter much whether we call this 'empathy' or 'sympathy' or 'ordinary human kindness'. The bad part of understanding how others feel is that it empowers manipulation for selfish, commercial, or tribal purposes. Therefore good literature, art, theatre, or reportage as well as being psychologically perceptive should also be ethical.

The combination of ethics and arts is how children at home and school, and adults in tertiary education and the worlds of work and leisure are educated about feelings.

(BTW 'emotion' is best reserved for physiological process such as hormonal surges; not until emotions become cognitive that they become feelings. (paraphrase Antonio Damasio))

[Steve3007]

"Individual, anecdotal stories" are what good novels, good poetry, good reportage, theatre, and good pictorial art portray.
By " good" I mean that the piece in question is about complexities of feelings, personalities, deeper motivations, besides about what people do...

Yes, and those details, which give us a well rounded 3D view of a person, as opposed to a 2D cartoon, so to speak, are what make that literature/reportage/theatre engrossing and relatable. We often get more engrossed in a piece of literature, theatre or cinema if we can relate to (empathize with) the characters. (That's one of the reasons why I'm not really into, for example, all those Marvel Comics superhero films. I can't relate to a character who can jump over buildings or shoot lasers out of his eyes! )

My point was that as we increase the number of people we're considering, we're less able to include such detail, until we get to the point where we're "treating people as statistics" as they say. And my point was that this can be set against the fact that statistical information about whole populations gives us a broader view of societal trends than anecdotal, albeit more detailed, information. Hence there is a trade-off between the two. Swings and roundabouts. Horses for courses. We need both.

[Belindi]

"Individual, anecdotal stories" are what good novels, good poetry, good reportage, theatre, and good pictorial art portray.
By " good" I mean that the piece in question is about complexities of feelings, personalities, deeper motivations, besides about what people do...

Yes, and those details, which give us a well rounded 3D view of a person, as opposed to a 2D cartoon, so to speak, are what make that literature/reportage/theatre engrossing and relatable. We often get more engrossed in a piece of literature, theatre or cinema if we can relate to (empathize with) the characters. (That's one of the reasons why I'm not really into, for example, all those Marvel Comics superhero films. I can't relate to a character who can jump over buildings or shoot lasers out of his eyes! )

My point was that as we increase the number of people we're considering, we're less able to include such detail, until we get to the point where we're "treating people as statistics" as they say. And my point was that this can be set against the fact that statistical information about whole populations gives us a broader view of societal trends than anecdotal, albeit more detailed, information. Hence there is a trade-off between the two. Swings and roundabouts. Horses for courses. We need both.

I hope this problem can be solved at least partly by history and interpretation of history. I mean for instance we have the scientific side of historiography that relies on primary including statistics, and reliable secondary sources. We also have the interpretative side of historiography that relies on large shifts in beliefs and practices that affect many individuals' beliefs and practices. I refer to e.g. imperialism, agricultural and industrial revolution, renaissance, urbanisation, the rise of individualism, and so forth. There are lots of humanities materials in visual art, novels, poetry, theatre, films, and popular culture that can instruct us an feelingly involve us in real lives in other times.

Similarly for other places, near and far away. Besides social anthropology there are novels, biographies, sculptures and other artefacts, and archeological finds. Archeological finds are sometimes odd in that they can have an immediate sympathetic effect. I have only seen pictures of Lindow Man and these have the emotional impact of a work of art.

[OneGeist]

On the other hand, statistics about larger numbers of people are more representative of the population as a whole, but we can't relate to statistics.

I agree, plus their variance when replicated renders them a bit unreliable. Especially when dealing with topics few will admit to.

Me too, at least from a certain age. Not from early childhood though. From secondary school onwards both of my parents worked. Me and my siblings fended for ourselves (watching TV, playing and fighting!) after school. Not, in itself, necessarily harmful, in my view.

No not necessarily harmful. Although not necessarily positive either. I was in the same position and started raiding my parents bedroom and smoking their pot at 12 or 13.

In what I've been saying, I'm not talking about "emotional health exercises". I'm just talking about the normal stuff we naturally do with our kids, particularly when they're young. When your kids were young, you must surely have done things like playing games, reading stories, singing songs and all that stuff?

Yes, of course. Not with my parents really however. I had a pretty good childhood nothing I would really complain about. However neither parent was one to have outwardly shows of emotion. I started partying at a young age which carried on through...I assume my old age.

If our generation grew up so emotionally sound. I was born in 82'. Why is suicide one of the leading causes of death for young people for the first time. Why have drug overdoses been at an all time high. Mental health problems such as depression and anxiety having staggering numbers attached to them. I do not equate all this to dysfunctional families, although the right home life could have definitely prevented this. Has a lot to do with our society always being in peril over one thing or another. I personally don't pay attention to any media anymore. Regardless of the causes. Some sort of emotional and mental guidance was obviously missing somewhere along the line. As a society we should be giving our youth every tool and piece of knowledge we can. So they are stable and healthy enough to ensure their children's well being and so on. If not we are failing them and ourselves.

I'm not sure if any of that is going to mean anything to you.

All but Suffolk and Kent. I knew you couldn't be an American with such a positive outlook on things.

[Steve3007]

Just a quick comment for now:

I knew you couldn't be an American with such a positive outlook on things.

That's an interesting thing to say. The stereotype we often seem to have here of the difference between Brits and Americans is the opposite: we tend to think of Americans as fundamentally optimistic and idealistic and Brits as depressed and cynical.

[Pattern-chaser]

Wow! It's difficult for us, the lucky ones, to remember that some people live in countries that are less than civilised. No country is perfect, but Americans seem to have it much worse than most. From the outside, American society and culture appear barbaric, uncaring, violent and profit-driven. In a topic based on empathy, this is especially heartbreaking.

Personally, I don't think it's helpful to turn this into a "our society is better than yours" kind of discussion. It looks smug. You'll only succeed in getting people's backs up. Same as if it was the other way round. Sure, there are differences between different societies, as there are, for example, between the US and UK. And, sure, the US has its societal problems. Don't we all? But I don't recognize the extreme picture of the US that you're painting there.

I'm sorry you understood my post that way. I did take the trouble to say, quite clearly, "No country is perfect, but Americans seem to have it much worse than most". I thought this was an expression of sympathy, not an attack. Yes, we all have social issues, here in the UK (as you know well) and elsewhere. But, in a discussion about empathy, American culture stands out.

Here is a list taken from here: "Mainstream American Culture ESOL CPD – Module 6" This list of proverbs is offered as a general view of American culture. None of the proverbs refers to charity, consideration for others, or any topic that has even the remotest association with empathy. The explanations that follow the list make this even clearer than I have done.

1. “God helps those who help themselves.”
2. “He who hesitates is lost.”
3. “ Nothing ventured, nothing gained.”
4. “Don’t cry over spilt milk.”
5. The squeaky wheel gets greased.”
6. “You’ve made your bed now lie in it.”
7. “Stand on your own two feet.”
8. “No rest for the weary.”
9. “Time is money.”
10. “The early bird catches the worm.”

Here's the expansion from just one of the proverbs. [Refer to the link to examine the others.]

“You’ve made your bed now lie in it.”
Once again, this proverb communicates a value on individual efforts.
Independence and autonomy are prized characteristics.

I really don't accept that my description was too far out. And also, I don't accept that my post was an "our society is better than yours" effort. If it seemed "smug", I am equally disappointed. What did I say, that a native of any country could see as "smug"?

[Steve3007]

To talk about "American society and culture" as if it were one homogenous thing and to label that one homogenous thing as "barbaric, uncaring, violent and profit-driven" is, to put it mildly, an over-generalization and a caricature. Quoting some proverbs doesn't change that in my view.

I strongly disagree with your views on this subject.

[Pattern-chaser]

Tribalism is a subset of in-group mentality ... The canonical unit of in-group mentality is the family ... The way to reduce tribalism is to encourage people to think more often at the level of humanity in general.

Humans have always been co-operative animals, living socially, in proximity. The couple is the smallest unit, then the family, the tribe, and so on. Many 'side-groups' also exist, our work colleagues, fellow supporters of our team, etc, etc. We are characterised by an enormous mesh of social groupings. The biggest grouping of all, 'humanity', is less well defined because there are no other beings outside of it, to define its 'borders'. I can see no obvious way to "reduce tribalism", as it seems so fundamental to the ways we live, and I can't think of an obvious reason why we would want to. Not all aspects of groupings are positive, but is that a reason to try to reduce or remove them?

Yeah, you're right - the smallest unit is the couple, and you're probably also right in that there seems no obvious way to reduce it - though psychedelics/meditation come to mind.

I can think of a lot of reasons to reduce tribalism. Tribalism, to some extent, reduces inter-group co-operation. It prioritizes the needs of a few over the needs of the many. It leads to disparate applications of morality - "he's one of them, so he got what he deserved" kind of thinking. It emboldens prejudice/discrimination. It can foster ignorance - people refusing to entertain another's point of view because they belong to some faction or other. And so on.

OK, we don't disagree here. We're each using the word "tribalism" a little differently, that's all.

[Steve3007]

Here's the expansion from just one of the proverbs. [Refer to the link to examine the others.]

“You’ve made your bed now lie in it.”
Once again, this proverb communicates a value on individual efforts.
Independence and autonomy are prized characteristics.

Even if, based on some proverbs, we did see the valuing of individual effort as archetypally American, how do we get from that to: "From the outside, American society and culture appear barbaric, uncaring, violent and profit-driven."?

Sure, we can have debates about things like the pros and cons of the profit motive and the free market. And those debates happen a lot here. But in my view, calling an entire culture "barbaric, uncaring, violent and profit-driven" just because it contains those things is a stretch, to say the least. If that's the case, then we in the UK are also "barbaric, uncaring, violent and profit-driven". By that argument, anybody who ever buys or sells something for a price agreed between the buyer and seller is uncaring and profit-driven. Too black-and-white for my taste.

[Pattern-chaser]

To talk about "American society and culture" as if it were one homogenous thing and to label that one homogenous thing as "barbaric, uncaring, violent and profit-driven" is, to put it mildly, an over-generalization and a caricature. Quoting some proverbs doesn't change that in my view.

I strongly disagree with your views on this subject.

OK, "barbaric" is somewhat sensationalist, but I stand by the rest, as an accurate description of the general and overall culture of the country called "America". Internally, America is no more homogenous than any other country. Nevertheless, the whole country does exhibit general characteristics that can be recognised from the outside as typifying and characterising American culture. I'm sorry you don't agree, and I apologise for any offence I have (inadvertently) offered.

[Steve3007]

What did I say, that a native of any country could see as "smug"?

I think some people might possibly misconstrue a comment like this as smug:

It's difficult for us, the lucky ones, to remember that some people live in countries that are less than civilised.