Why is emotional empathy so rare?

[Atla]

Is the concept of empathy truly any different than the concept of empath's? Are they merely just two different perspectives of just one thing? Both concepts revolve around the behavior of reacting in an emotional way aligning with what we perceive in others. If someone's sad we feel for them as though we were sad ourselves. If someone gets angry and yells at us we get angry and yell back at them. Are these demonstrations of empathy or examples of us being empaths?

These are "normal" empathy, not being empaths.

[FranknBerry]

Is the concept of empathy truly any different than the concept of empath's? Are they merely just two different perspectives of just one thing? Both concepts revolve around the behavior of reacting in an emotional way aligning with what we perceive in others. If someone's sad we feel for them as though we were sad ourselves. If someone gets angry and yells at us we get angry and yell back at them. Are these demonstrations of empathy or examples of us being empaths?

These are "normal" empathy, not being empaths.

That doesn't answer the question. What is "normal" is relative. With how perception works a person could easily perceive their own reaction to others emotional states as not being the same as how others react. This bringing about a perception that they are not "normal" in how they empathize with others resulting in a belief they "feel" the emotions of others more strongly than others or that they are literally feeling the emotions of others. Our inability to ever actually perceive the world like any other means we can't ever know if how we perceive or react is truly any different than any other. We can perceive what is typical to be atypical. This begs the question as to whether there is any difference at all between empathy and empath's beyond our perceptions of them.

[Pattern-chaser]

If someone's sad we feel for them as though we were sad ourselves.
If someone gets angry and yells at us we get angry and yell back at them.

Are these demonstrations of empathy or examples of us being empaths?

My own, subjective, view on this, subjective, topic is that the first is an example of sympathy, and the second of intolerance. Neither fit with my understanding of 'empathy'. YMMV, of course.

[FranknBerry]

If someone's sad we feel for them as though we were sad ourselves.
If someone gets angry and yells at us we get angry and yell back at them.

Are these demonstrations of empathy or examples of us being empaths?

My own, subjective, view on this, subjective, topic is that the first is an example of sympathy, and the second of intolerance. Neither fit with my understanding of 'empathy'. YMMV, of course.

I've been exposed to a wide variety of ways in which the concepts of sympathy and empathy have been utilized which brings me to perceive them as just two different perspectives of one behavior that is interchangeable to some, but not to others. Personally, sympathy had existed in my own "mind" as defined by ones actions, not their feelings. Feeling sad in response to observing someone we perceive as feeling sad being empathy while interacting with the person via words or actions as a means of sympathy. I comprehend that this is just one possible way of defining each/either. I'm not following exactly the interpretation of intolerance to the second example. I can see how intolerance can explain an initial reaction of yelling at a person, yet the follow up action of yelling back doesn't fit with how I perceive this term. By yelling back a person is reacting in the way in which they are exposed to. A person gets angry because someone else is angry. Mimicry of behavior.

[AverageBozo]

If someone's sad we feel for them as though we were sad ourselves.
If someone gets angry and yells at us we get angry and yell back at them.

Are these demonstrations of empathy or examples of us being empaths?

My own, subjective, view on this, subjective, topic is that the first is an example of sympathy, and the second of intolerance. Neither fit with my understanding of 'empathy'. YMMV, of course.

I've been exposed to a wide variety of ways in which the concepts of sympathy and empathy have been utilized which brings me to perceive them as just two different perspectives of one behavior that is interchangeable to some, but not to others. Personally, sympathy had existed in my own "mind" as defined by ones actions, not their feelings. Feeling sad in response to observing someone we perceive as feeling sad being empathy while interacting with the person via words or actions as a means of sympathy. I comprehend that this is just one possible way of defining each/either. I'm not following exactly the interpretation of intolerance to the second example. I can see how intolerance can explain an initial reaction of yelling at a person, yet the follow up action of yelling back doesn't fit with how I perceive this term. By yelling back a person is reacting in the way in which they are exposed to. A person gets angry because someone else is angry. Mimicry of behavior.

FB, I think you have a pretty good grasp of the concepts here. Perhaps to put a finer point on it, I’d say that when I recognize and understand that someone is sad, but I don’t become sad myself in interacting with that person, I am being sympathetic. If I were to go a step further by being sad myself, I am being empathetic. Both of your examples above depict empathy, although in the 2nd case to be truly empathetic you should join the other in being angry perhaps at some policy that makes you do something that ires the other person.

[FranknBerry]

In terms of the initial question, and not how it applies to the concept of empath's, I believe understanding the variations of empathy displayed by people is most effectively done so by understanding what the underlying behavior is that we refer to as empathy. The behavior of empathy is the projection of how things exist in one mind projected onto others as though they are feeling what you yourself are feeling or have felt in a similar circumstance. Seeing someone cry triggers how the behavior of crying exists in your own "mind". Your prior experiences of crying and how others had acted towards you upon witnessing you do so. This leads to expressions such as "I know how you feel" or "I know what you're going through."

What this means, however, is that an individual can only demonstrate or experience acts of "empathy" in regards to what they themselves have experienced at some point in their lives or is capable of imagining. A person cannot empathize with what they don't or can't understand. Cognitive variances are the most difficult type of variance to understand and thus, empathize with. As an example, I am diagnosed with A.S.D. and A.D.H.D. I have had significant struggles my entire life. Employment is impossible to maintain without accommodations. I had a job with a county at one point wherein my coworkers and manager had been creating a hostile work environment for me because they couldn't empathize with my variances. They assumed the worst of me because, per their own words, they couldn't figure me out or read me. Upon requesting accommodations and disclosing my diagnosis to aid in reducing my stress levels in response to their actions I was fired from my job. I sued.

Employment disputes in the legal system are very hit or miss. Most of the time a wrongful discharge lawsuit doesn't make it to trial. Among those that do will typically get anywhere from a 100k to several million dollars along with a guilty verdict. Being fired due to ones existence among a protected class of individuals is something juries will reward quite highly so long as the evidence is there to back it up. Ones race, ethnicity, gender, age, religion, sexuality, physical disability, etc. all being things that an average jury member can associate with to some degree or imagine experiencing. Cognitive disabilities are an entirely different thing. Trials are extremely rare for those and rewards are almost nonexistent.

If you get fired because of the color of your skin, your gender, or your age and suffer cognitively as a result and were unable to find work after the fact due to said suffering, juries are often very sympathetic/empathetic to that. They'll reward you back pay, pain and suffering, front pay, etc. If, like me, you get fired because you have a cognitive variance that jury members are incapable of experiencing or imagining then they find themselves unable to demonstrate any feelings of empathy/sympathy.

Hundreds of people were used for multiple mock juries by my lawyer to determine how a jury during a trial would respond to the evidence to best decide if settlement or trial was the best avenue for my case. Hundreds. Despite the overwhelming majority of them agreeing that my federal rights were violated, I was wrongly discharged, that is was due to my disability, and that my coworkers had created a hostile work environment, only a couple of them actually felt I deserved any kind of settlement from it. They were quickly silenced by the majority. They said I shouldn't get back pay because I should of just gone and gotten another job. Even when it was explained to them that I kept getting turned away from job interviews because my disability kept coming up or how individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorder have a roughly 85% unemployment rate with significant difficulties in obtaining work they still responded the same way. They also felt I didn't deserve anything for pain and suffering because I only lost a job. In this case they felt losing a job shouldn't cause suffering. This all being because they couldn't comprehend what it was like to be me. They couldn't empathize and so their lack of feeling caused them to assume there was any lack of feeling on my part as well. If I had been fired because of any other reason then back pay and pain and suffering would have been understandable to them because they would have been able to see themselves in my exact position. If I had gone to trial I would have won the case, but I would have likely gotten no money at all out of it. I had to settle.

People cannot empathize with what they cannot understand. This is why empathy can be perceived as rare in certain circumstances. This is also why there is no such thing as an impartial or unbiased jury.

[Atla]

Is the concept of empathy truly any different than the concept of empath's? Are they merely just two different perspectives of just one thing? Both concepts revolve around the behavior of reacting in an emotional way aligning with what we perceive in others. If someone's sad we feel for them as though we were sad ourselves. If someone gets angry and yells at us we get angry and yell back at them. Are these demonstrations of empathy or examples of us being empaths?

These are "normal" empathy, not being empaths.

That doesn't answer the question. What is "normal" is relative. With how perception works a person could easily perceive their own reaction to others emotional states as not being the same as how others react. This bringing about a perception that they are not "normal" in how they empathize with others resulting in a belief they "feel" the emotions of others more strongly than others or that they are literally feeling the emotions of others. Our inability to ever actually perceive the world like any other means we can't ever know if how we perceive or react is truly any different than any other. We can perceive what is typical to be atypical. This begs the question as to whether there is any difference at all between empathy and empath's beyond our perceptions of them.

From what I've seen and read, most people really don't automatically absorb and experience the emotions of others around them, so we really can divide people into two groups here.

[AverageBozo]

I would say it’s a continuum rather than distinct groups.

[FranknBerry]

Is the concept of empathy truly any different than the concept of empath's? Are they merely just two different perspectives of just one thing? Both concepts revolve around the behavior of reacting in an emotional way aligning with what we perceive in others. If someone's sad we feel for them as though we were sad ourselves. If someone gets angry and yells at us we get angry and yell back at them. Are these demonstrations of empathy or examples of us being empaths?

These are "normal" empathy, not being empaths.

That doesn't answer the question. What is "normal" is relative. With how perception works a person could easily perceive their own reaction to others emotional states as not being the same as how others react. This bringing about a perception that they are not "normal" in how they empathize with others resulting in a belief they "feel" the emotions of others more strongly than others or that they are literally feeling the emotions of others. Our inability to ever actually perceive the world like any other means we can't ever know if how we perceive or react is truly any different than any other. We can perceive what is typical to be atypical. This begs the question as to whether there is any difference at all between empathy and empath's beyond our perceptions of them.

From what I've seen and read, most people really don't automatically absorb and experience the emotions of others around them, so we really can divide people into two groups here.

What is seen and read are subjective perceptual translations. Subjectively some people like coconut and others don't. The coconut itself, however, is neither good or bad in "nature". Regardless of how we each perceive it there is no change to the actual thing itself. This behavior we call empathy can be perceived in a lot of varied ways as well. Every time I explain to someone that I don't like green bean salad they always respond by saying it's because I haven't tried theirs yet. People are incapable of accurately measuring their own perceptions in relation to others. We often do the same thing as others but perceive our own way of doing it as different.

Perceptually there can be a division into two groups. There could be divisions even further than that. An infinite number of divisions can be created in regards to perception. My question is whether in the absence of perception there exists any variance between the two concepts. Are they the same thing simply perceived as separate, or truly two variant behaviors branching from just one. Could a way of determining such a thing even be devised?

[Atla]

These are "normal" empathy, not being empaths.

That doesn't answer the question. What is "normal" is relative. With how perception works a person could easily perceive their own reaction to others emotional states as not being the same as how others react. This bringing about a perception that they are not "normal" in how they empathize with others resulting in a belief they "feel" the emotions of others more strongly than others or that they are literally feeling the emotions of others. Our inability to ever actually perceive the world like any other means we can't ever know if how we perceive or react is truly any different than any other. We can perceive what is typical to be atypical. This begs the question as to whether there is any difference at all between empathy and empath's beyond our perceptions of them.

From what I've seen and read, most people really don't automatically absorb and experience the emotions of others around them, so we really can divide people into two groups here.

What is seen and read are subjective perceptual translations. Subjectively some people like coconut and others don't. The coconut itself, however, is neither good or bad in "nature". Regardless of how we each perceive it there is no change to the actual thing itself. This behavior we call empathy can be perceived in a lot of varied ways as well. Every time I explain to someone that I don't like green bean salad they always respond by saying it's because I haven't tried theirs yet. People are incapable of accurately measuring their own perceptions in relation to others. We often do the same thing as others but perceive our own way of doing it as different.

Perceptually there can be a division into two groups. There could be divisions even further than that. An infinite number of divisions can be created in regards to perception. My question is whether in the absence of perception there exists any variance between the two concepts. Are they the same thing simply perceived as separate, or truly two variant behaviors branching from just one. Could a way of determining such a thing even be devised?

Yeah yeah we can think about anything in an infinite number of ways etc.

So again, from what I've seen, read, personally experienced, we can divide humans into two quite different groups (with little continuum between them), those who automatically absorb the emotions of others and those who don't.

[FranknBerry]

That doesn't answer the question. What is "normal" is relative. With how perception works a person could easily perceive their own reaction to others emotional states as not being the same as how others react. This bringing about a perception that they are not "normal" in how they empathize with others resulting in a belief they "feel" the emotions of others more strongly than others or that they are literally feeling the emotions of others. Our inability to ever actually perceive the world like any other means we can't ever know if how we perceive or react is truly any different than any other. We can perceive what is typical to be atypical. This begs the question as to whether there is any difference at all between empathy and empath's beyond our perceptions of them.

From what I've seen and read, most people really don't automatically absorb and experience the emotions of others around them, so we really can divide people into two groups here.

What is seen and read are subjective perceptual translations. Subjectively some people like coconut and others don't. The coconut itself, however, is neither good or bad in "nature". Regardless of how we each perceive it there is no change to the actual thing itself. This behavior we call empathy can be perceived in a lot of varied ways as well. Every time I explain to someone that I don't like green bean salad they always respond by saying it's because I haven't tried theirs yet. People are incapable of accurately measuring their own perceptions in relation to others. We often do the same thing as others but perceive our own way of doing it as different.

Perceptually there can be a division into two groups. There could be divisions even further than that. An infinite number of divisions can be created in regards to perception. My question is whether in the absence of perception there exists any variance between the two concepts. Are they the same thing simply perceived as separate, or truly two variant behaviors branching from just one. Could a way of determining such a thing even be devised?

Yeah yeah we can think about anything in an infinite number of ways etc.

So again, from what I've seen, read, personally experienced, we can divide humans into two quite different groups (with little continuum between them), those who automatically absorb the emotions of others and those who don't.

yeah yeah, you perceive things in that particular way, but is that perceptual division an accurate measure of how things are in "reality"?

[Atla]

From what I've seen and read, most people really don't automatically absorb and experience the emotions of others around them, so we really can divide people into two groups here.

What is seen and read are subjective perceptual translations. Subjectively some people like coconut and others don't. The coconut itself, however, is neither good or bad in "nature". Regardless of how we each perceive it there is no change to the actual thing itself. This behavior we call empathy can be perceived in a lot of varied ways as well. Every time I explain to someone that I don't like green bean salad they always respond by saying it's because I haven't tried theirs yet. People are incapable of accurately measuring their own perceptions in relation to others. We often do the same thing as others but perceive our own way of doing it as different.

Perceptually there can be a division into two groups. There could be divisions even further than that. An infinite number of divisions can be created in regards to perception. My question is whether in the absence of perception there exists any variance between the two concepts. Are they the same thing simply perceived as separate, or truly two variant behaviors branching from just one. Could a way of determining such a thing even be devised?

Yeah yeah we can think about anything in an infinite number of ways etc.

So again, from what I've seen, read, personally experienced, we can divide humans into two quite different groups (with little continuum between them), those who automatically absorb the emotions of others and those who don't.

yeah yeah, you perceive things in that particular way, but is that perceptual division an accurate measure of how things are in "reality"?

Is diving humans into male and female with little continuum between them an accurate measure of how things are in "reality"? What's your point?

[OneGeist]

I think like most things empathy is a spectrum and we all fall somewhere on the scale. I understand your meaning though. There is definitely a lack of emotional understanding. Our Emotional intelligence is not nurtured or revered in any way. Often the opposite, showing to much empathy can label you stupid, naïve or worse. Our emotional well being is the only thing that will stick with us and guide us through every endeavor. It's the foundation to our mental stability. Yet not much is done to help us understand and strengthen this as children.

[chewybrian]

I think like most things empathy is a spectrum and we all fall somewhere on the scale. I understand your meaning though. There is definitely a lack of emotional understanding. Our Emotional intelligence is not nurtured or revered in any way. Often the opposite, showing to much empathy can label you stupid, naïve or worse. Our emotional well being is the only thing that will stick with us and guide us through every endeavor. It's the foundation to our mental stability. Yet not much is done to help us understand and strengthen this as children.

I could not agree more. As kids, we get pretty much only "facts", without much attempt to attach meaning to them, and no training on how to decide how they should impact us. We get shown the world as if it is objective, pretty much ignoring the reality that our experience, our existence in the world, is subjective. We should be studying philosophy and psychology all along, being shown how to be happy and to contribute to the happiness of others, which is a lot more valuable than much of what we are taught in school.

[Sculptor1]

There is sometimes just TOO MUCH emotional empathy.It often leads to people following the wrong ideas and leaders.
The German people had far too much emotional empathy with the spirit of the German nation and this made them blind to the persecutions of others.
IN the same way Americans, and Brits; Afghans and Zairiearns all share too much emotional empathy with whom they see as their "own kind", that the world is in a perpetual state of tyrrany and conflict.

It's a shame that this massive, and unprecedented in the animal world, amount of emotional empathy could not be more widely directed at the earth and its ecosystems.