So can you be explicit about what you're referring to re true/false/valid with empathy?

What sort of thing might we be saying is true or not?

don't think I'm being unreasonable by suggesting that such a complicated topic shouldn't be tackled by the imagination of an individual who knows nothing about it and hasn't experienced it. That should be the bare minimum, that you at least know a little bit about it and you have some experience with people who experience ugliness. — Judaka

Well, I said you're right but why do we have things like etiquette, manners, good, evil? Their existence point to a shared belief vis-a-vis our feelings. I agree manners may differ among cultures and this maybe something relevant to your assertion. However, one thing all this points to is our ability to virtually experience (you said imagination) another person's comfort zone or no-go area. This is empathy at work, don't you think?

So answer to your question is, what types of things are people trying to use empathy to understand.

(empathy is) It's about understanding feelings and situations and decisions and actions and the like. — Terrapin Station

We may as well use this quote as a reference...

So my position is that whether empathy as a tool for understanding is useful or not isn't unambiguous, It's always not. You could just give your own examples of what you are trying to use empathy to understand really.

I agree that people do use empathy to understand the things you've stated, surely you had an idea of what you meant by that.

I've given multiple comprehensive arguments against empathy as a tool for understanding with many examples already. If you still don't get it then that's a pity but I won't keep giving proper responses to careless questions and assertions.


Well, I might open the door for someone but I have no idea what they thought about me doing it. Even if they smile at me, perhaps they're merely being polite. I can't read minds.

Has the existence of empathy contributed to the development of the idea that opening the door for someone is good manners? Could be. I am not saying empathy doesn't exist as a thing which has consequences. Empathy has many consequences on all different levels across society. It's a hugely useful and influential thing in many different areas of life.

We don't rely on empathy for expressing, for instance, discontent with someone. If a culture of giving people their personal space developed, it could as likely be because the person whose space has been violated becomes angry and communicates that anger through word or action.

Or perhaps people know that they like their personal space and treat others as they would like to be treated themselves.

I don't see the things you've listed as evidence of empathy being successful at developing understanding.

I don't see the things you've listed as evidence of empathy being successful at developing understanding. — Judaka

What sort of evidence would convince you?

I've given multiple comprehensive arguments against empathy as a tool for understanding with many examples already. If you still don't get it then that's a pity but I won't keep giving proper responses to careless questions and assertions. — Judaka

The whole gist of your argument is that it doesn't literally give you another person's perspective, but that's a misunderstanding of the idea.

When we butt heads over ideas, if we have any self-respect, we at least sometimes discover we have been wrong. How far does this discovery go? If it changes, not only the issue at hand, but, if only in some small way, every term in our lexicon, then to continue the discussion from there inevitably brings a similar event of introspection to our interlocutor. The recurrence of this exchange can only eventuate, if indeed each moment alters all prior terms and the exchange is properly dialectical, with each participant honestly and forthrightly engaged in the changes that take place through each other, in an understanding that outstrips all received terms. Empathy? I'd call it intimacy. A transformation of terms through each other. It's name is rigor, not 'feeling'. And, if the elements are real, the moment and event is too. Very much so.

Yes. Empathy is not worthless. As Bitter Crank put in the first reply, and how that is read shows that it's good for deep understanding of ethics.

You can become a wise judge of people, and empathy can bring joy and happiness to a human.

Good question.

I'd like at least a plausible explanation as to why you think empathy would overcome the barriers I listed or perhaps some fairly conducted experiments that showed empathy can be accurate?

We could even talk about anecdotal examples... Really I haven't heard anything remotely interesting as a counter-argument, I have given an absolute argument and usually I hate absolute arguments. I'm sure there's some exception to my rule and I'm hoping people can add nuance to my understanding even if they can't completely reverse it.


The gist of your argument is "I can't understand or didn't read what you're saying, therefore, you're saying something else". I'm not going to have a debate about what I am saying or not saying when I've been very clear in my argumentation.

Empathy could provide small bits of useful information, large bits of useful information or a comprehensive idea. Demonstrations of any of these things would have been counter-arguments to my position NOT just the latter. Talking to you has been a waste of my time, I give you detailed accounts of my position only to have to refute things like "dude empathy isn't about mathematics" and "empathy isn't perfect... but you're acting like it should be!!"


I agree. Truth must be rigorously and earnestly pursued and no short cuts will be satisfactory.


This thread is about empathy being worthless as a tool for understanding people, not empathy being worthless. I personally use empathy to advise me on the moral thing to do all the time and I can't see why I should stop. I think empathy is a great thing, I just don't think people should be using it as a tool for understanding.

If you become a great judge of people, that's not the same as becoming good at empathy, in my view. Becoming a great judge of people means having knowledge, experience and skills which you utilise to make theories and then confirming them later. I have many theories about people too, I hope they give me insights but I won't use empathy as a tool for understanding.

Empathy could provide small bits of useful information, large bits of useful information or a comprehensive idea. — Judaka

Understanding different perspectives is useful information.

Understanding different perspectives is useful information. — Terrapin Station

I agree.

We could even talk about anecdotal examples... Really I haven't heard anything remotely interesting as a counter-argument, I have given an absolute argument and usually I hate absolute arguments. I'm sure there's some exception to my rule and I'm hoping people can add nuance to my understanding even if they can't completely reverse it. — Judaka

What about for psychologists? Seems to me they need to approach their patients with a mixture of intellectual detachment and empathy. Especially when a person is having irrational feelings and behaviors, empathy can help the psychologist connect with the patient. They can assess what a patient is feeling, and then later unravel why. Most patients probably wouldn't open up to someone they thought was too judgmental or analytic.

I think you're correct that psychologists need to avoid appearing judgement or analytic, I agree that displays or attempts at empathy are good for disarming people and making them feel like you're on their side. Empathy and displays of empathy are very useful but should a psychologist be using their imagination and assumptions to understand their patients?

Many psychology students think being a psychologist is about using anecdotal evidence, intuition and so on. They become very disillusioned with all the data they need to learn. Studies and more studies backed up with evidence, experiments and testing.

It's very important that psychologists use the available evidence and not their imagination. My argument is that this kind of thinking should extend to all things.

It's very important that psychologists use the available evidence and not their imagination. My argument is that this kind of thinking should extend to all things. — Judaka

I think that's a false dichotomy. You can (and should ) use evidence, studies, knowledge, etc. to help guide you in your attempts at empathy/imagination.

I think intuition also gets a bad reputation for being the opposite of intellect. Intuition is useful because you're reacting to cues that your conscious mind isn't picking up on.

For example, a good empath knows someone is feeling x, y, or z even before anything has been said. You often can't pinpoint at first how you know someone is feeling something, but you pick up on all the little bodily cues: eye movements, posture, hand placement, clothing, facial expressions, etc etc.

I think that's a false dichotomy. You can (and should ) use evidence, studies, knowledge, etc. to help guide you in your attempts at empathy/imagination. — NKBJ

If you have to use empathy then I agree but I don't think you do. If you don't understand then ask more questions and try to understand but not by using your imagination. You probably have some ideas based on deductive reasoning, probability, experience, perhaps expertise and so on about what's going on. Strong platforms from which to begin further questioning or establishing your theories and their probabilities.

For example, a good empath knows someone is feeling x, y, or z even before anything has been said. You often can't pinpoint at first how you know someone is feeling something, but you pick up on all the little bodily cues: eye movements, posture, hand placement, clothing, facial expressions, etc etc. — NKBJ

I don't agree reading body language is empathy but I do agree to be able to read body language is useful for understanding people.

Empathy promises unrealistic results - even the idea of using it face-to-face implies intuitively understanding things you have no means to understand - you can only imagine. — Judaka

This is a bit misinformed.

In a face to face with someone you've never met, if you witness them in pain, you'll know it. Mirror neurons. If you witness them in pain and it makes you 'sad' for them, or want to help eliminate their suffering, then you'd be empathizing. If you witness them in pain and give it no further thought, or even laugh and/or make jokes about it, you're not.

Empathy is not about understanding one's socio-economic background, personality, or whatever...

It's about knowing how other people are feeling, knowing what they're going through, whether it be heartache, anxiety, suffering, death of a loved one, etc.

All humans go through these things. Expecting empathy to provide some sort of different understanding is quite the misguided expectation.

I am discussing empathy as a tool for understanding people, you talk like you're disagreeing with me but it doesn't seem like you are. Provided you aren't expecting any kind of specificity with "knowing what they're going through" then I don't know what you disagree with.

There does appear to be a slight contradiction in what you're saying that I would ask you to clarify.

Mirror neurons. If you witness them in pain and it makes you 'sad' for them, or want to help eliminate their suffering, then you'd be empathizing. If you witness them in pain and give it no further thought, or even laugh and/or make jokes about it, you're not. — creativesoul

I agree with that but then you say.

It's about knowing how other people are feeling, knowing what they're going through, whether it be heartache, anxiety, suffering, death of a loved one, etc. — creativesoul

Don't you think someone can tell when someone else is in pain without being sad about it? They aren't empathising but they can read facial expressions, understand expressed sentiments and so on. I don't think it's fair to say empathy is responsible for being intellectually aware of the existence and nature of something like "heartache" or whatever else.

I don't know what you disagree with. — Judaka

Read the post again. Look at what I quoted.

In general, I'm disagreeing with the criterion you're holding empathy to. While it seems evident that there are some aspects of understanding another that empathy - all by itself - simply cannot provide. However, even in those cases, in is a great way to start. Thus, it is a good tool.

What sort of understanding do you expect empathy to help provide one with?

I don't think it's fair to say empathy is responsible for being intellectually aware of the existence and nature of something like "heartache" or whatever else. — Judaka

So don't say that. I sure didn't.

I think empathy is a good starting point for understanding of the other. If it is expressed, in its emotional appearance it helps both parties feel better about communicating with each other. I have had conversation with the empathic and the distant, and been in both positions myself. To understand some one, to actually hear what they are saying about themselves, requires some kind of emotional engagement.

Sounds like Gadamerian hermeneutics to me.

Sorry, what do you think is misinformed? You said that empathy allows us to see "pain" in others and see that pain in ourselves, we feel their pain.

It's about knowing how other people are feeling, knowing what they're going through, whether it be heartache, anxiety, suffering, death of a loved one, etc. — creativesoul

So you agree that we can intellectually understand these things then what's the point of bringing up that empathy can do this? What are you trying to say?

What sort of understanding do you expect empathy to help provide one with? — creativesoul

None.

Are you perhaps doubting that others use empathy irresponsibly? I am not attacking empathy, I'm criticising people who use empathy as a tool for understanding people (among other things). I am giving arguments for why people shouldn't do this and why it's wrong.


I agree with that.

Sorry, what do you think is misinformed? You said that empathy allows us to see "pain" in others and see that pain in ourselves, we feel their pain. — Judaka

Your expectation of empathy, and now your recounting of my words. I said no such thing.

z' I think worldviews are products of the real differences which are biological and interpretative and these manifest themselves differently in different contexts and lead to different kinds of difficulties in understanding others."

I think, like may people in the world, you have difficulty stepping into the shoes of someone else and seeing the world from their perspective. What will compound your difficulty is that you apparently have convinced yourself that the problem is not in the limits of your own thinking but in some supposed structural features of humanity, such as biological differences(whatever that's supposed to mean). Yes, of course individuals' behavior manifests itself s differently in different contexts. That's precisely the point. The advantage of powerful philosophical and psychological worldviews is that they are able to
transcend what appears to you to be hopelessly different manifestations in different contexts.
The problem isn't in the world , its in your inability to construct a more effective, flexible and comprehensive scheme of interpersonal undestanding .

Okay but I don't have an expectation of empathy and I just said that.

So rather than feeling their pain, we see their pain and sad for them and want to help, is what you said. I don't know if the difference has any relevance to what I said so I got nothing more to add.

I think, like may people in the world, you have difficulty stepping into the shoes of someone else and seeing the world from their perspective. — Joshs

Nobody can do this, not me, not you, nobody. It's your imagination at play.

The advantage of powerful philosophical and psychological worldviews is that they are able to
transcend what appears to you to be hopelessly different manifestations in different contexts.
The problem isn't in the world , its in your inability to construct a more effective, flexible and comprehensive scheme of interpersonal undestanding . — Joshs

Worldviews do not transcend anything, they are products of a variety of nature/nurture influences. Behind every overreaching generalisation lies overwhelming complexity and nuance which demolish all of your attempts to put things into neat little boxes.

This is the quintessential problem of empathising with "groups" or "categories of people", you have to ignore the millions of differences that exist within the group. That's good enough for you, not for me.

You have a long way to go. There are all sorts of things problematic with your worldview here. Far too much to take to task in one year, let alone one session here.

Empathy is the ability to recognize another's suffering/distress/discontent. That begins the road to better understanding others. Putting yourself in another's shoes requires more than just simple empathy. However, that is not to say that it is not a great tool that can be used for doing so. Just that it is not enough all by itself.

So, I'm not really disagreeing with some of what you're saying. I'm more or less pointing out that just because empathy alone is insufficient, it does not follow that it is not necessary for understanding another in the ways you've outlined. It does not follow that it is not a tool that can be used to better understand others. It's just not the only tool. Intellectualism in and of itself isn't either, by the way.

...you have difficulty stepping into the shoes of someone else and seeing the world from their perspective.
— Joshs

Nobody can do this, not me, not you, nobody. It's your imagination at play. — Judaka

Why not?

If I understand the words another uses, how am I not seeing the world from their perspective?

What else would it take to do so?

Need I jump inside their head and look out at the world through their eyes, literally?

Worldviews do not transcend anything... — Judaka

Oh, but they do. They consist of words. Words are meaningful. Meaning transcends the language user... most certainly.

This is the quintessential problem of empathising with "groups" or "categories of people", you have to ignore the millions of differences that exist within the group. That's good enough for you, not for me. — Judaka

This is absurd. Patently.

The differences are not what makes them a group. Rather, it is the similarities... Thus, ignoring the differences is required to even identify the group. It is certainly required to understand their plight, whatever it may be that binds them all together as a group.

I mean, when one empathizes with the homeless, one is considering the common problems of the homeless, and perhaps some possible solutions to help them suffer less. One doesn't get into personal individual particulars to empathize with the group of homeless. One does that to better understand a specific case.

You have a long way to go. There are all sorts of things problematic with your worldview here. Far too much to take to task in one year, let alone one session here. — creativesoul

....

Empathy is the ability to recognize another's suffering/distress/discontent. That begins the road to better understanding others. Putting yourself in another's shoes requires more than just simple empathy. — creativesoul

You don't need imagination to understand concepts. Even robots can read human expressions and label them, many of them are universal across humans - even blind people. Recognising something and understanding it is not the same at all. You say it "begins the road" but what does that even mean?

Honestly, creativesoul, what I'm getting from you is that you hold contempt for nuance and specificity.

So you've "empathised with the homeless" with the understanding that homeless people are homeless and broke and whatever else you either know to be the case or imagined to be the case. Explain how your understanding of homeless people has increased.

Oh, but they do. They consist of words. Words are meaningful. Meaning transcends the language user... most certainly. — creativesoul

Words are just arguments and sentiments expressed by people affected by nature'nurture influences, what transcendence occurred here?