Empathy and Sympathy??

[alcea rosea]

After reading this thread the issue of empathy and sympathy started to interest me.

Here are some quotations from that thread about the subject:

Empathy means you know what he is feeling without feeling it yourself.

But you are telling us you are feeling it yourself - so you are sympathising rather than empathising.

Sorry, incorrect.

em⋅pa⋅thy   
–noun 1. the intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another.

sym⋅pa⋅thy   
–noun 1. harmony of or agreement in feeling, as between persons or on the part of one person with respect to another.
2. the harmony of feeling naturally existing between persons of like tastes or opinion or of congenial dispositions.
3. the fact or power of sharing the feelings of another, esp. in sorrow or trouble; fellow feeling, compassion, or commiseration.​

'Nuff said.

Clarification: this post of mine doesn't help wrt the overlap of "feeling other's feelings." I think there are other threads on this topic and I suppose the discussion of the difference should probably move there.

Empathy is when you can objectively identify or understand what a person is going through. You can imagine what they may be going through but your current feelings are not involved.

Sympathy is when you can actually feel their pain.

I've understood empathy and sympathy very differently than what you describe here.

So, explain it to me:
I think sympathy needs empathy, because how can I feel what other people is feeling if I don't have empathy? And if sympathy is something we are born with then how is it possible that empathy needs to be learned because there cannot be sympathy without empathy. Or can there be sympathy without empathy? But how can we know what other people are feeling (this is sympathy you all say) without knowing what they feel (this is what you all say it's empathy). How can somebody learn to be sympathic without being empahty if not learned empathy?

 

[jenocyde]

Goodness, the topic that never dies... hahaha... But since you asked so nicely: it's exactly what is noted above so you can stop reading here if you are convinced. Sorry, this will be lengthy.

I've never heard of being born with sympathy. Both sympathy and empathy are learned. Empathy (by strict definition) has existed longer, according to sociologists, and exists even in animals - which is why most species are not cannibals. There is no concrete evidence that animals experience sympathy.

Lest I get my intelligence attacked once again, here are some sources (I tried to include medical, sociological, psychological and philosophical references, but if you still have questions, please PM me):

Sigmund Freud stated that patient/doctor needed empathy to establish rapport.

Anna Freud described empathy as a learned talent. A mother watches a newborn child to attain cues and then acts accordingly. This is empathy. Identifying and understanding someone's feelings, without actually having to feel them.

As Dr. Anton Chekhov noted, "Empathy, as cognitive, permits a detachment that allows the doctor to understand the fear and pain of the patient without experiencing those emotions."

Talcott Parsons (one of the world's most influential sociologists, from my alma mater - his foundations were dismissed in a previous thread...) called empathy "affective neutrality" in his early model of the doctor–patient relationship.

In Empathy in Patient Care: Antecedents, Development, Measurement, and Outcomes (Springer Science 2007), Dr. M. Hojat defines empathy as cognitive and sympathy as emotional.

"The MNS [Mirror Neuron Systems] may relate to sympathy and altruism as well. The cognitive component of an emotion schema, in interaction with its feeling component, may transform empathy to sympathy... This neural activity and its products help the observer to understand and predict the thoughts and feelings of the observed person."
Langer SK. 1967/1982. Mind: An Essay on Human Feeling. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press

"Basic empathy depends mainly on neurophysiological response systems that do not require or involve the higher-order cognitive processes involved in sympathy."
Hoffman ML. 2000. Empathy and Moral Development: Implications for Caring and Justice. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press

" 'Sympathy' and 'empathy' refer to two distinct and complex psychological capacities that have quite distinct meanings. Nevertheless, philosophers and psychologists have had tremendous difficulty keeping the two concepts distinct. Since the classic works by Max Scheler on sympathy and by Edith Stein on empathy, theorists have been trying to define the terms by supposing empathy is merely a type of sympathy... In empathy, the self is the vehicle for understanding, and it never loses its identity. Sympathy, on the other hand, is concerned with communion rather than accuracy, and self-awareness is reduced rather than enhanced. In empathy, one person reaches out for the other person, whereas in sympathy the sympathizer is moved by the other person... To know what something would be like for the other person is empathy. To know what it would be like to be that person is sympathy. In empathy one acts "as if" one were the other person. (Rogers, 1957, p. 3) In sympathy one is the other person. (Macfie, 1959, p. 213). The object of empathy is understanding. The object of sympathy is the other person's well-being. In sum, sympathy is a way of relating."
Sympathy and empathy
Irene Switankowsky. Philosophy Today. Celina: Spring 2000. Vol. 44, Iss. 1; pg. 86, 7 pgs

Dr. Simon Baron-Cohen (who has rewritten the traditional concept of empathy), from Medscape Psychiatry & Mental Health (2005):

"Medscape: In your writing, you have used the term "theory of mind."[1] Is that synonymous with empathizing?"

"Dr. Baron-Cohen: It's part of empathy. Theory of mind is being able to put yourself in somebody else's shoes, being able to imagine what's going on in his or her mind. But imagining someone else's thoughts or feelings is only part of empathy. The other part is having [an appropriate] emotional reaction. The distinction is important because a psychopath might be able to figure out somebody else's thoughts quite accurately but wouldn't necessarily have an appropriate emotional response."


Dr. Baron-Cohen also wrote in "The Empathy Quotient: An Investigation of Adults with Asperger Syndrome or High Functioning Autism,
and Normal Sex Differences", 2004
"To give an example, if you walk past a homeless person in winter and you are “moved”or “touched” (both interesting metaphors) to want to help them, this would count as sympathy. You may do nothing more.
...

If, however, you experienced an appropriate emotion (e.g., pity) to the homeless person’s emotion (e.g., hopelessness), but you did not experience any desire to take action to alleviate his or her suffering, then this would count as empathy, but not sympathy."

An appropriate emotional response can be concern, pity or identification. Please note that he does not say that we must feel the same emotion, only an emotion, for it to count as empathy. You can express concern. But again, his research in the field is somewhat new and does most of his research with defining the characteristics in autistic patients. But I think you get the point.

I think that covers it.

 

[Orangey]

Hey jenocyde, thanks for this post. I am only familiar with Baron-Cohen's work, since I became interested in the subject of autism not too long ago. I rescind my previous argument, since there seems to be a good body of literature supporting the the definition of empathy without an affective component. Sorry if I came off as caustic before.

 

[jenocyde]

Hey jenocyde, thanks for this post. I am only familiar with Baron-Cohen's work, since I became interested in the subject of autism not too long ago. I rescind my previous argument, since there seems to be a good body of literature supporting the the definition of empathy without an affective component. Sorry if I came off as caustic before.

No sweat. I jump at the chance to share what I know, and can understand your reluctance to accept things at face value. I didn't respond to you on Halla's thread, not because I was offended, but because we usurped it and deviated. Sleep well.

 

[kiddykat]

OMG, I love the various points of view!

The distinction is important because a psychopath might be able to figure out somebody else's thoughts quite accurately but wouldn't necessarily have an appropriate emotional response.

So true.

I can tell when someone's truly empathizing with me/or sympathizing.. Sympathy without empathy seems 'on the surface' to me.

The distinction is important, because when dealing with real life situations, there are those who can on some level, tell what it's like to be in our shoes, and gain knowledge for their own self-interest to exploit. Most people who are good at conning others try to be good at this.

I think that true empathy stems from integrity, which often may/may not show some degree of sympathy.

 

[alcea rosea]

Thanks for your answers people.

I see that I have understood empathy and sympathy the wrong way around. I have always thought that sympathy is somehow "lighter" than empathy. That's probably due to the fact that sympathy is used in the spoken language (even if Finland) a lot and some people are called sympathic to descibe how they seem to be to the outside. And that sympathic doesn't mean that they would really be sympathic, it's more likely just a synonym to say that somebody is really "nice".

I see that the psyhcologist aren't agreeing on whether sympathy and empathy are learned or not. I mean there has to be some genes + environmental stuff involved because there is no one without another. I mean, people are shaped both by their genes and the environment.

So, my interpretation is that empathy is needed to be sympathic. I can see now that I have myself more trouble with dealing with sympathy than dealing with empathy. I think that comment that stated that sympathy is "being" somebody else describes it well. I'm like that and it's terrible most of times. Deep sympathy is really troublesome at least with when seeing violence and negative emotions.

One question came into my mind concerning this issue:
Can there be sympathy without empathy?

 

[Mole]

I think that covers it.

My God, yes.

All I could add is that empathy is a bit like riding a bike - you can't learn to ride a bike by talking about it - and the only way I know how to learn how to empathise, as against sympathise, is in formal setting - and practice, practice, practice - like learning to read and write or learning to play the piano.

 

[Mole]

Empathy is most important for torturers.

For the torturer doesn't want to feel the same as their victim. So sympathy is no good for the torturer.

However the torturer does want to know what their victim is feeling, without feeling it themselves.

So every good torturer is empathic.

 

[Snow Turtle]

You'll get confusing answers because it hasn't been strictly defined. Some places reverse the definition between the two. My understanding of it after reading difference between threads...:

Sympathy - I'm sorry to hear that. (I can't imagine what it will be like)
Empathy - (I've been through it. I understand.)
Empathy w Sympathy - (I've been through it. I understand.) I'm sorry and I understand.

Note: Empathy by itself needn't be sorry for the other person, they can just know what is going on. Which moves onto the second point - It's difficult to be 100% empathetic because all experiences are going to be different. You can never truly understand another persons emotion, but you can do a good job of placing yourself in their position.

Then again is the distinction really that important if people are getting confused? I think the confusion arises from some places practicing the word, and the word origins.

 

[Snow Turtle]

So every good torturer is empathic.

Oh wow... That comment just hit me. That's like the true definition of evil, till now I got the impression that perhaps these people just didn't really understand which is more psychopathic in nature I suppose.

Can a torturer truly understand without being in their position though?
It's like imagining what it feels like to have a loved one pass away, even though you have never had one do so. How accurate can it really be?

 

[Mole]

That's like the true definition of evil...

Yes, empathy can be uniquely helpful or uniquely harmful.

 

[jenocyde]

Yes, alcea, I had a problem with the word "sympathisch" in German and "simpatico" in Italian, as well. So, I sympathize with you It's easier to remember when you think of the root words "syn" + "pathos" (greek), which is the same as "con" + "passio", "pati" (late latin) meaning compassion. Both literally meaning 'to suffer with'.

I learned about empathy from art theory classes when I was a kid - trying to accurately portray what someone else feels - and so it always kind of stuck in me.

I don't believe that you can experience sympathy without empathy. Empathy is self-centered. You can imagine that others may feel something because that's how you would feel in that situation. When a friend won the lottery, I could totally imagine how he felt, but I admit, I did not feel joy on his behalf or on my own behalf. But I knew he was feeling it. So empathy is being able to identify emotions.

Sympathy is being able to then share those emotions. Sympathy is geared toward the other. In order to feel sympathy, you must be aware of yourself and then be aware that another person is not yourself and has their own distinct feelings (which is where sociopaths and narcissists have the problem).

In sympathy, when something happens to that other person, you feel an emotion and project that feeling onto them. It may be accurate of what they are feeling, but it may not be. Many times, I have NFs crying on my behalf because they feel my pain, when I actually feel no pain at all. But the point is that they are feeling something on my behalf, which is compassion or sympathy.

 

[kiddykat]

I see that the psyhcologist aren't agreeing on whether sympathy and empathy are learned or not. I mean there has to be some genes + environmental stuff involved because there is no one without another. I mean, people are shaped both by their genes and the environment.

My teacher, whom got his MFT told me that his professor says, "As a counselor, you either have empathy or ya don't." Hmm.. I don't know about this.

I think that people *can* have empathy for others, but for some, it comes more naturally, and perhaps due to life experiences? Being able to place ourselves in another person's shoes to feel deep empathy is something that also requires that one may have had to experience such tremendous amount of pain or joy to really 'connect' with whomever they associate with? And/Or it could very well be that some people have that gift of wisdom without having to endure such experiences- I would call them old-souls maybe?

Victor, in the act of hurting another person, is that truly empathy when we dissociate that pain from the 'human experience'? Or is it apathy?

I think when people do that, there is a level of dis-attachment, is there not? If a person truly can empathize, they would resort to acts of love, kindness, understanding- fearlessness/empowerment, deeper view of life. (I know- so corny, but true).

in the instance in which they do/can hurt another person (take advantage of their bodies- as in rape, violence, torture), if they stop, then I would see that there is a bridge between us/them, where it is 'we' and that association is in fact, empathy, which is quite powerful, transcending.. Okay- now I'm starting to sound really new-agey, so I'll stop! :blushes:

 

[Mole]

...so corny, but true.

...I'm starting to sound really new-agey

It is very nice to think this way.

And it feels nice.

But it is hard to get over the fact of good and evil in the world and in ourselves.

And it's true, it's good to avoid evil and seek the good.

 

[Mole]

Many times, I have NFs crying on my behalf...

Only once in lifetime have I had someone cry for me and I have never forgotten it.

It was in a Reichian workshop, we were both sitting on the floor facing one another, I was talking about my life but I was not aware of my deeper feelings. But the therapist sitting in front of me could plainly see my personal tragedy and starting crying.

I was startled and shocked and realised I couldn't cry for myself.

So the therapist had given me one of the greatest gifts of my life. He did for me what I couldn't do for myself.

So since then I have tried to love myself a little more.

But how wonderful to meet a person of such depth and generosity.

 

[Synarch]

Only once in lifetime have I had someone cry for me and I have never forgotten it.

It was in a Reichian workshop, we were both sitting on the floor facing one another, I was talking about my life but I was not aware of my deeper feelings. But the therapist sitting in front of me could plainly see my personal tragedy and starting crying.

I was startled and shocked and realised I couldn't cry for myself.

So the therapist had given me one of the greatest gifts of my life. He did for me what I couldn't do for myself.

So since then I have tried to love myself a little more.

But how wonderful to meet a person of such depth and generosity.

That's beautiful Victor. I have studied a little Reich. What are your thoughts on character armoring? Could be at play here?

 

[Mole]

That's beautiful Victor. I have studied a little Reich. What are your thoughts on character armoring? Could be at play here?

Yes, I thought Wilhelm Reich's book, "Character Analysis", was very good.

But I think some of his later books missed the mark.

And yes like you I am very influenced by Reich's idea of character armouring.

You might say it guides my thinking today.

I read Reich's books and did a few Reichian workshops and they had a formative influence on my life.

I am though today inclined to think of body armouring or character armouring more as a metaphor.

Whereas I think Reich tended to take it a bit too literally and that is what I think got him into trouble. And after all, he died in an American jail.

But after it all, Wilhelm Reich still makes my heart sing.



And yes, my Reichian therapist, Lara Amber, was trained at the Radix Institute.

You can find the Radix Institute by clicking on-

Home Page

 

[Synarch]

Yes, I thought Wilhelm Reich's book, "Character Analysis", was very good.

But I think some of his later books missed the mark.

And yes like you I am very influenced by Reich's idea of character armouring.

You might say it guides my thinking today.

I read Reich's books and did a few Reichian workshops and they had a formative influence on my life.

I am though today inclined to think of body armouring or character armouring more as a metaphor.

Whereas I think Reich tended to take it a bit too literally and that is what I think got him into trouble. And after all, he died in an American jail.

But after it all, Wilhelm Reich still makes my heart sing.

Well, IIRC, it was the study of orgone and the sale of unapproved medical devices for containing bions that got him into trouble with the Food and Drug Administration. In other words, allegations of quackery. The first book I read was "The Mass Psychology of Fascism" and he makes some interesting points there.

 

[TaylorS]

As an NF with Asperger's I find the claim that autism involves trouble with empathy to be very misleading. I have recently read that there is, in fact, no empathy deficit in autistic individuals, what is actually going on is that our perceptual-sensory issues interfere with getting good data about other people's thoughts and feelings via subtle body language and tone of voice, when the data is more explicit, in the form of speech and obvious emotional reactions, the supposed "empathy deficit" disappears.

It was that info that lead me to realize that I am an INFJ instead of an INTJ or INTP. In fact, looking back on my childhood, I seemed to have developed Fe as my auxiliary BECAUSE of my Asperger's.


As for sympathy, I was always made fun of as the "sensitive guy" who would be driven to tears over the smallest things...

 

[alcea rosea]

Sorry - this is going to be a veeery long post.

Yes, alcea, I had a problem with the word "sympathisch" in German and "simpatico" in Italian, as well. So, I sympathize with you It's easier to remember when you think of the root words "syn" + "pathos" (greek), which is the same as "con" + "passio", "pati" (late latin) meaning compassion. Both literally meaning 'to suffer with'.

Yes - to suffer with is a good way to describe sympathy because sympathy is awfully painful. It's feeling other people's pain. Sometimes there is enough in your own pain and in those cases there is no room for symphatizin other people's pain because the load will become too heavy for one person to handle.

I learned about empathy from art theory classes when I was a kid - trying to accurately portray what someone else feels - and so it always kind of stuck in me.

It's good to teach children empathy. I've tried to teach mine some with people and also with animals. Little children don't understand that other people or animals can be hurt until later and when teached that other people/animals can be in pain too.

I don't believe that you can experience sympathy without empathy. Empathy is self-centered. You can imagine that others may feel something because that's how you would feel in that situation. When a friend won the lottery, I could totally imagine how he felt, but I admit, I did not feel joy on his behalf or on my own behalf. But I knew he was feeling it. So empathy is being able to identify emotions.

After thinking about this overnight I think that there can be sympathy in emotional level without really understanding in thinking level where the other person stands. I mean, there can be emotional response without really understanding the situation where the person can be. I know few people who are like that, they can be very comforting to you when you feel down but you can see from their actions/words afterwards that they didn't really understand why you were feeling down.

I think these emotional responses are very correct many times. I have noticed that myself, I don't react people who fake emotions. I see the emotion in them but I don't feel it. I those case there is no emotional response even the outer signs show it. It's like half of the pieces are missing in a puzzle. So, the "uncouncious" (meaning here that non rational, the intuitive) emotional reactions are very correct and people should really trust them.

Sympathy is being able to then share those emotions. Sympathy is geared toward the other. In order to feel sympathy, you must be aware of yourself and then be aware that another person is not yourself and has their own distinct feelings (which is where sociopaths and narcissists have the problem).

So, according to this thread, empathy is more thinking related and sympathy is more emotional-related stuff.

So, empathy doens't require action, it's just understanding where the other person stands in and sympathy is sharing that person's feelings?

In that case, I must say that I've been wrong commenting to people previously that empathy cannot be learned even if I still believe that it comes more naturally to some people.

In sympathy, when something happens to that other person, you feel an emotion and project that feeling onto them. It may be accurate of what they are feeling, but it may not be. Many times, I have NFs crying on my behalf because they feel my pain, when I actually feel no pain at all. But the point is that they are feeling something on my behalf, which is compassion or sympathy.

Maybe they feel something you aren't recognizing in yourself? I've seen that many T's aren't really connected with their emotional side (and I don't mean empathy here). Even with the strongest emotions, some of the strong T's arent' able to even notice the feeling (even if the people around them do see it very clearly) and don't figure out why they are feeling that way. In those cases, it helps if somebody else asks "why are you angry" " is it because...?"

Of course, I admit, sympathizing can go wrong as we are humans and not perfect.

I think that people *can* have empathy for others, but for some, it comes more naturally, and perhaps due to life experiences?

About something coming naturally to some people:
I've been observing my children in this matter for some years now. I mean they are born to same parents but at different times and different situations. In that way they are all born in different environments. The reactions of parents aren't necessarily the same for different types of children either.

But still, I say that some "features" in people are inborn. I say this because after observing my 3 children and seeing the one born with strong thinking but with little empathy (I've tried to teach this to my children) and very unattached to emotional side, the other one born with deep need to be true to self, the reserveness to people and the deep empathy that is not shown to outer world and the third one with huge emotional precence, with loads of empathy and sympathy towards others, the energetic presence that the other children lack.

So, they all look different and they have all very different personalities and structure to build their personality on. I don't know how much it's about genes and how much of environtment, but as it is with the physical features (which they all have very different too), some are inborn and some are shaped by the environment.

Being able to place ourselves in another person's shoes to feel deep empathy is something that also requires that one may have had to experience such tremendous amount of pain or joy to really 'connect' with whomever they associate with? And/Or it could very well be that some people have that gift of wisdom without having to endure such experiences- I would call them old-souls maybe?

Interesting point. I'll have to think about that.

Victor, in the act of hurting another person, is that truly empathy when we dissociate that pain from the 'human experience'? Or is it apathy?

After thinking about Victors comment about torturers being empahtic, I have strong urge to disagree with it. The tought of the torturer being empathic makes me sick. It's a purely disgusting thougt and makes me feel very uncomfortable. I mean, I've always thought that when empathizing you feel similar emotions than your "target". In torturers cases, you cannot be empahtize with the victim because if you were, you would notice the pain and that should be very troubling thought for you. I mean how would you like to be tortured? That's empathizing. How would you feel? Would you like it? Even without feeling the pain emotionally it would be impossible to be empathic when torturing.

I think when people do that, there is a level of dis-attachment, is there not? If a person truly can empathize, they would resort to acts of love, kindness, understanding- fearlessness/empowerment, deeper view of life. (I know- so corny, but true).

Yes, I totally agree. Attachment is empathizing, dis-attachment is not empathizing.

But how wonderful to meet a person of such depth and generosity.

A beautiful experience, I hope it helped yourself to feel better with yourself.
Only person with strong empahty & sympathy can do that.

As an NF with Asperger's I find the claim that autism involves trouble with empathy to be very misleading. I have recently read that there is, in fact, no empathy deficit in autistic individuals, what is actually going on is that our perceptual-sensory issues interfere with getting good data about other people's thoughts and feelings via subtle body language and tone of voice, when the data is more explicit, in the form of speech and obvious emotional reactions, the supposed "empathy deficit" disappears.

It was that info that lead me to realize that I am an INFJ instead of an INTJ or INTP. In fact, looking back on my childhood, I seemed to have developed Fe as my auxiliary BECAUSE of my Asperger's.

As for sympathy, I was always made fun of as the "sensitive guy" who would be driven to tears over the smallest things...

Yes, after this thread, if empathy is really more a way to understand other people, any people can learn that. But if it involves emotional response, then a person needs to recognize their own and other people's emotions before they can be fully empathic.

Whereas sympathy, that is more based on strong intuition of other persons emotional state. It requires understanding your own emotions really well. It's not really rational, it's more like an instinct.

I think it's really important to appreciate yourself as you are (I mean the sensitive guy part). I'm sensitive too and haven't really appreciated that part in myself. But I should be because it's something very special, it's very important part of myself and I should appreciate it and use it well in my life. It's a gift and I should use it well.