03 Mar 2011, 6:23 pm
03 Mar 2011, 6:26 pm
Verdandi
Veteran
Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,275
Location: University of California Sunnydale (fictional location - Real location Olympia, WA)
03 Mar 2011, 6:36 pm
03 Mar 2011, 6:39 pm
Verdandi
Veteran
Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,275
Location: University of California Sunnydale (fictional location - Real location Olympia, WA)
03 Mar 2011, 6:56 pm
03 Mar 2011, 7:18 pm
03 Mar 2011, 9:33 pm
04 Mar 2011, 4:31 am
Verdandi
Veteran
Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,275
Location: University of California Sunnydale (fictional location - Real location Olympia, WA)
04 Mar 2011, 4:48 am
04 Mar 2011, 5:03 am
04 Mar 2011, 10:11 am
04 Mar 2011, 10:42 am
04 Mar 2011, 3:15 pm
Poke wrote:
I think I understand the problem here. The question is whether or not "empathy" as my S.O. experiences it is accurate--whether or not it accurately predicts/emulates the feelings of other people.
My S.O. and I chatted a bit on this topic earlier this morning, and here are the conclusions we arrived at.
Of course it's impossible for my S.O. to know with any certainty how closely her empathy has emulated the feelings and experiences of another human being. In her words, they're "the best she can do". There does seem to be some sort of intrinsic intellectual honesty about them--for instance, they don't involve many unnecessary or wholly baseless assumptions. From earlier in the thread:
My S.O.'s empathy process doesn't involve jumping to these kinds of conclusions--that's not what her "emulations" are about. If she were empathizing with someone who had severe motor issues, she wouldn't start guessing at that person's attitude toward life--she would simply "feel" what it would be like to not have good control over her body. And if she decided, based on that emulation, that she would be miserable in that circumstance, she understands that value judgment is a reflection of herself, and not representative of that person's frame of mind.
My main point is that, regardless of their accuracy, she's able to "run" these "emulations" at all. They are a tool--not an infallible tool, but a powerful one that I simply do not possess. One thing I am sure about is that it has extraordinary utility. My S.O. is the ultimate "people person"--she can relate to anyone. In fact, she's a health care provider who regularly "reaches" patients that had previously been thought "unreachable". So, I don't think it's a stretch to say that her empathy ability is reasonably accurate.
Hopefully my explanation of the "accuracy" of empathy clears this issue up. And, frankly, for people with the amount of empathy my S.O. has, harming others is difficult, and, if everyone had her ability to empathize, they would all be kind and deferential to each other!
This is absolutely not true. We've compared our abilities at great length, in a thousand different ways, and I can assure you that our "thought processes" in regard to empathy are vastly different.
You sound like you might be a "40th percentile". Allow me to quote from a well-known page by someone who has essentially no conscious visualization ability (you can read the whole page here: http://dfan.org/visual.html)
My S.O. and I chatted a bit on this topic earlier this morning, and here are the conclusions we arrived at.
Of course it's impossible for my S.O. to know with any certainty how closely her empathy has emulated the feelings and experiences of another human being. In her words, they're "the best she can do". There does seem to be some sort of intrinsic intellectual honesty about them--for instance, they don't involve many unnecessary or wholly baseless assumptions. From earlier in the thread:
Quote:
Whoa, I don't agree. That's an illusion and a projection. You cannot telepathically understand how someone else is feeling. And I have noticed people very commonly making many, many wrong assumptions based on thinking they are being 'empathetic' in that way.
I.e. "if I became cognitively disabled I would be miserable all the time and would kill myself." (I have become cognitively disabled, and while I might off myself one day, it won't be because of that.)
"If I were in a wheelchair, I would kill myself."
"If I went blind, and could never see a sunset again, I would kill myself."
I.e. "if I became cognitively disabled I would be miserable all the time and would kill myself." (I have become cognitively disabled, and while I might off myself one day, it won't be because of that.)
"If I were in a wheelchair, I would kill myself."
"If I went blind, and could never see a sunset again, I would kill myself."
My S.O.'s empathy process doesn't involve jumping to these kinds of conclusions--that's not what her "emulations" are about. If she were empathizing with someone who had severe motor issues, she wouldn't start guessing at that person's attitude toward life--she would simply "feel" what it would be like to not have good control over her body. And if she decided, based on that emulation, that she would be miserable in that circumstance, she understands that value judgment is a reflection of herself, and not representative of that person's frame of mind.
My main point is that, regardless of their accuracy, she's able to "run" these "emulations" at all. They are a tool--not an infallible tool, but a powerful one that I simply do not possess. One thing I am sure about is that it has extraordinary utility. My S.O. is the ultimate "people person"--she can relate to anyone. In fact, she's a health care provider who regularly "reaches" patients that had previously been thought "unreachable". So, I don't think it's a stretch to say that her empathy ability is reasonably accurate.
Bluefins wrote:
If people truly did feel what other's felt, harming others would be as difficult as harming yourself, not helping people in pain wouldn't happen, and it would be impossible to decieve anyone about your feelings - no passive-agressiveness or "it's lovely" to save feelings.
Hopefully my explanation of the "accuracy" of empathy clears this issue up. And, frankly, for people with the amount of empathy my S.O. has, harming others is difficult, and, if everyone had her ability to empathize, they would all be kind and deferential to each other!
Quote:
You and your SO just explain the same thought process differently.
This is absolutely not true. We've compared our abilities at great length, in a thousand different ways, and I can assure you that our "thought processes" in regard to empathy are vastly different.
You sound like you might be a "40th percentile". Allow me to quote from a well-known page by someone who has essentially no conscious visualization ability (you can read the whole page here: http://dfan.org/visual.html)
Quote:
I bet your visualization ability isn't any worse than anyone else's. It's just a terminology issue. Of course one doesn't actually 'see' things when one's eyes are closed; that's not so weird.
Some people have the above reaction. Let me step back for a second and list the kind of reactions I usually get from people:
Say I'm around 10th percentile in my visualization ability (I have no idea what percentile I'm really at, but that's plausible). People who are at the 10th percentile read this page and say, "Wow! You're just like me! I've been wondering if there were other people who had no visualization ability, just like me."
People who are at the 80th percentile read this page and say, "Wow! That's so strange! You can't visualize anything? Man, I can't imagine that at all. Wow."
People who are at the 40th percentile read this page and say, "It's not the big deal you're making it out to be. It's just a terminology issue."
So my guess is that there actually is a wide spectrum of visualization ability, and the people in the middle of the spectrum can "see both ends" of the spectrum, and tend to think that everyone else is similar and just uses slightly different words. The fact that it's impossible (as far as I know) to describe this stuff quantitatively makes it that much harder to explain the differences between people (and, conversely, makes it easier to suppose that those differences don't really exist).
Poke if your SO is really that good at reaching the unreachable then I would say that is "proof" of some special abilities, yeah.
That's really nice
Your story about visualisation nearly broke my brain, I can't get my head around it, but I see there must be truth in it.
I'm guessing 10th percentile means "practically can't", 80th means "super good at it" and 40th means "average"??
This must apply to all sorts of things that are hard to discuss, such as how people experience colours etc.
Some people have the above reaction. Let me step back for a second and list the kind of reactions I usually get from people:
Say I'm around 10th percentile in my visualization ability (I have no idea what percentile I'm really at, but that's plausible). People who are at the 10th percentile read this page and say, "Wow! You're just like me! I've been wondering if there were other people who had no visualization ability, just like me."
People who are at the 80th percentile read this page and say, "Wow! That's so strange! You can't visualize anything? Man, I can't imagine that at all. Wow."
People who are at the 40th percentile read this page and say, "It's not the big deal you're making it out to be. It's just a terminology issue."
So my guess is that there actually is a wide spectrum of visualization ability, and the people in the middle of the spectrum can "see both ends" of the spectrum, and tend to think that everyone else is similar and just uses slightly different words. The fact that it's impossible (as far as I know) to describe this stuff quantitatively makes it that much harder to explain the differences between people (and, conversely, makes it easier to suppose that those differences don't really exist).
Poke if your SO is really that good at reaching the unreachable then I would say that is "proof" of some special abilities, yeah.
That's really nice
Your story about visualisation nearly broke my brain, I can't get my head around it, but I see there must be truth in it.
I'm guessing 10th percentile means "practically can't", 80th means "super good at it" and 40th means "average"??
This must apply to all sorts of things that are hard to discuss, such as how people experience colours etc.
04 Mar 2011, 3:39 pm
04 Mar 2011, 4:20 pm
05 Mar 2011, 9:19 pm
Poke wrote:
Part of the problem with understanding empathy for people who can't empathize is that, to us, it really is (in relation to our own cognitive processes) as far-fetched, exotic, and fantastical as telepathy. If a person who lacks the ability to empathize reaches the point that they truly grasp, intellectually, what empathy is, it should make their head spin.
Well my head hasn't spun yet
I do understand alot surrounding empathy, since I've obtained empathy after having brain tumors plus chemo and radiation treatment. Before that my empathy was not developed.
I experience it as a sensory organ, and feelings being comparative to a specific wavelengths.
Also able to feel as a other person feels, it's not always voluntary to me...
I have a roommate who's very emotionally unstable and has a form of autism, not a pleasant encounter when I'm in a weaker and more vulnerable state.
Although understanding what those feeling mean in words was a struggle that took me years. Putting thoughts in words wasn't my strong point neither, but now I seem to do well even if it takes alot of energy.
In intellectually understanding empathy this far is how I got, I'm still trying to explain it in full to some friends of mine who don't have understand it - no success up to this point.
I do think it's like a sensory organ, only where are the physical receptors? Maybe human electric field?
Although the step to telepath is a too big a leap for me, I feel that there is something going on at another person (for example: people feeling uneasy, stressed, depressed, happy, etc.) but I can't tell why those people are so.
