When are empathy and social sensitivities taken too far?

[Neonatal RRT]

I wish to discuss the pros, cons, and nuances of empathy and social sensitivities. The autism community, in particular, appear to feel things deeply, and as such, tend to have a relatively high sensitivity to the many social injustices and inequalities in our world...not only personally, but also for others. In some cases, we may find ourselves filtering our experiences and world views through this lens. Emotional and social empathy is commonly considered a virtue. People are often judged by their capacity and expression of it. However, when emotional and social empathy is in its amplified form, can it be weaponized to cause harm...and in the words of some...become a sin?

Examples:
1. "Cancel culture"
2. If combined with the personal perspective of "I am morally virtuous and I am going to point out that you are not."
3. If combined with emotional dysregulation, property destruction, verbal and physical violence.
4. If combined with a sense of entitlement and narcissism.
5. If combined with a narrow world view.
6. If combined with high confidence and little knowledge.

Personally, I am a healthcare worker with some 40 years of experience. I have seen all manner of horrible and tragic human experiences and death. That said, that experience also comes with the understanding of the concepts of nuance and moderation, as well as too little and too much of anything.

Thoughts?

 

[Vesta]

Having heightened empathy and sensitivity, I don’t see these qualities as an advantage and would like to get rid of them on a genetic level. I notice that people with minimal empathy and emotional responsiveness are often more successful, sociable, and have a wide circle of contacts.

 

[Neonatal RRT]

Having heightened empathy and sensitivity, I don’t see these qualities as an advantage and would like to get rid of them on a genetic level. I notice that people with minimal empathy and emotional responsiveness are often more successful, sociable, and have a wide circle of contacts.

Perhaps some truth to that, but also consider that a high degree of self-discipline and emotional control may be at play. There is a difference between feeling and expression of those feelings. I know that in healthcare, the persona we project and what we really feel and think may be quite different.

 

[TBRS1]

There is a very fine line, which is ENTIRELY subjectively determined, where one's desire to do good becomes a weapon used against them.

Example: Teaching is a low paid profession (in relation to the education and ongoing education required, and the professional duties/responsibilities).

When my employer broke contract and substantially cut pay, advancement opportunities, health and retirement benefits, we were told, over and over again to remember that "We were there for the children."

While that is true - nobody does that job unless they care about the children - making a wage benefit package above that offered by *Bigstore* would have been nice.

Our (the teachers) desire to do good was horribly abused.

 

[Caiman]

Some may call it naïve, but I’d rather be the one who cares too deeply than the one who doesn’t care at all. Even if kindness leaves me open to being taken advantage of, I’d rather carry a soft heart than a hardened one.

My biggest motivation in life has always been integrity and compassion. In a world where greed, selfishness, and cruelty are far too common, meeting those who still live with kindness feels like finding light in the dark. It reminds me there is still hope. That’s why even the smallest acts like a thank you for a held door, looking after the animals and environment and respect for the space we share matter so much to me. They’re signs that goodness hasn’t vanished.

When my life reaches its end, I’d rather be remembered as someone who gave too much, who risked being hurt, than as someone who surrendered to bitterness. Better to leave this world as a good soul who stayed true than to let cruelty reshape me into something I never wanted to be.

 

[RemyZee]

I'd mention that what you are describing in the examples you gave might not actually be examples of empathy. I don't think you can be genuinely cruel toward someone and empathize with them at the same time. I don't know if those two things can go together--unless, I guess people use empathy to justify their violence or self understood moral superiority, saying that it's necessary to be unethical for some reason to help the larger society, so it is the way a person cares for society. Now I seem to be saying the opposite thing. I believe what I am trying to say is that if a person is truly empathetic, they won't often do asshole things, and instead will do good things--but like anything people can use empathy as an excuse and justification for doing things that are wrong. But can real empathy be actually narcissistic?

 

[Outdated]

I have lived a pretty wild life and associated with people from all walks of life. My empathy is one of the reasons I am able to get along so well with so many different types of people. But:

Empathy does not equal sympathy.

Quite often exactly the opposite. Because I can read and understand people quite well I can also see their motivations and there's a lot of truly horrible people out in the world. Quite often empathy excludes sympathy, and I'm not going to waste energy or effort on people who genuinely don't deserve it.

I've seen a lot in life, from being a highly successful business manager to being homeless for 12 years and everything in between. Some people see me as being very hard hearted and cold but that's the people that I don't believe deserve to be given a fair go. Others are amazed at my level of compassion and understanding.

 

[Caiman]

I'd mention that what you are describing in the examples you gave might not actually be examples of empathy. I don't think you can be genuinely cruel toward someone and empathize with them at the same time. I don't know if those two things can go together--unless, I guess people use empathy to justify their violence or self understood moral superiority, saying that it's necessary to be unethical for some reason to help the larger society, so it is the way a person cares for society. Now I seem to be saying the opposite thing. I believe what I am trying to say is that if a person is truly empathetic, they won't often do asshole things, and instead will do good things--but like anything people can use empathy as an excuse and justification for doing things that are wrong. But can real empathy be actually narcissistic?

I see what you mean. I guess for me, I wasn’t really trying to separate out empathy from kindness or integrity in a technical way if that makes any sense. What I meant is that even the little things such as a thank you, showing respect for shared spaces, or caring for animals feel important because they’re signs that people still recognise each other’s humanity.

I agree with you that real empathy and cruelty don’t go together. If you truly feel what someone else feels, you’re less likely to deliberately cause harm. And I think you’re right that empathy can sometimes get twisted or used as a justification for something selfish but to me, that’s more like manipulation using the word empathy rather than empathy itself.

For me, it’s simple: I’d rather keep caring too much, even if it makes me vulnerable, than stop caring and risk becoming bitter.

 

[RemyZee]

The small kindnesses are so important--even though people dismiss them. I live in the American deep south, and, one of the things I do believe in about it is the whole thing of kindness--maybe it is superficial, but there is a real emphasis on the kindness of strangers here that goes back to empathy--people who just go through life performing small but significant acts of kindness without expecting anything in return. I do agree with RRT that empathy when combined with some narcissistic view of the self as a hero or when it is combined with other things, it's just pretend empathy.

 

[Aspychata]

I help others because those who wouldn't give me a second thought have helped me thru horrible situations. So l play it forward. But l really don't think about morals, because l love to assume that everyone wants the best for mankind or women kind. But l also realize that's faulty thinking so let me just ride into the sunset on my unicorn.

 

[Judge]

Regardless of what autistic persons may think either way, we aren't particularly great communicators sufficient to have any real ability to "weaponize" whatever values we may have.

We can't all be Temple Grandin or Greta Thunberg.

If one fears an over abundance of empathy, social justice or Social Darwinism and misanthropy or whatever, they really should direct their concern towards the neurotypical community. Where such things can truly be "amplified" exponentionally through social organization and mobilization in astronomically higher numbers.

Worrying about autistic people with such values? Consider the CDC's recent numbers which still reflect disparity of neurotypicals to the neurodiverse on a 31 to 1 basis.

 

[Neonatal RRT]

Good discussion so far.

A reminder and emphasis that is about situations where empathy, sensitivities, even sympathy are amplified...especially when it transitions into verbal and physical action, as well as what Judge had mentioned...social organization and mobilization in high numbers...situations where it can be harmful. Whether it be people out in the streets protesting and it gets out of hand with mob mentality, online with social media discussions that go "viral" with a toxic, moral high ground perspective, or more personal when it comes to shaming, verbal abuse, and physical violence.

Worrying about autistic people with such values? Consider the CDC's recent numbers which still reflect disparity of neurotypicals to the neurodiverse on a 31 to 1 basis.

Yes and no. It can be said that autistic folks are neurodivergent, but not all neurodivergent are autistic. Politically, there tends to be a bias for neurodivergent folks to be on the left and neurotypical folks to be on the right. Both sides socially organize and mobilize in large numbers, but it has been noted by many that the neurodivergent community will be triggered into action more often by social justice issues. The political right tending to be triggered into action by conservative, religious morality, and nationalistic issues.

Since the majority of us are neurodivergent in our own way here on this forum, and I agree that most of us are not out in the streets protesting and causing trouble. I don't think anyone here is a fan of immersing ourselves within large groups of people, but I suspect, behind a computer screen and social media there might be the potential for social organization and mobilization, moral high ground perspectives, and shaming. This forum, for the most part, is pretty good at controlling these behaviors, but I know that on other platforms that might not be the case.

Food for thought.

 

[AspieChris]

Having heightened empathy and sensitivity, I don’t see these qualities as an advantage and would like to get rid of them on a genetic level. I notice that people with minimal empathy and emotional responsiveness are often more successful, sociable, and have a wide circle of contacts.

I’ve often wished that I were able to be like those people, and thus be more ‘successful’ in life. But as I’m getting older I see the long term effects of not caring about other people enough. Those people rarely go jail or engage in fist-fighting but most eventually get divorced or have a really bad relationship with one of their children, or something equally as negative.

My marriage has had it’s challenges, and I have done plenty of ‘stupid’ in raising our son. BUT I’m always trying (too hard usually) to be a better spouse and father. Women don’t divorce a guy who genuinely tries to understand her needs, and children don’t disown a parent who shows up to every school play.

I’ll take my overly empathetic and sensitive craziness over splitting my pension with my ex-wife or not seeing my grandkids at Christmas. The people you describe succeed in their careers but I would argue that the life they have is not a better one.

 

[Neonatal RRT]

I’ve often wished that I were able to be like those people, and thus be more ‘successful’ in life. But as I’m getting older I see the long term effects of not caring about other people enough. Those people rarely go jail or engage in fist-fighting but most eventually get divorced or have a really bad relationship with one of their children, or something equally as negative.

My marriage has had it’s challenges, and I have done plenty of ‘stupid’ in raising our son. BUT I’m always trying (too hard usually) to be a better spouse and father. Women don’t divorce a guy who genuinely tries to understand her needs, and children don’t disown a parent who shows up to every school play.

I’ll take my overly empathetic and sensitive craziness over splitting my pension with my ex-wife or not seeing my grandkids at Christmas. The people you describe succeed in their careers but I would argue that the life they have is not a better one.

...and I might repeat what I suggested above...Perhaps some truth to that, but also consider that a high degree of self-discipline and emotional control may be at play. There is a difference between feeling...and the expression of those feelings. I know that in healthcare, the persona we project and what we really feel and think may be quite different.

There are times where I have to consciously "reset" and NOT react with any outward sign of emotion in the worst of situations. It's only way I can function logically so that I can work efficiently. I see this with our doctors and team leaders...you're trying to erase the emotional component so that there can be focus and clear thinking...absolutely critical when a life is on the line.

Believe me, there are times when you want to cry out of grief and tragedy, get frustrated and angry with someone or the situation...but anytime...anytime you "loose it" in front of others it is immediately interpreted as weakness and an inability to lead effectively. It is considered a serious character flaw, quite literally...your credibility as a competent person is immediately compromised. Self-discipline and emotional control are one of a few personality traits that allow individuals to move ahead in their careers and be "successful".

 

[Judge]

I don't think anyone here is a fan of immersing ourselves within large groups of people, but I suspect, behind a computer screen and social media there might be the potential for social organization and mobilization, moral high ground perspectives, and shaming. This forum, for the most part, is pretty good at controlling these behaviors, but I know that on other platforms that might not be the case.

That's a social phenomena of the Internet on very broad basis. Something I spoke of recently in another thread. That ability to routinely use anonymity for malicious purposes. Where anyone can have any kind of agenda which may not be immediately perceptible. Whether it involves nebulous moral principles, a criminal agenda or simply as a conduit get away with rude behavior. Largely within the realm of civil law concerns. However there are certain kinds of criminal behavior that stand a higher chance of intervention by certain law enforcement agencies aggressively monitoring the Internet.

The Internet is not a jurisdiction that has been objectively defined in accordance with any single code of conduct with sufficient legal authority to be enforced anywhere and everywhere online. That is the reality of one's situation if they object to how anonymous persons choose to interact with others on the Internet. Where you don't really know whether they are advocating personal beliefs or collectively attempting to control thought as well as conduct. And perhaps above all, to never forget that in terms of administration, every domain is proprietary in nature. Allowing a site owner to control such behaviors if they choose.

Setting all these critical considerations aside for a moment, let's deal with the reality that both of us belong to the same society of laws and social protocols decided at the highest levels. Where it has long been established what the threshold is that determines whether or not our constitutional right to free speech has been exceeded and violated. That even in the face of rabid hatred, unless it rises to the level of precipitating an imminent, lawless act, it does not rise to a level of violating our freedom of speech. (Brandenburg v. Ohio 1969). Whether we abide by such a decision or not, it's quite profoundly "the law of our land". To give Americans some perspective, while also acknowledging that few really understand or are aware of such rights.

In essence, if one has a sense of being "butthurt" over those with different values than their own, they must find a way to coexist with them, short of being in line with the agenda of a site owner. Whose primary goal may likely be monetary gain- not social or political equality or conformity.

All that said, I personally come to this proprietary domain and only this domain to interact with others. Something a number of us autistic persons have learned the hard way over time. It's not perfect, but then if you seek perfection, you best find another species capable of attaining it.

 

[Outdated]

Where it has long been established what the threshold is that determines whether or not our constitutional right to free speech has been exceeded and violated.

In Australia we don't have a Bill Of Rights and our right to free speech is not specifically stated in our constitution, it is implied but not specifically stated. This leaves politicians and judges a lot more room to manouvre and treat cases on an individual basis.

We do have quite robust laws about hate speech though and these are being strengthened all the time. In recent years there's more than just a few Aussies that have found themselves on the wrong side of the law through being bullies and many of them are being given the jail time they deserve.

Explainer: New national and NSW hate crime laws

 

[Judge]

In Australia we don't have a Bill Of Rights and our right to free speech is not specifically stated in our constitution, it is implied but not specifically stated. This leaves politicians and judges a lot more room to manouvre and treat cases on an individual basis.

That's precisely the kind of thing most of our Founding Fathers were determined to change.

Though it doesn't negate that our highest court can interpret such intentions any way they choose. If and when such legal challenges may reach the Supreme Court. The such exceptionalism comes at a cost on occasion as well. Especially when our courts favor commerce above the collective interests of the people, adjudicating decisions patently favoring corporate interests at the expense of a democracy. (Doctrine of Imminent Domain and the Citizens United decisions come to mind.)

Yet most if not all of it ends at the doorstep of the Internet. With so many participants of nations hopelessly arguing over their perception of how the Internet can or should be regulated. Without a plan or more importantly the technological logistics to implement it beyond their own borders or political hegemony.

 

[Hypnalis]

Emotional and social empathy is commonly considered a virtue.

IRL I've found that NT's are extremely flexible about their definitions of empathy, and that they frequently conflate it with sympathy. So I'd like to see a definition of empathy for the thread

I've provided an starting point below (from Wiktionary & Wikipedia), and a personal opinion on the easiest distinguishing factor.

FWIW:
1. I think it's a general characteristic of ASD that we have an empathy deficit due to our limitations in being able to "feel" what an NT is feeling in the moment, and hence to fully understand their thoughts and motivations.
2. I think "false empathy" can be, and is being induced as a means to weaponize it to cause harm (as per the OP).
e.g. the many variants what the The Simpsons raises often via their "won't somebody think of the children" character.

Empathy:
Wiktionary: Identification with or understanding of the thoughts, feelings, or emotional state of another person.
Wikipedia: Empathy is generally described as the ability to take on another person's perspective, to understand, feel, and possibly share and respond to their experience.

Sympathy:
Wiktionary 1: A feeling of pity or sorrow for the suffering or distress of another.
Wiktionary 1.2: The ability to share the feelings of another.
Wikipedia: Sympathy is the perception of, understanding of, and reaction to the distress or need of another life form

So there's an overlap, but IMO the separation is clear:
* Sympathy does not require deep understanding of the other entity. If something is hurt or hungry it motivates you to address those needs.
* Empathy does require real understanding. This makes it more complex of course, hence the multi-dimensional aspect: the OP includes Emotional and Social Empathy. Wikipedia says there can be more.

IMO ASDs tend to be normally - or perhaps extra- sympathetic, which perhaps protects us possible negative consequences of having lower levels of empathy than NT's.
IMO Aspies are much "nicer" than the members of the 'Dark Triad" who seem to feel no sympathy (though they all fake it), and lack empathy. And to the extent that they have some empathy they routinely weaponize it for personal advantage.

 

[Dagan]

I ponder this overall topic often. Here are my usual thoughts:

My tendencies are almost always towards respect and empathy / compassion, but I have learned that you don't give them 100% right away because you may find out why those such areas, more often than not, need to be earned.

I constantly hear folks talk about what they do or don't deserve, and at least half of the time, these people are really confusing the word "deserve" with "entitled." They feel entitled to whatever better aspect. People get what they deserve when they earn it. Likewise, apart from the random, horrible acts of others that can suddenly affect anyone, folks mostly get what they don't deserve because they put in no work at all to prevent what befalls them (and to be clear, most of the time, people know what they need to do to prevent bad things they're aware of).

I also think that people need to have an understanding that they don't have to care so much or have loud opinions about everything in the world, 24/7. I don't mean for folks to not care at all. I mean for people to get back to common sense. If you can't say or do anything to help people however far away from you, then you shouldn't let yourself be gaslit to think you can...and let me be clear...that's exactly what major media and social media do a ton of. They want you to champion every cause that they do, and if you don't, then you must be some piece of crap...as there's usually people to treat you as such, anyway. This is why I miss my childhood era from time to time. I grew up without computers or internet or cell phones, etc. I'm only 49 years old, now. Half of my life was rather quiet and calm. Around 1998 everything got really noisy and extremely busy. It was suddenly the agenda of every media outlet to make sure everyone, everywhere knew about every problem and made folks think they could or should do something about it. Actors and entertainers, especially when at awards shows or on talk shows used to be the only folks doing this, but it became the media moguls, as well. These people who had wealth, power and influence already (who could actually make changes happen) would instead use their spotlighted podium to gaslight and rather shame all of us others (we lesser financially able) to feel like it was our job to right the world's wrongs.

Nah. I'm smarter than that. If I don't take care of my immediate needs, my family's immediate needs and such, and I instead spend time, resources and efforts on the rest of the world everyday, then what? When I'm strapped and need help getting out of the hole that I put us all into, do I get to become the next problem all of those rich people will tell everyone to support and remedy? I sincerely doubt it.

It doesn't mean that I don't care at all about the horrors or slights going on in the world. I do care. I just know that it's also okay if I don't make it my priority to remedy them, whether due to common sense logistics or even if it's just because I ran out of time taking care of my own. I'm not selfish. I'm not insensitive. I'm not heartless. I'm just keeping it real and not letting myself fall prey to any of the countless narcissists out there.

 

[Neonatal RRT]

RL I've found that NT's are extremely flexible about their definitions of empathy, and that they frequently conflate it with sympathy.

Excellent point.

Perhaps, it may be that "weaponized sympathy" that is more to blame than empathy. Example: "I am concerned about racism, so I am going to filter everything through that lens. Being a virtuous advocate, I will be offended for someone else of a different color or race (narcissistically and shamelessly announcing I am a better person than you), and call it out loud every time I perceive it's presence, using my high moral ground to shame and coerce you into submission."

...and that, my friends, makes you an obnoxious, toxic bully.