The problem with "empathy" is that the same word is used to refer to a couple different concepts. Because language shapes our ideas, people end up conflating those different concepts into a single thing. Even scientific studies, which you'd think would have to define what they're trying to measure, often end up confusing the different ideas. It's always assumed that lacking one empathy means you lack all of the other empathies, even though that makes no sense because they're completely different traits/skills that just happen to share the same word due to a quirk of our language!
Here are the different ideas I've seen for the word empathy. For the sake of clarity, I'm going to invent new terms for all of them!
1. Emotional Perception
The ability to identify another person's emotional state based on things like facial expression, body language, tone of voice, etc. Obviously, no one can completely read minds, but some people are better at this than others. Society expects you to have a certain level of skill in this.
This is a common problem for people with autism spectrum conditions. Especially when they're children who haven't had as much practice, autistic people often have more trouble than other people identifying what emotions someone is feeling. However, having trouble with this skill, doesn't mean you have trouble with this next one...
2. Anti-Malevolence
Giving a damn about other people's feelings. I've seen this described as trait where your emotions naturally change to become more similar to the emotions of those around you, whether you like it or not, e.g. you are saddened by the sadness of others. This means you want to avoid emotionally hurting other people. I'm not sure that sort of unwilling vicariousness is actually the best way to think of it, but either way, it's basically the same idea as "having a conscience."
I called this anti-malevolence instead of benevolence because it's not necessarily a desire to do good so much as it's a desire to not do harm.
It seems most people have this trait toward some but not all creatures.
The complete lack of this trait is the defining characteristic of sociopathy (aka psychopathy, which should not be confused with psychosis), which is the science-y word for "evil." I once heard a statistic that 4% of people lack this trait, meaning 4% of people are sociopaths. That's one in 25! Kind of scary. Now, just because someone's a sociopath doesn't mean they go around murdering everyone with a chain saw. There are plenty of other reasons a person will choose to behave nicely, such as not getting arrested. Sociopaths who believe in a punitive God will obey their religion's commandments to avoid damnation and/or receive rewards in the afterlife, but they have no problem hurting others when their religion allows or requires it. Non-sociopaths will be decent human beings regardless of whether they believe in God. Non-sociopaths may still act deliberately hurtful toward others, but they'll feel bad about it.
Sociopaths can be (and often are) skilled in identifying and predicting the emotions of others. It's not that they don't understand emotions, it's that they don't care. They can act remorseful, but they won't feel legitimate remorse.
It's also normal for very young children to lack this anti-malevolence. (I'm not sure when they're supposed to grow out of it. I actually vaguely remember my "conscience" kicking in when I was six, but I'm pretty sure I was a late bloomer in this regard.) I think it's because they don't yet have the cognitive development and life experience to truly conceive of other people's emotions, even if they have been informed about the idea.
3. Predictive Prosocialness
The ability to predict what another person's emotional state will be after some hypothetical event, and adjusting your actions to avoid inflicting negative emotions on people, e.g. Bob will probably feel upset if I punch him in the face, so I won't do that.
"Prosocialness" is an awkward-sounding word, but I didn't invent it. Prosocial behavior is "voluntary behavior intended to benefit another."
This is more of a combination of skills than its own trait. In order to make accurate prosocial predictions, you need ALL of these qualities:
a. A motive to avoid upsetting someone (whether it's anti-malevolence, another more selfish reason, or a combination)
b. Cognitive capacity to understand cause and effect in general (kids start to get this around 8 months, but it's not really developed until around three years old--more details here).
c. Enough information to make an accurate prediction. Some events are easier to predict than others, and it's easier to make predictions about people you know well.
d. The means and motive to attempt to make a prediction. People who are highly impulsive (e.g. anyone with hyperactive-type ADHD, most children) will have trouble with this because they tend to go straight from idea to action without pausing to consider other hypotheses about the consequences. But insufficient information could thwart you too, i.e. if it just plain hadn't occurred to you that someone's feelings would be effected by an event, you won't stop to think about HOW their feelings would be effected.
So if someone fails at this, there could be a variety of reasons.
4. Emotional Vicariousness
The ability to understand another person's situation, accurately put yourself in their metaphorical shoes. The more similar another person's situation is to something you've experienced (and remember experiencing), the easier this is.
This is the dictionary definition of empathy: "the psychological identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another."
5. Appreciation of Art
The other dictionary definition of empathy: "the imaginative ascribing to an object, as a natural object or work of art, feelings or attitudes present in oneself." I'm not very knowledgeable about this one, honestly, I just know the idea exists.
Conclusion
Why bother to distinguish between these different ideas, when they can all be called "empathy"? No doubt some people would call it splitting hairs.
Well, lots of people have these traits to different degrees, and things become quite hurtful when they're all seen to correlate. For example, autistic people often have trouble with identifying the emotions of others, so they are often stereotyped as sociopaths. Likewise I've seen some people understate the threat of sociopathy because they figure sociopaths are well-intentioned people with crappy social skills or intellectual disabilities.
We can't spread information about complex ideas without words to represent those ideas.
No comments:
Post a Comment