Posting with Empathy

[fooled once]

Seren, you rock. I loved your posts on their thread and have to say I 10000% agree with you.

 

I think that empathy, for me at least, is being able to try and see things from the others viewpoint. That's not to say that I have to agree with their actions, but to understand that their actions may have caused hurt, confusion, happiness etc and to look past their actions and concentrate on the emotions involved. No one is non judgemental, it is human nature to judge another as I think it is how we measure our own self worth. So, empathising must surely mean temporarily suspending those judgemental attitudes to reach the person behind the act (now have confused myself).

 

I can support a AP if they need support or are hurt because those are emotions I can understand, I could not empathise with an A, but I can empathise with the feelings of a person who is hurt. I can understand someone who is in love and wants to shout it from the rooftops I don't understand someone doing so, knowing another is going to be decieved and hurt. So while I understand one I can empathise with the other.

 

Posting with empathy is often difficult, especially in the threads where gloating, bashing or just sniping goes on and it works both ways. Very often people come to the site looking for support with hurt and the main point of support is lost in the one liners that repeat over and over the same thing with nothing to add to the posters need. At times I have found some of the gloaty threads distasteful and often full of self justification or validating the why's of an A, or revenge. TBH I would rather someone in an A had no empathy for the BS, to say that they are emapthetic toward the BS and then still have an A is, IMO, patronising and selfish. If you are going to stab me (general) in the back, do it in cold blood with no feeling, don't do it all apologetic and trying to understand it, just do it. It is far more honest, lacks empathy of course, but I don't get half assed empathy toward A's at least.

 

Do unto others as you would have others do unto you is a good yardstick and suggests empathy as its underlying value.

 

Excellent, excellent post!!

 

I always imagine empathy as being able to take a step back and think, if I do X,Y or X then the likely consequences are A,B or C and if the consequences are that another gets hurt by my actions and for my pleasure then I wouldn't go there. It's not compassion, I would feel that if I went ahead and did X,Y or Z, it's looking at what I do that affects that person's life or experiences. Or supporting someone with those consequences, not necessarily condoning, but I always figure their conscience is their boat to row.

 

I can empathise with a person's emotions or situation and not necessarily agree with or condone their behaviour or actions. The behaviour or action that hurts another shows, IMO, a lack of empathy on the part of the doer, the understanding of the emotions resulting from that action are mine to own, my empathy or capacity for it. We don't need to agree with someone to show empathy and may puzzle as to how someone else hasn't empathy to the same degree. Unfortunately empathy isn't always based on reciprocity, it it were then more people would think of the consequences of their actions.

 

Once again. SIGH...

 

There's nothing wrong with my country. There's nothing wrong with your country. Please stop taking potshots because you seem to have some personal grudge against it.

 

So you're superior to her, and she's inferior to you?

 

I have never felt like ANYONE is inferior to me. They may have some significant problems or challenges...or be vastly different than I am. They may have even done things that led to their own pain (like your H's ex-wife has done)...but I've never felt like that made me somehow superior to them.

 

I just found this whole post really....odd.

 

In one fell swoop you insult other countries/beliefs and outline that you believe yourself superior to (at least one other) other people.

 

How am I misreading this?

 

Thank Owl!

 

I find it interesting that the empathy needed by certain professions has been discussed, specifically the need to disengage from empathy to prevent burn out. As a social worker my job required me to have empathy and to be non judgemental, I have worked with sex offenders and survivors of SA, and am a survivor of SA, the job required that I deal with each on an equal footing, hence the non judgemental value. had I been too empatheitc I wouldn't have been able to function and my role would have shifted from that of professional to do gooder.

I used to tell my students, if you see someone drowning you don't jump in and try to save them, else you might both drown, what you do is stand on the side and throw in the lifebelt. To be too emapthetic takes away from the job in hand.

 

I also find it interesting that as an XBS it is almost expected that I show empathy for the OW, or I (general) am labelled bitter, yet often find little of the same shown to a BS. As it happens I did/do feel empathy for the OW, no one could understand how, when she would ring, that I could listen while she poured out hurt and tried to understand. I was also the person she contacted when her H became violent. It took distancing from the situation and from my hurt and anger, a sort of disassociation if you like, yet I can question whether my empathy also meant that I had the upper hand and so served the purpose to make me feel superior. I hope not, but suspect there is an element of truth in it. Not nice to think I possess that trait.

 

I also think that during an A, the minimising of the marriage enables the WS to not show empathy toward their spouse, otherwise they would have to ask themselves what their character was lacking that would allow them to hurt and lie to someone they share a life with.

 

I like empathy as a value, however, I think it has personal parameters, in that people, are naturally self seeking and being truly empathetic would mean we questioned, always how our actions impacted upon others, to act on actions that undeniably hurt another would/could/should show up possible flaws in our treatment of others and may make us feel less than, so we justify. This not necessarily in relation to A's.

 

I was brought up with the mantra of - each morning look into the mirror and say to yourself, today I am going to be the best person I can and at the end of the day, to ask yourself, have I been the best I could be, if not, why not, and the next day, to try to learn from this. Empathy, possibly, it was the Golden Rule in my house and not a bad one to try to live up to.

 

Again, you are such an insightful caring individual and you say things in such a way that I am in awe of your writing ability. I think I will just go along and say "ditto" to whatever you say!!

[silktricks]

I've tried to write this sentence 3 times, and just can't get it right. One more time... It's been my experience that if I don't agree with someone they assume I have no empathy for them. That could be that I am expressing myself poorly, but it could also be that many people assume that empathy means sympathy or agreement.

 

I've always thought of empathy as being able to step out of your own viewpoint and at least somewhat into the viewpoint of another, not to necessarily agree with the other person's point of view, but to be able to better understand how the world looks to them. I don't know that anyone can fully step into someone else's viewpoint, or that it would be healthy for them to do so, but it seems important to be able to at least skim the edge of other people's worldview.

 

I may get smashed for this, but in my experience the people I have found to be least empathetic are those who are most certain that their point of view is the correct - and only correct - point of view. It has seemed to me that this single-minded idea that they have the one and only "truth" of any given situation doesn't allow them the ability to open their mind to other possibilities. Amazingly enough (to me), these same people seem to view themselves as very empathetic, and anyone who disagrees with them or holds a different world view as non-empathetic.

 

I have been told I am empathetic - but I know myself well enough to know that I'm certainly not ALWAYS empathetic - nor would I wish to be. Sometimes, I find (and I think WheelWright touched on something like this..) that being able to constantly see another's viewpoint can be self-destructive, as a certain amount of strength can come from being unreasonable .

Edited March 30, 2011 by silktricks

[mizliz]

[snip] ...I was also the person she contacted when her H became violent. It took distancing from the situation and from my hurt and anger, a sort of disassociation if you like, yet I can question whether my empathy also meant that I had the upper hand and so served the purpose to make me feel superior. I hope not, but suspect there is an element of truth in it. Not nice to think I possess that trait.

 

I also think that during an A, the minimising of the marriage enables the WS to not show empathy toward their spouse, otherwise they would have to ask themselves what their character was lacking that would allow them to hurt and lie to someone they share a life with.

 

I like empathy as a value, however, I think it has personal parameters, in that people, are naturally self seeking and being truly empathetic would mean we questioned, always how our actions impacted upon others, to act on actions that undeniably hurt another would/could/should show up possible flaws in our treatment of others and may make us feel less than, so we justify. This not necessarily in relation to A's... [snip]

 

 

Another great post, Seren. I hope my snipping doesn't take your post completely out of context, as I wanted to address a couple of points that really resonated with me...

 

To the first part in bolded - I really admire your honest reflection, here. I think that sometimes we do have a tendancy to question whether our empathetic behaviours, at times, might belie a more selfish motive - one that serves our desires to be right, or morally superior towards someone we feel has wronged us. I am struggling with this myself at the moment, as I have a strong urge to write MM and offer my "official forgiveness" for his deception. And, I question the real motive behind my feelings at this time.

 

Is it because I truly forgive him and want him to know that I harbour no hard feelings? That he is free to move forward in his life without the emotional burden of wondering if I am ok. Or, is it because I want to prove my superiority by offering him my forgiveness- that he should be grateful that although I have judged him, I have the emotional maturity to forgive.

 

I am thinking about this.

 

To the second bolded point. I think that is what I was trying to explain when I referred to discipline playing a part in empathy. It is one thing to feel empathy and entirely another to act on it. When we feel the need to justify our behaviours, we can reasonably conclude that we we may not be acting empathetically.

 

Again, great discussion!

[silktricks]

To the second bolded point. I think that is what I was trying to explain when I referred to discipline playing a part in empathy. It is one thing to feel empathy and entirely another to act on it. When we feel the need to justify our behaviours, we can reasonably conclude that we we may not be acting empathetically.

 

Again, great discussion!

 

I really like this point.

[mizliz]

Fair enough.

 

 

 

 

 

Sorry, but this makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to me.

 

She's human, you're human.

 

Either you're de-humanizing her and considering her a "thing" or a "martian"...or you're both humans.

 

I'm sorry OW...I just don't see any sense in this statement at all.

 

I'll bow out...I can't attempt to discuss something that is so far outside of my comprehension. My apologies for being so limited in understanding.

 

 

Did I say superior, or inferior? I don't believe I did.

 

I don't feel she's an equal - and I know she doesn't feel anyone else is her equal either, so we're agreed on that

 

Ranking her as superior or inferior to me would imply we sit at different points on a common continuum, and I don't believe we do. I can't compare her to me and say she is lesser or greater - to me that would be like saying I was greater or lesser than a Martian or an anti-matter being. She's something very different to what I am, and as such there is no basis I can recognise for comparison. Hence, no equivalence.

 

Owl has an honest question.

 

What you (OW) have written is very abstract and personal.

 

"Different points on a common continuum" - what? What does that mean? What is the common continuum?

 

Yes, I am calling you out on your BS.

[mizliz]

 

"Different points on a common continuum" - what? What does that mean? What is the common continuum?

 

Yes, I am calling you out on your BS.

 

Explain this.

 

If you can't, then you should respect that, and use it (justification) to post your thoughts and feelings. Just don't demand or expect others to agree with you.

[SidLyon]

...and even now I am a "soft touch" who feels very deeply and can't walk into a butcher's or watch the TV news, and I take hours to pick apples because I don't want to hurt the tree. .

 

If you bothered to read the post you're referring to, you'll see that I stated:

 

 

 

...For those I consider not my equals, I cannot feel empathy - hence my point that I could not feel empathy for my H's xW.

 

...

 

Have I misread these?

 

You feel empathy only for those you consider your equals which apparently includes apple trees, butcher shops and TV news, but not another woman who you believe may have been suffering from mental illness.

 

Having reread the OP it seems you want people to take a look at their posting styles but see no reason for you to do likewise. Starting a response with "If you bothered to..." is just plain rude in my opinion.

 

For what it's worth I did the test and scored average.

[NoIDidn't]

This was posted by OWoman to OWL (in case anyone else was confused)

 

Did I say superior, or inferior? I don't believe I did.

 

I don't feel she's an equal - and I know she doesn't feel anyone else is her equal either, so we're agreed on that

 

Ranking her as superior or inferior to me would imply we sit at different points on a common continuum, and I don't believe we do. I can't compare her to me and say she is lesser or greater - to me that would be like saying I was greater or lesser than a Martian or an anti-matter being. She's something very different to what I am, and as such there is no basis I can recognise for comparison. Hence, no equivalence.

 

This was posted by MizLiz in response (where her words began)

 

Owl has an honest question.

 

What you (OW) have written is very abstract and personal.

 

"Different points on a common continuum" - what? What does that mean? What is the common continuum?

 

Yes, I am calling you out on your BS.

 

And, FTR, I agree. Whenever I say that someone is not my equal, I clarify if I think they are above me or beneath me in status. Mathematically speaking, if not equal, then all you have left is "less than" or "greater than", "not equivalent" is a non-answer.

 

I hope OWoman answers clearly next time. The worst that could happen is that other posters judge the answer (positively or negatively; gain respect or lose some) and some might even feel the need to post about it.

[mizliz]

Having reread the OP it seems you want people to take a look at their posting styles but see no reason for you to do likewise. Starting a response with "If you bothered to..." is just plain rude in my opinion.

 

For what it's worth I did the test and scored average.

 

Yes, Huh...

 

Soulmates are considered mirrors - you are lucky.

[mizliz]

This was posted by OWoman to OWL (in case anyone else was confused)

 

 

 

This was posted by MizLiz in response (where her words began)

 

 

 

And, FTR, I agree. Whenever I say that someone is not my equal, I clarify if I think they are above me or beneath me in status. Mathematically speaking, if not equal, then all you have left is "less than" or "greater than", "not equivalent" is a non-answer.

 

I hope OWoman answers clearly next time. The worst that could happen is that other posters judge the answer (positively or negatively; gain respect or lose some) and some might even feel the need to post about it.

 

thank you for clarifying...

 

love you NID.

[NoIDidn't]

I don't know. Did you read animal stories when you were a kid? I think children who read a lot of those stories featuring an animal or insect hero are probably less inclined to objectify small creatures.

 

Anna Sewell wrote Black Beauty in a bid to encourage people to empathise with horses (which she had a lot of respect for, due to her difficulty in walking and her reliance on horses). The book was really effective in raising awareness of animal welfare...so in that sense, you could say that empathy was taught, encouraged or fostered in people rather than being something they automatically had and demonstrated. Imagination and empathy are closely linked.

 

What is your opinion on putting insects in a jar and using them for their light? Just curious. Its a Southern American past time for children in suburban and rural areas.

 

I found the test question absurd. I liked collecting bugs. I didn't do anything to hurt them, per se. I liked digging up worms and placing them back on top of the soil to watch them re-insert themselves and see how long it takes. I still do this in my garden to this day. Insects, plants, and animals are natural food sources for many humans and they serve many other beneficial services for us (especially in agriculture). Fear of objectifying insects (by learning about them as insects instead of giving them human characteristics) sounds like it leads to a lack of imagination, IMO.

 

I respect the discipline of vegans and vegetarians, but I find the vegan standpoint extreme. Eat plant products because it is more natural and healthier for you, not because you can't stand the thought of killing something, is my opinion. Following that logic to its natural conclusion leads to people afraid to eat any living thing for fear of harming it. And to me its just illogical. Who is really going to stop eating just so something else can live? Humans have resorted to eating the dead for their own survival in extreme cases. Killing to live is a survival instinct that is being lost in some circles, it seems.

 

I read a wide variety of books as a child. I wasn't fond of books about animals though - except Animal Farm. Charlotte's Web was too goody-goody.

[SidLyon]

thank you for clarifying...

 

love you NID.

 

Ah thank you - for a moment I thought Liz was OW's sock!!

[NoIDidn't]

Ah thank you - for a moment I thought Liz was OW's sock!!

 

LOL. That's exactly why I clarified it. I'd seen previously where it was OWoman's post and not MizLiz's.

 

"I don't want no trouble"

[BB07]

Ah thank you - for a moment I thought Liz was OW's sock!!

 

Had me going there for a minute also.

[Taramere]

What is your opinion on putting insects in a jar and using them for their light? Just curious. Its a Southern American past time for children in suburban and rural areas.

 

I don't particularly like the idea. It's the sort of thing that, if my niece or nephew did I'd ask them "how would you like to be trapped in a jar with no food or water?" and I'd encourage them to set the insects free.

 

I found the test question absurd. I liked collecting bugs. I didn't do anything to hurt them, per se. I liked digging up worms and placing them back on top of the soil to watch them re-insert themselves and see how long it takes. I still do this in my garden to this day. Insects, plants, and animals are natural food sources for many humans and they serve many other beneficial services for us (especially in agriculture). Fear of objectifying insects (by learning about them as insects instead of giving them human characteristics) sounds like it leads to a lack of imagination, IMO.

 

I respect the discipline of vegans and vegetarians, but I find the vegan standpoint extreme. Eat plant products because it is more natural and healthier for you, not because you can't stand the thought of killing something, is my opinion. Following that logic to its natural conclusion leads to people afraid to eat any living thing for fear of harming it. And to me its just illogical. Who is really going to stop eating just so something else can live? Humans have resorted to eating the dead for their own survival in extreme cases. Killing to live is a survival instinct that is being lost in some circles, it seems.

 

I read a wide variety of books as a child. I wasn't fond of books about animals though - except Animal Farm. Charlotte's Web was too goody-goody.

 

I don't find the notion of killing things for food unbearable. I grew up in the country and we would eat our own chickens. They had a good life, and then they ended up as a meal. Occasionally there would be one that was particularly tame, so that wouldn't be used as a food source because it was more of a pet.

 

My position is that I can't completely divorce myself from the notion that living things, however small, experience physical pain and mental stress. That even though most will end up as a meal for a predator, before that day comes they are entitled to quality of life as nature intended them to live it. Some lives get sacrificed in the interests of medical research. Some animals are confined in zoos - particularly rare species who might well be rare either because they are ill equipped to survive in the wild and/or because they have been particularly targeted by poachers. I'm not necessarily up in arms about those things, but I do believe that effort should go into making the creatures' lives reasonably comfortable. It's the least we - as an intelligent and powerful species - can do, when we're exploiting them for our own purposes.

 

The bottom line is that I don't like seeing any living creature suffering unnecessary pain, or a slow death by starvation and dehydration in an unnatural environment. So with your fireflies in the jar...I would either set them free, or if they were crawling around pitifully on their last legs, I would kill them. I'm not railing at you for doing it, but you asked a question and I'm just giving you my position.

[donnamaybe]

Have I misread these?

 

You feel empathy only for those you consider your equals which apparently includes apple trees, butcher shops and TV news, but not another woman who you believe may have been suffering from mental illness.

 

Having reread the OP it seems you want people to take a look at their posting styles but see no reason for you to do likewise. Starting a response with "If you bothered to..." is just plain rude in my opinion.

 

For what it's worth I did the test and scored average.

I agree SL. Confusing at best, but also a bit disturbing.

 

I brought up that point earlier - about the disadvantage of the mental illness. It seemed to go unnoticed. Hmmm...

Edited March 30, 2011 by donnamaybe

[Atilla the Hungry]

Atilla the hungry how do you know that was nasty? Maybe the words were the truth. Do you know of the poster they were speaking to? Do you know of her prior posts and her take on affairs?

 

Maybe jthorne was not being nasty but merely pointing out the truth as she sees it. I don't see any nastiness or attack in her words. I just see someone stating what they feel is obvious from previous postings made by the original poster of this thread. Postings that have clearly and emphatically stated that she is unremorseful for having affair after affair after affair with married men with no regard for the betrayed spouse or her family.

 

How can you judge a post to be nasty when you are new and do not know any of the posting history.

 

There is nothing nasty about stating true facts.

 

Welcome to the forum atilla the hungry.

 

The tone was certainly not nice. Turning the focus from the content of the post onto the character or past conduct of another member is also disallowed by the community guidelines:

 

we encourage all to voice their own opinions while refraining from criticizing other participants for the perspective they hold. Each person that posts on the forum is to be treated with the utmost respect and civility regardless of how absurd or ridiculous the opinion expressed might seem to you from your perspective.

 

Personal attacks against other participants will not be tolerated under any circumstances. We define personal attacks as posted comments which are intended to provoke, demean, or ridicule another participant. It is inevitable that members will sometimes disagree in their responses to any given problem, and LoveShack.org encourages healthy debate comprised of constructive questions and criticisms, so long as they pertain to the post and thread at hand. Personal dislike of another member has no place in any post, on any thread.

 

 

We expect that all participants will respond to posts in their specific context, not to the person who has posted. While opinions may be formed of various members based on what they have posted in the past, any response to any particular submission should be grounded in what has been posted in that thread. Past disagreements should not be resurrected in new threads. It is important that criticism be directed at what is stated in a post ("I don't like your idea") rather than at the individual making the statement ("I don't like you")

 

That is the basis of my comment.

 

Thank you also for your belated welcome. You will note that I have been a member longer than the person I quoted, yet you did not welcome them as a new member. If that person who is a newer member than myself is able to discern with such accuracy the character of another member, I am perplexed as to why you consider me unable to draw my own such conclusions.

[desertIslandCactus]

The tone was certainly not nice. Turning the focus from the content of the post onto the character or past conduct of another member is also disallowed by the community guidelines:

 

 

 

That is the basis of my comment.

 

Thank you also for your belated welcome. You will note that I have been a member longer than the person I quoted, yet you did not welcome them as a new member. If that person who is a newer member than myself is able to discern with such accuracy the character of another member, I am perplexed as to why you consider me unable to draw my own such conclusions.

 

Atilla you've been a member longer than I. So you must know that some threads are started with the intention to provoke.

[jthorne]

The tone was certainly not nice. Turning the focus from the content of the post onto the character or past conduct of another member is also disallowed by the community guidelines:

 

 

 

That is the basis of my comment.

 

Thank you also for your belated welcome. You will note that I have been a member longer than the person I quoted, yet you did not welcome them as a new member. If that person who is a newer member than myself is able to discern with such accuracy the character of another member, I am perplexed as to why you consider me unable to draw my own such conclusions.

Thank you so much for the reminder. I will certainly remember that in the future.

[silktricks]

If you truly believe a thread is started with the "intention to provoke" (I assume you mean anger rather than thought... ), why not just avoid it?

[jthorne]

If you truly believe a thread is started with the "intention to provoke" (I assume you mean anger rather than thought... ), why not just avoid it?

I think the more interesting question is why those that start threads intended to provoke feel the need to keep doing so.

 

Not very empathetic, IMO.

[greengoddess]

I think the more interesting question is why those that start threads intended to provoke feel the need to keep doing so.

 

Not very empathetic, IMO.

 

 

lol and then tattle on those that respond not to their liking. It is so silly. Are we not grown ups? I can not stand the tattling.

I am sure someone will tattle that I complained about tattling. Children I swear.

[greengoddess]

The tone was certainly not nice. Turning the focus from the content of the post onto the character or past conduct of another member is also disallowed by the community guidelines:

 

 

 

That is the basis of my comment.

 

Thank you also for your belated welcome. You will note that I have been a member longer than the person I quoted, yet you did not welcome them as a new member. If that person who is a newer member than myself is able to discern with such accuracy the character of another member, I am perplexed as to why you consider me unable to draw my own such conclusions.

 

 

:laugh:OMG toooo funny!!!! LOL ummmm maybe it was your post count of 8 that made me welcome you.:laugh:

[Atilla the Hungry]

:laugh:OMG toooo funny!!!! LOL ummmm maybe it was your post count of 8 that made me welcome you.:laugh:

 

My initial posts were lost during a server crash that took place not long after I signed up. I was initially frustrated at that and chose to address my issues elsewhere, coming to terms with it later as an exorcism as my ex-wife receded into my past. I am now happily remarried and feel renewed to have the history of my ex-wife purged from my posting profile.

 

I am not sure that I should be entertaining this attempt to steer this thread even further from its intended course. Several posters have already tried to shift the focus from the opening post to the individual who posted it, which I believe to be a contravention of the community guidelines.

 

Original poster, please accept my apologies for participating in the disruption of what might otherwise have been a thought-provoking discussion.

[desertIslandCactus]

lol and then tattle on those that respond not to their liking. It is so silly. Are we not grown ups? I can not stand the tattling.

I am sure someone will tattle that I complained about tattling. Children I swear.

 

Like a game