How Empathy Breaks

Empathy is defined as "the psychological identification with or vicarious experiencing of the emotions, thoughts, or attitudes of another." I have been told that I lack empathy, but I do not think that is accurate. I feel that I just express it in ways that are not as socially obvious. I believe I can make a sound argument in my defense and for others.

Empathetic Identification:

Regarding the identification of those emotions, thoughts, or attitudes; I am willing to concede that I am often off the mark there. However. So is everyone. On this point, I think the general majority is giving themselves a lot of undue credit. We're all really bad at predicting the thoughts of others. Misjudging attitudes or emotions. Ever thought someone was mad at you when they weren't? Anyone ever believed you were angry with them, and when you found out it surprised you? Hanlon's Razor says, "never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by stupidity." The more gentle way I phrase it for my 6yr old daughter is; Never assume someone is being mean to you, it is very likely they are not. We interject ourselves into the lives of others because we only have our own mind for reference. "If they are mad, it must have to do with me!" Why? Often, people fail to confirm they are even correctly spotting the emotion. Even if they are mad, without casual reasoning, there is nothing to support the assumption. That doesn't mean it is not possible, but it does mean the only reason you are connecting it to yourself is because natural perspective is self-centered. Another point we must return to later. Even with casual reasoning, it is not guaranteed. For a quick example. In a public setting with friends, a person was openly rude to me. I said nothing, but looked displeased. Later that day, several friends independently asked if I was still bothered, and I had to explain, "I wasn't really bothered much by him. I was irritated with the issue I was pondering, which is why I was distracted in the first place." A response I heard more than once was, "Well, it would still make me mad if I was spoken to that way." Which I considered and realized, "I guess it didn't because I don't really respect him? His opinion matters very little to me." I didn't even mean that in a mean way. It was simply the result of direct exposure to his personality. Perhaps it is the autism, but social hierarchy escapes me. "They are important!" "Oh... Not to me." In this real example, every person who knew me incorrectly identified. I find that most observations I have made are very relatable to this. People make wild assumptions, without enough information, then it gets convoluted from there. - Say, Person A looks clearly frustrated. - Person B notices, assumes Person A is mad at them. - Person B, after hours of this silent attitude from Person A decides, "Well, I think this is unfair. I didn't do anything!" Person B now becomes mad at Person A and natural body language adjusts accordingly. - Person A does not react to this, nor seem to notice at all. - Person B is now indignant. Why aren't they reacting? Why are they ignoring me? - Person A silently is frustrated, thinking: "Why can I not remember the lyrics to that song? I've heard it a million times... Why is Person B being so quiet today? Probably has nothing to do with me."

Both are empathizing incorrectly. I'm more often Person A. "They seem bothered. Nothing to connect it to me. Probably none of my business. They will tell me if they want me to know. Until then, file data point."

Empathetic Sharing of Experience: Now, let's move past the issues of identification. How does "vicarious experiencing of the emotions, thoughts, or attitudes of another" look?

If I my expression of experiencing anger, sadness, or joy directly is muted, then it follows that my vicarious experiencing of the emotions, thoughts, or attitudes of another would produce similarly muted expression. I may not react outwardly in a way that mirrors the expectations others have, but that is also true in my own situations in life. My reactions to my own experiences bother friends and family often. "Why aren't you mad?" "Why aren't you sad?" "Why aren't you happy?" Well, you are concluding that I am not those things because I am not expressing in a way that is expected, or not expressing at all.

I do not believe that I have a substantial difference of experience with these emotions, I just seem to process them differently. I think there are things that complicate my expression of them that I will get to later, but at the moment, I would like to establish that I believe the experience is present. I mentally try to put myself in their shoes and attempt to imagine what that experience would feel like for me. Sometimes, the difficulty arises from lacking any frame of reference to relate to them. - "Do you know how hard it is to be the prettiest girl in high school?" - "As a 38 year old man... No... Not even a guess. If you want me to understand, you're gonna have to bridge the gap a little, cuz I got nothin."

Barring an obvious disconnect in relatability, empathy is not absent nor difficult. If someone I care about is grieved, I feel grief. If someone I like is happy, I feel happier. The issue arises from how I express those emotions. If I'm grieved, I'm pretty silent. I'm the person people poke and try to get to talk as I do a thousand mile stare at the wall, contemplating life. When someone close is grieved... I do a thousand mile stare at the wall, contemplating life. You may be sobbing, but the fact that I am not does not mean I'm not empathizing. If I were focused on social mirroring a behavior that I don't naturally do, I wouldn't be empathizing, I would be focusing on an unnatural performance. If my expression matches how I express experiencing the same thing, that is about as genuine as empathy can get. I'm experiencing it with you, not trying to manage my social image. To be clear, I'm not saying those who mirror socially are managing their social image. I have no evidence in any direction on the matter. I am merely stating that would be required for me to mirror your expressions. So, I truly feel that the empathy is there.

Biological Complicating Factors:

Now, I feel it is worth examining possible and likely complicating factors that contribute to how I express things. It is pretty unanimously understood that I do process things differently in general. I see things differently. That difference alone is inadequate for considering my expression. It is an important piece of the puzzle, but it may not be holding the weight some people believe.

I have Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, which is accompanied by intrusive thoughts, irrational fears of contamination, and what is so lovingly termed "magical thinking." I think we all start out defensive of the last term, but over time land on, "Yeah, fair enough." Now, I'm not suggesting OCD does or does not play into empathy. I am merely saying it plays a huge role in expression. When you have to deal with irrational thinking since you are a kid, you are often learning in your most formative years that it is better not to express your internal thoughts and feelings. If you get anxiety about fears of contamination that are irrational, and bring it up often, and are mocked, dismissed, or ignored, you're going to start pulling it back. Did the thoughts leave? No... But I learned that if I share my thoughts I will most likely get people being mean to me added on top of my problem. I'm not even saying that is "wrong." It is simply how things are, and it makes heuristic sense. Magical thinking? Let's give an example of an internal dialogue first: I have seen that number combination, 723, three times today. Strange. Later that evening. Watch "The Shining." Part way through, the movie keeps returning to room "237". The narrative of the movie is already implying a lot of premonition, warnings, anxiety, and fear, thus stirring those up in you. Okay. So the universe or God must be sending me a message. This is my purpose in life. I was shown signs and lead here for something. But what? What is the message? Danny is on the tricycle. He sees those dead little girls. Both recur a lot... A few months ago I bought my nephew a similar toddler tricycle for his birthday. Oh No! He's going to die! This is my warning to save him! I should definitely call my sister at 11pm on a Tuesday night and warn her. That's super normal and won't seem strange at all with no context. Then, after sending the message, you go to bed. Calm down. OCD anxiety calms down a bit. You're at the table eating breakfast the following morning. You remember your late night prophetic warning, and becoming internally embarrassed that you let yourself get carried away. In this moment, you now recognize how flawed the logic is. Now, you avoid communication from embarrassment.

I could give examples for days, but the point is made. You develop a hypervigilance against expressing emotions. I feel very angry... But I'm not certain this is valid. I feel very sad... But I'm not certain I'm being logical. I feel very happy... But I'm not certain I understood correctly. The outcome is an emotional defender at the gate, frisking emotions before letting them out, and if unsure defaulting to suppression of expression.

I think we've established I'm someone who gets trapped inside meta-analysis of their own mind. At a certain point you want to blurt out to the room, "Is any of this real?!"

You can extrapolate similar complications from ADHD, Autism, and Cyclothymia. This is not to say that any of them give me some disadvantage to others. In some ways, being on guard for irrational thinking is very beneficial. We all experience it in some fashion. A constant recursive inspection of thoughts and reason can shield you from external deceptions. Developed pattern recognition reflexes start to spot faulty reasoning not as an intentional effort, but as the inescapable default. Social Complicating Factors: That specifically covers the biological complicators I could think of in this moment of reflection. I believe the social factors can play an equally large or even greater role. Everyone experiences social motivators and deterrents throughout their life and upbringing. Traumatic experiences are unfortunately very common. Sometimes the answer to, "why do you never cry?" is "Because my guardian mocked me or hit me if I did until I turned 18 and moved out." In that example, that person isn't lacking the ability to empathize, but they are very unlikely to perform social mirroring. I could go on endlessly on this point as well, but I feel one example is sufficient to make the point that there are unknowable variables effecting everyone. Any further examples would risk derailing the focal point of the discussion.

Differing Responses:

The expression that is or is not recognized socially as empathetic is more opaque than general discussion suggests. Crying with someone when they receive news of a tragedy. That is performative empathy. Not to trivialize it by labeling it that, but that is the useful label in this context. It is a visible performance of empathy that other people can easily identify. What can be debated is whether the identification is correct. Are they empathetic? It is possible that they could be managing social image and performing a response they recognize is acceptable in order to not risk social consequences. It is possible they are one of the majority who empathizes and does react as they would if it were happening to them, and that expression happens to be most common, therefore most accepted. That identification is really scrutinizing based on expectations, not an actual evaluation of the signal. Granted, you cannot possibly have enough information to dissect it in the moment when you are emotional. I am getting to a point with all of this. Now, you may have another individual who is not very emotionally expressive. They may recognize that social mirroring is doing something kind for the person, but expressing in a similar way may be difficult and come off as disingenuous. Which is preferrable? To seem stoic? Or to seem like you're faking expression? People tend to really dislike fake emotions. This idea overlooks that the default acceptable behavior could suggest a person has outsourced their coping to the emotion mirroring of others and is negatively affected if it is absent. I would argue that is something they may want to work on about themselves. The mere fact that it is common doesn't make it good or healthy. "It's natural to feel that way." Yeah. It's also natural to feel selfish, greedy, egotistical, etc, but we don't use that rationale to justify them. People make conscious efforts to improve, and we somewhat judge those who do not make any effort. So, a less expressive person sees you upset, lacks the natural ability to mirror your reaction, has reasoned away performance, and is present but not expressing? Is it fair to conclude they lack empathy? What if they keep trying to give you solutions when you just want to be heard? Is that unempathetic? Consider, they have to be empathetic in order to find suggestions for solutions. They must make an effort to put their self in the experience to determine a path forward. They are then making the effort to try and communicate it to you, wanting to help you get out of it. What if someone who is not expressive isn't giving suggestions. Just silently standing by. Not responding much to your verbal prompts and not seeming very comforting or to be making an effort to be comforting. Okay, does this qualify as a lack of empathy? What if that person is quiet because every thought and word that is coming to mind is flagged as unhelpful, and they do empathize deeply and are so concerned the possibility of making it worse that they socially freeze. "I do not know how to make this better... I am confident I can make it worse... Better hush." Now that the line is blurred, let's reach for the obvious outliers. Things that must surely count as non-empathetic. A man walking down the sidewalk sees a woman openly weeping on the curb. Steps around her silently, without making eye contact, and continues. Is that lacking empathy? We are observing a choice made, without knowing the variables. Does it change if even without the context of the choice, you overheard the same man, years later talking to someone about how he loses sleep every night over the choice and wishes he had thought of something to at least try to help? Conclusions: I am not suggesting that I am wiser than anyone else. I guess I'm just tired of being accused of lacking empathy. Call it defensiveness. Call it insecurity. Call it defensiveness as an expression of insecurity. None of us can reasonably determine whether someone else is empathizing. In the heat of moment, or with hours to contemplate it, we cannot. We would never have enough context. Beyond that: Anger is not absent because the expression is atypical. Sadness is not absent because the expression is atypical. Happiness is not absent because the expression is atypical.

They just look different.

And empathy is downstream of them. It can be a frustrating paradox to hear people tell you that you're different your entire life. Tell you to accept it. Tell you it is okay. Not better or worse, just different, and that's okay. ...Then... completely overlook that and say, "You don't have this emotion if it doesn't look like mine." Well... Yours doesn't look like mine. Now what?