Fast Personality Test

[quip]

I can't say the character supposedly expressing sympathy ever said anything close to "I care about your pain". Everything she said was meant to make the victim feel her pain was minimized, not cared about. And, unless we actually feel someone else's pain, we cannot honestly say we care about it. If someone talked to me like that about something that was really bothering me, I'd just turn around and walk off, for I would not feel that person cared in the least about what I was going through. That character's response was very similar to, Oh well, be glad you're not feeling even worse. That is not sympathy.

People express sympathy in different ways.

I have a friend that does what you describe. I believe that they're uncomfortable expressing their sympathies and their way to deal with it is to try to fix, or temper the situation by comparison.

 

[annabenedetti]

I can't say the character supposedly expressing sympathy ever said anything close to "I care about your pain". Everything she said was meant to make the victim feel her pain was minimized, not cared about. And, unless we actually feel someone else's pain, we cannot honestly say we care about it. If someone talked to me like that about something that was really bothering me, I'd just turn around and walk off, for I would not feel that person cared in the least about what I was going through. That character's response was very similar to, Oh well, be glad you're not feeling even worse. That is not sympathy.

Actually, it really is. It's just awkward and can be so unhelpful and even add to the hurt. But people sometimes don't know what to say when a friend is hurting, and they mean well, and they do try to show they care, often by saying "at least..." because they're trying to help their friend feel better. I've had that happen to me, and God forbid, I've probably done it to someone else. That is trying to show someone they care. But it's not the same as feeling that pain, holding that pain in their own heart as if it's happening to them. That's empathy.

I don't know if that makes sense, how I've put it, and maybe we're just not going to see it the same.

 

[quip]

I've always thought of empathy as being the step beyond sympathy, moving past our related experience and into the moment and a direct connection to another's pain. I sympathize with someone who is hurt because I understand what it's like to be hurt. My emotional response comes out of my own recollection of experiencing pain, loss, rejection, etc., but it remains my pain that I'm actually considering and it's taking me into my own past, which removes me on some level from the moment. I believe empathy is my willfully stepping into the pain of another person's experience within the moment.

You got it, though...
it's not always "willfully" so.

 

[Lon]

I have not read this entire thread so I don't know if someone has brought this up or not.

The Meyers-Briggs test is not a personality test. It is a temperament test. Temperament and personality are not the same thing. Yes, one affects the other, and there is a relationship between the two, but they are not the same thing.

I'm not sure I agree on this. Person-ality is who you are. Temperment is the way you act, react, and respond, so is a part of your person-ality. Maybe that is what you mean? It is hard to separate your actions from your-self imo. Perhaps 'you do this because of who you are and what you've experienced.' might be the qualifier :think:

Example: I am an extrovert, not just 'extroverted.' Make sense?

 

[Lon]

You got it, though...
it's not always "willfully" so.

Well, I can 'feel' or have felt your pain, but that doesn't make me sympathetic when you (formal) are going through it. "We've all been through it, buck up!" comes from empathy, but isn't very sympathetic. AND I can be sympathetic and actually care, without having much experience, just sensing you [formal] are distressed. For me then, it seems being both empathetic and sympathetic, is probably the best of both worlds, but I can even see that being awkward from a person who doesn't have a lot of couth/social skills.

 

[quip]

"We've all been through it, buck up!" comes from empathy, but isn't very sympathetic.

No. Empathy is when one actually feels and shares the emotion another is experiencing.

 

[Lon]

No. Empathy is when one actually feels and shares the emotion another is experiencing.

Yes, but without sympathy, it is "just buck up, little camper." Make sense?

 

[annabenedetti]

"We've all been through it, buck up!" comes from empathy

Have to agree with quip here. There's nothing empathic about "buck up."

 

[Lon]

Have to agree with quip here. There's nothing empathic about "buck up."

Where I'd say there is nothing 'sympathetic' about it. They may very well know what it was like (empathy).

Empathy is merely 'identifying' with what went on which doesn't mean they aren't inept or clods in relating to you.

Sympathy, on the other hand, is more of the reaction and response to the thing. I'm not sure either must have the goal to help ease the other person's distress, but 'sympathy' seems to be the more responsive and interested in helping ease the burden, to me.

 

[quip]

Yes, but without sympathy, it is "just buck up, little camper." Make sense?

I understand what you're saying. Such tactics are usually used to protect oneself from unwarranted "attacks". Though, open sharing of other's emotions draws upon your own experiences ...which are generally sympathetic ones.

 

[Lon]

I understand what you're saying. Such tactics are usually used to protect oneself from unwarranted "attacks". Though, open sharing of other's emotions draws upon your own experiences ...which are generally sympathetic ones.

Yes, I think that's why being both empathetic and sympathetic would be the better. I've heard, for instance "He's in a better place." A lack in empathy may produce poor sympathetic response, OR, if they are empathetic, they are yet callous in their sympathy and likely not truly empathetic, because they have no idea what helps and are clodding their way through and hurting feelings instead of soothing them. :think:

 

[quip]

Where I'd say there is nothing 'sympathetic' about it. They may very well know what it was like (empathy).

Empathy is merely 'identifying' with what went on which doesn't mean they aren't inept or clods in relating to you.

Sympathy, on the other hand, is more of the reaction and response to the thing. I'm not sure either must have the goal to help ease the other person's distress, but 'sympathy' seems to be the more responsive and interested in helping ease the burden, to me.

Well, I've broke it down to you being an ExTJ.

 

[annabenedetti]

I took a semester-long course in empathic listening. If you want to break it down a little more, empathy can be considered in four perspectives: as a (temporary) state, a trait, an act, and an attitude, so empathy doesn't necessarily mean the same thing to every person who's using the word, a lot can depend on context.

There's also cognitive empathy and emotional empathy, and I think that's where the differences might become evident between our understanding of the word/idea. Cognitive empathy = the intellectual recognition of another's feelings, and emotional empathy = the emotional sharing of another's feelings.

So I can see how if empathy was cognitively sourced, it might seem more detached, and maybe closer to sympathy than empathy that was emotionally sourced.

The course taught us how to listen empathically, without judgment, reflecting the emotions of the speaker, based on the client-centered therapy of Carl Rogers. It was one of my most memorable courses (out of many memorable courses).

 

[Town Heretic]

You got it, though...
it's not always "willfully" so.

Okay. I think the effortless or almost reflexive approach that is removed from will is largely seen in people with highly attuned sensitivity, those acclimated to living in the present and intimately connected to an appreciation of our collective humanity.

 

[Gary K]

I've always thought of empathy as being the step beyond sympathy, moving past our related experience and into the moment and a direct connection to another's pain. I sympathize with someone who is hurt because I understand what it's like to be hurt. My emotional response comes out of my own recollection of experiencing pain, loss, rejection, etc., but it remains my pain that I'm actually considering and it's taking me into my own past, which removes me on some level from the moment. I believe empathy is my willfully stepping into the pain of another person's experience within the moment.

I think you've kind of disagreed with yourself although I agree that empathy is one step deeper than sympathy. That's why I said sympathy rises out of empathy. Here's why I think you have disagreed with yourself..

It is our related experiences that enable us to be able to truly understand what another person is feeling, to place ourselves in their shoes, so to speak. Those experiences enable us to generalize upon what we have experienced even if we have not experienced exactly the same thing the other person is going through, and upon that basis feel the same sort of pain.

 

[Gary K]

I understand what you're saying. Such tactics are usually used to protect oneself from unwarranted "attacks". Though, open sharing of other's emotions draws upon your own experiences ...which are generally sympathetic ones.

And such behavior cannot be seen in any other light than the emotional withdrawal of the person doing so. Thus, it is not sympathetic nor empathetic, because it is the placing of an emotional distance between the hurting person and the observer of that hurt.

 

[Gary K]

I'm not sure I agree on this. Person-ality is who you are. Temperment is the way you act, react, and respond, so is a part of your person-ality. Maybe that is what you mean? It is hard to separate your actions from your-self imo. Perhaps 'you do this because of who you are and what you've experienced.' might be the qualifier :think:

Example: I am an extrovert, not just 'extroverted.' Make sense?

As per what I bolded, pretty much spot on. This is why, to me, temperament and personality are not identical. One is the sum of who you are, outside of character. The other is the sum of what you are, outside of character. Character modifies both attributes.

 

[Gary K]

Actually, it really is. It's just awkward and can be so unhelpful and even add to the hurt. But people sometimes don't know what to say when a friend is hurting, and they mean well, and they do try to show they care, often by saying "at least..." because they're trying to help their friend feel better. I've had that happen to me, and God forbid, I've probably done it to someone else. That is trying to show someone they care. But it's not the same as feeling that pain, holding that pain in their own heart as if it's happening to them. That's empathy.

I don't know if that makes sense, how I've put it, and maybe we're just not going to see it the same.

From what I bolded.... This is why real sympathy rises out of empathy. We must feel the pain to sympathize with it. If we can't understand it and feel it, we cannot sympathize with it.

But, like you said in another post, we will most likely see this differently. That's what makes the discussion interesting though. If we all agreed on everything life would not have nearly as much spice as it does.

 

[Town Heretic]

I think you've kind of disagreed with yourself although I agree that empathy is one step deeper than sympathy. That's why I said sympathy rises out of empathy. Here's why I think you have disagreed with yourself..

It is our related experiences that enable us to be able to truly understand what another person is feeling, to place ourselves in their shoes, so to speak. Those experiences enable us to generalize upon what we have experienced even if we have not experienced exactly the same thing the other person is going through, and upon that basis feel the same sort of pain.

That's not really disagreeing with me, or me disagreeing with me though. All that says is that sympathy enables us to empathize. When I say step past, I still believe the first step is a part of the process, the foundation that begins with a completely selfish understanding of the world, then develops to the point where we connect our experiences to others and begin to see their humanity in much the way we see our own (hopefully this happens in childhood). Then, if we don't stop developing as human beings we move to a point where our understanding of pain and our appreciation of that essential nature shared with others can lead to an immediate and present sharing, which is deeper and different than sympathy.

 

[annabenedetti]

From what I bolded.... This is why real sympathy rises out of empathy. We must feel the pain to sympathize with it. If we can't understand it and feel it, we cannot sympathize with it.

But, like you said in another post, we will most likely see this differently. That's what makes the discussion interesting though. If we all agreed on everything life would not have nearly as much spice as it does.

Yes, we do see this differently, but that's okay, because our perception is different. There are layers to all of this and maybe helpful to remember the word empathy itself is only just over 100 years old. This illustration by Lauren Wispé may add a new dimension:

"In empathy I try to feel your pain. In sympathy I know you are in pain, and I sympathize with you, but I feel my sympathy and my pain, not your anguish and your pain."