Enneagram Main Board Archive

Re: Empathy = fear + identification? Wrong !!!!!

Re: Empathy = fear + identification? Wrong !!!!!

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Enneagram Message Board ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Andy on August 01, 1999 at 09:21:44:

In Reply to: Re: Empathy = fear + identification? Wrong !!!!! posted by Tal on August 01, 1999 at 07:33:58:

Perhaps you need to clarify your arguments then instead of expecting people to simply accept your hunches (which you do often).

I try, but it's not always so easy, and it's not all the time I bother to find out
why I hunch the way I do.

> > There is no illusion the empathy you see in two's.

> Empathy in the Two is real as an emotion to the extent that the Two is an emotional being who identifies with others' situations. It's an illusion to the degree that the Two is covering up their need to be needed by convincing themself that other people are miserable and need their help (sympathy begets help).

> > If you was a five, and would somehow emulate a two, you could probably do
> > it with fear and indenification.

> You misunderstand. Identification is the *normal* mechanism of empathy. You empathise only with the things you can identify. And when you fear that what you're identifying with could happen to you (see example of accident in previous post) the 'empathy' becomes much stronger.

> > But I don't think there actually is so
> > mutch brain activity involved that those mechanism suggest.

> That's very little brain activity. It's brain activity worthy of a two or three year old, which is precisely the case: all the types' defense mechanisms are first put into use at a very young age. The whole question of types is essentially that grown-up people behave like children with regards to certain issues.

> The Two mechanism is very, very basic (as are all types). A child notices that he's only paid attention to when he helps. What then? He begins to help more. As he grows, ego comes into question, and to protect himself behind a veil of 'oh I'm helping because it's good for them'. Neither the initial decision or the subsequent rationalization are any more complex than any other type's.

> > I think it comes more naturally, like right from the heart, with not any serios "head"
> > prosessing. I also think you should question your own point of view, I think
> > you are a little biased. I think empathy is more like beeing in tune with
> > the world around. Something every type at a healthy level should strive for.

> Again, it is not 'serious' processing. Nor is it undertaken every time--the mechanism itself has long since faded into the background. As for it coming right from the heart--it certainly seems like it, but then so does any emotion, and all emotions are at root reactions to intellectual assessments (again, on a very basic subconscious level, which is precisely why it doesn't seem like it).

> My bias... certainly. Everyone is biased one way or another. Is it possible that I'm simply not in tune with those around me? Absolutely. In which case you can state your opinion and explain to me just what empathy is to you, instead of telling me I'm wrong on the grounds that you "feel it".

> > I definitly think it's the genuine thing. You could question the reasons,
> > but I dont find two's to be complicated, and there are likely not so bad
> > reasons behind the behavior. Like a grown up kid searcing for the love it
> > could never get as a child, and desperatly needs to find.

> There are the same kind of reasons behind all types' behaviour and motivation. Twos are in exactly the same boat. You can call them 'bad' if you wish (your words, not mine), but since all personality is fundamentally the result of these mechanisms developing, I don't think there's anything extraordinary about it at all.

> > No, there is not mutch evil about two's, sure more evil about fives...:)
> > Especially those with a six wing......:)

> There is nothing any more or any less evil about these types or any other types. The types' root mechanisms are all more or less of the same level and magnitude.

> You can examine them one by one. Threes operate out of the fundamental premise that admiration = love, and admiration is received for performance, hence they shed their real selves in favour of an image that will resonate with the audience. This may seem like a complex thing to you (don't know why), but it's so simple that a child of Three is able to recognise it and implement it as a mechanism (and thus become a Three).

This actually sounds as simple as anything else that is written on this board. That's some of what
I like about the enneagram (it's simplicity). But in a way I think that
the mechanism you described here fit's me very well. But i actually got
some trouble accepting it as a way to be.

> Or take Sevens. Sevens frequently grow up deprived of the experiences or possessions they feel they need. The result is that they try and grab as much as possible whenever they can, fearing it will disappear any moment. Again, a very simple mechanism that develops into a whole personality.

> Or Fours. Child feels unloved, child asks: why am I not loved? What is the problem with me? Child then begins to search deep within self for defect, leading to feeling different and the desire to find an idealized image that isn't defective and which others will appreciate. Once more, this is simple enough to be implemented by a child as a mechanism.

> No type's mechanism is any better or worse than any others. I referred to the Two's as Evil! because I was describing rationalizations which block good judgement. The same holds true for any other type.

> > I guess the reason you think so bad about it, is that you dont have the
> > connection to the range of feelings that a two have.

> I don't feel bad about it. I have the same opinion on every other type with regards to its particular issue. The question was about Twos though, so the answer was too.

> > Andy - That got empathy at an uncomfortable high level, meaning I can feel
> > others emotions, moods and discomforts as my own, like tuning into other
> > people, this can be a tremondous burden too.......:)

> You're probably a very emotional person. It's hardly surprising that an emotional person empathizes more than a relatively unemotional one does. But don't let yourself be fooled into believing you're actually feeling what they feel. What you feel is a reaction to the knowledge that it could be you instead of them. Otherwise why don't you feel an identical response for someone who suffers a misfortune three continents away as you do for someone in your neighbourhood you don't know?

> > I tell you empathy is something I would not want to live without !

> Empathy as an emotional sensation is completely genuine. There is no reason for you to want to live without it; if it exists as a mechanism, there must be a good reason for it. Ostensibly it's evolutionary purpose is to keep your group safe by feeling sympathy for it and thus protecting it (which would be precisely why the closer someone is to you, the more you empathize).

First I would like to say that i concider myself to be an thinking person,
but because I am an extrovert (likely ENTP), intuision is first, and thinking
secondary, and feeling third . Since the thinking is and introverted second
function, and feeling an extroverted feeling function, I find it that
since I am an extrovert, the third extroverted feeling function can be just as
devenloped as the secondary introverted. I think this is true for all extrovert's and introverts.
Since introverts are introvert's I guess the third introverted function would be strong
compared to the secondary extroverted. Just as in an extrovert, the third
extroverted function would might be just as devenloped as the secondary introverted.

You have explained Empathy in the two as you see it. Now I will explain
it from my point of view.

It means i can read faces, thought's, and voices to completly understand
how people feel, what their motivations are, if they are good or bad, what
they think about me, if they are buying what I am saying....(fours are said
to have talks with other people in their imaginations (I do too but it's more
like I only focuse on what I say, like only me talking to another person (completly one-way conversation),I don't got anything else
applause or positive feedback when I do those talk's with other people,
in imagination, and because I know all the time what people mean
about me, I can be rejected extremely easy, by tone of voice, loook gesture
and so on. Of the types, I think the type I belongs to are most in tune with
what other people mean about me. I also know just how to hurt people
with maximun force, if I would want to.

You say that I should not be fooled into beliving I feel what other peoples
feel, but I belive I can. I belive I can tune into the moods of others, and
experience the same as them. I would feel the same for people far, far away.

You say I don't feel what they do but just create a state in myself, because
there is something I can identify with, but I think it's like I am under
the skin of that other person. Like I am like a measuring device picking up
signals, beeing in tune.

I barely watch TV, I never watch news, simply because I don't like what I see anymore.
I feel just as strongly for someone far away as near me. But I am completly
avoiding situations where I might get into this uncomfortable things.

So not only does I think i can feel what others feel, but that I can also
create emotions in others, and measure those emotions with great precicion.
Or create emotions in myself, with music, playing on my guitar, creating
one emotional state, and then transform that into life. Be in heaven and be
totally manic in one second and full of joy, and more sad in the next.
Totally changing, from whitin myself. I can just close my eyes, and move
into different feelings, not right now, because right now I am like rather
dead inside.

There is this person called David Lynch or something. He got this great
abillity to create a mood as he would like and create it over to other people.
Hi's movies are great, I mean that's someone that knows what he is doing.
He sure knows how to play with hi's audience, and I guess that's why he
got this abillity.

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject:

Comments:
> Perhaps you need to clarify your arguments then instead of expecting people to simply accept your hunches (which you do often). > I try, but it's not always so easy, and it's not all the time I bother to find out > why I hunch the way I do. > > > There is no illusion the empathy you see in two's. > > Empathy in the Two is real as an emotion to the extent that the Two is an emotional being who identifies with others' situations. It's an illusion to the degree that the Two is covering up their need to be needed by convincing themself that other people are miserable and need their help (sympathy begets help). > > > If you was a five, and would somehow emulate a two, you could probably do > > > it with fear and indenification. > > You misunderstand. Identification is the *normal* mechanism of empathy. You empathise only with the things you can identify. And when you fear that what you're identifying with could happen to you (see example of accident in previous post) the 'empathy' becomes much stronger. > > > But I don't think there actually is so > > > mutch brain activity involved that those mechanism suggest. > > That's very little brain activity. It's brain activity worthy of a two or three year old, which is precisely the case: all the types' defense mechanisms are first put into use at a very young age. The whole question of types is essentially that grown-up people behave like children with regards to certain issues. > > The Two mechanism is very, very basic (as are all types). A child notices that he's only paid attention to when he helps. What then? He begins to help more. As he grows, ego comes into question, and to protect himself behind a veil of 'oh I'm helping because it's good for them'. Neither the initial decision or the subsequent rationalization are any more complex than any other type's. > > > I think it comes more naturally, like right from the heart, with not any serios "head" > > > prosessing. I also think you should question your own point of view, I think > > > you are a little biased. I think empathy is more like beeing in tune with > > > the world around. Something every type at a healthy level should strive for. > > Again, it is not 'serious' processing. Nor is it undertaken every time--the mechanism itself has long since faded into the background. As for it coming right from the heart--it certainly seems like it, but then so does any emotion, and all emotions are at root reactions to intellectual assessments (again, on a very basic subconscious level, which is precisely why it doesn't seem like it). > > My bias... certainly. Everyone is biased one way or another. Is it possible that I'm simply not in tune with those around me? Absolutely. In which case you can state your opinion and explain to me just what empathy is to you, instead of telling me I'm wrong on the grounds that you "feel it". > > > I definitly think it's the genuine thing. You could question the reasons, > > > but I dont find two's to be complicated, and there are likely not so bad > > > reasons behind the behavior. Like a grown up kid searcing for the love it > > > could never get as a child, and desperatly needs to find. > > There are the same kind of reasons behind all types' behaviour and motivation. Twos are in exactly the same boat. You can call them 'bad' if you wish (your words, not mine), but since all personality is fundamentally the result of these mechanisms developing, I don't think there's anything extraordinary about it at all. > > > No, there is not mutch evil about two's, sure more evil about fives...:) > > > Especially those with a six wing......:) > > There is nothing any more or any less evil about these types or any other types. The types' root mechanisms are all more or less of the same level and magnitude. > > You can examine them one by one. Threes operate out of the fundamental premise that admiration = love, and admiration is received for performance, hence they shed their real selves in favour of an image that will resonate with the audience. This may seem like a complex thing to you (don't know why), but it's so simple that a child of Three is able to recognise it and implement it as a mechanism (and thus become a Three). > This actually sounds as simple as anything else that is written on this board. That's some of what > I like about the enneagram (it's simplicity). But in a way I think that > the mechanism you described here fit's me very well. But i actually got > some trouble accepting it as a way to be. > > Or take Sevens. Sevens frequently grow up deprived of the experiences or possessions they feel they need. The result is that they try and grab as much as possible whenever they can, fearing it will disappear any moment. Again, a very simple mechanism that develops into a whole personality. > > Or Fours. Child feels unloved, child asks: why am I not loved? What is the problem with me? Child then begins to search deep within self for defect, leading to feeling different and the desire to find an idealized image that isn't defective and which others will appreciate. Once more, this is simple enough to be implemented by a child as a mechanism. > > No type's mechanism is any better or worse than any others. I referred to the Two's as Evil! because I was describing rationalizations which block good judgement. The same holds true for any other type. > > > I guess the reason you think so bad about it, is that you dont have the > > > connection to the range of feelings that a two have. > > I don't feel bad about it. I have the same opinion on every other type with regards to its particular issue. The question was about Twos though, so the answer was too. > > > Andy - That got empathy at an uncomfortable high level, meaning I can feel > > > others emotions, moods and discomforts as my own, like tuning into other > > > people, this can be a tremondous burden too.......:) > > You're probably a very emotional person. It's hardly surprising that an emotional person empathizes more than a relatively unemotional one does. But don't let yourself be fooled into believing you're actually feeling what they feel. What you feel is a reaction to the knowledge that it could be you instead of them. Otherwise why don't you feel an identical response for someone who suffers a misfortune three continents away as you do for someone in your neighbourhood you don't know? > > > I tell you empathy is something I would not want to live without ! > > Empathy as an emotional sensation is completely genuine. There is no reason for you to want to live without it; if it exists as a mechanism, there must be a good reason for it. Ostensibly it's evolutionary purpose is to keep your group safe by feeling sympathy for it and thus protecting it (which would be precisely why the closer someone is to you, the more you empathize). > First I would like to say that i concider myself to be an thinking person, > but because I am an extrovert (likely ENTP), intuision is first, and thinking > secondary, and feeling third . Since the thinking is and introverted second > function, and feeling an extroverted feeling function, I find it that > since I am an extrovert, the third extroverted feeling function can be just as > devenloped as the secondary introverted. I think this is true for all extrovert's and introverts. > Since introverts are introvert's I guess the third introverted function would be strong > compared to the secondary extroverted. Just as in an extrovert, the third > extroverted function would might be just as devenloped as the secondary introverted. > You have explained Empathy in the two as you see it. Now I will explain > it from my point of view. > It means i can read faces, thought's, and voices to completly understand > how people feel, what their motivations are, if they are good or bad, what > they think about me, if they are buying what I am saying....(fours are said > to have talks with other people in their imaginations (I do too but it's more > like I only focuse on what I say, like only me talking to another person (completly one-way conversation),I don't got anything else > applause or positive feedback when I do those talk's with other people, > in imagination, and because I know all the time what people mean > about me, I can be rejected extremely easy, by tone of voice, loook gesture > and so on. Of the types, I think the type I belongs to are most in tune with > what other people mean about me. I also know just how to hurt people > with maximun force, if I would want to. > > You say that I should not be fooled into beliving I feel what other peoples > feel, but I belive I can. I belive I can tune into the moods of others, and > experience the same as them. I would feel the same for people far, far away. > You say I don't feel what they do but just create a state in myself, because > there is something I can identify with, but I think it's like I am under > the skin of that other person. Like I am like a measuring device picking up > signals, beeing in tune. > I barely watch TV, I never watch news, simply because I don't like what I see anymore. > I feel just as strongly for someone far away as near me. But I am completly > avoiding situations where I might get into this uncomfortable things. > So not only does I think i can feel what others feel, but that I can also > create emotions in others, and measure those emotions with great precicion. > Or create emotions in myself, with music, playing on my guitar, creating > one emotional state, and then transform that into life. Be in heaven and be > totally manic in one second and full of joy, and more sad in the next. > Totally changing, from whitin myself. I can just close my eyes, and move > into different feelings, not right now, because right now I am like rather > dead inside. > There is this person called David Lynch or something. He got this great > abillity to create a mood as he would like and create it over to other people. > Hi's movies are great, I mean that's someone that knows what he is doing. > He sure knows how to play with hi's audience, and I guess that's why he > got this abillity.

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Enneagram Message Board ] [ FAQ ] wwwboard/messages/7677.html

Your Ad Here